RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive89

This is an archive page, last updated 26 May 2015. 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>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <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)

Dunno if this is interesting

A CofE Bishop has jacked it in & gone papist. He's been ordained a priest even though he's married. Him (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The Pope made that specific exception for Anglican clergy who wanted to switch. It's ok to bend the rules if it gets you some converts, it would seem. Real first name and last initial (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to me a case of having your cake and eating it. If he believed so much of the RC faith why wait so long before converting, especially after getting wed. Regular Catholic priests are not allowed to marry but somehow it's acceptable to change horses because you're a petty bigot who doesn't like the idea of women being priests. The RCC stinks and the converts stink. P.S. In the link above why does every date have to have the saint's feast added?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Super abridged bible project

Worth a look - he's only done Genesis & Exodus so far. Him (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That is pretty good. It's true that a load of bloggers do "reviews" of the Bible but rarely do we see this kind of abridged summary. ^bomination 15:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just the thing for a RationalWiki Cocktail

[1] courtesy of [2] Him (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you "Brian Clark"!!

You're not supposed to reveal my vandalism [3] cunt!!!! fucker. PS can someone please remove me from the bin? Thanks. 67.241.191.198 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to be in the bin - at least under that IP. What IP or username got binned? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Damn, must just be the other IP. Sorry, ISP changes my ip sometimes. Thanks CR. 67.241.191.198 (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Prod again if there's an address that shouldn't be in there. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Zodiac

There are apparently now 13 signs of the Zodiac (Time magazine). Discuss. Thunderkatz^Ho! 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nahh, the astronomers are just trolling. True believers in astrology have always recognized the precession of the equinox. Junggai (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Now? I remember figuring out I was an Ophiuchus like, 12 years ago. It was trolling astronomers then, too. They just got a louder platform now. Quaru^{bassoon - You can't explain that!}

Apparently, the Time article was sourced from an interview for another newspaper. An astronomer tried to explain why astrology is bunk, and the usual journalistic game of "broken phone" ensued.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Original article I read. 1977. Again, I'm not sure what's "new". I'm also not sure about "always recognized" I know I'm not "into" astrology, but the first time I was ever able to find people actually recognizing Ophiuchus as a sign was only about 5-6 years ago. Quaru^{bassoon - You can't explain that!} 15:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

CEO Carter (early 20thc) mentioned it in his books. Junggai (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the new zodiac groupings. At least I stay the same FWIW.

• Capricorn: Jan. 20 – Feb. 16
• Aquarius: Feb. 16 – March 11
• Pisces: March 11– April 18
• Aries: April 18 – May 13
• Taurus: May 13 – June 21
• Gemini: June 21 – July 20
• Cancer: July 20 – Aug. 10
• Leo: Aug. 10 – Sept. 16
• Virgo: Sept. 16 – Oct. 30
• Libra: Oct. 30 – Nov. 23
• Scorpio: Nov. 23 – Nov. 29
• Ophiuchus: Nov. 29 – Dec. 17
• Sagittarius: Dec. 17 – Jan. 20

How the hell do you pronounce "Ophiuchus" anyway? O-fi-u-kus? Where's our astronomy boffin?

I can see it now. "Hey, babe, what's your star-sign?" "Ofuckus" "Well, I was going to buy you a drink first..." --Ψ GremlinHable! 07:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think they had a point on Stargazing Live where Dara O'Cox were ripping the piss out of astrology. ^bomination 15:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh, so I'm actually an Ophiuchus. This is going to make a huge difference to my life. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's alright for you. I was a Leo, a magnificent king of animals. Now I'm a f'ing crab. A crab. FFS.Jonno^{Hurl Abuse Here}

And you're very crabby about it. Aconite (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

At last: a reason to get an iPhone

[4] Him (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That is simultaneously the most awesome thing ever invented and the end of civilisation as we know it. Real first name and last initial (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

<cough>Viral marketing</cough> Occasionaluse (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Another reason why Chrome's the best

Here's a neat little thing to have fun with. Just wait for the chat window to come up. ~SuperHamster Talk 05:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it couldn't handle 'depthcharge' or 'biological agent', but it could trade a few insults. It's a bit like igod. RagTop^{Gone sailing} 12:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It did handle, however, 'Ram it into my arsehole'AMassiveGay (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the reason I don't go around destroying my computers on a regular basis has nothing to do with the fact I'll lose my data and everything to do with the fact that I can't afford to replace the hardware. ^bomination 15:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It also doesn't like "flamethrower". :( ^bomination 15:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nor "Justin Bieber". --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It had "Lasers" =] Sen (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh, you can really type ANYTHING and it will spit out the same phrases no matter what. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I suggested "stick it up your hoop", to which it replied "great idea!", only to proceed to nail-gun it to the table. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Drug laws, state by state.

Hello all! A friend is doing some university work on drug laws and social policy, and was just wondering about the good old American approach. Am I right in thinking that while some crimes, mainly to do with large-scale drug dealing and trafficking are federally regulated, it's mostly on a state-by-state basis? How does the federal government, if at all, influence a state's drug laws and prison sentences? Also, can somebody give an example of a few states which have horrendous drug policies, with no rehab and just punishment, and a few states where it is largely rehab focuses. I'm sure she can find the academic sources when she researches it properly, but I was thinking you guys would be a great starting point. Thanks for the help. ^EXTERMINATE 16:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, you might be better asking on Wikipedia's humanities reference desk, than here. CS Miller (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This might also be a good jumping-off point. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 06:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Classic Robots

I saw Voltron for download on the Playstation Network. Anyone else have a soft spot for this era? I like to riff the old stuff. I like Getter Robo ('74). It's sequal came over to the States as Starvengers, which I will not talk about. It's called giving a damn, Ryoma/Hummer.--Thanatos (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If Gatchaman and its dozen or so cut 'n' paste translations (Battle of the Planets, G-Force, Eagle Riders... okay, so just three, really) count as this era, then I suppose I do have a sort-of soft spot for it. It was technically my first anime (my second being Thunderbirds 2086) so I look back on all of it fondly. But lets face it, it was shit. ^bomination 02:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not shit. It is, however, toned way the fuck down from the source material and Ryoma is nowhere near as cool/ax crazy as other versions. Still, if I want to stop thinking and have a good time, I watch the old stuff.--Thanatos (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

First anime I remember watching was Heidi. Admittedly BotP and the abysmal RoboTech have given me a bit of a mental block when it comes to mecha (with a few exceptions - Eva & Bokurano). That said, the manga Thanatos mentioned is pretty good. --Ψ GremlinParlez! 06:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Manga has a Best of the Public as well? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Dana Ullman

Cover page nominee which I primarily wrote. Could I beg a few more reviewers? =) Aconite (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a good read through it later today. Gave it a skim, and from what I read it looks good. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 10:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If anybody is feeling board

As some of you know I am the master of the rather intermittently active English teaching wiki, Teflpedia - one time short summer refuge for lost Rationalwikans. I've been in conversation of late with the owner of another English teaching wiki Wikigogy which is in the process of closing and we have decided to transfer some of the content from there to Teflpedia.

I think we've finished with the technical details now and the process is described here. If anybody wants to join in they'd be more than welcome. I think that I'll need to make you a sysop for the file upload stuff though and, if you're a new user, you'll need to wait out the probationary time with the vandal brake.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the title suppose to be a pun? - π 12:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As in get on board?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It may have been asked before, but... why isn't all of this somewhere on wikibooks/wikiversity? I'd guess it would have greater visibility there, though I may be mistaken. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you had a list or category of the articles you wanted exported/imported I could spend three or four times longer than it would take to do it manually writing a bot to do it automatically. - π 12:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I could probably identify the categories at the other place. Each page would need some similar edits at both wikis before being manually reviewed. Is that the sort of thing you were talking about? I'm not sure of what bots are really capable of.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I don't "own" the other place.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The other owner might not like me poking his pages with a bot. The bot can make simple edits so long as there is some sort of pattern to it, WIGObots' has some of the more interesting ones I have written, but Catbot has slapped a few templates around. The import/export it could do easily. - π 12:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll pitch in. Only problem is, the first instruction says "Identify the Wikigogy article to be moved." Are all articles moving, i.e. so I click on random article and move it, or is there a list anywhere? can't the whole db be dumped to an xml file? --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 12:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No. At the moment we're only moving the articles which could be described as "lessons". They go into a different namespace at TP but he's got them mixed with encyclopaedic content at his place. I'll see if I can clarify "identify"--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've go to go out and do some "work" now. I'll contact him asking is there is an easy to way to identify "lesson" stuff by cat or whatever. Sadly, we're in quite different time-zones.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Or better yet - post the questions on TP (or for that matter Wikigogy) so that we're all involved.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as I'm running out the door - the best solution might be to simply create a new cat "for transfer" and apply to that to everything which is to go?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this project is on hold for a week as a massive and urgent translation job has dropped on my desk.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

When you're back, would you have some simple rules on how to recognise the articles to be categorised for moving. i.e. reduce it to point and clicky donkey work where possible. An illustrated guide, done in the style of a 1980s aircraft safety card would be particularly impressive. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fish fight

UKians, sign this! If you didn't see the programme then basically because of fishing regulations setting quotas on individual fish types, trawlers in mixed fisheries are throwing about half of all the fish they catch (including fish like cod & haddock) back into the sea, dead. Insane. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I had meant to post that myself. It's a disgrace.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The conservation laws have actually made it worse. They should either ban trawling or set a number of days per boat / company instead of setting quotas on individual fish. I'd be interested to know what the proposed resolution(s) actually are. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tricky one. The problem with just having time-based quotas is that trawlers will still pick up huge quantities of fish, and chuck the cheaper ones because they want to sell the more profitable species. I'm really not sure what the solution is, but when you're looking at fishermen dumping 50% upwards of their catch, then there has to be a better way to go. What we really need is some way of targeted fishing, so they only catch what they want/need. But nature isn't that tidy unfortunately. I also suspect that there are too many fishermen out there. We don't need to catch more fish. If anything we need to catch fewer and just not discard them. This means less fishermen. Which will not please them. Worm^{(t | c)} 12:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at http://www.endoftheline.com. And look up how catastrophic farmed salmon is for the local ecology. Scarily scary. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have seen enormous Russian, Spanish and Asian factory ships offshore Mauretania just hoovering up anything that moves. The issue is much wider than Euro quotas. The real problem is that international waters are not owned by anybody so there's no sense of stewardship. Генгис^evolving 15:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not just fishing. This over-reliance on industrial food production is catastrophic to our environment and our food variety and quality. Monsanto should be dissolved in a lake of Roundup. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's face it, the real problem is that there are just too many of us. Генгис^evolving 15:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, fishing will always be a classic case of tragedy of the commons. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)In which case, you are welcome to start decreasing the surplus population! :P But seriously, that is true. We have a huge population and our current methods won't be able to sustain it. Either the population needs to be controlled or our production of food has to change at a fundamental level - in an ideal world, both, without compromising any human rights (Impossible, surely!). But I don't think people who want their sprout trees and truffles will care too much about that. ^bomination 15:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that's debatable. But in these cases the real problem is big business being greedy and unethical. Mansanto, for example, do what they do primarily to corner the seed market. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

@ADK. My family and I have certainly tried to do our share. My wife and I have no kids, her sister has no kids, her brother had no kids of his own but adopted 2 kids (one sadly died from a drug overdose) and my own sister had two kids. I have no cousins but my niece is now in her mid-thirties and just pregnant with her first; her brother is not interested in kids. I think we are a shrinking clan. Генгис^evolving 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an entirely snarky point that I didn't expect an answer to! However, that sort of approach could lead to an ageing population, which may be just as bad as a large population. One of the major problems facing countries with the luxury of pensions and retirement is that we're supporting an increasing number of people who are above the retirement age. I think the solution to the problem is therefore more complicated than merely not procreating. It's population stability that is needed rather than a reduction, I think. ^bomination 16:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

An ageing population is only really a problem if they make excessive demands on the state. Having been brought up with a prudent working-class background I fully expect to be a net taxpayer in my retirement. And with no heirs, charity and the state will ultimately be the net beneficiaries after I shuffle off this mortal coil. Генгис^evolving 16:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

But as the mean age of the population shifts upwards it becomes more difficult to actually reach that balance. That's not to say it isn't possible, but when you factor in education until 21 (I assume you'd need a degree to get a good enough job to make a net contribution!) and retirement at 65 and a life-span now heading up passed 90 you're looking at not far off 50% of your time not being a taxpayer. The best calculations show that over half of graduates won't actually be able to pay off the student debts currently being brought into UK Higher Education - so what percentage will be able to "break even" with the state in all ways? Especially considering not everyone will avoid having children so that charities and government can receive any inheritance. As I said, not impossible, but certainly not easy. ^bomination 23:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of us proles are barely living above the bread line as it is. I fully expect to be living in poverty in my dotage, not too dissimilar to how I am living now. I promise not to impregnate anyone though.AMassiveGay (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded smug. I agree we should follow the example of Logan's Run and bump off everyone when they reach 30. Генгис^evolving 09:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for everyone else to be euphed at 30, but for me personally, I fully intend to live forever. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, I expect to just be getting a proper job by 30... ^bomination 13:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And now your first real job will be as soylent green. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Proxies

Yo dudes, I'm currently stuck in the bloody office and am blocked from viewing anything decent on t'internet. The connection is via a proxy server on our intranet; is it possible to connect to an external proxy from the intranet proxy? How would I go about doing such? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Never used them myself, but I suppose that if your intranet proxy will allow you to go to a proxy site you just follow their instructions. Sorry about being hopeless. - π 12:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have as much control over what you can do on a work network/PC, so at the basic level try http://www.hidemyass.com. You may not be able to edit/view some stuff if scripting or other add-ons are required.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that your internal proxy is going to log you going to the external proxy. - π 12:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I found at one of my workplaces that you can bypass the proxy by just putting an asterisk in the "bypass proxy for the below addresses" field. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And they'll also know what sites you tried to access before. You could also try typing in an IP address (if you know it) rather than the URL, sometimes that can get round the filter. I was able to install Logmein on a corporate PC when I had a "developer" account and then log in to my home PC if there was anything I needed to look at that might upset the corporate sensibilities which were basically porn, games and gambling - not that I was looking at any of those sites, it was more for edits at CP where I wouldn't want them fingering a corporate IP. What you can get away with also depends on who does the IT, is it in-house or contracted out, how much traffic the office has and how much you do it. Генгис^evolving 12:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I admit it; it's really so I can get on to CP! (403ed at work, along with other large chunks of the UK) I can't use web proxies as they're all blocked (and are shit anyway), I was kind of hoping that you could just stick two proxies in LAN settings and have them chain up (ie the intranet proxy followed by an open one somewhere), but I thought that was unlikely. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You could always get a cheap shared linux hosting package with "shared SSL" (e.g. https://server.companyname.com/~yourusername/) and then install CGIProxy for free. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I'll look in to that Crundy - not now as your link is blocked from the office! Is that akin to VPNing to my own computer at home and browsing 'from' there? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really, a VPN is much more powerful since you can route any traffic through it, but you can use it only if you have the possibility to configure your work PC accordingly. The CGIproxy is a common web proxy with all its limitations, but you can use it whenever you are able to reach it with a common web browser. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

??????? That post wasn't idiotic at all..... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

University of London's survey of US presidents

The University of London's Institute for the Study of the Americas has commissioned a survey ranking the US presidents [5]. Reagan was the only post 1980 president to make it to the top-ten. CS Miller (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess the top 10 almost write themselves in. Couple of interesting ones tho - Carter above Clinton, Nixon ranked so high. At least Dubbya is in the basement, where he belongs. --Ψ GremlinHable! 12:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Interim results for Barry would put him at #8. (You need to click off the above link to find it) Генгис^evolving 15:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard it argued by historians that you really can't make a serious judgment of a presidency until fifty years after end of term. Thus, Ike is the latest one they should be evaluating.

I've heard about a thirty year rule. No matter, it doesn't change the fact that seeing Obama on that list, let alone so high, feels wrong, but I guess Obamania is still alive and well on this side of the pond. Of course if it gives a good chance to troll Republicans, be my guest. Vulpius (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not enough of a historian to judge whether "fifty years" is a reasonable period, but it does seem early to be comparing Clinton, Bush the Lesser and Obama to either the greats or the stinkers who are long dead. MDB (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Overhigh placement of Jefferson and Jackson. Such traditionalists are these Brits. Blue (is useful) 23:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not qualified but I'd reckon you need to give it at least 8 years based on the fact that it's two full terms. Think that Bush II started the Afghanistan invasion in 2001 and it's still going in 2011 - the timescale for evaluating major decisions made by world leaders has to be on the order of decades. ^bomination 23:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the top 10 are for the most part defined by the events of their presidencies, not by what they actually did. Nixon would probably be up there if only he wasn't a total scumbag. I guess it's symptomatic of how we teach history, events are strongly associated with the head honchos who were around at the time. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

+1 Blue (is useful) 01:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder who they asked - was it only students of American history? Most Brits (myself included) know sod-all about the majority of US presidents. Генгис^evolving 09:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A full list of the participants is here [6] - looks like they are British academics in American Studies. CS Miller (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering it's a British group, Washington's high rankings may be due to "yay! he got rid of the Yanks for us!" MDB (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What is Polk doing so low, he should be #1! Тиранес^complaints 14:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sinking to a new low

The Daily Mail and Teh Sun have managed to find a new definition of bottom, having thoroughly scraped the previous definition.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's my local, actually. ^bomination 15:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

But seriously, what is the alternative? Keep them in prison and blow a load of taxpayers money? Keep them on the dole? Fucksake Daily Heil do you want people to work or not?!?!? ^bomination 15:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear me that was an arduous process trying to get a comment on that article. I look forward to it appearing in the the "worst rated" section, though. I shall have to try again, dropping the argumentation and logic and merely shouting "BRING BACK HANGING!" instead. ^bomination 15:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Daily Mail have any position they're trying to take. What they do have is a very clear understanding of what sells the Daily Mail and stories like this are exactly the thing - along with a million and one bits of celeb gossip in the side panel. Much as I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Mail there's no denying they're very good at their job - selling papers. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. But you expect (removing any prior knowledge of what the DM is, of course) a consistent editorial stance from this sort of organisation, right? ^bomination 16:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Second worst rated comment (was this you Armondikov?)

“”They have served their time and will only intergrate back into socieity if their past is allowed to be left behing. If you keep calling someone a criminal long enough eventually they will turn and become a criminal (again)

So we know where the readers stand. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that one isn't me. Although it was a sentiment I wanted to echo. Mine was more pointing out the obviousness that if they lived on the dole it would be scandalous, but clearly getting a job was also scandalous! I don't think it has appeared yet. It might not, as I was snarking the crap out of the Daily Mail itself and I think it's a moderated article. ^bomination 16:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I gave up on trying to submit an reply. Typed it out, nice and pretty, and then was told I'd have to register. Sod that. Here's what I had:

"Consulting court records gets in the way of a good scare-mongering story, but let's do it anyway. Take Bulmer... Bulmer was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1995 (recommended 16 years before considered for parole). Oddly enough it's now around 16 years later, so what's the choice? Try to integrate her in to society? Break the law by extending her sentence indefinitely? How about releasing her to a life of reliance on benefits? Do the last two options belong in a lawful and civilised society? I think it's reasonable to assume that if they allow these women leave to work, they're probably not considering that they are at a high risk of impaling hotel guests on sharpened mop handles.

Her crime was brutal and completely unjustified, but she's served the recommended time. If anyone has an issue it should be with the sentencing Judge or the Home Secretary - not a law abiding company that's helping society as whole benefit if these people leave prison and never re-offend." Bloody Daily Mail. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Enough sane comments seem to be getting through, it's just a shame that those aren't the ones getting the thumbs up from the idiocracy. ^bomination 23:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a regular peruser of the DM or its website but it does seem that the online readers veer towards the fecking eejit end of the spectrum. Генгис^evolving 08:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Check out some of the popular threads on the mailwatch.co.uk forum. The forum's pretty dead, but it makes for a jolly fun/depressing read. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that. It lead me to this monstrosity of xenophobia. I assume when he says "My own impression is that many of these claims are pretty much guesswork. " he actually means "I'm too lazy to look at the studies myself". ^bomination 17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"But it is easy to see that since 1893, when Kaiser Wilhelm II’s arrogant and expansionist new German Empire adopted Mitteleuropaische Zeit (Central European Time to you), German power has been forcing its ideas of time on the rest of the Continent...A map of the present Central European Time Zone looks disturbingly like a map of a certain best-forgotten empire of 70 years ago." Because that's exactly how imperialism works. If I were this idiot's brother, I think I would've taken up drinking, too. Röstigraben (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

RockMelt

I've been trying it out. It's a lot like Chrome, with facebook integration on one side and feed/updates on the other side. Productivity tends to fall, especially if one has constant fb chat and constant updates for RW recent changes and fb notifications. You'd think there couldn't be another viable choice among Chrome/Firefox/Opera, but RockMelt is noticeably more convenient. Blue (pester) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking for less facebook integration in my life, not more. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Return of the mammoth

Should the extinct woolly mammoth be brought back from extinction? Discuss. FreeThought (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've a few points to make here:

• even if we caused the extinction of the woolly mammoth we don't owe it to the natural world to bring it back, so in the strict phrasing of the question, no i don't think we "should" bring it back.
• if we can do it, why not? it'll be a spectacle and a test of our science and a milestone in our species, on a par with the moon landing.
• fears about ecological disruption will be largely unfounded, as it's not a microbe we're bringing back (which could easily get lost and spread like wildfire, upsetting food chains) or even an insect.
• I doubt it could be done anyway. don't mammals rely on several other species, microbes in their gut to help break down food? unless we're gonna 'borrow' them from elephants, there's an issue there.

Also this might be better in the Forum. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fucking huge

I'd also ask that if it was somehow recreated then where would it live? In a zoo or reintroduced to some northern tundra that we are not sure would be wholly suitable? It would not be enough to produce just one, you'd need a small herd of both sexes. Large animals also tend to have collective memories of how to survive which are passed through the generations, where would that come from? Генгис^evolving 10:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If they did turn out to be viable in the wild, I have no doubt that Russia and perhaps some other countries with appropriate climate will try and set up a wildlife park for them. The potential income from tourism - "see the world's first unextinct animal in its natural habitat!" - would be immense. Of course, zoos will be a stopover solution and countries will firstly vie for a woolly mammoth in their capital city's zoo - again for tourist revenue. Only when they became cheap enough would a country put them in the wild where they might trip over a rock and die. Then they'd just have to learn how to survive the hard way. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You will have 'sportsmen' queuing up to be able to shoot themAMassiveGay (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Another good point (which I had been keeping in reserve) However, I was rather thinking about long distance migrations, also elephants are also highly social creatures how would they learn that? Although there is evidence of continued existence into the current epoch they largely died out with the end of the last ice age, could we be sure that we could give them the right habitat? Генгис^evolving 10:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen mock ups of them at the Natural History Museum. They are fucking huge. They would be menace whenever they came into contact with humans.AMassiveGay (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They could still cross them with bonsais to make them smaller. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can be sure of anything. But if we start rolling out woolly mammoths in their hundreds you can bet we'll try and see where they can survive. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably they'll get gut bacteria etc from the elephant that carries them & behavior from the elephant herd? Him (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, am greatly looking forward to the first annual woolly mammoth shearing competition.--JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they'll just clone one and keep it alive for as long as possible. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That would seem wasteful to me. If you could clone a breeding population, why wouldn't you? The DNA samples we have aren't getting any fresher, so the sooner we have a self-sustaining population, the better the chances of preserving the species at all. I can't think of a better test bed for figuring out the practical difficulties in reintroducing a long extinct animal species. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If we manage to clone a mammoth won't we then have a huge live chunk of DNA? --62.142.167.134 (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that any gut bacteria from an elephant would incompatible with a mammoth as they had different diets. Also it makes perfect sense to reintroduce the biggest animal you can possibly find when there are enough problems with humans and elephants living side by side. They are also unlikely to keep any successful clone with a bunch of elephants - even if they did learning the migration routes and water holes of the Serengeti doesn't seem like the smartest move to assist their survival. Now dodos might be a better bet. I understand that they made quite good eating and would be quite manageable.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't all this assume that bacteria are something that must be selectively "put" there, rather something than something that self-selects itself based on which bacteria, out of the many that get eaten/inhaled, survive in X organism. I mean, our DNA doesn't carry our own bacteria with it, does it? Therefore even we, actually collect our own after we get born and everything. Sen (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dodos would be almost impossible. I don't think there is any surviving DNA from any specimen. Preservation fluids tend to denature the protein strands. Mammoths wouldn't be any easy either - just because something is frozen doesn't mean the DNA hasn't been damaged. The Japanese scientists are going to be lucky if they can do it within 5 years. FreeThought (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, we should ask ourselves, what is it in the end that we value? The original-ness of the original DNA, or the lost "shape" and the visual stimuli the existence of it can offer, out of the natural world. Because if it is the second then IN THE FUTURES (TM), when we will eat proteins and shit genes, we could simply brute force a DNA solution to something that looks like Dodo. Also unicorns and dragons. Sen (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mammoths are too big and not good eat'n. Why you consider Mammoth more superiour and worthy of life when, many Hi-IQ wiggers could be made/raised for lower expense? Mammoth can't talk or do nothing but make fertilizer. This is much like whitey on the moon; makes nerd boners but totally inefficient for utilitarian goals. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You're totally inefficient for utilitarian goals. ^{ONE / TALK} 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The sooner we have a harvestable population of mammoths going, the better, say I. Anyone who says there is not good eatin on a mammoth is talking out their ass. I know an archaeologist who claims that a mammoth kill generally precipitated a weeks-long party, right there where it dropped. Great way to keep BBQ skills in peak shape, too.

On another note, elephant ivory is now proscribed world-wide. Try to take an antique woodwind or string instrument through customs with bits of ivory showing on it, and you get hassled. Makers have gotten around this by using dug-up tusks from fossil mammoths; something about the angle of the spiral lines' meeting allows easy, non-destructive identification. Fossil ivory being a non-renewable resource, jewellers and instrument makers will welcome the new sustainable source with open wallets.

Mammoth poaching? I do not see that as a problem, no sir. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Imagine me 400 times the size and still not potty trained. I rest my case. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankeneinstien

Hey guys, how long before the resurrection of Frankeneinstein? Cause that is gonna be so awesome. ~ Lumenos (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to Baron Frankenstein or his often misnamed creation? </pedantry>  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are referring to some portmanteau creation of Albert and Victor.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed.

BTW, you set off the ole' "paranoia" by edit conflicting me and just happening to mention "good eating" like you had read it when I previewed. Coincidence?!?! Perhaps. ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is a "Symphonic flush toilet"?

Oh, wait... I think I misread that. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing about those voices in your head is that the rest of us can't actually hear them. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, I hear them very well. Oh, wait... --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What voices? Who said that? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm NOT crazy! --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and it actually said "siphonic flush toilet", so I did misread it after all. Told you so! --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's something BS Johnson would invent (has invented). CS Miller (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Who's Bullshit Johnson? Any relation to Thomas Crapper? --Robert'); DROP DATABASE FROM SKYSCRAPER;-- (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

See [7] for a list of his horrors, but you need to read The Hogfather to get the reference. CS Miller (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Gmail

Seems to have gone weird: everything since April '09 seems to have vanished. Him (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you were just drunk and passed out. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh! I brokeded gmail; multiple redirects: account 1 → account2 → account 1. Recursion buggered it up! Him (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought they would add an X-Loop header (or whatever they use these days)? I remember buggering up the mailservers at my first workplace by not doing that. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Obama Gets a Primary Challenger

From an anti-abortion idiot determined to make a spoiler campaign a pro-life activist determined to highlight important issues. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Terry added that his campaign had two goals: creating “a crisis of conscience for Americans regarding the slaughter of the unborn and thereby hastening the end of legalized child-killing” and attacking “President Obama’s agenda starting with child-killing, but also including our battle against socialism, our enslavement to debt, and more.”

Theres always something about socialism. What is this American obsession against anything remotely socialist (healthcare for example)? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Socialism = Communism = Fascism = Hitler = Bad People = Baby Eating. It's just logical. ^bomination 19:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I know a libertarian who thinks exactly that. Well, without the last 3 items. MARCVS ANTONIVS 19:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that much like the term 'liberal', 'socialism' has lost all meaning beyond that of an insult. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Typical socialist reasoning! I wonder if any of the more religious people railing against socialism will campaign to abolish the state subsidies offered to religions through tax breaks? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life, against socialism and wanting to do something about America's debt? I bet cutting down America's ridiculous army budget is top of her list! GTac (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I was watching a clip of Richard Dawkins talking with some idiotic cretinist woman, whose main point seemed to be "if you believe in creation then we're all god's children and should be treated well, if you believe in evolution then you think people should just be left to fight for survival". Dawkins then raised an excellent point (and one that I'd not thought of) in his retort: He absolutely didn't want a "Darwinian" society - that would be awful, he described it as being like "under Bush or Margaret Thatcher" - and has nothing to do with the science of evolution. However such a "Darwinian" society is exactly what the rightwing want - you can't afford healthcare? Tough. It's survival of the fittest richest in our capitalist utopia! As I have waffled such I hope I have made my point clear that this is a rather bizarre irony when framed like this. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Irony of it noted. You have to remember that Jesus was, in a way, the first socialist. I remember a scene in The Vicar of Dibley where they're discussing something about charity. (I'll just copy the lines from wikisource directly, it turned out to be easier than recalling it from memory).

David Horton: What was that socialist trout you were spouting from the pulpit last week?

Vicar: I've got a feeling it was the Sermon on the Mount.

David Horton: Jesus did not tell rich people to give all their money away.

Vicar: I think you'll find he did actually!

David Horton: Nonsense. What did he say to the sick man? "Take up thy bed and walk." In other words "Help yourself". "On your bike."

Vicar:Are you trying to establish a direct spiritual link between Jesus Christ and Norman Tebbit?

David Horton: You can't deny there are similarities.

Vicar:(Loudly) There bloody are not!

^bomination 13:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Are the ears a kitty erogenous zone?

It seems like you can bring more or less any cat to a sort of purring orgasm just by scratching the point where their ears meet the base of the skull. I'm wondering, is this some kind of cat erogenous zone? Am I inadvertantly giving my kitties oo-mox or something? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Female cats cos the male bites there when mating. Boy cats it's the chest cos that rubs agin the back of the female similarly. Him (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily sexual. Domestic cats, & especially neutered ones, stay in a state of permanent kittenhood throughout their lives. Their whole purring routine is related to how they behave as kittens when breastfeeding (hence the kneading bit) & being licked by their mother. The action of a human hand stroking an adult cat is a lot like an adult cat's tongue grooming a kitten, & it evokes the same responses. The ears & scalp are naturally among the more sensitive areas (tactile, lots of nerve endings, etc.), as in other mammals, & I haven't noticed the response being any different in males than females, though admittedly most of the cats I've known of either gender have been neutered at a young age. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A mother cat controls kittens by grasping the scruff, and it does work as a means of getting an upset cat under control. We have a large number, and every cat is different -- although most get the greatest pleasure from being scratched on the back, just in front of the tail, which seems hard for them to reach. That also will trigger "elevator butt", a kitten reaction to present itself for cleaning.

Again, cats vary. Most that I know well will make it fairly clear where they want to be stroked or scratched. Some will groom their humans as well; there are many things about which I grieve for the late Mr. Clark, but being groomed before he would let me get out of bed was part of his charm. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I do it, Indy (ana Jones) starts trying to scratch it feverishly. Its funny to do. A cat I had as a kid would not let you pet him at all. His name was Fluffy.--Thanatos (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting hypothesis; my aunt had a cat called "Cuddles" that was the most vicious unfriendly thing you could imagine. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Dogs also love having their ears scratched. Генгис^evolving 09:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Cats go fucking mental if you rub the bottom of the back, just by the tail. Amusing example here. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I just played that and my ragdoll came running into the room staring at me. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just taking a break from what is turning out the be the busiest week of my life for some time and my wife has decided to drop a new kitten into the middle of it. It is, of course, adorable and friendly to a fault - even with the dog which seems to be a little unsure of the status of the new animal. Playmate? Food? Rival? Alien from another planet? Enemy? Anyway, back to the translation.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"el gato" DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

With the 'bottom of the back' thing I have always assumed (with no evidence at all) that one of the reasons they like it is that it is one of the places that they are unable to scratch themselves. Worm^{(t | c)} 11:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We had a cat that, when scratched behind the left ear, would try to use his hind leg to do it himself. Meaning he would sit there wiggling his stump, because he only had three legs. Broccoli (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Goats love a scratch right between the horns. I don't know what jerboas like though. Real first name and last initial (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I had a cat that reacted strangely to low-pitched sound. I would hum, and after a short while the cat would roll around in a strange way. He didn't seem to be in any pain. Anyone else seen that? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A lot of cats like being scratched on their cheeks, just behind the whiskers. There's a scent gland there - they rub trees etc to leave their mark. CS Miller (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I stick my fist out and hold it. My cat rubs her face (and some of her snot) on it. The benefit of the fist is that it's far harder for her to bite my fingers. ;-)205.189.194.208 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

All mammals can be brought to a nuzzling standstill with a little scritch behind the ears. This is a long-known fact. For Becathly (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame I don't have chickens any more, because on QI they said that if you push their face towards the ground and draw a line away from it, they just sit there and stare at the line in a kind of daze. All kinds of fun! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Have bagpipes ever sounded this cool?

Jazz-Fusion on bagpipes.205.189.194.208 (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I counter with this.X Stickman (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This girl was doing pretty well until she started play gosple bleh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q53Ajkll_kw&feature=related Zingy (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I never thought bags would work in jazz. Never thought they'd do in punk rock either. It is one of the instruments I would truly love to learn to play. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 02:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Heinlein described a novice piper as a man who looks and sounds as if he has a cat upside down under his arm, and is chewing the tail. (responds to disapproving look...No, not you, Bitsy) Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I give you... The Red Hot Chilli Pipers. Queen's We Will Rock You. On. The. Bagpipes. MDB (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Rocking bagpipes here. Mudmen - Saturday "Thank God it's Friday".205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is a Viking Funeral Appropriate?

I've had my psp for about 4 years now. Over that time, I have dropped it from time to time. 'Bout six months ago, it stopped playing UMDs, which I had no problem with since I rarely play the ones I have and most games I download. Last month, the battery cover wouldn't stay on so I had to tape it up.Now, the headphones jack just went. I can only listen through the speakers, which is not really an option. My psp was my traveling companion. RIP. On the plus side, I don't lose any of my stuff on my memory stick, would just have to update the hardware on the replacement.--Thanatos (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Funny thing, as soon as I brought this up, it started working again. Funny, no?--Thanatos (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

holy shit

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Japanese_war_crimes look at how good this is! it's fucking amazing! it should make you ashamed to love japan! too bad no one wants to talk about this topic because...MY ANIME! UncleHo (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

TLDR. Make an anime and maybe we will talk. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Would an anime about Maoist insurgents taking over Japan and slaughtering it's brainwashed fascists (who make up most of it's population) count? They could use giant robots or something, if that would make it better.UncleHo (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZZv5Z2Iz_s Imagine that, only red and with a hammer and sickle. That would be my anime.UncleHo (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been done already. At least twice. Röstigraben (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, no, a quick reading of both those pages shows that the first is about Japan conquering the western world and the second is about Nazi Germany conquering Japan. Neither involve Maoist voltrons destroying Tokyo as revenge for Nanjing. I guess it goes to show how rotten Japanese culture is that their most "revolutionary" media is about either world conquest or Nazi domination.UncleHo (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Both are actually about fights against fascist-controlled Japan...I strongly suspect that at least the second one had to resort to the Nazi gimmick because depicting indigenous fascism was still considered something of a taboo. Anyway, if it absolutely has to be a Maoist movement wreaking havoc on Japan, then OK, yours would be a first. Unfortunately, Chinese animation production still has a long way to go. Röstigraben (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, depicting, or even talking about the realities of Imperial Japan and their god emperor who remains in power to this day would be taboo? Holy shit, it's almost like they have learned nothing because no one holds them accountable for their awful, unprecedented crimes against humanity! It's almost like Japanese children are taught that glorious mother Nippon was, at best, totally innocent of any crimes, and at worst a victim of those filthy Chinese and Koreans diluting it's mighty culture! It's almost like no one wants to talk about this because Anime!

Why is it that we discuss the Nazis until it's paseé and yet no one will talk about Imperial Japan raping major cities to death and performing huge scale and horrific medical experiments on mostly living human beings? Do people like anime THAT much?UncleHo (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

One word. Pokemon. That is all. Thunderkatz^Ho! 08:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

When I looked at your essay all I saw was a wall of text, so as BoN said, TLDR. Break it up into logical chunks and apply some formatting. Of course whatever crimes were committed by Japanese in WWII or before should not be held against the current generations, just as modern Germany should not be held responsible for the Nazis nor indeed the European colonial powers for what was done in the past. As L.P. Hartley said "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there" - we don't always learn from the lessons of history but as rationalists and liberals (in the non-pejorative sense of the word) we should promote tolerance and compassion for our fellow humans to ensure that the atrocities of the past are not repeated.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, lots of physicians and other collaborators in Nazi war crimes were let off the hook as well, although anime tits were in short supply in post-war Germany. It turned out that the elites had been so thoroughly corrupted that it was impossible to persecute all of the criminals and still establish a functioning new state, and I guess the same thing was true in the case of Japan. The only difference was that in Germany, the '68 rebels and the government they voted into power finally pulled the rug away and forced society to acknowledge all the historic baggage that had been swept under it after the war. Japan never experienced a societal transformation of the same scope. Röstigraben (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fol you, Mr Ho, wall is ovel. You buird blidge now! --Ψ GremlinSprich! 08:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, I wake up in the morning and I get told that I am guilty of excusing war criminals again. FML. Sen (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As said before, tl;dr, but judging by the abstract should we also be ashamed to love the US for the slave trade and the only nuclear bombings in war... refuse to drink vodka because of the Gulag... never go on holiday to Berlin because of Hitler... you get the picture. Every country has its fair share of dirty laundry to be ashamed of. There are better reasons to find weeabos annoying than merely Japanese history. ^bomination 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia is rotting my brain

So I was looking at this story on BBC News, and loads of quotes started jumping out at me:

“”Over the years the company has grown rapidly

“”The move is largely seen as a defensive ploy

I mean that last one isn't even that close, but still! Help! Get the neuralizer out!! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A parody of... global warming??? Deny this and lose all classroom prayer. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fifty Years Ago Today...

Today (January 20, 2011) is the fiftieth anniversary of JFK's inauguration and his famous speech.

I can't help but wonder how CP and the rest of the American right would react to some of the famous quotes...

• "Let the word go forth.....that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans."
  • A new generation... of liberal Americans.
• "The world is very very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life."
  • Another liberal who ignores the Bible. Matthew 26:11 says there will always be poor people in the world.
• "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."
  • He wants to negotiate with Khrushchev? Didn't Stalin teach us that you can't trust the Commies?
• "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"
  • Socialism.
• "For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed."
  • Another liberal peacenik.
• "All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."
  • Sounds like he's going to be announcing a five year plan, just like the Russians he wants to "negotiate" with.

MDB (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

I recently went to collect the missus from her mate's house after a wine drinking evening with her pals, and they were discussing who their homosexual man of choice would be if they were a fag hag (John Barrowman was a popular choice). They then asked me which lesbian I would hang around with in the reverse situation (I went for Samantha Fox due to her big tits and Clare Balding as I'd quite fancy drinking Champagne in the VIP enclosures at race meetings), but we could not think of the term for such a man. Dyke Mike is the best I could come up with, but it's a bit shit and has nowhere near the ring to it of fag hag. Does such a term exist? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Man?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it's 'lesbro'. Also picked up during my googling of this important and serious issue: A hetero guy with lots of gay friends is a 'fag stag'. 86.131.208.36 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lesbro sounds good! Thanks for your research! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops

I seem to have gone over 100 edits. Returning to lurk mode. Real first name and last initial (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Dick Cheney's Heart

Dick Cheney may need a heart transplant.

In the interest of restoring civility to American politics, I will refr....

No! I can't stop myself!

"Heart transplant? You mean he already had a heart? Other than in a jar in his basement" MDB (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to it. "Dick Cheney has the heart of a beautiful child. In a jar on his desk." --Ψ GremlinTala! 14:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember hearing somewhere, I think it was NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, something like, "it's beautiful in Washington now. Birds are singing. The sun is shining. Flowers are blooming. And the bloodless corpses of virgins are no longer being found on streets. Dick Cheney is out of town." MDB (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought he was happy with the pump - considering that it means he can happily declare himself as a member of the Undead now. ^bomination 15:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

His daughter came out as a lesbian, he comes out as one of the undead -- it's nice to see the family is so open... MDB (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheney discovered to have a heart (me, 2008) - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness

I am far from a Dick Cheney fan, but I wish him no ill. I hope he does not need a heart transplant, and, if he does, it is successful and he is able to continue to enjoy a healthy retirement. MDB (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Obviously. But I think cracking off some undead jokes is pretty kind compared to the sort of people who will be going around seriously saying that they want to piss on his grave. ^bomination 17:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In very all seriousness

I rather hope that if he does opt for the heart-bypass his prestige and money doesn't bump him up the organ-donor transplant list. Frankly, at 70, he should be quite far down the list and a 30 year-old is more deserving, but I'm going to guess that doesn't count for a lot when enough money to drown in suddenly makes it's way onto the table.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about RATIONING HEALTH CARE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? OMG!!!!!! OBAMACARE IS EUGENICS!!!!!!!!11111 DickTurpis (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Alabama Gov: Only Christians are his brothers

The new governor of Alabama, Robert Bentley, said that non-Christians are not his brothers and sisters:

"[I]f you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister. Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

Welcome to 2011 Alabama. --Leotardo (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Already on WIGO:World, but yeah that's pretty disgusting. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, how is this sort of thing tolerated from a representative? This is someone elected to serve all of the people under him. So what the fuck? ^bomination 18:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Trouble is, it's always happened. 150 years ago he'd have been arguing against the abolition of slavery. 100 years ago you could imagine this guy saying how ridiculous it would be for women to have the vote. 50 years ago he'd have had nothing against negroes but would have thought it inappropriate for them to go to the same schools as white folk. These days, it's gays. The good news, of course, is that these bastards were beaten on each issue in the end. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been said that you get a good view of western civilization's progress by looking at a list of things that the Christians have opposed. Vulpius (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a perfectly sound Christian statement, but since he is speaking as governor, it is clearly exclusionary of many constituents. Disappointing, but not surprising. Not at all. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

SR just gave a great history of the right's clinging to prejudices, and how they usually have to be dragged kicking and screaming to have humanity for others. Leaving aside fetuses, when has the rightwing ever championed a human rights movement for anybody but themselves? It's a real question. --Leotardo (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's often said that the UK only developed the word "chav" because the middle classes weren't allowed to be racist anymore! Anyway, consider Occasionaluse's point that it's not surprising... isn't this even worse? That we're not surprised that this is the sort of attitude some elected officials in the US have, hell, we could even say (as cynical as it would be) that we expect them to have such attitudes. ^bomination 19:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, although we can't expect much from Alabama. It's just a very backward state and often scores in the lowest 20% of states for most development indicators. --Leotardo (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Not being his brother or sister drastically reduces the chances of him ever wanting to sleep with me. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thads Chercheeanitee for ya. The only reason they aren't all batshit insane is because they don't really have so much faith. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Question: my impression is that in the UK, class is more important than race, while the reverse is true in the US. Is this still the case? Certainly, twenty years or so, I found my international colleagues shocking one another.

As far as some of the far right, I think they selectively apply "Kill them all. God will know his own." I wonder if Arnaud-Amaury is an ancestor of any US politicians? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Race is definitely "important" here. Perhaps this has something to do with how Americans brought slaves in, while Brits kept them abroad. The Rodney King riots are an example. Race became "important" during WWII, and that persists. I would think that would also be true in the UK. But by "important" I suppose you mean offensive to judge one according to? I don't think there is much of a concept of "class", there is only rich and poor, so yeah race would be more important. But I can't really imagine an American making a shocking statement about "class" since it is not in our vocabulary. Likely I'm missing something again. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There's only rich and poor here, too. You hear (and read) that more and more. There was a compelling post on Salon today about America slouching toward primativism, and how it evolved on both the left and right. The Alabama governor to me is a stark example of the difference between the left and the right in the U.S., which is that the right rejects Enlightenment values. I embrace those values, and that is what makes me a liberal. --Leotardo (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this surprising in view of Bush senior's remark - "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Генгис^evolving 09:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I live in Walthamstow (E17), which is full of poor and ex-poor people of lots of races. So it's chavvy but not the least bit racist. Which is nice, since the only place in London that's cheaper to live is Dagenham, which is where the Nazis got elected to the local council - David Gerard (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Spidergoats

Spidergoats! --ZooGuard (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's so awesome it makes me want to cry. Silk producing goats. I wonder if you can still make silk cheese from the milk too? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Blasphemy

http://5secondfilms.com/watch/the_ecstasy_of_the_lord/ And oh so funny. Thunderkatz^Ho! 00:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

go here

Forum:RationalWiki Foundation board elections tmtoulouse 21:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, sweet nicotine

After 17 years enjoying a fairly heavy smoking habit I have decided to quit as there is a lot of cancer and other smoking related illnesses in my family. In about 6 hours I leave the office and drive out to meet a hypnotherapist who is going to fuck with my mind. I was skeptical at first but I know several people who have taken this route (with the same therapist) and haven't smoked since so I thought I'd give it a shot. I was a little taken aback by the cost but rationalized it when I discovered that it was going to cost me 3 weeks of smoking and I'd be saving around $2600 - $3000 dollars per year and the government continues to hike the tax on cigarettes every 6 months anyway.
Soooo wish me luck eh. Ace McAwesome 20:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck! I quit on New Year's Eve and have managed to hang in there so far. The first week was rather rough, I had massive problems to concentrate on anything, but it gets better quickly afterwards. And I'd cut back on alcohol for at least the first week or so, drinking made the craving for cigarettes really bad. Röstigraben (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I had a Christmas eve party and my friend who'd had the therapy some weeks previous was drinking, smoking spliffs (with a little tobacco) and was surrounded by smokers and had no problem. Ace McAwesome 21:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, having people around me smoke reduced my desire for cigarettes. It's only after you quit that you realize just how bad they smell. Röstigraben (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Good luck man. Gave up seven years ago, but it weren't easy. Only advice I can give is this - hypnotherapy will help but can't do everything for you, keep at the forefront of your mind that you want to give up, and be really bolshey about it, it's an attitude that will get you through the craving period.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am starting to get real fucking pissy about all the fucking hoops I have to jump though in order to get this done. I have to go so fucking far out of my fucking way and it's costing me a fortune just to get there. Fucking crashed my fucking car awhile back and the car I was going to use today is no longer an option. Trains and fucking taxis and fucking bullshit. I should just smoke instead. Ace McAwesome 22:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fucking no. Quit that fucking stuff. Anything to do it is fucking worth it. Fuck. Thunderkatz^Ho! 08:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just switch to eCigarettes instead. Not the shit ones you get on Amazon, but something like an eGo or the Tornado Tank. Vaping heaven (plus, with the UK smoking ban, and the fact that vaping isn't smoking, you can do it pubs!). I'm well chuffed with my eGo, works wonders. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Good luck, Ace. Speaking from experience, I know your gonna need all the luck you can get. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 15:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck. I had a bad habit with them about a year ago but have since kicked them/become a very occasional smoker. As long as you don't quit drinking. We need a resident drunkard. SJ ^Debaser 16:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nicotine isn't really that bad for you dept

I quit (smoking [cigarettes]) using a Nicotrol inhaler (which is an e-cig without the "e"). Pure nicotine pleasure w/o all those nasty nitrosamines and tars what fux up one's lungage. The nicotine "rains out" agin the oral mucosa where it gets into one's bloodstream...so you don't get that rush of dopamine from a freshly lit butt, but then you don't go through withdrawal either. The nicotrol was still under patent protection when I quit (2007) but came off in 2010; the heart of ecigs is basically the same thing. I expect to see the inhalers made OTC in a year or two, as evidenced by other nicotine containing products that went OTC after patent protection wore off. I have not quit (sweet sweet) nicotine as yet, from the Nicotrol I went to the lozenges to "lip candy" (aka SNUS). I had used smokeless tobacco afore, in jobs where smoking was strictly verbotten, (not surprisingly the job with the cigarette jobber [where we'd afix the official and suddenly expensive tax stamps] wasn't one of these), so had developed the art of dipping snuff w/o the need for gross spit cups. Nowadays everything is pouched up so there isn't that post chaw mess to get rid of. 19:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Smoke lettuce. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uSDbfj7v3E Thunderkatz^Ho! 19:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC) PS Or the musical version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dqTrUpmwPg)

I got quite buzzing on snus back in Sweden 2001. Although that sort of hit never returns so I never bothered continuing - pretty much true for most drugs, in fairness. But it does eventually deform your lip (unless these Swedes just had a generally odd looking faces) and your rate of gum cancer goes through the roof faster than lung cancer for the equivalent amount of smoking. ^bomination 23:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I understood much of the carcinogenic effects of smoking were because burning vegetation of any sort produces carcinogens, so why is tobacco carcinogenic when not burnt? - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably because a lot of chemicals are carcinogens. You're essentially leaking potent toxins into your blood whether it's burnt or not, and in concentrated doses in a localised area when it comes to sticking processed tobacco under your lip. The effect on cell metabolism and mutation can be quiet extreme and the ill effects are not restricted to merely the incompletely combusted oxidised products. ^bomination 01:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Gardeners used to use nicotine spray as an insecticide. That is now illegal as it was felt to be too toxic (for the gardeners).  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That is probably because nicotine is readily absorbed through the skin and small amounts can kill or poison. The amount you would ingest would probably be much smaller. I would guess there would be fears of people using a cheap insecticide on themselves. It would probably be difficult to get the dosage right. Unicow (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Chewing tobacco causes cancer. Perhaps it is the radioactive carcinogens in tobacco. It is not just carcinogens, it puts you at higher risk for heart disease, stroke, emphysema, and many other diseases.

But nicotine itself is arguably good medicine. Quiting may deprive you of medicinal effects. A better solution may be to deliver the drug without carcinogens or other poisons. Unicow (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately "delivering a drug without carcinogens or other poisons" is a little more complicated as many drugs are carcinogens or poisons. The difference is often found only in the dose-response relationship, how chronic the use is, or the method of taking it. ^bomination 20:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nicotine doesn't seem as bad as many of the other things in cigarettes. American Spirit is at least lacking the 599 additives that are approved only safe as food but anything with tobacco, doesn't seem safe. I wouldn't worry about nicotine gum, patches or lozenges. I'm not sure what the vaporizers use. It seems that nicotine has a definite medicinal value. Unicow (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't Upload a Pic?

So I'm now running Ubuntu--don't know if the problem is me or the wiki, but I can't upload pics. I navigate to the file, click "open," the dialog box closes, but no file appears on the upload page. any ideas? P-Foster (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind--it seems as if my screen cap software didn't automatically put an extension on the file name. Once I did that, it was good to go. P-Foster (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You should have left it, that screenshot lead me to read cp:Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA and I have just died a little inside. ^bomination 14:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Just be thankful that the people mentioned on that page weren't obese as well. 16:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Voted in my first real poll today (Bloomberg)

The poll was actually a poll of both finance/economics and politics on the global scale. I voted very unfavorable for everything to do with Barack Obama, Hu Jintao, and Sarah Palin. I voted favorable for David Cameron, Nick Sarkozy, and Angela Merkel. I said that the US and China were going to be the worst performing economies, with Brazil and Russia being the best. I voted on predictions for asset class returns, with commodities being highest and bonds being the worst. I said that inflation, and not deflation, was the true risk. I also said that the Fed's policy of QE2 would not work (in terms of job creation is the way I interpreted the question) and they would potentially buy more assets (that one I could have changed my answer on). ConservapediaEditor (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

How is this possible?

I am building a webpage whose CSS currently renders better in Internet Exploder than in Chrome. WHAT THE FUCK. Blue (pester) 01:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's simple. That means your CSS is broken. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How does it render in Firefox? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Firefox, Opera and Chrome are the same. The part that's rendering badly was something of a hatchet job by me, so I'll have to clean it up. Frustrating, though. I've often wondered what exactly Microsoft stands to gain from being "special." Blue (is useful) 04:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed MS browsers are good at figuring out broken code. I remember my step-dad making his first site, using MS Word, no less. All of the links on the page were hard coded to point to a local file, yet MS Explorer (6, i think) would work perfectly. I just figured it made more people put "Made for Explorer" badges, call the site good, and force people to use more MS, thus ensuring a continued monopoly. It's better today, but I remember 10 years ago, 1/2 the sites I'd try to use in Mozilla would be unusable. All would only work in Explorer. Quaru^{bassoon - You can't explain that!} 05:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I recall IE being focussed more on compatibility than correctness. There were debates in the Mozilla community as to whether or not Gecko should work around badly written HTML. worked nicely for MS because it made IE arguably more reliable. That's dredged from my memories of the time, so correct me if I'm wrong. The downside of course is that it increases the complexity of the engine. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 09:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you ran it through the W3C validator? Usually that picks up the errors that would cause it to render differently across different browsers. If you stick to the standards, it should be identical on all systems. I've certainly had problems where every browser but Firefox rendered it exactly how I wanted, cleaning it up to the standard fixed it. ^bomination 18:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have run it through the validator - 100% valid, no errors/warnings. It's valid CSS, but some of it is spaghetti CSS. And the page's HTML is nearly valid (4 errors, but unrelated - compared to the 159 HTML errors and 86 CSS errors found on the Saloon Bar). Blue (is useful) 01:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are people still using CSS? Table based layouts with transparent gif spacers are so much better. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Of death panels and Obamacare

If the Republicans succeed in repealing the health care reform law, what on Earth am I gonna do about my appointment with the death panel this summer? We were gonna meet and set a date for the grim reaper.... Oh well, I suppose getting denied health coverage because of a toothache I had 20 years ago is the next best thing! AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 07:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just have to do the old fashioned way. Behind the barn with a shotgun. Anyone want to take old yeller out? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 09:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

They won't succeed - there's no way they can garner the 60% of the Senate needed to repeal (because Obama would obviously veto). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. One Menendez and Conrad are recalled (imminent), Obama is confirmed to be ineligible for the office due to his foreign birth (any day now), and Biden resigns is disgrace after a drunken gaffe (very likely), the landscape will be much different. Surely many other Democrats will be recalled in droves, and next thing you know there'll be President Boehner, VP Palin, and at least 60 Republicans in the Senate. This is all very possible. DickTurpis (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sweet Sweet Nicotine vs. Fucked Fucked Head

So a little over 56 hours without nicotine and, boy fucking jesus, my head is fucked. I have been addicted to every drug you can name at some stage in my short(ish) life but this has been the hardest so far. To remain mentally limber during this transitory phase I have been drinking heavily and topping up on opiates but I shit you not this is one fucking tough fucking ride. Damn, I feel loose of my moorings. 17 years as a heavy smoker, half my life. I am feeling ADHD right now - one idea after the next with no relation between the two. Fuck, I really want to write a report for you of my journey from smoker to ex-smoker via some weird mulleted super-villian hypnotist but I am hammering out a journalism contract on this story so can't queer the deal by giving it away free. I'll keep ypu posted. Fucking the starngest ridweee... Ace McAwesome 09:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not easy. Tried a few times myself and always ended up as a bipolar manic depressive. Hey, you got any interesting published stuff you can link? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 09:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You just have to make it through the first week, it gets much better afterwards. For the first week, I could barely function at work and my edgyness made me not very pleasant to deal with (fortunately, the first week of the new year was rather slow as half of our staff were still on vacation and there was nothing of importance scheduled). At some point, I went to buy a few things and suddenly realized I had wandered off to a place several blocks from where I wanted to go. I'd fall asleep at 3 AM and wake up again at five, exacerbating the concentration problems during the day. But all of that subsides once your body realizes that it won't be getting any more nicotine no matter how much it keeps pestering the mind, so it might as well make things easier and play along. And getting some kind of replacement helps, for example chewing gum even without nicotine, you just have to be careful not to obsess over that stuff instead. Röstigraben (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that the 5 day point was, by far, the worst part for me. I'd been up for about 48 hours straight by that point, and was in a cold sweat the entire time with headaches and, to an extent, dillusions. After that, it was all down hill. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 10:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been sucking back beers and whisky to keep myself busy but now its nearly midnight on a sunday and I can't justify my continual drunkness on withdrawals alone. But, fuck it, I am gonna drink myself stupid and fiancee (smug fucking "never-smoke") must just fucking take it. Ace McAwesome 10:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Per our article on tobacco smoking, nicotine is quite an effective antipsychotic. This means that during the initial withdrawal, you will be an actual CRAZY PERSON! - David Gerard (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You were probably medicating your insanity, but if you must quit nicotine, you might want to get your paws on some Varenicline, it seems to be the most effective. Here are some more drugs.[8] A few things I found would help: strenuous exercise, jumping off dams; flood the brain with blood, to get those neurons or neurotransmitters to grow the right way. Sleeping pills for nigh-time (melatonin is OTC). Unicow (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Bupropion and nicotine replacement, ideally in combination, have shown the greatest benefit in randomized controlled trials. There is considerable off-label use of clonidine to ease the withdrawal, which the addiction physicians I know consider physically worse than coming off heroin. My sympathies. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The stimulants (nicotine, cocaine, meth) seem to be the most addictive. You can enter all your legal drugs into this thing and it will tell you if they have any interactions. Unicow (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly of the major drugs seen today, but barbiturate withdrawal, thankfully rare now, is an inpatient and often ICU procedure. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Any Mac OS X user want to help test a script?

I wrote this script because I was getting annoyed while adding Bible references to an article. It's an AppleScript that examines your clipboard and tries to convert it in to a link to the RW Annotated Bible. i.e. "John 3:11-14" becomes "[[Rationalwiki:Annotated Bible/John#John 3:11]]". The script is at User:Concernedresident/BibleRefScript (you can copy and paste it in to AppleScript editor, or you can download it from http://www.thenelfs.com/generallinking/bible_ref_1.scpt. Once open in Script Editor you'll see instructions on how to use it. Prod me if it works or does something odd for you. Ta. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 14:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually downloaded it by accident initially, but I thought what the heck. I got as far as opening 'preference's in script editor, but no option to show script menu in menu bar. I'm not great with these things though, so I'm probably missing something obvious. --86.45.14.184 (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's odd. What version of OS X are you running? Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In 10.5, it's "Applescript Utility" in the Applications/AppleScript folder. *just found that out because he had the same problem* --Sid (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and it seems to work for me (on 10.5.8), though I only tested it with the examples you supplied, so no thorough testing yet (since I need sleep). --Sid (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's broken. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ta, Sid. I'll give you a shout if I get some improvements done in the next couple of days. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 00:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

WoT

Just finished re-reading the Wheel of Time series (truth be told, I was caught on the hop when the new book came out, I had gotten use to two-year release dates), and I was wondering if I was the only one that has noticed how, through co-incidence, Elaida seems like such a perfect parody of Palin?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

With the difference that sane people had to listen to Elaida. 81.156.49.193 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory

Spurred on by this conversation I'd now really like to know how many people here actually enjoy The Big Bang Theory (TV Show). Personally I think its the dullest most irksome piece of shit ever filmed. Rebuttal? Ace McAwesome 19:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the reason me and my ex broke up. She enjoyed it and it made me want to die. Next question. SJ ^Debaser 19:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's by far one of the most original sitcoms to come out of the US in recent years. You know, where they've been so desperate to replace Friends that almost every TV show is "hey look, here's some kooky 20-somethings who don't seem to have real jobs yet can afford to go on crazy adventures and let's look at their love lives!" (similar to how most US dramas are basically "sexy doctors and sexy lawyers team up to solve murders against the clock on a deserted island"). TBBT doesn't really do any of that usually stuff at all as the sit in the sitcom is pretty original (albeit drawing heavily from the general "odd couple" concept). Jim Parsons' acting is award winning and deservedly so and the geek references are something not really found elsewhere on TV - well, except perhaps The IT Crowd but that's not a US TV show. If you don't get it, you either know too little about physics or too much about physics. ^bomination 19:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, it would help to provide something to actually rebut. ^bomination 19:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't get it, you either know too little about physics or too much about physics. Or you think its shit and annoying and you'd rather chew your own arm off and give head to Rosanne Barr to avoid watching it. Ace McAwesome 19:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I propose that Ace and SJ should be stripped of cratship, until such time as they watch all three seasons of TBBT on DVD. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Awful, awful shit. Third-rate, predictable humour, crap delivery, storylines and situations which I think I've seen in just about every other sitcom. Slightly more detailed opinion will follow when I'm not getting ECed every two seconds.Webbtje (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(ECx2 or 3, I wasn't counting)It's just another American sitcom where they stick a laughter track in at every sentence. It's not remotely funny. I'd argue it's worse than Two and A Half Men, but that's impossible. SJ ^Debaser 19:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Here we go. Copied and pasted from somewhere I wrote it before.

Here: main character with the kidney line. How many syllables are in that sentence? He has to awkwardly say it as quickly as possible with a funny inflection so it gets delivered quickly and snappily, which is particularly difficult when the line would make most kitchen-sink writers roll in their graves, as it tumbles over its own words and loses any kind of effect. It's just so horrifically contrived, and every joke after that suffers from it too. When he starts talking about labels, oh wait, will he say this doesn't have a label on it? Yes, he did! This isn't predictable at all.

Shit writing, shit acting.Webbtje (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, why do you watch it, then? ^bomination 19:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you rather I drew my conclusions without watching it first? Webbtje (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides, the Mrs watches it, I can't help but sit there in agony. Webbtje (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You're the only critic so far that has actually attempted to back up their assertion with some evidence beyond "I think it's shit" so I was wondering. ^bomination 19:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Line, audience laugh, line, audience laugh, line, audience laugh. I hate that format so hard, where the actors are clearly pausing for a laugh before the laugh is even there. The concept did lead to a pretty amusing parody by French and Saunders though, so it wins some points back for that. X Stickman (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you need any criticism beyond "it isn't funny", which it isn't. Once they've graduated to actually making me laugh we can talk about the finer points of plot and acting. If I compare it to recent sitcoms that have made me almost literally piss myself like Peep Show, or at least laugh at the jokes like the IT Crowd, there's no contest at all. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have seen little of it, but from the few episodes I've watched I'd say it isn't very funny in general, but there are far worse shows on TV (at least here in the US, maybe not in New Zealand). That being said, it seems they do occasionally try for somewhat intelligent humor, which can be refreshing. I have to admit, I do hate the laugh tracks on just about every show, but honestly British sitcoms are far worse in that regard than American ones. The Young Ones and Blackadder are routinely kicked in the nuts by their overuse of the most absurdly obvious canned laughter. As is the IT Crowd. DickTurpis (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Young Ones is filmed in front of an audience. As is Blackadder. I don't know about The IT Crowd though, but from what I've seen of it, I assume it is. X Stickman (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If they're filmed in front of an audience then they're an audience of automatons who immediately laugh uproariously and deafeningly at the slightest of jokes and fall silent suddenly on cue. I'd take a subdued laugh track over that, or, better yet, no laughter at all. All the best current sitcoms do much better without any laughter. That's one reason The Office worked so well. DickTurpis (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Young Ones main set is basically a stage with cameras pointed at it. Hell, the audience actively interacts with the cast in at least two episodes. Blackadder series 1 might have used it at least partially since it had tons of on-location stuff, but series 2 onwards was a studio audience. In fact as far as I know, canned laughter has never seen much use in British TV (although I could be wrong). Hell the main (original) canned laughter thing was literally a big box that could be played like a piano, invented, owned and operated by *one guy* who would loan his services out to studios that wanted it. Crazy history. X Stickman (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Canned laughter (far more interesting)

Perhaps they edit the sound track, because if that's a live audience there are many times in which it shuts off immediately, and it is way too loud. It really ruins the shows at times. The 2nd episode of the 4th season of Blackadder is hilarious, but the damn laughter drowns out everything else, fucking up the humor. 30 Rock is one of my current favorite shows, and it has no laughter at all, but when they did a live episode in front of a studio audience the laughter made the whole thing seem like a poor parody. DickTurpis (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much every show that has a laugh track of any kind will use canned laughter techniques at least partially. It's necessary if you want to cut between scenes or hide edits and such, so that might be what you're hearing. There's also a sketch in a Young Ones episode set on a golf course that deliberately uses incredibly obvious canned laughter (because it's parodying the type of shows that use canned laughter) so that might be what you're thinking of.

Sorry for taking this whole thing off-topic by the way. I got into a... heated debate about canned laughter/laugh tracks (which is a ridiculous thing to argue about but there you go) in the past and it's left me with a hair trigger on the subject. X Stickman (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember that Young Ones scene, and yeah, that was obvious parody, but even the rest of the show had laughter that was way too overbearing, be it canned or natural. I guess newer shows that succeed so well without any sort of background laughter have illustrated just how unnecessary and annoying it can be. 30 Rock, Arrested Development, The Office (both versions), and several other shows have perhaps spoiled me and made me annoyed whenever I hear background laughter (the only comedy I currently watch that employs it is How I Met Your Mother, and it is subdued enough to be almost unnoticeable). I'm sure some of that is just differences in what we've come to expect in different eras. DickTurpis (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that the IT Crowd does not use canned laughter. Graham Linehan (the writer) gets very touchy about that, and is liable to go beserker on you you if you mention it. Worm^{(t | c)} 09:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

BBT - fist season ok (wow - nerds fall for hot neighbour, there's an original plot) rest trite. IT Crowd otoh, is teh awesome. And I just want to speak for one US sitcom that seems to get no love, but I think is great - Factory. Good dialogue, clever comedy and not a canned laugh in sight. --Ψ GremlinParla! 10:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You totally sure about that? There are some scenes in the ITC that it does sound like the laughter is pre-recorded, such as this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWc3WY3fuZU . FreeThought (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel it's right to generalise either way about audiences.

• A: You have to remember that a lot of performers have a background in sketch shows and stand up, and genuine audiences help them get their timing right, as it's assumed that people at home will react in more or less the same way. A lot of actors will also have general theatrical experience, where audience reaction is arguably just as vital, even if it's more passive. This is only partly true, of course, as studio audiences are almost always warmed up before the shooting starts in order to make sure they'll be guffawing away.
• B: Genuine laughter is contagious. We've all had moments when everyone in the room is in fits of laughter and can't breathe because of it; hearing laughter, I reckon, really does get you in a more jolly mood. You'll note I've said 'genuine' - truly canned laughter is very off-putting and is little more than signposting for any thickos watching. I particularly remember one series of Red Dwarf when they started shooting without an audience, and you could spot the recorded laughs as they only used half a dozen different ones.
• C: It's largely a tonal choice. Different kinds of humour get used on TV. The UK Office - I haven't seen the US one - would be awful with canned/studio laughter, as it's slow-burning and isn't a gag a minute. It's the epitome of the sitcom, if you think about it, as it's the situation and characters which are funny (and tragic) instead of gags.
• D: I think about this nonsense too much. Forgive me. Everything I have said, however, is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it's still a fact.Webbtje (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Laff Tracks are almost always edited, no different to how every other aspect is edited. Rarely because a joke hasn't gone down well, though, and more often because the audience reaction has gone over the top and is killing it. I think it was Fawlty Towers that suffered quite badly from this. There's also the issue that a reaction to a joke is awesome, but then the actor fluffs a line and they have to redo it. They may fluff a punchline and give it away so the second time around the reaction just sucks (check out the deleted scenes of Timothy Spall fluffing his lines in Red Dwarf). So they're usually spliced in with recordings and edited. In the case of Red Dwarf VII, the track is real, but it was from recordings of the episodes played to an audience rather than live - mostly because Chris Barrie hates live audiences, IIRC, and it allows them to do more stuff that isn't studio based. When they completely switched it off for Back to Earth you could tell, and it didn't flow as smoothly, I think. The track is usually there for the benefit of anyone watching at home who might be laughing and would miss the next line if the action didn't pause - it was invented long before the DTR, obviously. The shows that usually neglect to use it are single-camera ones rather than mutli-camera shows with single sets and a magic forth wall. I don't think I can think, of the top of my head, of a single-camera show with a laugh track - 30 Rock, Peep Show, The Office, for example, and Scrubs which is notable because it did an episode where it switched to a multi-camera video set up and added an audience reaction track. Probably because it would be really weird if it didn't look like an audience was actually there (which comes from developing television from theatre, I assume) - so I don't think it's as much to do with the tone of humour, although you could say that, generally, multi-camera sitcoms work directly on punchlines while the others work around the absurdity of the situations. After all, if there isn't a live audience, you can't get away with a straight forward punchline because you'd have to artificially pause the action to let the home audience catch up - which brings us messily back to why the tracks are there in the first place. ^bomination 14:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no as far as editing is concerned. In recent years there's certainly been more editing, but compare this with Flying Circus, where most of the studio stuff was done in one take (you hear them fluff the occasional line, Cleese, Palin and Jones would also crack up once in a while). As far as I'm concerned, that instantly makes studio-recorded scenes more exciting, as there's the risk that it'll all fall apart, and it takes a real professional to be able to pull off the perfect take the first time round. Same with the earlier Cook and Moore stuff like NO...BA - Cook turned making Moore corpse into an artform, and the ad libs were often the best bit. That said, I do have a feeling NO...BA was actually broadcast live, which would explain it. As for Red Dwarf, it was in series 7 that I noticed a recurring laugh - I suspect that it was because the material was often really quite weak, or the laugh the audience gave was, in some way or other, not what they were expecting. Anyway, yes, laugh track/audience/silence is, these days, decided on the basis of the tone of the individual show, and it's unfair to generalise either way. The audience's presence is largely a left-over from a time where shows were done in one take or even live. Webbtje (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I, at least, would love to be able to see and episode of Blackadder or Young Ones without any laughter, so I can judge for myself whether it helps in any way. At the very least they need to turn the volume down on it; it's overbearing. Perhaps the styles of modern comedies are significantly different, and obviously the mockumentary styles of The Office and Modern Family require no laugh track at all, but I can't help thinking that the humor isn't that different between some of these shows. If I recall, when M*A*S*H started there was an argument over whether to use canned laughter (they obviously couldn't use a live audience) and they decided to use it, but not in the OR scenes. Those scenes always seem to work much better.

(By the way, am I the only one who is starting to get a bit annoyed that the US Office really hasn't explained why there are these cameras everywhere, and that they seem very inconsistent with the acknowledgement of them?) DickTurpis (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Red Dwarf series 7 was filmed entirely without an audience, and then the full episode was shown to a live audience later to record their reactions. You can hear recurring laughs possibly because the cast was sitting in the audience for each show, so their laughter will be on each episode and is likely to stay the same. That said, series 7 was pretty much the worst so that's the one most likely to have fake laughter added. Other shows have used the same idea, like Big Train (a sketch show that was filmed 99% on location) and Last of the Summer Wine (also pretty much totally on location). Film the sketches/episode, show it to an audience, record laughter. Like I (and ADK) said above, if there's a laugh track at all, even a live studio audience one, there will be some editing of it. It's impossible not to. Using monty python as an example, you can't go from a studio sketch to an on-location sketch without editing the laugh track unless you want it to abruptly stop when the cut occurs. They'll add laughs, remove laughs, extend laughs, shorten them, fade them in/out etc to do whatever the editor/director thinks is necessary to keep the flow of the show.

As for laugh tracks in general, I think they have their place. Most shows recorded with a laugh track fall flat without one, and most shows recorded without one will fall flat with one. Take the laugh track off The Young Ones, and it's weird. Add a laugh track to The Royle Family and it's weird. Just part of the multi/single camera setup differences, though. There's far more difference between The Royle Family and Fawlty Towers than just the addition of a laugh track.

P.S as a possible example, when Hannah-Barbera started remastering some of their old cartoons (like The Flintstones) for new releases, they've been removing the laugh tracks. I haven't heard/seen the "new" episodes but apparently without the laughs they're crap. X Stickman (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean The Flintstones wasn't filmed in front of a live audience? DickTurpis (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What about cameras in The Office? The concept is that it's a documentary, so I imagine the US version has gone on so long that you're likely to see them breaking the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh walls with that. ^bomination 15:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The concept is sort of that it's a documentary, but they never acknowledge or justify it, and it never seems to affect anyone's behavior, as it certainly would. There are tons of scenes they use in the show that a documentary crew clearly wouldn't be filming, and no one would film the mundane workings of a paper company for seven years. I don't think the UK Office ever acknowledged the documentation either, and it was unclear whether it was actually meant to be a mockumentary of just styled as one until the final special when they make reference to Brendt becoming a minor celebrity after the documentary aired. I realize one has to do some suspension of disbelief in these cases, but things like that always still bug me a bit. I'm somewhat a literalist in these matters. DickTurpis (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they acknowledge it directly, in the manner of This Is Spinal Tap, but they do interviews and the characters clearly "act up" for the cameras. I think it's pretty clear throughout although more like "found footage", as if they filmed the documentary but just couldn't be arsed to put it together and add a narrator. I suppose the brevity of the UK version makes more sense in the fact that there's less of the stuff that a documentary crew wouldn't plausibly film (or wouldn't be able to film) and that, indeed, who the fuck would film an office like that for so long. All of that stuff is like the crew are catching it accidentally or just in an ad hoc manner, which lends to the plausibility a little. Though I haven't seen any of the US version to compare it against (the US doesn't exactly have a great track record when it comes to remaking UK shows; Red Dwarf (good when they use an original joke, just plain bad elsewhere), IT Crowd (ultimately pointless as it was the exact same script, and making all the characters "Hollywood Hot" sort of defied the point), Life On Mars (which is like the UK version but dumbed down and missing the point) and so on...). ^bomination 16:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to check my DVDs when I get home but I'm sure the first episode of The Office had a voiceover (Robert Powell?) or was that just a pilot?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The US has had some successful remakes of UK shows, though. Sanford & Son was a remake of Steptoe & Son, Cosby was a remake of One Foot in the Grave and... well that's all I can think of. Those two shows were pretty popular though. X Stickman (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The US does a terrible job when they try to do direct remakes. Coupling, I heard, was the worst in this sense (never saw the very short lived American version, so I can't compare). They have a slightly better track record when they actually remake the show, not just refilm it with American accents. The Office got off to a shaky start, as they tried to steal too much of the original, but once they started doing their own thing it got a lot better. When they let Dwight be his own guy instead of an American Gareth (which really didn't work) they ended up with a great character.

But back to the documentary thing for a bit, the parts where the characters talk directly to the camera are about the only part of the show which makes it seem like a documentary at all. There are tons of times it make no sense to have a crew filming (I'm talking about the US version here): the wedding, going out on jobs where the camera is mounted on the hood, Dwight and Angela's trysts in the warehouse, etc. Then there's times like [spoiler alert] when a jealous Michael (the boss) trashed his ex-girlfriend's Woody the Cowboy doll her current boyfriend gave to her, right in front of the cameras. Additionally, when trying to figure out who did it, no one said "let's check the footage!" Yeah, I'm probably being a bit anal here. It doesn't really bother me, but it is kind of inconsistent. DickTurpis (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat relevant Onion link. DickTurpis (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

US v UK Coupling. It's the whole "Hollywood Hot" thing that gets me... ^bomination 19:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"It's the whole 'hollywood hot' thing that gets me..." heh... look what they did to Red Dwarf. Yes that is Jadzia Dax as The Cat. X Stickman (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Although I was fairly fond of their Lister by the end of it. (and to bring it back to the canned laughter thing, the track on the US Coupling is one of the most forced I've seen. Ever.) ^bomination 20:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the UK version of Mad About You was also crappy, so it's not just the Americans that make crummy remakes. Vulpius (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably. Compare this list to this list. The UK has exported more, so there's more scope to fuck it up. ^bomination 02:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything Wikipedia doesn't have? Vulpius (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

On another note

I find it hilarious that this discussion is so large - we're a website by and for skeptics, but what do we spend most of our time talking about? Sitcoms and laugh tracks. (And before anyone asks, I am fan of TBBT. Sorry Ace and SJ.) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

TVtropes calls. Webbtje (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We're allowed to act like idiots occasionally... ^bomination 20:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Only on day's ending with "y". (fan here too)--Thanatos (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Moment of existential clarity

RW is CP's "laugh-track". C®ackeЯ

Conservapedia Day 2010

Did we give any awards for it? I'm drawing a total blank and can't seem to find any links to it... SJ ^Debaser 13:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

IIRC we all got really excited about it, some of us even dug up potential awardees, then somebody said, "ohh! Something shiny!" and the rest is history... --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 14:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It was vetoed in favour of general non-CP related awards, & then those got rained off due to apathy. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for interest

Well, it amused me. Thanks Miss Cellania Him (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is science under attack

For the Brits among us: Horizon tonight Him (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, it's already programmed on my PVR. Генгис^evolving 19:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck will Never Learn

If this lady dies, Beck will be more hard up than Palin after the shootings in Arizona. Seriously, his whole defense over the last month was that he hates violence and doesn't use violent rhetoric. But with Glenn shrugging off fans making death threats against one of his targets, one has to wonder how this man has any credibility--Thanatos (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link. try this one. P-Foster (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The quote from Beck at the end of the article hurts my head. I admit to not knowing about this situation. I'll have to do some reading to find out what Beck is on about this time. Majintahu (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki to wiki mass import

Okay, a question to our resident (wiki) techies: Is there a halfway comfortable way of mass-importing a bunch of pages from one (Media)wiki to another when you don't have root/terminal/whatever access on the origin server (so it's not as easy as doing a command-line folder and database backup)?

I mean, sure, I can mass-export wikitext and even history if I have to. And I can grab the few CSS and Javascript files to avoid things looking/acting in a weird way. But it's the images that bother me. I don't think that MW offers anything for that, but I'm not certain. Would I have to result to script hackery to grab the (tons of) images?

Any answer appreciated, even if it's just confirmation that there is no good solution. (As a disclaimer, it's nothing vital, though it would be nice. And as an additional disclaimer, it's not related to RW/WP/CZ/CP/CW/aSK/etc.) --Sid (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Egosurfing

While googling my own name, as I (and probably everyone with an internet connection) am want to do on occasion, I discover my name is shared by a Democrat Representative. I am very pleased that is voting record is very much in support of all things that I would vote for in the same position. Its good to know he isn't abusing my good name. I also share the name of some kind of cage fighter. I do not know what his moral views are, but I'm not going to question him. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I knew your name was Raúl Grijalva!

DickTurpis (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a man with an impressive tashAMassiveGay (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I appear to share my name with an Australian male model and an Australian piano teacher. They might be the same person. The model looks nothing like me, though I did at one point play the piano. Тиранес^complaints 00:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

2 MLB players (one current), a catholic bishop, a speed skater, a golfer, and an American poet.--Thanatos (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I, apparently, seem to make documentary films, sell oriental carpets, was the Asia-Pacific Editor of Ethical Corporation, and have also graced my name to a Landscape Architectural Research and Design Centre, being one of the pioneers of modernism in landscape architecture. Go me!-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am an artist, a B grade actor, an archeologist and a baseball player. Not much else - my name is fairly uncommon. Ace McAwesome 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of actors, another of my namesakes has been 2nd Scientist in at least two filmsAMassiveGay (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I was the Secretary General of the UN from 1953 to 1961, Prime Minister of Vietnam from 1955 to 1981, and Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1589 to 1603. who knew? DickTurpis (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is not one single other person on planet Earth with my name so I'm left to shudder at my very real infamy every time I Google myself. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I apparently share a name with an insurance salesman in Florida. That's about it. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 01:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Back in the 90s all I could find with the same name as myself was an Australian DJ in Alice Springs and I had more Google results. Now I can find half a dozen or so people with the same name but have difficulty in locating myself. I for one am happy to be reverting back to anonymity on the internet. Генгис^evolving 09:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I share my name with a relatively notable comic book artist. This has actually been something of a problem for me, because I am a comic book fan, and when I give out my name in fan circles, I always get asked if I'm him.

Back in the days when UseNet was still worthwhile, I was a regular on the comics forums. I was actually an FAQ. This was before Internet access was ubiquitous, so one of the questions was "is (list of comics pros names you might see on UseNet) really that pro?" The answer was "if it's the same name as a writer, it is the writer. If it's the same name as an artist, it's not the artist."

I was at the Baltimmore Comicon a couple of years ago, and, as I was leaving for the day, I heard someone call out my name. I replied, and they asked if I would be at the con the next day. I said I would, and they asked if I'd sign some books. My reply was, "I will, but I don't think you want me to. I'm not him, we just share the same name."

There's also a bluesman with the same name with me, but I know nothing about him. MDB (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You see, I thought my name was uncommon, but apparently it's only uncommon in the areas I've lived in. Interesting.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am out of song lines at this point

Anyone ever been to Vienna? What is worth seeing there and doing? I was told that the opera is over priced, poorly done and aimed at only the tourists (maybe they have a special season where they do it properly for the locals). - π 11:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You could go to the Big Pig Jig barbecue cooking competition. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking about the original Vienna in Austria. However, if I am ever in Georgia I will be sure to go, looks like a hoot. - π 13:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

On a more serious note, you might be interested in the wp:Musikverein. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I will defiantly check it out. - π 13:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of song lines: your daily dose of XKCD

Vienna is beautiful, I'm acrophobic & unwisely went up in the big ferris wheel in Prater ["Third Man", anyone?] awful but magic - that was 50 years ago though so don't take my word for it. The Danube valley is terrific & worth a boat trip. Architecturally it is (was?) really terrific - I'd go back there in a flash, given the means. Him (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I just had a Shawshank moment. The WP Musikverein article says it is located on Dumbass Street. Heh. heh. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sick case

Seriously what's wrong with people? Tehmizzus yesterday escalated a case to the crown court of a (married) 40-something guy who worked in a care home who was caught red handed raping an 83 year old woman who is almost completely paralysed and has mental health issues, after removing her incontinence pad of course. I do wonder where the human race is going sometimes. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's sick. I cannot understand some of the things that turn some people on.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The real sick thing is that those people won't understand what turns you on! That would be why they do it right? Pegasus (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Chicken Coop

Is this were we still deal with trolling and other non-cool behaviour? P-Foster (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's where we have HCMs. -- Nx / talk 18:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Never drinking again

Apparently I was found unconscious on a park bench last night... ^bomination 18:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The amount of times I've said that the morning after. A friend of mine once walked directly through a bush and fell on his face when pissed. One of the funniest things I've ever seen someone do. SJ ^Debaser 19:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Blimey, been found in strange places about the house, but never on a bench. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 19:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Pfffft, that's nothing. Ace McAwesome 20:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, some of us prefer to keep this sort of thing to a yearly, rather than weekly, basis. ^bomination 20:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you still have your shoes and wallet? Тиранес^complaints 02:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's nothing. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I can honestly say I don't know anyone who has come close to something like that. ^bomination 01:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I once got horrendously drunk in Manchester Met's Student Union the week after student loans came in. To cut a long story short, the people Manchester Airport are surprisingly helpful to people who are obviously drunk trying to buy one-way tickets. And so there I was, waking up at about 11am, horribly hungover, in Malaga. ^EXTERMINATE 01:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol is good for social anxiety, and that's about it. Maybe it works different for others, makes me feel groggy. Someone gave me a few Guinness today. I like the taste but it is putting me to sleep. Unicow (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I started smoking was because of social anxiety. Than I grew the fuck up and realised that was what alcohol was for. SJ ^Debaser 02:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I "started" in a "drug-free" dance club that catered to minors. They sold cigarettes and the place was filled with smoke. I think I got addicted that way. Unicow (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I just don't understand what is so bad about passing out on a park bench? I pitched myself down a concrete flight of stairs and cracked my ribcage at a work function whilst on several hard drugs and liquor before waking up naked next to a co-worker in a bus shelter some years ago. Then I went to work the next day covered in bruises, limping noticably while concerned that I had contracted herpes and applied for the position of Health and Safety Officer for my floor. So, ADK, what's the problem? Ace McAwesome 06:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. true story......Ace McAwesome 06:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you need the validation you can just ask. ^bomination 18:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I need nothing. Was merely trying to explain that waking up on a park bench is not so terrible by contrasting it with an extreme case of public drunkenness. I also hope to amuse. Validation by the RW community means very little to me. Ace McAwesome 20:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A person who is definitely not me once pissed the bed I was so drunk. I mean he. He was so drunk. SJ ^Debaser 21:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I used to think I loved alcohol. Last night I drank half of one beer (and ate some chocolates too late). I couldn't sleep, my nose got all stuffed up and I was a lethargic mess. I guess the insomnia could be explained by the sugar and theobromine, but the alcohol feels about as bad as good. I still love the bitter bubbly beer flavor, so I will finish them slowly. Unicow (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had some interesting waking up stories. On one occasion I went out after work with coworkers to a bar where we finished several of those large boots filled with beer. I remember leaving, but I didn't remember anything else. I woke up the next morning at my apartment, not having lost anything but not knowing how I got home. Apparently after I left the bar I kept running around town, literally running, calling my friend on the phone and telling him the intersections I was passing so he could come find me. When he did manage to find me, I was at a laundromat for some reason. Apparently I also started ripping signs out of a local politician's lawn and stripped down to my underwear. My friend made sure I got dressed and later walked me home. I had another time a few years before that when I was a student living in the dorms, where I woke up and I had lost everything: belt, pants, wallet, jacket, video iPod, and I woke up with my underwear on backwards, having thrown up in my laundry basket. My pants and wallet were found in the girls' bathroom a floor up from mine and everything else was nowhere to be found, although I had been seen wandering the dorm hallways wearing only my shirt. Good times? ScientificRigor (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

When I worked in Saudi Arabia during the 70s people would usually leave the country via Bahrain where you could get you first alcohol after many weeks/months abstinence. It was not unknown for people to miss their flights after overindulging in the airport bar. One of my co-workers who was flying back to London was woken on the plane by the stewardess as they were due to land. He could find neither his shirt nor shoes but at least he still had on a pair of shorts and was in possession of his wallet. It was December so he just went straight to the Hertz desk and hired a car to get home rather than the public transport he normally used. Генгис^evolving 11:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A hypothesis on abortion and Republicans

This is a thought I've had for a while, but since CP is full of March for Life coverage, I'm posting it now...

The absolute thing for the Republican Party would be for abortion to become illegal.

Ever since the 1980 election (at least), that has been the issue that has driven Christian conservatives to be the most loyal Republican voters.

There were some cracks in the block in 2008 -- there were some (not many, but a noticeable number) of younger Christian conservativs who said, "we don't like Obama's stance on abortion, but we think he's the better candidate on a lot of other social issues."

The gay rights issue is never going to drive voters to the polls like abortion did, because while Christian conservatives do view it as an important moral issue, they don't view it as saving innocent life. Beyond the marriage issue, most of them are saying "yeah, we think it's a sin, but it's one that only effects the sinner."

If abortion became illegal, then I think a lot of Christian conservatives would give both parties a much more even evaluation. Perhaps not enough for Christian conservatives to be considered reliable Democrats, but deinitely weakening the Republican party. MDB (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have often thought the same thing myself, although I actually think evangelical Christians would go back to not voting. Prior to 1980 evangelical preachers used to actually encourage their congregations not to vote and instead focus on salvation. Abortion, and the IRS threatening to take away non-profit status to Southern Christian colleges that practiced racial discrimination, is what activated a group that was apathetic to politics before. Since the Supreme Court is not likely to overturn Roe vs Wade any time soon, Republican have the luxury of passing anti-abortion legislation which is only going to get struck down by the courts meaning they can grandstand on the issue and never actually have it go away, like in 1984 and the perpetual war. As an added bonus they also can blame the Supreme Court for their failings to criminalize abortion giving them an "enemy" to run against. - π 12:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, though I don't think just overturning Roe would be enough, unless the Court went completely wild and declared "life begins at conception, fetuses have equal protection under the law". If they "merely" overturned it, that would shift the battle to the state level, and that would be a bonanza for the Republicans, because you would have constant fights at the state level about abortion. They could use the issue just like they used gay marriage, to get conservative voters to the polls at the state level. MDB (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I really would like to eliminate surgical abortion except in the most dire cases. However, that would first entail proper sex education for all and easy access to effective contraception including the morning-after pill.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually in agreement with you on that, and I think a lot of pro-choice people are, too -- we'd like to see a lot fewer abortions, but we want that to come about because:

• No woman ever has sex against her will.
• Birth control is 100% effective, and easily available.
• Comprehensive sex education is provided to children.

I also realize the unlikeliness of those ever being achieved. MDB (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

But surely you can at least try to get those. The people who want to ban abortion would happily have the exact opposite of those things so long as abortion was banned. "Abortion is evil but rape at knife point is okay!!" Fuck them. Pegasus (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No you are wrong. Many of those who want to ban abortion are also against comprehensive and truthful sex education for children and effective, cheap, easily-available contraception, while upholding marital rape. Генгис^evolving 11:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the "against sex education" also leads to the amusing case where every little girl knows to know never to have an abortion if pregnant... but doesn't have a clue about how to actually get pregnant. ^bomination 20:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Alot

I'm seeing more and more people using the term "alot" instead of "a lot". Where did that come from? Did someone change the spelling in the dictionary and not let me know? Worse is when people use "allot" instead, thinking it means "a lot" rather than "allotted". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I had an old English teacher who literally beat it into us that there are three words or phrases you should avoid using: "a lot", "got", and "nice." People writing "alot" should be summarily executed. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 16:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

My teacher would agree with yours and add that "very" should be used at most once every thousand words. Very good advice. I agree with your execution plan for "alot" though. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And straight away someone on one of the marine forums I visit uses it[9]. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 17:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The one that gets my goat is when people write "alright." As I had beaten in to me (but I'm much better now! *twitch*) alright = all wrong. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 10:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

My freshman year in high school, our English teacher let us grade our own tests and tell him the grades. (A debatable choice, but not the the point here...) His rule was that if you told him you got "a hunnerd" rather than "one hundred", you got "fifty" instead. MDB (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Praying before fucking.

Third paragraph in. Seriously? Has anyone here ever encountered such behaviour IRL? P-Foster (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen chastity rings. I don't know how honest their wearers are, but they do exist. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

For what we are about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful. Генгис^evolving 22:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Also, it's incredibly hypocritical of the author to criticize Christians for getting too wrapped up in the idea of chastity and then advising, "The sex life of a Christian single person is not having sex - yet." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought pre-sex prayer is an alternative for Viagra. Vulpius (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If I was about to get freaky with a girl and she started praying, I'd think it would be some kind of anti-viagra. "May the lord watch over me" *shudder* Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am simultaneously bemused and horrified. I also agree with Crundy. Тиранес^complaints 22:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Same. I don't remember hearing the "no kissing before marriage" rule either, but maybe I'm just not old enough. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm 20, I've heard of no kissing on the lips before marriage, and when I was young(<17), my mother would fast forward such scenes in movies. Тиранес^complaints 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm 35 and have heard of never kissing her on the lips that she never kisses with before marriage, but beyond that, no.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have known people who don't kiss. They were fine with rimming though. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm just so sick of your anti-Christian nonsense. You show me one place where the bible says rimming and assplay isn't a-fucking-okay and I'll stand down but until you do that, good sir, you're a bigot. A BIGOT. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Catholics are always kissing the pope's ring AMassiveGay (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not his bacon ring, that we know of. But that's beside the point. Like all athiests(est!) you've failed to answer the inquiry with anything but ridicule. You are a toad, sir. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 03:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ribbit AMassiveGay (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have miss read this section as both, "Paying before fucking" and "Praying for fucking". - π 01:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind if the Mrs-Psy-To-Be prays before nookie, but a lady shouldn't talk with her mouth full. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 10:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Zing! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)