RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive85

This is an archive page, last updated 18 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>, <83>, <84>, <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>

, (new)(back)

Exactly what is Assange charged with?

Has anyone seen the exact nature of the sex crimes Julian Assange is accused of?

I've seen speculation, and one statement on Wikipedia that "it is alleged that while having consensual sex his condom broke and he either did not disclose the breakage to his partner or continued after his partner asked him to stop", and that may qualify as rape under Swedish law.

It also points out he's not been formally charged, but is only wanted for questioning.

I realize this may not be disclosed, since sex crimes cases often keep the details from the public, to protect the victim's privacy. MDB (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

All I'm hearing on the news is "rape/sexual assault" charges. Will be interesting if he ends up getting a special rendition private flight to Gitmo. Personally, I think he's stuck his neck out too far, especially by releasing the sensitive locations info. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 12:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, here we go, from the WaPo:

The allegations against Assange in Sweden stem from a trip he took there in August, during which he had brief relationships with two women, engaging in what he has since described as consensual sex.

Both women, according to Swedish authorities, have conceded that sex with Assange started as consensual but allege that it later became nonconsensual. If convicted on the most serious charges against him, Assange faces up to four years in prison.

 ::MDB (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the sensitive locations info, yeah, that's just wrong of him. As i've said before, he's basically in "see, look what I found" mode, without any judgment as to what he's publicizing.

I question the legal feasibility of the US prosecuting him, considering he's not a US national, and as such has no legal obligation to protect US secrets, but we can and should go after his sources, assuming they're Americans. However, the rape charges may become the equivalent of jailing Al Capone on tax charges. MDB (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm no conspiracy nut, and I'm sure that there are people in the public eye who are probably rapists... but the entire thing seems very "convenient" (I know the allegations aren't recent, but there was no talk of issuing an arrest warrant until now). I'd be interesting to see if someone leaked the embassy cables for this event to see if strings have been pulled. ^moral 12:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mash haz lulz. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny, but could you explain to the Yanks the bit about "the British system of pretending Mr Assange is a Brazilian electrician." MDB (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Just after the London Bombings a few year back now, the police chased and shot down a perfectly innocent Brazilian electrician because they thought he was connected in some way even though they had no idea who he was and were chasing him pretty much because he was running. - π 13:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia:Death of Jean Charles de Menezes - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Davie G beat me to it... Anyway, it does seem that the once noble Swedes are starting to jump to the call for the Yanks, following the Pirate Bay debacle. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read, both of the women are committed left-wing activists and used to be big fans of Assange. They don't seem like the kind of people who'd participate in some American-led conspiracy to bring him down. And Sweden is neutral, doesn't depend on the US for its security or trade, and has been consistently ranked as just about the least corrupt country in the world. Röstigraben (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Also left-wing government critical of the US retracts an offer of asylum to Assange Not suspicious. Not at all. ^moral 14:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the best thing to do for Mr Assange is face the charges? Or are we saying Swedish justice is corrupt and won't get a fair hearing? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably yes - the best thing would be to face the charges.

But there is something else which has piqued my slightly prurient curiosity - the complaint by the two women seems to be the same. This is itself somewhat coincidental. Unless of course - ummmm - everybody was present at the same time.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Something we won't know until he faces the charges. 'The world will be watching' so any funny business will show up like a sore thumb. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And if he is cleared, his critics lose a stick to beat him beat him with. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take a corrupt system to be set up. If there has to be a conspiracy then most likely it's the strong Swedish feminist movement making all the arrest warrants and stuff happen. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm glad to see him go away for a long time and I'm as liberal as anyone. He broke countless international laws and put the security and diplomacy of dozens of nations at risk. He's like the high schooler who hacked into someone's email account and starting forwarding any gossip he could find. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 16:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you mention the international laws which he broke? Presumably if he has broken countless international laws there will be countless international arrest warrants out for him.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I do love the fact that so many of 'The Establishment' think putting Assange away will stop WikiLeaks. As the internet's proved time and again (Napster, Streisand, Cruise), you kill one site and the internet is going to rally round and reinvent itself so your life's a living hell. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and how long will it be before that ends? You have all kinds of corporations working to defeat Wikileaks and Assange at the behest of the government, when he has broken no law. --Leotardo (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Church of Xena went after 4Chan and they're pretty good at shutting down people who criticise them. If they can't succeed then I doubt the chances of the US Government. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That assumption only makes sense if you 1) assume that the state of technological capabilities always remains static to today's capabilities; and 2) that the Church of Scientology is more powerful than the U.S. federal government. You were (hopefully) being flip, but there are people who actually think what you must have been joking about. --Leotardo (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy who is suspected to have leaked the documents is facing charges. That's sort of fair enough, I suppose, he broke a law and a contract he made. All Assange has done is set up a website that hosts it. WikiLeaks did no hacking, it merely accepts it. Do you think newspapers that publish revealed scandal should also be punished severely? What about some genuine misdealing that might revealed by such journalism? Persecuting Assange personally is not only irrelevant to the specific case but ultimately contrary to the entire concept that the governments we vote for (and are thus responsible for) should work for and be accountable to us. He certainly didn't damage diplomatic relations because the embassy staff and government officials who made those statements were the ones to do the damage. If the content was innocuous and all friendly and cheery there would be no damage. ^moral 17:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Don't forget that Wikileaks wasn't the first to publish the cables: it was Der Spiegel, the New York Times, and The Guardian. Only 900 of the cables have been published anywhere, and all have been redacted to hide particularly sensitive information. Today in The Australian, Assange defends what he is doiing, and it's a good defense. --Leotardo (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to show just how hypocritical the US is getting over this Joe Lieberman (5:15pm), "the head of the Senate's homeland security committee don't forget, suggests that the New York Times and other news organisations using the WikiLeaks cables may also be investigated for breaking the US's espionage laws", and then, with absolutely no sense of irony, the US announces (5:30pm that it will host Unesco's World Press Freedom Day.

Not a chance. I don't think there's ever been a successful US prosecution of a media outlet for disclosing classified material. There's even a legal question whether the government can prohibit uncleared citizens from disclosing classified material. (If you've got a clearance, you've basically legally agreed that you can be prosecuted for disclosing material.) MDB (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there isn't a chance of the prosecution being ultimately successful, but he's doing the same thing he did with Amazon, he's trying to lean on the media, frighten them away from the publishing the leaks. Now compare that with the news at 5:30pm about hosting Press Freedom Day.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The ludicrousness of that goes without saying, so I didn't comment. MDB (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In defence of the Press Freedom Day thing, it's probably been planned for months and is (technically) separate of all the WikiLeaks crap. But just think, some poor sod in the government has had to type that up and submit it with a straight face. ^moral 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

@MDB. Really? In that case, why did he say it? What on earth was he trying to achieve by saying what he said? Was it a deliberate ploy to make himself look incredibly stupid, or does he suffer from some form of really strange Tourettes? No, from his point of view the man was trying to get some form of popular backlash going against the NYTimes to force it to stop publishing the leaks after Wikileaks goes down. If you don't believe that then please explain why you think he came out with such extraordinary bollocks, because lets face it, this is not a man who doesn't know what he is saying or doing.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I buy a few proper nouns every few paragraphs? I have no idea what SD just said since I can't associate the various "he"s, "the man"s with people mentioned above in any clear way. Help? Equestrian (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The disturbing desire of Americans to know nothing

It's disturbing that so many Americans want to be shielded from the truth about how our government operates. This is an excellent comment on Gawker:

The Wikileaks revelations are polarizing the world into those who are "establishment" and those who aren't. If you are against Wikileaks, your lifestyle and interests lie in the status quo. If you feel Wikileaks and the revelations are important, then you are not a part of the status quo and in some way envision a different world. Sounds simple but it will have critical implications in the coming months and years as we work out what kind of planet we would like to live in.

You have two choices:

1. Trust the powerbrokers and elites to run absolutely everything (Republicans, Democrats and all Corporate types fall into this)

2. Embrace a more open, democratic society that isn't based purely on military and corporate interests (Progressives, true Libertarians, Critical Anarchists, Alternative thinkers etc.)

"Good luck."

Pretty spot-on, though judging by many reactions, a lot of people prefer Option #1. --Leotardo (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The above leaves out a third, probably larger, group - Those who don't care. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, those people fit in Option 1. --Leotardo(talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree. There are plenty of people for who either option has no baring on them at all and if either group wins out will still have no baring.AMassiveGay (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether we have an open society, or trust a oligarchy, has a baring on everyone. If people opt not to care, they are tacitly supporting the status quo and their ignorance won't effect them...until it does. History abounds with examples. --Leotardo (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

History is abound with examples who are shat on regardless of who is governing or how they are being governed. Many, many folk are more concerned with where there next meal is coming from, where they are going to sleep tonight. They are not tacitly supporting anyone and they so disconnected from the 'system' even if they did care one way or another, nothing changes for them. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps nothing changes for them because they are disengaged from the system. What if 18 to 24 year olds voted in the last election in as high of numbers as senior citizens? They would have a crop of legislators more concerned about student loans and Net Neutrality (which teabaggers oppose for some bizarre reason). I guess I don't understand your point, but if people don't care than they are accepting the status quo whatever it may be, and allow others to make the decisions that affect their lives. --Leotardo (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would accept that argument if Assange was showing some discretion in his disclosures. As it is, he's just tossing things out willy-nilly, without regard for the contents. Openness in government is desirable, but there is, at times, a legitimate need for secrecy. One of the things that has appeared on WikiLeaks is "a State Department cable that listed sites worldwide whose 'loss' could 'critically impact' the health, communications, economy or security of the United States. In addition to listing dams, bridges and mines, the cable identified specific factories that are key producers of vaccines and weapons parts."

I'm sorry, but there is no fucking reason to make something like that public, other that just showing off. That's morally equivalent to disclosing troop locations during a war. It's an invitation for very bad people to strike those places. Suppose WikiLeaks got access to, say, details on how to launch nuclear missiles? Or a Secret Service internal report on "flaws in our system of protecting the President"? Publicizing something like that would be morally indefensible.

We do not live in a world where everyone is the idealist Assange thinks he himself is. There are dangerous, evil people in the world who can take advantage of information that WikiLeaks discloses. The principle behind WikiLeaks is not, in and of itself, bad, bad, but the execution of it is very flawed. MDB (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

But that's simply not true. Here it is from Glenn Greenwald:

Just as they did prior to releasing the Afghanistan war documents, WikiLeaks -- according to AP -- "appealed to the U.S. ambassador in London, asking the U.S. government to confidentially help him determine what needed to be redacted from the cables before they were publicly released." Although the U.S. -- again -- refused to give such guidance, WikiLeaks worked closely with these media outlets to ensure that any material which has no valid public interest value and could harm innocent people was withheld. And Assange's frequent commitments to engage in "harm minimization" when releasing documents gives the lie to Gitlin's assertion that he is "fighting for a world of total transparency."

I understand that the media has repeated over and over the false claim that WikiLeaks "dumped" all 250,000 diplomatic cables on the Internet -- which is presumably how this falsehood made its way into Gitlin's brain and then into his column -- but that's no excuse for him and TNR editors failing to undertake the most minimal due diligence (such as, say, checking WikiLeaks' website) before publishing this claim.

The other thing is that list of 'secret sensitive sites' wasn't secret. The only valid argument that can be made about that list is "you put it all in one place!" --Leotardo (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(Arched eyebrow.) Fascinating. I'd like to learn more. Has the US Ambassador responded to WikiLeaks' statement? MDB (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. This has been tremendously embarrassing for many world leaders, but to the people they are supposed to answer to--the voters--it has given a view of how things operate. Now is the uncomfortable question of 'What do we think about all this?' since there is no evidence any harm has come from the revelations:

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published. - Julian Assange, writing in his defense today.

It's not a secret to anyone on this site that the government, the media and our leaders lie (a lot). --Leotardo (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is that it potentially compromises the diplomatic relations between various nations. Diplomacy is important, and, like it or not, much of it is done behind closed doors for a reason. When diplomacy breaks down, war becomes more likely. To me there is a significant difference between disclosing information hidden by governments that citizens have a right to know (e.g. perhaps the Pentagon Papers), and details of private discussions between diplomats. If foreign diplomats and leaders don't think they can speak candidly to our officials because they fear what they say might be made public, it doesn't serve anyone any good. DickTurpis (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the rest of the world but here in Spain the material has clearly indicated that the government has at best been misleading people and at worst lying. I would submit that that is something worth knowing.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no to that point from me... Candid and genuine assessments of a situation by advisers are essential to good government. When the advisers can't advise (although it's more likely that the leaders refuse to listen...) things go bad. And if there's suddenly a culture of fear that they can no longer give accurate assessments for fear of offence there's a problem. On the other hand, I don't think it's wise for diplomacy to be calling foreign leaders feckless behind their backs at all - and they shouldn't be afraid of giving frank and accurate assessments if they are accurate; the comments about Silvio Berlusconi, for example, came as a surprise to absolutely no one. Think back to Gordon Brown's "bigotgate" incident. Things can always come to bite you on the arse. If Brown had said "that woman was difficult, her comments on immigration were a little racist and uncalled for" then no one would have given a flying fuck, but no, he directly used a fairly uncouth insult. Once you enter politics and diplomacy you have to be a lot more guarded about what you say and do, it's the trade off you get for the power. And if people are like that behind closed doors, it essentially means their public faces are lies; and so we've voted for and endorse (as citizens which grant governments power) those lies. This is why the press is there to expose such things. It's pure accountability and being truthful, behind closed doors or otherwise. ^moral 19:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘One problem is that the need for secrecy may not be apparent to the average person. For instance, let's say the CIA knows that Kim Jong-Il likes to have scrambled eggs for breakfast, and that gets disclosed. Okay, fine, what's the big deal? Well, first, that mean Kim Jong-Il knows we know, and thus knows there's some hole in his personal security. He puts his intelligence service on it, and finds out his cook is talking to the US. We lose that source, and the cook is probably killed after horrific torture. Plus, Kim will probably switch to Raisin Bran, because he doesn't want the US to be able to substitute spoiled eggs for his fresh ones.

Yeah, that example is admittedly silly. But if you know anything about how the game of nations is played, it's not hard to come up with very serious examples. MDB (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought the main revelation of those cables was that we do not know how the game of nations is played. I worry when we are so ready to allow our leaders carte blanche to do whatever because it might help us take down a baddie. We are ruining the principles that we all at one time agreed made the U.S. great, just so "the terrorists don't win". They already have won. --Leotardo (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

While we probably all know that telling the truth 100% of the time can make life uncomfortable it is surely better on balance to have openness and transparency, and know which information we are being given is true than to live in a state of perpetual ignorance where we are manipulated with lies and half-truths.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What would happen if Kim Jong-Il knew everything that had been written down and the US operated on that principle? idk --62.142.167.134 (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what makes it a complicated situation to balance between protecting information and being transparent. I suppose the cold way of thinking of it is "that's the risk you take for spying/blabbing/leaking". Which is pretty true, it's an occupational hazard when you're given certain piece of information. You can generate situations where it would be appropriate to publish and where it wouldn't be appropriate to publish all day. Doing so would be like using "but homeopathy totally worked for my friend" in an argument, you can create and report situations to back up your point on either side. We trust that the media makes these judgements about publishing or not sensibly. Sometimes they'll release something that leads to a major incident, sometimes they'd redact something that would otherwise be harmless. Importantly we'd never be able to show that the incident would have happened anyway or that the redacted info is really harmless. ^moral 20:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There's transparency and then there's nakedness. Does the American people have the right to know about worldwide institutions critical to US security? Do they have the right to know nuclear launch codes? Don't you think they'd rather that they (and the world) didn't know? EddyP (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Eddy, your statement above is a classic example of wp:Reductio ad absurdum, a logical fallacy. --Leotardo (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a fallacy, indeed it's a form of mathematical proof when used correctly. However, in this case I think it is fallacious to bring that sort of example up as some kind of argument against WikiLeaks. We know that there are some things that should be kept under wraps because it's in the interest of national defence (and directly relating to public safety). As I said, we trust that whoever leaks - and the people who publish - this sort of information to be sensible about it. They publish according to "public interest". Nuclear launch codes (and so on) are emphatically not part of this and I'd be impressed if someone can argue that they are. What diplomats, who are representing the people abroad and have direct effect on foreign policy that may eventually affect us, are saying is in public interest providing it doesn't violate principles about harming people. This is a difficult thing to assess and must be done on a case-by-case basis. An overall broad brush about what is and is not acceptable to publish is a futile argument to try because you can generate any number of theoretical or even real cases to justify your point one way or another. ^moral 21:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

More info on the charge

The Guardian supplies more info on what he is charged with here. While apparently written from the point of view of protecting rape victims it simultaneously manages to repeat rumours against them. Still - makes for interesting reading.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article here on how they stay on the air. It also looks (from this article) as though wikipedia own the wikileaks domain name - or am I reading that wrong?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems that this is the explanation of the Wikipedia non connection.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The internet fights back

It looks like the hacktivists are exacting revenge on those who withdrew services from Wikileaks.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Instantly I'm more accurate with my predictions that Andydamus. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

WoW

Well, I presume my nephew is pretty gutted about the new World of Warcraft expansion pack, because he admitted last week that he was a WoW addict and wanted to stop, so he logged on with his mum and told all his friends he was quitting because of a game addiction, which was met with lots of very swift thoughtful messages of "can we have your gold then?". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, good for him on admitting a problem and taking the steps to stop it, however hard it is. A lot of fully grown men and women have no such ability, and I wish him the best, sincerely. ^EXTERMINATE 16:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

indeed as Dalek says. WoW is not the worst addiction to have, its great that he recognises a problem and has taken steps to change. Admitting its a problem is a big step. congratulations. Hamster (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WoW is the worst addiction to have. That's why I quit it and moved on to heroin instead. SJ ^Debaser 19:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I quit WoW cold turkey several months ago, thank you very much. MDB (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather have my kids experiment with hard drugs than WoW. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Forget WoW, I still play Ultima Online. My younger brother had quite a problem choosing between WoW and homework, though...despite claiming to hate the game and everyone in it. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that I can't get addicted to WoW? I can usually play it for a month or so before getting bored. Haven't even touched it for the last two years. Vulpius (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he's a very smart kid, and I have high hopes for him. TBH I'm not surprised he got immersed in WoW because he's a bit of an outcast and not only did it give him a reason to barracade himself in his room, away from the family arguments, but let's face it, if you were a smart but disillusioned 15-year-old wouldn't you find a chance to make friends who judge you based on your merits rather than your looks, where you can become powerful and influential while having fun, and can perform impossible acts at the click of a mouse, remotely addictive? If I was 15 in this day and age I would have welded the door shut and lived my withering life on WoW. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I'm addicted to WoW, but I did play it for about 2 and a half hours last night until 12.30am, which wasn't a particularly good idea as my wife gets up at 6am every morning and always wakes me up in the process. I'm starting to suspect that 5 hours sleep a night during the week isn't a good thing.Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

2 and a half hours? pfft, Amateur. I know people (at least my flat mate does) who have taken the week off work to play the new expansion, with strategies all worked out to get to level 80 in a day.AMassiveGay (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In your defense, yesterday was a pretty good day to log on, wasn't it? I'm surprised you managed to pull yourself away after 2 hours. Lots of people had 20+ hours binges there in order to get realm first achievements in whatever they were aiming for. There were 85's by lunchtime. 15:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I should point out, in the interests of full disclosure that, while I have quit playing WoW, I have replaced it with Civilization V. Just... one... more... turn... MDB (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fox News GRRRRRRR...

“”John Oller, a University of Louisiana professor in the communication disorders department, said he also was disappointed with the outcome. Oller, who spoke before the vote Tuesday, told FoxNews.com that the months-long textbook debate is "a kind of war of ideas and a lot of misunderstanding, on perhaps both sides but especially on side of people trying to defend the status quo." Oller said the new textbooks are not scientifically up to date and that they don't include current topics of scientific debate, including the biblical concept of creationism and the ongoing debate over how to teach evolution in public schools. [1]

A professor in a communications disorders department has what to say about evolution. GRrrrr... sterile mini-chat-room-thingy 00:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"A local mechanic told Foxnews that he'd never seen a monkey give birth to human hence evolution must be false..."</snark> Ace^{word up} 00:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I survived public and private school(pre-k-5th) in Louisiana. Evolution was mentioned in 7th grade science, for about 1/2 a page, but neither ID nor Creationism was mentioned. In High school Biology I, none of the three were mentioned (teacher was mind-blowingly incompetent though). Environmental science had a unit on evolution, but the students parents had to sign a waiver or they could not attend. Bio II had evolution as a whole 6 week unit, and the Baptist next to me AND the Hindu teacher would comment on a roughly daily basis about how it was false. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 15:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fucking idiots... ^moral 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Evolution is a scientific theory and should be taught in a science class (without a waiver). And creationism, or Intelligent Design? There is really no scientific perspective to teach. Just another example of Fixed News idiocy, I suppose.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My discussion on Mama Schlafly's facebook page

Not directly CP related, just more rabbit hole reality --Opcn (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice work bro! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I laughed at the word "Schlaflies" in this section title. Is that how you pluralize "Schlafly"? I feel it adequately calls them out on having the personality of vermin. Great work and awesome screenshot! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Worse than that, the header is possessive, not plural. "Schlafly's". Blancmange (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That was a funny screen grab. Looking at Phyllis' hair made me realize that she has had the same hair-styled bush on top of her head her whole life. I went to Google images to confirm this, and came across this gem. --Leotardo (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Nice discussing! I like how civil you're being, and how clear it's making that they just wanted to shout garbage and hadn't really thought about it.GTac (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

*cue dramatic music*

First things first, go to 2:41 here for the dramatic music.

And now that you've got that all queued up, I can link you to the fact that Julian Assange has been arrested in London, England as of 9:30 AM British time. He is being held without bail. --The Emperor

So what else has been on WIGO:World for nearly 24 hours? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

People read WIGO World now instead of having to have every mildly interesting fact brought to their attention in the SB? Wow, so much has changed in my absence... --The Emperor

It's also covered extensively a few sections above on this page.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As were Somerset vs. Dorset accents, and crappy 1.2 Mbps download rates. May you all swallow the desired number of seeds. Pomegranate (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

WTF is "WIGO World" anyway? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fox News by a different name. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 01:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Falcon 9/Dragon first launch (today)

SpaceX re-scheduled the first launch of the Dragon capsule for today. The launch window is from 9 a.m. to 12:22 p.m. EST (14:00 to 17:22 UTC). SpaceX live webcast is here, NASA TV will cover it, too. The flight is supposed to last for a few hours and the capsule will splash down in the ocean, so they may cover that, too. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

T-10 minutes. --ZooGuard (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The second launch attempt was successful. Dragon is now in orbit. Re-entry will be interesting, but I don't know if they will cover it.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or is space flight starting to get really cool again? ^moral 19:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's still an unmanned capsule. :) Still, they win the bragging rights for being the first private spacecraft to re-enter successfully from orbit. Apparently, it splashed down successfully "500 miles Off of the Coast of Southern California". A press conference is scheduled for 3:30 PM EST (in 20 minutes?), NASA TV will cover it.

They still haven't uploaded their video to the website. NASA TV's video from the launch is on YouTube, but it doesn't include the cameras that were on the rocket itself. --ZooGuard (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The History of the War on Christmas according to The Daily Show

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/gretch-who-saved-war-christmas Nothing short of genius.Ryantherebel (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

When in the feed? Blancmange (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Digital physics

This vid and also WP

I'm not sure what to think of digital physics. It seems a little too much like taking the quantum mechanics interpretations too literally (which I think Neil does far too much in these videos, such as him always saying "they exist as a probability wave" NO THEY DON'T, stop treating quantum systems as "classical systems with weirdness" dammit!!). Anyway, what do people think of digital physics? Essentially this idea that quantum theory is all calculated for us "behind the scenes" - almost like a simulated reality argument crossing over with quantum woo. Bullshit, if you ask me. ^moral 19:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't spend a quarter of an hour watching the youtube video, however I did read the digital physics WP article and I think its pretty innocent. Lots of people simply see words like "digital" and "computations" and prepare themselves for matrix references but its nothing like that. In the end, I think that a theory's proving ground from "holographic universe" to "strings, strings everywhere" is "can it make predictions" and "how can we use it to construct cool gadgets with it", until then, if it is not fucking around with the already working stuff its fair play. Sen (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Chinese room is relevant here. It's against the little intuition we have about feeling/experiencing that a string of bits could lead to consciousness (which is more than having a concept of self or passing the Turing test), and doesn't that suggest the world couldn't be "running" in a Turing machine? Of course that's the weakest argument ever, but there's some interesting about it. If 1 bit can't do consciousness, and if N bits doesn't do it why N + 1 would? (Not that even goes to infinity.) --62.142.167.134 (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because conciousness isn't as absolute as that. You could say the same thing about a lot of things in both reality and quantum mechanics. Take a change in bond length, for instance. Does it seem like N+1 picometres constitutes a non-bonding interaction? No. It doesn't. It's considerably more malleable than that. ^moral 16:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck's Gold

You know that gold company Beck is endlessly touting?

Gold dealer Superior Gold is seized, assets frozen; Judge turns the company's operations over to a receiver after L.A. County and Santa Monica sue the company and owner Bruce Sands, alleging fraudulent business practices. --Ψ GremlinFale! 15:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

First Goldline and now Superior Gold. If these were Rachel Maddow-supported companies the Rightwing Outrage Machine would be in full screech. --Leotardo (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Lies. All lies. Glenn Beck wouldn't be allowed on the air if he pushed gold scams. He is still on air, so these obviously aren't scams. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems appropriate to link to this then. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Students vs Royals

Prince charles has had his limo window smashed by student prostesters apparently. (if it hasn't been mentioned here already)AMassiveGay (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My mum tells me she made big ears blush the other day. When he asked her what her gong was for, she told him it was for services to preventing tax evasion. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Reproductive scientists create mice from 2 fathers

Conservative minds = blown. Sen (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Random thought

Simple proposition: What would the (yet hypothetical) RW biopic be like? Who would play whom? What would the plot center on?

I'd hope Quentin Tarantino would direct. Perhaps Nx would be played by Keanu Reeves, Human by Johnny Depp (or Robin Williams), Trent by Leonardo DiCaprio... Geoffrey Rush could do Conservative nicely, and I like Hugo Weaving for TK... </random thoughts> Blue (is useful) 05:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

George Clooney for Trent. With lots of pomade. That woman who played Jesse's girlfriend (RIP) in Breaking Bad to play Blue. The woman with the pussy from Are You Being Served to play Susan. Lithograph (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I claim Jason Isaacs with the Lucius wig - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the Mrs Sloakham actress to play Susan is a great shout - we could also get the "I'm free!" guy to pitch in and play aMassiveGay. I reckon Jack Nicholson would play a good Ken

. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm Sharlto Copley to play me (keeping it in the country so to speak). The totally hawt Kato Natsuki to play Mei. --Ψ GremlinFale! 13:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Say like this? - π 13:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The closest I've been able to come to Ken is Matt Damon in The Informant!, but that's not quite right. An awkward guy with a sleazy mustache, for sure, but I'm thinking smaller and skinnier, with a big nose and a bowlcut. A little Sonny Bonoish maybe. DickTurpis (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Steve Buscemi for Ken, but Gentleman Pie wins. Rob could oly be played by Russel Crowe in Beautiful Mind mode. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 13:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I call John Goodman for myself. MDB (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I called Buscemi for myself (no idea why, I'm about a foot taller, substantially younger, and look almost nothing like him, but still). And Pi is way off. Nevermind the race, Ken is older and obviously has a molestache. Now I"m thinking maybe of Marty Feldman. DickTurpis (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What actor could possibly have the stunning good looks to play this devilishly handsome character?

• This guy, Mr Turpis Sir

Well, close anyway. But for Ken, I was right the first time. This is about the closest to Ken I can imagine, Shame he's not alive to take the role. DickTurpis (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This always reminds me of Rob. [2] ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 15:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Weaving for TK would be perfect, he does twisted autocrat so well, even when he's an elf :P -- 09:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OpenLeaks launch

"Ex-WikiLeakers to launch new Openleaks site".

"Openleaks will not directly publish information it receives but will allow media outlets and other organizations to access the system and disclose what they want, according to internal Openleaks documents." Doesn't sound like it'd be as effective as the wikileaks method, to be honest. I thought one of the reasons wikileaks was so effective in the first place was that media outlets were refusing to publish stuff like that anyway, for various reasons. X Stickman (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, this could be WikiLeaks' own Citizendium! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That is totally contrary to the idea of WikiLeaks, which is that everyone has access to the source material to check the facts for themselves. Furthermore:

* Who decides what is and what is not a "media outlet"? What about the new media (blogsphere, online newspapers, all the rest of the indie media)?

* How can the honesty of the media be verified if the public cannot access the source material?

This is just BS carried out by people who got scared and pissed their pants the minute the US begins to play hardball. On it's own that might be kind of understandable, but in that situation just quite WL, don't try and undermine them. I have zero respect for these guys, and I just hope their project winds like like CZ, or better still CP, as the butt of jokes about it's pathetic pretensions as being a viable alternative to its competitor, whilst getting thoroughly pwned, every. single. time. -- 09:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What a stupid idea. Like it or not the media have to keep in with governments to a certain degree and publicly known journalists are prey to be leaned on by men in black. How many US domestic media organisations would have leaked the diplomatic cables and risked breaking secrecy regulations? Like the internet in general, Wikileaks is one of those phantoms that will pop-out elsewhere if you try to box it in. The internet has many faults but it has to be one of the greatest enablers for the less powerful. It's no wonder that governments try to control it to their own ends. I think that one of RW's memes is that sunlight is the best disinfectant.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Brontesaurus!

If these really existed, I would absolutely buy them for my nieces.

MDB (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In passing

Topic moved to: RationalWiki_talk:What_is_going_on_at_Citizendium?#In_passing --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 12:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Julian Assange is Metro Man of the Year (so far)

On the subway this morning I saw that Metro New York, a free rag nobody reads unless they are on the train, is running "Man of the Year" and "Woman of the Year" texting competitions. So far, Julian Assange is in first place. But you only get three choices for each category:

A Barack Obama

B Julian Assange

C The Chilean Miners

D Michelle Obama

E Sarah Palin

F Kim Kardashian

Uh...Kim Kardashian?! That's so stupid. --Leotardo (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh...Sarah Palin?! That's so stupid. Fixed it for you. --Ψ GremlinTala! 15:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And Michelle Obama is only beating her by a hair! --Leotardo (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

But not with a cane. Damn, but that's disappointing.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the board of trustees are now open (sticky through 1/10/11)

Go to RationalWiki:2010 board of trustees election/Nominations to nominate or accept/reject a nominations. Go to RationalWiki:Guide for 2010 board of trustees election for information on the position and requirements. The nominations will be open for one month (close January 10th). Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing Changes

This is a Peanuts cartoon from 2 May 1958 - or just over half a century ago. I imagine Charles Schultz would be disappointed by just how relevant it still is. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A wonderful Peanuts comic. It is quite hilarious on how it's still relevant 52 years later!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I was watching Fawlty Towers last night (I've seen it but never got around to watching the entire thing until about now) and pretty much in the first episode Basil is going on about how the country is going to the dogs and things are getting crazy and whatnot. This was the late 1970s and his attitude could be right out of today's Daily Mail comments! I also remember a story (don't quote me on the specifics, I can't recall exactly) that said archaeologists had found a manuscript dating back to ancient Egypt that basically began with "Kids today...". Nothing ever changes. Which sort of upsets me, because I don't want to be 60 years old and going on about how the country is going downhill and newfangled technology is destroying old-fashioned life!! ^moral 19:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Women. Always shopping" Ovid ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 19:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There are some things that seem to be universal in human culture. So the "modern kids don't know how lucky they are" and "the country is going to the dogs" are permanent memes which really indicate our own inability to cope with change. I can't help but think that it was just the same when they put "honour your father and your mother" in the ten commandments. Also I was watching a series on the BBC about the Georgians last week and they were looking at what people spent their money on 200-250 years ago. It seems that gentlemen spent inordinate amounts on riding tackle and horses the way modern men lavish money on their cars. And I bet the Romans used to waste their dinari customising their chariots as well. The technology may change but there does appear to be gender stereotypes that stay the same.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pining for halcyon days is one of the most ridiculous memes that continually pops up in our political culture. Look at Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein, born in 1984, pining away for the days he remembers fondly:

Remember the good old days, when Washington cared about deficits? I do.

No, Ezra, I remember days when Republicans talked about reducing the deficit while increasing it exponentially; it's been like that since before you were born. Anyone who wants to see a terrific riff on this idiotic meme should see The Daily Shows take-down of the meme, which is brilliant. --Leotardo (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you read much of that article Leo. Captain obvious (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

“”What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?

—Plato

“”The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and are tyrants over their teachers.

—Socrates

And I'm sure Dickens complained that Christmas isn't celebrated as it used to be. CS Miller (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also:

“”The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress.

—extract from a sermon preached by Peter the Hermit in A.D. 1274

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I have seen my 60th birthday come and go. I invite you to consider a lyric of Sweet Honey in the Rock, regarding children, from Kahlil Gibran, which goes something like this:

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,

For they have their own thoughts.

You may house their bodies but not their souls,

For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,

which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

(emphasis fucking well added. You think this is anything new? Think again.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I had Kahlil Gibran's "On Marriage" read at my wedding. :) I should read more of his stuff. It's always seems to be a nail and head moment. ^moral 16:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I love it

So Anonymous, a group that uses Guy Fawkes as a symbol, seemingly unaware that the gunpowder treason plot had nothing to do with freedom or liberty (Despite what Alan Moore and the Wachowski Brothers tell you) but had everything to do with installing a new monarch of the same religion now rise up as one and attack anyone who dares disassociate themselves with the illegal actions of Julian Assange, who is himself about to be extradited to Sweden for questioning in a sexual assault. So while they launch coordinated DOS attacks against Mastercard, Visa and apparently Twitter, some members decide it would be funny to release a giant list of MasterCard numbers, thereby opening up either thousands, or hundreds of thousands (I can't get a good number) of innocent customers to fraud and identity theft. Now these people have to Tapdance around, congratulating and reveling in the payback scheme, but condemning them for "crossing a line" Sometimes the world just lays the irony at your feet. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 03:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I vote that the most incoherent post I have ever read on RW. And I have read some beauts by NobS. Seriously. What on earth are you saying? Blancmange (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I had no trouble understanding it. Ordinarily I cannot easily translate bullshit into plain sense, but here there was no such difficulty. Maybe read some relevant history? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether to be insulted or elated by the comment Sprocket..... So I will go with elated, if it is a delusion, please leave it alone. :) SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 07:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Your elation is appropriate here. My BS meter, a finely calibrated apparatus whose sensitivity only seems to get better with continuing exposure, found nary a trace of the substance in your prior post. Where there is no need to translate, there is no difficulty doing so. Is better? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC) p.s. sheesh, I just realized that could have been read any number of ways. While I'm back in edit mode, may I ask you to point out who has to do the tapdancing? I guess I jumped the gun claiming to understand... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk)

I've seen a few people trying to have it both ways, but the biggest was Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Wednesday night. Olbermann did this whole section on how great Assange is and how the people at Visa and Mastercard are getting exactly what they deserve and then when his guest pointed out the release of the credit card numbers, it suddenly became a "oh yes, that definitely crossed the line" conversation. Illegal DOS attacks are fine, but don't release card numbers. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 09:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

aah, more clearer. continued below, in a separate "Tap-dancing" section Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the rambling appearance is coming from the fact that most of the post consists of just 2 strewn (?) out sentences. As for Anonymous, I don't think you can really say that Guy Fawkes is their symbol.. Yes, they often use imagery of the V for Vendetta movie, but in the end they're just a collective of random people who do shit because they think it's funny. Trying to apply ideology to them is as useful and making a beard out of bees. GTac (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

They have also reportedly DDoSed Sarah Palin's PAC.--^talk 03:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess some people, both from within and without, take Anonymous as a serious (un)organisation. But the truth is, is that whatever they do, they're doing it for the lulz. They're not a force for good, they're just a force for lulz. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Anonymous isn't a defined organisation as much as it is a label that certain movements take for themselves when they want attention. X Stickman (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

...and they DOESN'T AFRAID OF ANYTHING! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents: anything that brings down twitter is alright with me. DickTurpis (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Tap-dancing

Regarding "trying to have it both ways ... Olbermann ... suddenly became" above, I seem to recall one of those left-wing mouthpieces, Keith or Rachel, pointing out that one seldom makes successful adjustments to a power structure by asking nicely. A chief defining feature of civil disobedience is that the letter of the law gets broken, n'est-ce pas?

They say a mule will do anything for you, if you ask nicely, the (sometimes tacit, sometimes not) understanding being that first you have to get its attention. The preferred attention getting device is, of course, a short length of two-by-four applied directly to the mule. In this metaphor, releasing personal info amounts to showing wolves where some sheep are, which is unlikely to alter the mules' attitude by much.

That flawed metaphor may not be worth pushing much further. After a while perhaps I can cast it in dryer, more logical terms. Good old cui bono is tough to apply when lulz are afoot. So many distraction... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds to me like very similar reasoning to that used by student rioters. "They're necessary to get the attention and now we can give out the message". Although this has probably backfired for them as university education is supposed to produce the intellectual elite of society - and if they have to smash windows to make a point it doesn't look like they're getting their money's worth. Similarly with any of the hacking and DDoS stuff; as soon as they start affecting the everyday lives of people opinion will turn. Attention grabbing protests and events are all well and go, just so long as it's "NIMBY". ^moral 01:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There will always be instigators, as there will always be tools. They need each other. The dance doesn't change much, as time goes by. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ask me questions here

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Wherein_you_ask_me_about_intelligence,_international_politics_and_the_war_on_terror

Seriously "skeptics", you have the chance to ask an intelligence officer about things that would get a Julian Assange arrested, and you say nothing. Shame on you, kids. UncleHo (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is Uncle Ho's desperate attempt for attention. Let's leave it "sticky" until it hits the top of the page? Blancmange (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeh all you "skeptics", where's all your "skepticizing" now? Is this not "skepticwiki.org"? As for Assange, I just don't care that much, I've come to expect silly stunts like that from the US whenever they got embarrassed again. It's funny that they announced they're hosting the world press freedom day at the same time though.. GTac (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange is hardly part of the press..... SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 07:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course he's part of the press. There's no way he isn't. If Ellsberg was (and the US Supreme Court says so), then Assange is.

Americans appear to fail to understand that those of us who aren't Americans are swooping on this cable release with great glee, because they're the smoking guns of what craven whores our leaders have been, complete with where and when. As Bob_M noted above, this is already having due consequences for said leaders. This is of tremendous political interest to us, and quite definitely justifies the information release as legitimate news - David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a slightly different take. Interesting. DickTurpis (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is some more on the impact in Spain.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reading through Dick's link, I've gotta say I disagree with the guy's assessment of US diplomats in general. The leaks don't portray them in a positive light at all. The leaks portray them as effective at what they do, it's just that what they do is pretty worrying. X Stickman (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

See below RE: OpenLeaks. What do you count as part of the press? Bloggers? "Respected" journalsts? It's a difficult question. In a way, you might consider that everyone is part of the press, because as the press communicate with the public the difference between the information the press have and what the public have is marginal. Anyone can be a journalist, make a leak, make a statement and appear in print. Editors of RW can be considered part of "the press" just as much as Assange. ^moral 12:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. But in that case you broaden the meaning so much that it becomes meaningless. It's like PJR broadening the meaning of "religion" so much that anything is a religion. If the word has to have some meaning it can't mean "anybody who is connected to the internet". Or if it does have that meaning then "the press" as a concept (or separate entity) has, for all practical purposes, simply ceased to exist. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the risk you always run when broadening meanings, and the religion thing is a very apt example. However, I'll defend using broad-brush definitions for a moment. For the purposes of restricting information to "just the press" the broad - and admittedly useless - definition above stands. What could "just the press" actually mean? If you want to define it as people who disseminate information to the public, anyone can apply to be a journalist. As an analogy this is the same as the fact that anyone can claim to be a singer - you then have to restrict yourself to a subjective definition based on something like quality or quantity. When does a blogger turn into an opinion columnist? Where does a snitch turn into a reporter? Are they a proper journalist when they have a readership of 100 or 1000 or 100,000? And so on. When creating a hard and exact rule it is a little more difficult because the distinction is a very blurred one in reality (we have the same trouble defining religion because "we know it when we see it" but when we think about it we need to use a very wide brush to succinctly describe everything from the Ancient Greek pantheon to Buddhism, so how wide does the brush have to go to include everyone from Fox News anchors to freelance writers?).

The other way of defining "the press" is that you define it on a case-by-case basis of whether you agree with them or not. This would be the case where politicians refuse to talk to journalists because they don't agree politically or perhaps because you might expect yourself to be portrayed in a negative light. Again, this definition is subjective but it's more honest with its intentions and I imagine is the most likely way "the press" would be defined when discussing who you can release information to. It would be the ultimate politicization of the role of the press, and something to be very wary of when it comes to releasing and disseminating information to the public. ^moral 01:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's tough and the only way that I can see of preventing everyone being "the press" is to categorise it.

Print or internet. Professional or citizen journalist. Politics or gossip or or. etc.

But this doesn't really seem to help us a lot with the points at issue. One point is about freedom of the press which is at least given lip-service in democratic countries; and the other question is whether this press freedom extends to Assange. Obviously if everybody who writes anything on the net is a journalist then freedom of the press apllies to him. But as I said above the definition seems to be too broad.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A request

My scout troop's theme for our Mardi Gras float is "Fact or Fiction". Anyone have any good kid friendly ideas, cause if I don't find some by next Thursday, it will be evolution themed... with it as fiction. Also, God is obviously right out. If you have any questions let me know.Тиранес^complaints 15:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Go browse around snopes and look for a few good urban legends to debunk. MDB (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood or King Arthur. Both probably had some basis in truth, but have been over-romanticised over the years. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bigfoot, Yeti, Loch Ness, UFOs, Ghosts... that actually sounds like something you could have loads of fun with, without ruffling feathers. --Ψ GremlinSpeak! 15:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you looking for some myth to debunk or rather for something real that is being denied? If it's the latter, I'd suggest global warming. Röstigraben (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is things that are "disputed" bigfoot, yeti, and ghosts were the original plans, but then someone said that it would seem to much like halloween. Here in Baton Rouge, global warming isn't disputed, people think it is blatant lies. Тиранес^complaints 15:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(Yes, because we all know how freezing cold Baton Rouge is in the winter.)

To answer your question though, a good bipartisan political discussion could be stimulated if your theme were the First Amendment. How to turn that into a parade float though might be difficult. Junggai (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No clue. No, it isn't really cold here, but you would have thought the record heat this summer would have clued people in. Тиранес^complaints 16:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Barry Seal? Seem to remember there were doubts, or conspiracy theories surrounding his death, and he came and went in your neck of the woods. Possibly not kid friendly, or maybe could be pitched as an anti-drugs message.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha, kid-friendly one. Louisiana Panther is officially extinct, but people report seeing them in Louisiana. Something with local flavour.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

{Nuked}-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, sorry, didn't think.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Mary Celeste/Marie Celeste. Not notably linked with Halloween, plus you could always swap it with another ghost ship/deserted ship story if you have one more local.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Zeus, Odin and Jupiter.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:Sewer alligator. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 17:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The most horrible thing in the world.................

Heres an idea, lets take an awesome fucking track and make it really, really shit.

Fucking assholes. Ace^{word up} 13:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I hate you. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you know

That there is a "Fox News Latino"? That's a bit weird. Isn't it Fox viewers that usually complain about how "they should learn English" and "the democrats divide America by pandering to minorities"? CNN for example has a "Latin America" section, but it is basically the equivalent of "S.America" for regional news. While the Fox News mixes US news with S.American news together essentially implying that latin US citizens care more about, say, Venezuela than, say, NASA (which reminds me. The SciTech section in FNL is missing. Worry not though, there is a brand new Horoscopes section) :/ Sen (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"You're like the Copernicus of the anus"

While the first 2 episodes of this series were a bit lacklustre, episode 3 of peep show is so hilarious you must immediately stop whatever you're doing and watch it. You won't regret it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well godamnit fuck. I took you at your word and dropped everything I was doing (which, admittedly, was nothing more than drinking wine at 11:22am on Sunday morning) only to get the crude and impolite message that "This video is not available in your country". Scumbag, you ruined my day. Ace^{word up} 22:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you got back to your project of getting pissed before the sun even illuminates the yard arm in the slightest OK. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthropology no longer a science?

The American Anthropological Association has removed "science" from its long-range plan, and scientist members are not impressed. FreeThought (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been a long time coming, I think. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Bonsai tips?

I got given a bonsai bush yesterday. Anyone got any growing/watering/pruning tips? Ace^{word up} 23:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Soak the pot daily. Not the marihuana, the plant's pot. As with any houseplant, don't fuck with it until it settles in - 1-2 years. Google "bonsai". Read the WP article that comes up first ("WP is not a how-to site"). What species is it? Blancmange (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Construct a bonsai tree house on it. Sen (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a good way of testing your ability to be responsible without endangering the life of a dog or even a baby. ^moral 16:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

ELDER SCROLLS V ANNOUNCED!!!

FINALLY OMG CANT WAIT 11/11/11 OFMG!! It's also the 100th anniversary of the end of WWI. Hmmm. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's the 93rd anniversary. Bastard drug Hoover! 10:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

DRAGONS!! -- Nx / talk 07:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to pour too much cold water on it, the Dragons could be a metaphor for the Akaviri since the video talks of a "return". That would probably mean the Tsaesci; snake people rather than dragons. But we shall see. Just 11 months! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

However, it says "no-one wanted to believe they even exist" which is consistent with dragons being mostly a myth in Elder Scrolls. On the other hand "Their defeat was merely delay" suggests it's the Tsaesci. -- Nx / talk 11:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Praise Jesus! Here's hoping that the modding community does as well with this as it did with TES4. EddyP (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Fork off Lumenos

Wow sounds exciting. So hey guys here's a flyer for a uuuh party. It's gonna be pretty cool. Refreshments uuh... lots of cool cats. ~ Lumenos (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's time to invade Lumeniki again. -- Nx / talk 12:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

We aren't here to come down on you. Its just a chance to relax and talk to some people who know what it's like to uumm... be there. : ) <kissess> ~ Lumenos (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't even thought of that SuspectedReplicant. I for one would find that much more interesting than actual dragons. Wondering what changes they'll bring to the gameplay mechanics? Broken as the original was, I'd really love to have my sneak/marksman/alchemy combo available again. GTac (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's going to be on the same engine as Oblivion/Fallout 3/Fallout New Vegas, although obviously things will have been updated a bit.

Lady Nerevar (one of the few TES Lore experts who doesn't just make shit up) has done an excellent analysis of what it might all mean here. In addition to dragons/Akaviri, she suggests Akatosh and the Empire as being other possible dragons.

Someone did a picture of the whole background used in the launch video. It makes a few things stand out - over to the right you've got Akulakhan (from Morrowind) and then an Oblivion gate (from Oblivion); possibly the things to the other side are from the earlier games, but I don't know much about those. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems I'm wrong about the game engine: a recent tweet from Bethesda says "Seeing lots of speculation about #tesv game engine. It's brand new... and it's spectacular!" –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That game engine is starting to creak. Playing Fallout: New Vegas, it is obvious that game engine didn't do everything Obsidian wanted to do with it, especially where they had to chop up the strip, and the one that really jarred be at the time the Hoover Dam power plant room, because the game engine could generate/handle (whatever its problem is) that many NPCs at one time. - π 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank goat. -- Nx / talk 00:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, people

Mass Effect 3 was announced! And there's a trailer! And there's a British dude in it! (Are there even space-British people? I mean, there was a token black character ala Billy Dee Williams in ME2, so do we get a token British character in ME3? Hmmm...) --^{— Unsigned, by: Theemperor / talk / contribs}

Marvellous

Just found out that I was born in the year of the goat. EddyP (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but are you a capricorn? I wanted to be born in the year of the rat, because it's the closest thing they have to the year of the Long-eared Jerboa. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Pisces, alas. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

OOOOoooo. I'm a Capricorn. Does something happen in the Year of the Goat if you're a Capricorn? sterile mini-chat-room-thingy 16:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You temporarily get superpowers. ^moral 02:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

DADT

Word is that the Senate has blocked the passing of the repeal. That's according the feed coming from CSPAN anyway.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there we go then.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see DADT extended to all areas of life. What someone does with their genitals is of no interest and should be no business to anyone else. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a very lonely point view. --91.156.228.93 (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The fuck, DeltaStar? Blue (is useful) 04:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Collins and Lieberman plan to file a stand-alone bill, and Reid has promised it a vote before recess. But it's a thin hope.--^talk 02:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think my comment is quite clear: Someone's sexuality is private. People shouldn't ask other individuals about it, and nor should people feel the need to shout it from the rooftops. A rather 'old skool' chap I used to work with put it rather more succinctly; "I don't mind poofs, consenting adults can do whatever they like, doesn't bother me, none of my business. It's when they bang on about it all the time, like that Elton John 'oh I'm gay! I'm gay! Look at me I'm gay', yeah I know you're gay, I don't care, so shut the fuck up and just get on with it." I happen to agree. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Fuckwit. No doubt you complain when a man introduces you to their wife. You get angry when someone tells you that they went for a lovely meal with their girlfriend? You object to the adverts in newspapers announcing marriages between a man and a woman. You are furious at people who have a picture of their husband on their desk at work. You boil with rage when someone says that they have a date tonight with the woman from accounting. You are a cunt.— ^{Unsigned, by: User:82.24.115.232 / talk / contribs}

I think DeltaStar is just venting his annoyance at those who make a big deal of their sexuality and want everyone to know about it (I doubt many such people exist, but he seems to have that impression). However I think he was being deliberately over-the-top, perhaps without realising, when he said "DADT should be extended...". However annoying he might find certain people saying certain things, there shouldn't be laws about it. You can't outlaw being a dick. I used to find the overly-overt expression of homosexuals rather annoying myself (particularly gay pride parades), but I have since then realised that they should really be as overt as possible until they get all the same rights as heteros do. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a legitimate concern to say that some people ram their sexuality down your throat in the same manner that fundamentalist evangelists will do the same with their religion. Some anonymous poster describing this situation "a cunt" is puerile, and misses the entire point with a rather impressive straw man argument, really. Mostly I'm concerned about people who do it from an "identity" point of view. It's very shallow to have your identity revolve around one sole aspect like that; your religion, your sexuality, your favourite style of music. However, bringing it up in a DADT discussion is a little wrong because "DADT" has evolved from being the label for the compromise directive laid down by Clinton to prevent the military investigating people to being a catch-all term for the ban on gays serving openly, the much older original bit of law (this misnomer annoys me, but I'll accept it on soundbite grounds). So really, we're discussing something different to what the "don't ask, don't tell" compromise was brought up about. I also don't care if you're gay. I really don't. ^moral 12:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Would like to see DADT extended to all areas of life? Sure, why not. Let's not ask nor tell anybody anything about ourselves. It's all private & nobody else's business. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

+ I don't think BON missed the point - it was a reductio ad absurdum, not straw man. If sexuality is only "what someone does with their genitals" & shouldn't be talked about, why wouldn't this extend to (heterosexual) dating & marriages? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, I admit that saying "DADT should be extended" was a rather foolish point, as I didn't know the history or the context of it. ADK has put it better than I did. And I stand by that. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's far from "not talking about it", more "let's not put too much hype on it". (Yes, it's reductio, but it is also a straw man because it's not based on what anyone here has said. It assumes the idea was to force everyone never to speak of their personal preferences ever, when it was not.) DS admits that I may have put it better. Not that I see why people have been pissed off about this - RW's contributors are all about not ramming religion down peoples' throats, why not extend the same attitude to sexuality? I know LGBT activists that call this "assimilationist" like it's the worst thing ever, but really I think they get annoyed at me because I don't give them the attention they think they deserve. ^moral 19:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's far from "not talking about it", more "let's not put too much hype on it" - what the hell are you talking about? Under DADT, homosexual armed forces personnel can't discuss their orientation at all, regardless of how little hype they put on it, or they risk losing their job. This is not a good situation. & How is "people ramming their sexuality down your throat" even a related issue? Like there's no middle ground between a subject being completely taboo & being forced on you. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to DADT at all there. We had become completely side-tracked onto something different entirely after someone got butthurt over a comment by DeltaStar. Namely the sort of people who construct an entire identity around one individual aspect of their lives. I just don't think it's healthy - and note that I include numerous other things and not just sexuality - and not least causes people to be incredibly boring. DADT and suppression of people has nothing to do with that point at all. In fact, the only reason this was in a discussion about DADT was because DeltaStar (perhaps foolishly, I don't know) used it in some rhetoric. No one at any point has anyone actually said something along the lines of "don't be gay in front of me" or "I hate people being gay" or "I hate gays" or "I think there should be laws against that sort of thing". ^moral 01:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

But DeltaStar basically characterised homosexuality as "what someone does with their genitals", & therefore something best not talked about openly. This is a ridiculous perception of sexuality which gay people encounter constantly & straight people do not. As 82.24 pointed out, when people talk about their boyfriends, girlfriends, dates, marriage, they are also discussing their sexuality. But if they talk about having a same-sex partner, a typical reaction is "eww, gross, buttsex, two blokes kissing, I don't want to know" etc. This is the kind of attitude which maintains policies like DADT & keeps people in the closet. If straight people can't feel comfortable around openly gay people, then gay people can't feel comfortable being openly gay. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think your being far too harsh on someone who has mostly retracted their point as being badly worded. There is a big difference between someone who will occasionally mention their partner and someone who purely and solely identifies by their sexuality (or any other individual aspect), and this would apply to straight people as much as bi or gay people. Some jock who constantly goes on about the chicks he's banged: annoying. A man who won't shut up about how incredibly gay he is: annoying. That's pretty much what the point is. I agree that, if taken at face value, the "don't do it in front of me" attitude is as damaging as more explicit homophobia (indeed, I'd say go as far to say it's a more accurate use of the word, being a slightly irrational unease and fear, rather than active hatred) but I don't think that is what anyone is endorsing. Being openly gay doesn't involve jumping around shouting "I'M GAY I'M GAY!!!" every ten seconds, I'm not going to ban anyone from doing that or say they shouldn't but they should understand that it's exactly the same as someone going around shouting "I'M STRAIGHT! I'M STRAIGHT!!!" - kind of needless, tactless and incredibly tiresome. ^moral 01:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

But again: what does any of this have to do with DADT? I'm not really interested in discussing people who talk excessively about their sex lives. I just find it disturbing that a discussion about policies which repress homosexuality went straight to "but I hate it when gay people won't stfu about being gay". Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have bolded the sentence above where I already answered that for you. Don't make this more circular than it already is. ^moral 02:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Elton John was used as the example, the only example in a long rant about how people make a big deal about their sexuality? What has Elton John ever actually done? He has done no more than Kerry Katona, or Peter Andre in advertising their love lives. But because Elton John is gay, it somehow counts as "shoving it down your throat". Sorry.. but the ONLY way to read that is "I dont mind if people are gay, so long as I never have to face that fact." And as such, Delta Star is a cunt. ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.24.115.232 / talk / contribs}

Get over yourself. ^moral 01:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ignore legitimate criticism, respond with lazy put-down, win argument. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to calling someone a "cunt" over 1) something they retracted and 2) something they didn't really say. If someone is going to start name calling like that, they should try to do it as more than an anonymous number and take credit for what they're saying. Otherwise, it's plain cowardice. It's a legit criticism to say Elton John was a bad example (I agree), but I imagine that it was just the first name that came to mind so again, see the fact that DeltaStar retracted their comment as badly worded and too implicit. ^moral 02:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with personal attacks, but also don't think an angry post which contains legitimate points becomes less valid just because it also strays into personal abuse. What has anonymity got to do with? Many, maybe most of us, are not using our real names. Treating BONs like their opinions are irrelevant won't help the site's reputation. Re Elton John, the point isn't that he's a bad example, it's that he's a gay example, since the whole concept of "ramming your sexuality down people's throats" is really only ever applied to homosexuality. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides, why am I ignoring the criticism? I never said anything about Elton John so there's no criticism of me to ignore. Or has this somehow mutated into me being some generic homophobic boogeyman? ^moral 02:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be all about you? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"ramming religion down throats" is making others take actions based on your irrational beliefs, which is something sane people won't have. "ramming sexuality down throats" is either consensual or harassment, but that isn't the issue here, the issue is dealing with annoying people. It's stupid and frankly quite reminiscent of Stalin's Russia to blacklist topics from discussion. --85.78.30.3 (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Is it just me, or is there an awful lot of talk about ramming things goin on here, down throats or otherwise? Just asking... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am late to the discussion. How much ramming did I miss? Sen (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell did DeltaStar make a comment that only had superficial relevance to the original topic and was obviously going to provoke the above response? If a BON had said it it would have been couched as trolling. Grumblejaws (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, what a kerfuffle this has turned in to. Thanks again to ADK for eloquently arguing my point. I admit, once again, that my initial comment was poor and not directly related to the topic being discussed (DADT I think it was). Elton John was not my example, rather the example used by my esteemed former colleague. I would also echo ADK's point about the similarities between the 'jock' going on about all the chicks he's banged - I don't go on about or specifically identify myself by my penchant for ladies with large (natural) breasts, whilst someone's sexuality and inclinations are important, I really do think they should remain private. Whilst no-one has called me homophobic, I will still state that I'm not, rather I am homoapathetic (that looks a bit too similar to homeopathic though) - that is I don't take the perceived "liberal" (in a CP manner) opinion that "homosexuality it great and gays should be admired", I have a more classical libertarian view of "I don't care. Either way." Whilst we all have views about many things, it is somewhat disappointing to see people insulted because they have differing views on a subject, no matter how emotive. Peace. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Here I will put the answer

I think that many specialized organizations like the military don't think that people need sex. I saw some documentary on a scandal where two military people (M/F) had sex. Are they not supposed to have sex with anyone? Are they supposed to hook up with some hookers in a foreign country? Why are you people always suppressing your sexuality and expecting others to do so? It is a human need. I bet half the people in therapy would get over the depression, PTSD, anxiety or whatever, if they had a regular sex partner. That is why all eleven genders should be allowed in the militarily and people should have at least like a 45 min or so per day, to behave like gentle beasts. I think they should ensure that anyone who requires a sex partner, have one, so they do not go insane or get STDs. There probably wouldn't be enough military ladies (because of the shortage of gay/bi men in the military) so they should have arrangements with hygienic, non-enslaved prostitutes where they can go, instead of wandering around bars, getting drunk and being sex-deprived assholes. ~ Lumenos (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Guess who google likes enough to give a free computer to?

Me Bitches! I'm a beta tester for ChromeOS (so far as I can tell there are at least 10,000 of us, which I think is a pretty ambitious outlay of resources). So far it's really slick, but it's basically chrome where you cannot close the window to reach the desktop or the start menu. I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out how to (if I can?) play an MOV that I downloaded. --Opcn (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds almost like the average smartphone interface. Is there any particular point to doing it that way? ^moral 12:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

file:// ? --85.76.223.165 (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the justification was that people only use Netbooks for browsing the internet, so get rid of almost everything else, and it'll run a lot more slickly. ... Bit drunk, on a macbook, where the fuck is the symbol to do my signature? There. ^EXTERMINATE 01:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't think I've seen a (reasonably priced and still portable) laptop that can do much more than browse the internet and do some typing. However, I do run photoshop and SketchUp on my netbook, and when I get around to buying a mini graphics tablet I'll be drawing on the move. I don't think stripping it back to just a browser is a very good idea. If you want an actual computer - regardless whether you give it a trendy name like "netbook" or "iPad" - you want it to be as flexible as possible and that means making it full featured rather than having just an oversized smartphone. I don't really believe there is this "middle market" for something between a smartphone and a laptop, I think it was just invented by people who wanted to sell more gadgets to rich nerds. ^moral 19:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That post was definitely worth a droll lol... Emerald (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a sidestep, but I'd like to mention that I lvoe my kindle, which saves time and space and money. That having been said ChromeOS isn't very good with facebook, but works just fine here on rationalwiki, it's what I've been using since friday and stands up to many web pages very well. One thing I really like is that it opens popups in a new tab, so you don't have a popup hiding and waiting for you. --Opcn (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Listverse

Anyone ever read the site listverse.com? It's got some interesting Cracked-like lists, but with an emphasis on quantity rather than quality. It's very hit and miss, but the writing is terrible, at least the grammar and punctuation is. For some reason they seem to think every noun needs a comma before it, they constantly mix up their/they're/there and your/you're, and typos abound. I don't think it's proofread at all, as stupid mistakes are commonplace (I was reading one list about greatest NFL plays and they state that the "Immaculate Reception" was a pun on the Christian term "Immaculate Reception"). Don't know why I'm posting this exactly, but as a bit of a grammar maven I need to vent. DickTurpis (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of it, & you're not exactly selling it to me. Can you link to a list that's worth reading? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Mileage will vary depending on one's interests, so it's hard to pick a universally "good" one. For example, one of their writers in very in to classical music, so if you're into that you might enjoy reading a few of his lists of greatest composers, works, etc. (though they're by and large quite predictable, anyone can guess who his top 3 are; a slightly more on-topic list for this site is their mathematicians one). It's largely trivia stuff - basically nothing is definitive - but I enjoy trivia. As with anything else, one needs to be skeptical of various statements and claims, but some of it is fun light reading, particularly for people who enjoyed The Book of Lists and its sequels. You do have to get past the uneven prose. DickTurpis (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting for reasons of trivia. I'm not surprised that Leonhard Euler came top of that mathematician list. Consider wp:List of topics named after Leonhard Euler for a start. ^moral 19:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, the site has introduced me to the Mari Lwyd. I am now determined to construct one by New Years. DickTurpis (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a look around earlier. Not a huge fan of the trivia list phenomenon, though it seems well suited to things like this & this, which look pretty well informed/researched. The movie-related lists are terrible though. You can find much better on IMDB or even Amazon. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Fucking winter!!!!

It's winter in Minnesota. This I know, because I was out until 1 a.m. shoveling this white shit called "snow" last night so that I'd have less to shovel this morning. Then, at 5 a.m, I looked out my window again, and you'd have never know the difference. I got out and shoveled it again and went back to bed. By 9 a.m, I was almost snowed inside, with the shit just about an inch above the bottom of my door. Shoveled it again for 2 and a half hours. And 3 hours later: you'd never have known that I shovled either of those 3 time prior. Gawd damn, I fucking hate winter! Thank you for your time in reading this rant. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 20:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I like winter. I like snow. I don't like the fact that, as per my empirical observations, my insides are liquefying and coming out of my nose. All my past green choices are now null and void due to the amount of paper tissues I have gone through the last 3 days. Sen (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I also like both winter and snow. I don't use a car though, which might have something to do with it. I do, however, hate the public transportation in this city, but I feel that way around the year. Vulpius (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Get a snow plow. --85.76.185.221 (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/search/?areaID=19&subAreaID=&query=snow+blower&catAbb=sss User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't you just put a roof over anyplace you don't want snow? I would think that would be required by building code over doors that could get snowed shut. If it is a driveway, one of those car port tents could go up to the street allowing people on the sidewalk to go under it. ~ Lumenos (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You live in such a strange and wonderful world, Lumenos. Putting up tents to keep the snow off sidewalks for random pedestrians! What kindness! Code requiring a roof over a doorway to keep you from getting snowed in! Not at all practical but my goodness is this creative! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 13:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if "tent" (canvas) would work with snow. I was thinking a carport so that you have less snow to shovel to drive a car out. Maybe there is no driveway anyway. Maybe there is no street that is cleared by the city, beyond the driveway.

A roof/porch would have to keep snow away from the door. This mean there are only two possibilities now, you misunderstand or you try to lolcow me. You need think harder and never lolcow me! ~ Lumenos (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bioshocked

Ok, I'll admit I haven't played Bioshock 2 yet and only have one play-through of one under my belt,but Bioshock Infinite looks awesome. Can't wait 'till 2012 to get it.--Thanatos (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait to get a computer that could run the damn thing. Vulpius (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I had that problem when Doom 3 first came out. Great fucking game but damned if my computer wouldn't catch fire when I ratcheted up the video settings. Ace^{word up} 21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I on the other hand, am waiting for this one (Deusexed). Sen (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is more my speed... Ace^{word up} 22:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just curious to see what Anakima will do to follow Machinarium. --Kels (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I loved Machinarium. I'm patiently waiting for Portal 2 to come out. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Patiently"? You're a better man than I, Gunga Din. --Kels (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Orly Taitz

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

Self-described "Queen of the Birthers" Orly Taitz got slapped down by the courts for the approximatively 1,298,368th time.

Undeterred as ever, she welcomed a new subject to her kingdom, Baltimore Oreos player Luke Scott. MDB (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You posted this at WIGO:CP. Is there a Conservapedia connection? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that, like me, this site functionally doesn't exist for MDB beyond WIGO:CP so s/he posted it in the only natural place. Doesn't make it right, but at least understandable. . . Aziraphale (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Blancmange (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It was just a mis-post, nothing more. Sorry. MDB (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Mouse stalking. As interesting as it sounds.

So it's Sunday evening and I'm so bored I'm actively lying in wait for a mouse. I saw it boldly wandering around on the carpet even with the cat sitting right there looking at it. Now I have a tall vase with half a jaffa cake in the end, covered over with a t-shirt lying on the floor as an improvised mouse trap, and I'm staring intently at it hoping at any moment my prey will take the bait. If I don't get anything better to do, I may continue to liveblog my mouse hunt. Stay tuned, boredom fans! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to envision your makeshift mousetrap but cannot. In any case, it does not strike me as the sort of thing that has success written all over it. Hope I'm wrong, but my money's on the cat. DickTurpis (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like your cat is pretty useless. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been told that one of the keys to the success of the Havahart trap is that its target species likes to see what it thinks is a way out, somewhere ahead. When I had small children with a pet hamster, the Havahart got used regularly, and with good effect. It seems kids don't always close cages tightly. I suspect there is a hamster skeleton somewhere in the walls of that house now.

A few house moves after the divorce, I used that same trap to contain a buck mouse who had been raiding my pantry. Kept him in a five-gallon plastic bucket for a while before turning him loose in a brush pile in the woods across the street. We had many enlightening discussions, that mouse and I. He was a tough old fella, with well-chewed ears. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Alas, so far my hunt has not borne fruit. The mouse has yet to show its face again. It'll probably come and steal the jaffa cake after I got to bed. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No no no you must continue to watch that pot until it boils... these days gubbins w/ 4 AA batteries and some peanut butter does the required in our house. Mouse completes a circuit, takes its last leak and expires. What? You expect remorse? Not gonna happen; them are my sunflower seeds it was after. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

So no diving board, bowling ball and bathtub, then? ^moral 23:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No, nor string strategically placed over a candle flame, nor sledge hammer falling on bulb of jitney horn behind sleeping cat... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Having had significant personal experience with mouse issues, the rule that once you see one you have many holds very true. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The deer mouse can carry hantavirus in its urine. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Deer_mouse It's rare but it can be fatal. Mice are there for food, water, or shelter; cat food, for example. They have to gnaw constantly and rats or mice can gnaw through some plastic. If you have room you can throw stuff in the fridge/freezer for convenience. Standing shelves can be used to get stuff off the floor, giving them less hiding places. Sometimes you can plug any holes that could be used by rodents or ants. ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Answer my question computer nerds!

A disclaimer: Considering I have been reading crap on people's opinions on processors all day I have to say, I dont care about what you think I should have, I dont care about your opinion on the company, I dont care about things that only matter to you. Anybody whos read tech forums will understand what Im referring to. That being said... I have the choice of laptop processors, Phenom n640 and n850: these are 2.9 ghz 2 mb dual core and 2.2 ghz 1.5 mb cache triple core processors respectively. I will mostly use it now for Wow but I am worried that if I get the dual core, future games might not run so well; and if I get the triple core, wow wont run as well since it is CPU intensive. Any advice? Is there a significant diff. in speed, is there a significant diff. in core #, both in terms of performance? I will have a 1 gig dedicated vid card so vid memory isnt a problem plus 6 gigs of RAM. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 04:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Look at MMO Champion for lots of discussion on what combos run WoW well. Srsly. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 04:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good information here on this matter. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet another case of Professor Values

Oxford Uni researcher is giving away £1m over his lifetime. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Pah, you know that all that is is throwing money at the problem. Now if only he would pray... --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 12:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Should I be amused that one of CP's examples of professor values was my advisor for part of my undergrad studies?

In this case, though, CP is right -- he did commit a crime, and I thought he was a jerk even before then. MDB (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, CP is still very wrong. They equate liberal academic with moral depravity. Cherry picking examples to try and prove this is still a failure. There are immoral jerks in all professions, not just university professors. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Just think of all the corrupt cops and lawyers who've fleeced trust accounts - but you don't see Police Values or Lawyer Values over there. Given Andy's nature and his past as an associate prof somewhere, I'm guessing "professor values" is him projecting his jealousy/inadequacies on being passed over for a full position or something. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 14:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I just meant they were right about that professor having a lack of values, not that it's a general trait of professors. Sorry for the lack of clarity. MDB (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, perhaps I was a little fast to misunderstand your post. It makes perfect sense now. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. And even in this case, it's possible that Dr. Roth (the professor in question) wasn't behaving out of corruption but rather cluelessness. And as a personal note, even though I thought he was a jerk, I still hated to see him embarrass the school and it's Electrical Engineerign Department. MDB (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, no Christian would steal any money. No Christians would gamble, especially not the minister's wife. Yet alone racking up huge debts in the process. Even if they did, they'd just work hard to repay it. They wouldn't dream of stealing money from a friend. Especially not from a 79-year old. The perpetrator of such a crime must be a Christian In Name Only. Yet it actually happened [3]. CS Miller (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading about a nazi newspaper that simply reported crimes by jews and jewish crimes and jewish criminals etc (you get the idea). Now the trick is that technically that wasn't propaganda and they weren't lying, because in a sizeable country like Germany pre-any forceful vacations you are going to get some jews doing bad things anyway. But of course any rationalist knows that this is actually propaganda because most people are bloody unimaginative idiots and can't comprehend in their minds the true size of the world, and the actual reason someone does this is in order to reinforce an association between x and "badness", towards the purpose of building up an emotional capital that can later be used against innocents. Sen (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda by selective reporting. Worth perhaps mentioning in the relevant articles. ^moral 18:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's brainwashing really. You select symbol A and you constantly stroke the connections (memories are formed by continuous reinforcement after all) with symbol B. And it is an actual physical effect. Symbols (or memories, or words, whatever) are actually stored in physical neurons, neurons do get activated in bunchs, keep stroking them a certain way, and they will form very physical and very real connections a certain way. It's the most obvious form of brainwashing that exists, and it works almost every single time, despite people thinking that they are immune to it (unless you have a whole bunch of neurons that are able to recognise it and call BS on that. Aka education). You just need to be persistent. Sen (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just had a visit...

...from some missionary-types, explaining to me why the end of the world is nigh. They need lessons on their delivery, and they shouldn't get bored when talking about the Good Book. They didn't even want to hear why the NIV is anti-Christian. They were desperate to leave by the time they reached the door. Why don't these people ever seem to know much about their own religion? Broccoli (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you preach the good word of Cthulhu to them? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I explained transubstantiation, antibiotic resistance, lots of history and the Revelation of John. Strangely for apocalyptic preachers, they didn't seem to have read it and kept talking about Noah. They didn't once mention angels, trumpets, seals, lambs, bowls, horsemen or lobsters. I have 42 postcards of Spainish Apocalypse commentary illustrations I could have shown them as visual aids! Why did they have to leave? Broccoli (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Some friends of mine once helped a street preacher with his delivery. Make eye contact, speak from the diaphragm, etc. It's startling what a group of atheist debate/speech/theater nerds will do for fun. Corry (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The heavy accent really didn't help, but their main problem was that they didn't want to talk about anything, they just wanted to read their pamphlet out loud. They only had the one copy, too, so I can't even tell who they were. Broccoli (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A college friend of mine was an ordained Southern Baptist minister. (This was before the Southern Baptists went nuts, incidentally.) One day, sone Jehovah's Witnesses visited him, and he started arguing theology with them. They actually left confused, and sent back their pastor. My friend was able to out-debate the pastor, too. The JW's gave up after that, presumably out of fear they'd eventually have to send the head of the church, and my friend would undermine the entire denomination.

Then there were some other friends from back during my live-action role-playing days. One of them was going to be playing a Nazi in an upcoming game, and was trying on the costume. He was expecting some other gamer friends, so when h heard a knock at the door, he, in full SS regalia, flung open the door and yelled out "GOOD EVENINK!"

At which point the nicely dressed young men said, "uuuhhh... we'd like to talk to you about God." My friend said, "I don't think this is a good time", the nicely dressed young men said, "yes, we don't think this is a good time, either" and went on their way.

So many amusing ways to deal with door-to-door religion salesmen. I just usually point to my "No Soliciting, This Means You; Salespeople will be fed to the leopard" signs. MDB (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Books about gay issues vandalized at Harvard

But that's not the bit I am annoyed at. That's expected. (lots of animals mark their territory with urine) What I am annoyed as is that almost every single Fox News commenter in the story's comments here essentially supports what is essentially the destruction of private property. It's such a simple issue to get right, even if you ignore the whole not-acting-like-a-freedom-of-speech-hating-mullah thing, and they can't get right even that. Sen (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

mmm...I do enjoy faux news comments...almost as much as WND polls. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The people that did that must be really well-read and witty. I'm sure they came up with great material for the vandalism, such as "homosexuals are gay!" and other such cutting insults. SJ ^Debaser 21:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is the type of shit I'd like to pull. Not much forethought, no costs, no time...national media coverage! Tons of people talking about who and why. Just as many sad that the urine-soaked books won't burn as easily. IRL trolling at it's finest. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

“”When did it become fashionable to be a freak? When I was in my twenties I used to be open minded towards the whole gay thing. Then I worked with some and never saw a more dishonest back stabbing low life, imorale bunch of garbage. Oh and the whole homophobia bull, you've got that confused with pure f**in hatred you stupid freaks of nature. Go commit suicide!

-Some asshole Fox reader. Corry (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell...

EDL no longer want Terry Jones. It seems that America's nut job pastors are too extreme for Britain's right-wing extremists. The EDL reject his views on race and homosexuality. ^EXTERMINATE 21:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently he sounds too much like a Sharia supporter for their liking, hehehe. Sen (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I really hope he isn't outright banned from visiting the country. Those bans are a horrible idea. X Stickman (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Are they? We have laws against hate speech... it seems rather sensible that if someone wants to come over for the sole purpose or spouting hate speech, it be nipped in the bud by keeping them out. It certainly saves an awful lot of police funding as forces won't have to organise policing of protests and potential riots. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So... police protection is a privilege, not a right? If protecting someone becomes too much of a hassle, we should just give up at the first gate? I don't care if Terry Jones wants to come and do a striptease in the centre of London while screaming about how Hitler should've finished the job; it's his right to do so. Banning him from even entering the country is just cowardice. X Stickman (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I take it from your example you don't support any sort of hate speech laws, whereas I on the other hand do. I don't think we can reach an agreement. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it comes down to the point that with every "right" comes a corresponding responsibility: if you want freedom of speech, you have a responsibility to ensure that what you say isn't inflammatory and dangerous. Unfortunately, there are far too many people who don't understand that, so some form of legal action is necessary. Even the US understands that, despite the 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech - the famous burning theater argument. Banning people from entering the country simply because you don't like what they say is going way too far, though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Again I think that's just going to have to be a matter of opinion. I can see why people think that's going too far, but I disagree. The force with which hate speech is supressed is always going to be a contentious issue and people will draw their lines in different places. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The game.

You are going to lose - at Qwop. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ do do da de do da de 01:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Stupid game. It might help if they told you what those buttons actually do. "Calves" and "thighs" are not instructions. DickTurpis (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It took me a while, but I finally got as far as 36.4 meters, hopping on one knee the entire way. DickTurpis (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: made it all 100 metres, with little to no payoff. My speed was the antithesis of Olympic. DickTurpis (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to try for -100 metres, but at -2 you fall in to a bottomless pit. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you gage it by how long I can stand up without falling down, I'm getting better. ^moral 09:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Gawker Media sites hacked

Not 4chan either. Change your passwords if you do have a account on any of their blogs.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 06:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This why Terminator style war with intelligent computers will always be science fiction - spotty teenage hackers will fuck em up before they can get started with cull humanityAMassiveGay (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

My Facebook account was hacked about 10 hours go as a result of the Gizmodo compromise. Well, not exactly hacked since my password was "password" on both. Time to take security a little more seriously I guess. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, next time try "love", "sex, "secret" or possibly "god." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you use any of those four, your Gibson will definitely be hacked. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 02:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Cuba launches its own online encyclopedia

Cuba has launched it's own version of Wikipedia. Ecured aims to "disseminate information from a decolonizer point of view." It's entries on the United States are not surprisingly, critical. FreeThought (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn, you beat me to it. The site seems to be down at the moment, so I can't see if their article on Andy Schlafly claims that he's been dead for several years but that this has been covered up so the Idiot movement in the States can save face. The BBC are saying there are already over 20,000 articles. This site is growing rapidly! Olé! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! Is there a middle aged Cuban man who used to work in a port office copy/pasting lightweight material about Cuba's civil wars? I hope they get their full contingent of CP equivalents! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd pay money to see someone point out to Andy that *Cuba* agrees with his ideas so much that they've copied them. You're an inspiration to them, Andy! X Stickman (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe now we can have a professional settle once and for all whether or not Dawkins lacks machismo. Corry (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

AIDS Cured By Prayer!

Wait, prayer? No, I mean science. Carlaugust (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Cherry picking

Today, children, we shall be discussing cherry picking. As people are constantly going on about police brutality during the student riots, I've decided to do some searching of my own.

• Police officer stabbed during armed robbery
• Police officer stabbed to death as he tries to tackle mugger
• Police officer stabbed while trying to arrest woman, 37, in Plymouth. Three are arrested
• Police officer stabbed in bookies robbery
• Man facing jail over police officer stabbing
• British Policeman Nearly Gets Stabbed! (video)
• Serious injuries to police officers in Northern Ireland, 2007-2008

I don't really want to reproduce the other 900,000 results. Of course, police acting up and attacking people is wrong, and I'm not defending it or wanting to make light of it (I'm just being an arse and making a point)... but tarring the entire police as "worse than Hitler" because of a few incidents is an utter fallacy and offensive to reason. It's just starting to hack me off that the people who are blatantly over-hyping incidents are damaging the relationship people have with law enforcement at an extremely difficult and important time. ^moral 20:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has a bit of a problem with police, I would say the difference is that police often get off with little to no punishment after their actions (see: Rodney King). How many of those incidents came complete with video evidence and multiple witnesses and still saw the accused acquitted and released with no punishment? SirChuckB^{Penguin Knight, First Class} 21:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In my life, police are nothing but a negative force. They have never really helped me. Only hurt/inconvenienced me. FTP for life. And fuck you, narc. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is the OP calling "children", exactly? I thought this site was against "authoritarianism"... Emerald (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Enforcing the law in a constitutional and even-handed manner is not a hallmark of authoritarianism; quite the opposite. Much of the anti-police animus that is under discussion here is not based on facts, but on prejudice stemming from certain left-wing philosophies that classify the police as nothing more or less than a tool of class-oppression, meaning that police officers are regarded, in an essentialist fashion, as nothing but the enemy.

For myself, I know some people in the Minneapolis police, who operate under regulations that prohibit them, not just from violating anyone's civil rights, but from doing much of anything that so much as introduces the possibility that they will violate someone's civil rights. They do not even grumble about this, their job being to uphold the law rather than make it. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Who said it was? "Today, children, we shall be"... is pretty top-down "now I tell you what to think", though. Maybe I have a perspective problem when I read about "brutality during student riots", though. Emerald (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

An aphorism that appears to be popular at the moment is, "People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts." Armondikov is pointing out that much of the rhetoric directed against the police rests on fallacious factual statements. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish here in MURika we had effective enough gun control policy to where police getting stabbed was the problem as opposed to police being shot. Corry (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

LX puts it correctly, I'd rather criticise them on the basis of hard fact rather than anecdotes. Hence why I spent 10-15 minutes trying to find some injury stats. They're not particularly easy to obtain (the Northern Ireland link above was a FOI request, for example). Hence when you're talking about protests with 50,000 people there, and that injuries just breaking into double figures and arrests stand at about 70 for public order offense, this idea that if you turn up you WILL be brutalised by the police is just plainly false. I'm not saying there aren't bad eggs in the force, and I'm not saying that when they go wrong it's acceptable - but there are people out there that just need to get a better perspective on reality.

Take Millbank Tower, for instance, when the cameras are zoomed in and cropped and you see the same 15 seconds of footage looped on the 24 hour news it looks like Hell On Earth. Yet when you zoom out to the wider perspective it's hardly that at all, most of the protesters we messing around, doing nothing and the people working in the building were just going about like nothing was happening - with the exception of a few nutjobs smashing windows for a brief time (anarchist groups rather than actual students, if the rumour mill is correct) it wasn't exactly a warzone. This is why decisions need to be made not on what you do see, but by questioning what you don't see and why you don't see it (e.g., the news isn't going to report incidents of police officers having a nice chat with some protesters at a quiet lull in the activity). ^moral 10:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And of course, this. I do sympathise, I really really do, but the key skill when trying to be rational is to spot bullshit rhetoric in opinions that you agree with. "The police were up for violence" he asserts, how can you prove this sort of thing? Check the language; brutal police, defenceless protesters and so on; they hold their ground (bravely stoic in the face of adversity!) the police ATTACK; the police horses could KILL - but no mention that the fists and wooden signs of the mob can easily do the same (an unarmed mob can't kill, you say?). I'm certainly not saying he's lying or that he's wrong, but just look at it; it's straight out of wartime propaganda in the way it's worded! Yes, I'm preaching and condescending but when you accept this sort of thing for a good cause, you'll accept it for a bad cause. ^moral 11:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me that you didn't just compare Hillsborough to a riot? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I merely gave an example of how an unarmed crowd and lead to death. Crushing, panicking, accidents and so on. ^moral 11:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the police, I think they are a lazy bunch of self-serving dishonest twats. BUT, I have great sympathy for them in such public order offences. When you've got knobs throwing missiles, breaking windows etc, the police have to react to stop that. Imagine the outcry if they didn't? Instead of having these pathetic upper-middle class pricks saying "Yah, me an Tarquin were merely like, standing there, and the pigs like totally assaulted us yah", we'd have them saying "some chaps were throwing bricks, one of them nearly hit me and the pigs did nothing". I used to travel to a lot of away games in my younger days, so I know just what the filth can be like if they're spoiling for a fight - but times have changed. How some of the filth had the restraint not to hit some of those student tossers for having such offensive facial hair in a public place, I don't know... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the police at protests will only go after the pricks kicking off, if you don't kick off (and stay away from those who are) then the filth won't bother with you. Interesting analysis on this UK police inspector's blog. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If you go to a protest looking for a fight they will give as good as they get. And when people are saying "the police were up for violence" all I can think of is psychological projection. ^moral 13:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. The guy in the wheelchair was steering it in a really provocative way. He totally deserved to be dragged from it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And the police officer who was hit with a bottle of piss was asking for it. The entire point of this is that you shouldn't rely on stories; stories can be twisted, changed and manipulated. Take the Collateral Murder vid and how the subtitles were very selective in what they actually said, dropping the military jargon and highlighting the more flamboyant language (not to mention that the cut version hacked the entire video to pieces to focus on just the shooting at the end). Read around, get your data, get your facts; not stories. ^moral 14:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(o/d) I don't disagree with the premise that the police are often victims of biased reporting, but comments like "police at protests will only go after the pricks kicking off" are naive to the point of disbelief. All too often the police provoke people into a reaction then arrest them when they get it. Not all of them do this, but to claim it doesn't happen is plain wrong. A very quick google search brings up examples like this, and for a serious study of the problem, see this. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I never said it didn't happen and I don't think anyone ever did (respond to what people say, not what you think they say). It's the extremely biased reporting that leads everyone to think that, if they protest, they WILL be beaten by the police (no ifs or buts, they WILL encounter violence). That's equally naive and misses the point. It's also a poor mindset to have because if you go to a protest looking for a fight you will quite likely get it. And as I said above, it also sounds like psychological projection to me. ^moral 14:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I used a direct quote from DeltaStar's earlier comment. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And as you said "but to claim [police provoke people into a reaction] doesn't happen is plain wrong" - and no one has said that. ^moral 14:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I see it as a corollary. To say that police never start anything - which is the gist of DS's comment - is to ignore police provocation. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In which case we have an issue of wording and implication, which is always going to be a problem. I think there's a difference between the police antagonising protesters into making the first move (which happens, I'm sure, and possibly at a strategic level) and them going up to protesters who are peaceful and generally doing nothing and then striking and beating them (which probably happens at the same rate as everywhere else, but selectively reported to make it seem like it's the norm, which it most certainly isn't, otherwise the injury and arrest statistics would tell an entirely different story and I wouldn't be on this arsehole streak right now). But the point is we need to differentiate between "The Police" and the (admittedly stressed, although that doesn't excuse it) individuals who make bad decisions. We're already used to differentiating "The Protesters" and the minority of violent window-smashing idiots. ^moral 15:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is kettling police provocation or simply crowd control? How far are the police allowed to go to keep law and order? All this keep off the streets and you won't be hurt was exactly what they said after Blair Peach was murdered. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how far they should be allowed to go. Obviously they should be allowed, even encouraged, to do something. However, I'd wager that the balance cannot please everyone. If the police go in hard, then property is protected at the expense of liberty. If the police stand by and do nothing, then anything could happen so long as it was in the name of protest. Someone will always get pissed off with what they do - and events where something goes wrong will always happen. ^moral 15:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think we agree on about 95% of the topics in this debate. We both agree that the police have been known to provoke people and use violence and we both agree that such incidents are over-reported. Or rather, that the incidents where the public are the instigators are under-reported. The difference may be that I think the police should be held to a higher standard than the general public, because it's their job to uphold the law and they've been trained for it. Certainly if I saw a mate get hit by a half-brick, I'd be tempted to smash whoever did it with my baton, but the police should be capable of restraint. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There's rumours going round that Alfie (the protester who needed brain surgery) wasn't actually injured by a police baton, but was hit by a missile thrown by another protester. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is not a chance in hell that his injuries were caused by a police baton. Police batons are hollow, and whilst they do hurt they don't cause any real damage (I've had a few friendly whacks to help me on my way after football matches) - half housebricks can cause severe injuries. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Convenient edit point

The root of the problem from my perspective - and I spent some time in student demos back in the early seventies - is that whilst the police are essential for an organised society it's one of those jobs where the desire to become one is almost, de-facto, a reason why you shouldn't.

Don't get me wrong, I would hate to be the one who pulls the drunks out of the gutters on a Saturday night or who deals with a major road traffic incident, or has to go and tell the loved ones of the outcome of that incident. As such I have immense respect for what the police have to do. However as someone who didn't "fit in" in the early seventies I also know that "Gene Hunt" was not a nice man and there was, and almost certainly still is, an us and them situation.

So, what's the solution. Blowed if I know. Until we can recruit officers with the judgement of Salomon, the patience of Job and superhuman strength of character we're going to get a significant number of police who go to a demo armed and dangerous knowing that they will almost certainly get away with it (c.f. Blair Peach) Jack Hughes (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're echoing what I (and certainly countless others) often say about power in general: if you want it, you shouldn't be allowed to have it. And to reply to SR above (keeping under the convenienjt edit point) I think this ties in with this; you can hold the police to a higher standard but they are always going to be human and prone to all our faults. I'm not sure there is a good way of preventing this, just dealing with it effectively when it happens and not taking a cynical attitude towards the IPCC when they investigate. ^moral 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove

I'm watching Dr. Strangelove on youtube and the first thing I notice is that it features a bloke by the name of Glen Beck. Checked it out on IMDB and it was a typo or something. his real name is Glenn Beck.--Thanatos (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Awesome movie by the way - one of the most brilliant political satires ever. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"You can't fight here! This is the war room!" MDB (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

I still between jobs, so I have plenty of time to catch up on my reading. I have an ebook of Atlas Shrugged. I am fully aware it is unreadable shit as I have attempted to read it before. Is it worth persevering just so I can say I have read it, if only to say it is wank with authority?AMassiveGay (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, life's too short. If you ever get in to a conversation about it, just start by asking "Oh, is that that book by Ayn Rand?", only pronounce Ayn "Anne." They'll punch you in the face, and the conversation will be over. Problem solved. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, NO NO NO NO NO! The three weeks it took me to read that are three weeks that I can never get back - please don't repeat my tragic mistake. Just read the summary on Wikipedia and maybe a few reviews and you'll be fine. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The only book worthy of the "I've read it" boast is Ulysses. And no, I haven't. --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 01:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I stopped about 40 pages from the end :( - π 03:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The only time I felt like I was getting anything from Ulysses was a decade or more after my first attempt to finish it when I use the New Bloomsday Book line by line commentary. After I while I put Ulysses back on the shelf and finished the New Bloomsday Book instead. Problem solved. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Or Gormenghast.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

...It's not pronounced "Anne"? X Stickman (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume it's meant to rhyme with "pain." --Ψ Gremlin講話 02:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It rhymes with tine or wine. Ine Rand.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Haven't read Atlas Shrugged. Did read The Fountainhead: both thumbs up for style and content. Can't imagine how she managed to write in that uncomfortable position. Wank is putting it kindly. Anyone who hasn't read Ulysses does not know what they are missing. Never get tired of that one. It is now available on Project Gutenberg. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I liked Atlas Shrugged better than The Fountainhead. Despite all the dreck, there were a few good quotes, such as, "Doesn't everyone believe that in order to get goods, all you have to do is need them?", and, "A sale requires the seller's consent," and, "How will your gun make me do that, Mr. Thompson?" ListenerX^TalkerX 04:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually found the FountainPen interesting, was surprised no one suggested it to me when I was younger, "in the rough", as it were. Read the fucking unreadable doorstop so if I ever have to argue about it I can say "yes, I read it". Indeed, I'll never get those four evenings back, but there were so many other wasted days... A Massive Gay, put your nose to the grindstone and pay your dues! Diamond (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you, Gay. It's on my list of books to read in the next year or so, not just to say I've read it, but because I don't really feel I can justifiably insult it without reading it. Of course, I fully expect it to take about a year for me to read, as my M.O. with long, boring books is to read them slowing over many months while simultaneously reading shorter, more enjoyable things. (Must have taken me a year to get though Moby Dick and Don Quixote, nit that either is very bad, but hardly page-turners either.) Maybe we can start a book club? DickTurpis (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Book club. Nope. Doesn't exist. Too bad for you and A M Gay... A Whiter Shade of Pale (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Try Forum:Book Club instead. ^moral 14:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Forum:Book Club seems more of a reading list than a book club - very little commentary. I think I will give Atlas Shrugged ago after I finish 'We'. Maybe it'll cure me of my socialist leanings. Or just my eye bleed. I'll let you all know when I finish.AMassiveGay (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It is developing a commentary, but doesn't get as much attention as it perhaps should. ^moral 15:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel I should draw attention to what happened to Mei when she tried to read it. I miss her... Bastard drug Hoover! 15:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)