RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive97

This is an archive page, last updated 8 April 2011. 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>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <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)

Charlie Brooker on Rebecca Black

Sounds rude, but is actually quite funny. Linky (I'll remove it in a bit because C4 get quite arsey about posting their stuff online). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you be leaving the link up until Friday. This is the day which precedes Saturday, which is itself followed by Sunday. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 14:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And also the day you mop the fucking floor! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that one. I've been looking for this clip for friggin' ages. ^moral 14:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear Jebus. Just when I thought jumped up little succubi, spewing forth great swadges of medicocrity, couldn't get any worse... this is actually one of those times I'd like to see Simon Cowell lay into the little tart. God, it started with Debbie Gibson and it's gone downhill from there... --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it started when Lanny Toe Basqueemps Albano picked up a big stick and hit a dirt pocket. (Got it George?) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Was the world-class inconsistency in jumping from Bill O' Reilly-style frowniness over cyber-bullying to some rather cruel Bieber-bashing over the span of about a second intentional? Pretty funny all the same though. What do folk here think of 10 O' Clock live so far? Grumblejaws (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Intentional, surely. As he says, extended vitriol only works when the joke is on the ranter just as much as the recipient. This is pretty much true of most of Brooker's stuff, there are times when you think "this just isn't funny" but then it's not supposed to be, like when he wrote about Jan Moir's homophobic screed about Stephen Gately or lambasted the media for blowing Jade Goody's racism out of proportion. And to the second question: the ranting is incredible (cf. David Mitchell's Soapbox), Carr's gags are on form, and Brooker is, well, what do you expect from the guy who does Newswipe? On the other hand, the "sketches" are... slowly improving, Lauren Laverne is... not offensive to look at and the interviews are... probably too short to come to a conclusion. Perhaps if they had cut time away from the sketches and Laverne trying to lean more to the left than someone who had just had their left leg shot off and given the extra minutes to the panel section chaired by David Mitchell it would be an improvement, although then it would run the risk of being too serious, which isn't a bad thing because proper satire (and apparently British satire in particular) doesn't have to be funny - indeed, it's at its most powerful when the punchline makes you curl up in the corner with horror rather than piss yourself on the floor. Take Bremner, Bird and Fortune for example, particularly their segments that lead up just before an ad break, they usually have some pretty grimdark grimdarkness going on there. ^moral 08:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, the only thing funny about the Friday craze was Conan's parody Thursday. I just can't seem to understand bashing her- she didn't even write the song or edit the video, ARK did all that. And besides, I can't really discern how this song is noticeably worse than, oh, 99% of all music produced over the past several decades. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember that chick on YouTube who was all blissed out at the Japanese earthquake?

Troll. P-Foster (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No way! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I never could have guessed... ^moral 07:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In many ways, that makes it worse than if she had been doing it out of some warped religious conviction. If anything, she needs more hate directed against her. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel I should mention out my theory on determining parody and escaping Poe's Law - that is one of attitude, rather than content. Anyone can make any message they like sincere or otherwise, and that's what Poe's Law refers to, but the way its presented is often a dead giveaway. Specifically, her doe-eyed attitude and voice with a sense of awe and wonder was somewhat at odds with the vengeful God message. This is a strange combination you rarely see in real fundamentalists, who tend to be either happy-clappy-Jesus-is-so-freaking-awesome types or raging-God-is-a-vengeful-bastard type. Very rarely, if ever, do these two mix in the manner of said troll, where she took the demeanor of all-smiles all-the-time Christian Union type but the message of a real cuntish fundie pastor (both make me vomit slightly, but in different ways). That rang the "parody" alarm bell a-ringing immediately for me. But anyway...

Hmmm... while I agree it certainly doesn't invert any hurt caused and certainly still makes her out as a moron (albeit a different type of moron) I don't think it's worse. The effect - the words used and people's reaction - would be the same whether it was fake or sincere and that doesn't change the message or what people feel about it. If you turn this on its head, thinking it's worse to do it for "teh lulz" effectively means it's better to do it out of religious conviction and ignorance instead, as if you're absolved just by the act of believing. I don't think that should be the case, whether you're spouting homophobia, calling God to cause earthquakes or relying on faith healing until your baby dies of malnutrition. That would effectively give religion a bit of a free ride, which I'm obviously against. What you say is what you say and it's either contemptible or commendable regardless of the motive. ^moral 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Good segment on The One Show (from about the beginning but skip about 1-2 mins in if you can't be arsed with the titles). Fairly comprehensive and covers a lot of the recent Science & Technology Committee findings and advice. At least for those who can get iPlayer - if it pops up on YouTube I'll dump a link here too. ^moral 09:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Chemist in the house?

Ethylene glycol

Propylene glycol

Anyone know if it's possible to easily test for the presence of ethylene glycol in a bottle of propylene glycol? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but please tell us why.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

GCMS. Or do you mean something you can do at home? ^moral 14:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Something I can do at home. I know someone who has access to a GC-MS machine though, so I'm trying to convince her to test for me. @Lilly: I bought a huge bottle of PG/Nicotine mix for making eLiquid up for my eCig, but there has been problems in the past with China-sourced PG being contaminated, and I think this supplier got theirs from China. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of that you can conceivably do "at home" would be a density test. Although you'd still need some very precise equipment (for measuring weight and volume) to do it and it doesn't account for the possibility of other contaminants. GCMS is going to be your best bet by far as the work required to convince someone to do it for you is probably less than procuring precision equipment. If you can find a batch number, someone (especially if contaminants are known to occur from that source) may have already done the hard work and you just need to look it up. ^moral 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I emailed the supplier to ask if they did batch tests, no response. What about using a refractometer? PG and DEG have different refractive indexes, so if I could get some pure PG with the same amount of nic dissolved as a base solution then could I use my fish tank salinity refractometer? Or are the RIs to close to detect any difference? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If one of them is hallucinogenic and the other one isn't, you could try sending some to Ace and asking him if it had any effect.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly not. One is a nice safe smooth vape, and the other will give you health problems. I did find some chemical tests, but it seems they don't differentiate between 1,2 glycols, so they would react with the PG as well. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A refractive index test would also work. Though it has the same caveats as a density measurement. You have to test a pure solution of both compounds you're testing to act as baselines and interpolate linearly between them. That you've said you bought something with nicotine mixed in causes a little bit more of a problem because that would also interfere with the measurement, so you'd have to ensure you get that concentration bang on for your calibration solutions. But like with the density, because the molecules are similar you are looking at a very small difference, so whether you could see it is dependent on your equipment. If you're talking about contaminations less than 10%, I don't think you'll be able to detect it at home. It's a trick you can just about pull off with wine to work out the %Vol of alcohol, trying to find relatively small contaminantion in an industrial solution needs a lot more precision. ^moral 16:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For posterity I've added the images of the two things in question from Commons. They are pretty damn similar, which is why kitchen-based chemical tests aren't going to distinguish them. ^moral 16:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you guys see this?

did you guys see this current event?? wow. it's going on right now and i have an opinion about it. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I Saw That And Considered It Quite A Thing. I Daresay Many Others Have Varying Opinions. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Verily let us go forth and debate it forsooth. Тy^Talk. 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. My opinion about it is strong, and I don't think anybody else will agree with me. But I won't be a douche about it. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 15:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr. ^moral 16:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

AIG's Ark Park wins 2011 "Upchucky Award"

The NCSE awarded Answers in Genesis this year's Upchucky award (courtesy Greg Laden) --Scream!! (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent Changes erase user script?

There's a script out there to block particular users from my Recent Changes. Nothing personal against anyone, but things like the Russian project are of no interest to me and I'd love to clear things up a bit. Thanks. P-Foster (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're using Firefox, you could trivially adapt the Kenscript to do the job. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Real men read every diff in tabs. Тy^Talk. 22:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

hmpf.

Search "conservative hate" at conservapedia. Heheh Rationalize (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to talk:wigo CP? ħuman 04:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Site crash

Anyone know what happened? Тy^Talk. 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Gremlins....shhhh. 20:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What?! Wasn't me. Uh-huh. I was... uh... busy all night long. Ask Nutty, hell tell you. --PsyGremlinSprich! 11:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Tech blog was screaming server loads of the low 30s. Тy^Talk. 20:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It was conservative vandals. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And back down to medium. ^moral 20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing seems to be trending anywhere so it's not a slashdot this time. That said, does the tech blog's server meter still work with the new hosting? ^moral 20:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a runaway proccess and yes it still works but the interpretation of the numbers is no longer valid, the "low" "medium" "high" is based on a machine with much fewer cores than we have now. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Although it's only anecdotal, I'm convinced I'm often the reason RW crashes. Particularly today, I was editing the Andy article, and by my eyes, about three times I would try to submit an edit and the site would crash. Could it be me? DogP (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My claim to fame is crashing the server while making the 1,000,000th edit :D Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me or has the site really been fucked over the last few days? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

[1] read this. Тy^Talk. 23:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it was us DoSing our own site wasn't it? Y'know, as cover for the DoS attack we were carrying out on CP? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ides was epic win this year! ħuman 04:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprising, really. Site goes down for 5 minutes and everyone borks the server by frantically hitting the refresh button every 2 seconds. ^moral 08:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So what the hell was going on? Because the BBC site was also hit yesterday.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That is just speculation, and I think perhaps people are too eager to think DDoS when it's really just a server glitch or a connection going down. Just remember Hanlon's Razor. ^moral 14:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what, it's fucking Skynet isn't it? ^moral 14:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The Internet is actually located in Libya and as such it's being damaged by the ongoing conflict. We're going to be seeing glitches for quite a while. X Stickman (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone want a free copy of Portal?

Since I have the original game, I can gift the extra copy of Portal that came with my Portal 2 preorder to someone. Everyone I know seems to already have it, so if any RWians want it, first come first served. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated!^EXTERMINATE 21:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's yours then. Drop me an email, and I'll send you it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Userpage isn't showing the email option. I'm michaeljblackburn (AT) gmail (DOT) com - thanks again! ^EXTERMINATE 23:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on being the only RWian not to have played Portal. :P Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

He's not the only one. I've never played it, either. MDB (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Steam distributed it free for a couple weeks about a year ago, and I think a lot of people here picked it up then. It was much talked-about at the time, so maybe the people here who haven't played it are just the people who weren't hear when that conversation was had. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I just use my sister's account. Тy^Talk. 00:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I too have never played portal. And, for bonus "What's With Kids These Days?" points, I'm not 100% sure what it's even all about. DickTurpis (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it a video game of some sort? ħuman 04:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually just realized that I have the game - I guess I got it for free when it was on sale. I haven't took the time to play it, though. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've got two licences, but I can't remember the login for the free version I got. I was going to give that to my brother, so I'll try and dig it out. Awesome game. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't even have a clue what you're talking aboot..... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nethack & Dwarf Fortress is all I really play these days. Graphics and manuals that aren't wikis are for kids. Тy^Talk. 12:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Portal 2, I'm a little bit pissed that I used my cokezone points to get £20 off (£40) at hmv.com to preorder it for the sexBox, only to find it's £26 on Steam :-( Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe "pwned" is the expression. I just found an inflation calculator online that tells me that if games still cost the same as they did in my day, they'd only be 12 quid each. I blame all this newfangled 3D malarkey. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Modern games are massively demanding to make. The graphics demands alone are orders of magnitude more complex than "back in the day". People seem to think that good graphics are a given because of technology - not true, it just enables artists with the time and the software to do massively impressive things with it. So you need far more people, far more expertise and far more time just to push modern hardware even close to its limit. Then add additional AI coding, marketing yadda yadda... to cut it short, game budgets are now on par with proper big budget Hollywood films. And unlike movies, you can't claw back loses through DVD sales, repeat screenings and merchandising and sponsor rights because those just don't apply to games - and it's a significantly smaller market too, even with an over-priced 3D release, a family of 4 going to the cinema will be cheaper than a game. Why do you think they also display an abundance of sequels where the graphics and game mechanics are mostly recycled and game engines are reused? It's just to claw the cash back. Anyway, that's a mini rant on the cost of games. Do it, as the xkcd strip I can't be arsed to search for to link to suggests, on a 5 year lag so you get the games cheap and never have to use the state-of-the-art hardware to run them. ^moral 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and the thing about it is that as games begin to grow more and more expensive and complex, the amount of variety and innovation steadily decreases. If you're going to spend $100 million to develop a spanking brand new game, you had damn well better be able to give the people bankrolling it assurance that it will recoup the costs. So the band of acceptable AAA games has narrowed to essentially cover-based space marine shooters and generic fantasy ripoffs. Of course, the alternate route is that you take a classic and upgrade it to run on modern hardware and hope people buy it for nostalgia value, but why would I want to spend $500 on a dozen Sonic/Mario/Metroid/whatever remakes when I could instead be playing a new game that I'm not familiar with? And, of course, the intellectual quality of games has vastly diminished. A decade or so ago, we were getting games like System Shock 2, IMO one of the best games ever, and Starcraft, a game which has managed to consistently outsell new releases and be praised for over a decade. Now it's reaching the point where, outside Bioware and maybe Bethesda or Obsidian or Valve, most games are utterly forgettable in most every respect. It's really sad, when you think about what kind of games we could be playing if companies stopped focusing on releasing games with graphic that only 1% of computers could run and instead focus on creating games with engaging plots, compelling characters, and solid gameplay. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘hence: Dwarf Fortress and Nethack. Тy^Talk. 02:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevant xkcd. I started using this system a few years back. Dude, Half-Life 2 is awesome!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. The last game I bought was Supreme Commander. I don't miss gaming as much since switching to Linux, as it runs DF and Nethack, and Eve when I feel like blowing my money. Тy^Talk. 02:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That said, because of some technologies (flash / silverlight, XNA, Xbox live arcade etc etc), there are a lot of excellent, cheap indie games coming out which are far more entertaining than the big-budget titles. I enjoyed Limbo and Machinarium way more than that piece of shit people call Call of Duty MW2. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, the overall intellectual quality of games has vastly increased over the last ten years. In the 90s, only adventure games and RPGs had proper storylines. Half-life wasn't celebrated because it had a great story, but because it had story progression at all. Back then, shooters did not have storylines more complex than "Big hero must kill aliens" followed by twenty levels where the only goal was to hit the end switch. Nowadays every shooter has a melodramatic plot, though often a very half-assed one, but at least they're trying! I recently played the original Mafia, which back in the day was praised for its well-written story and cinematic cutscenes, I found it very ho-hum from today's viewpoint. It really didn't offer anything that Grand Theft Auto hasn't had since, I dunno, San Andreas. I'm sure that in 2002 I would've forgiven its clumsy and linear gameplay for the nice writing, but today it only revealed just how much gaming has moved forward. Anyway, ten years ago we had complaining about how games aren't any creative anymore like they were in the golden 80s, and I'm sure that in another ten years we're going to have people longing for well-written games like BioShock, Portal and Red Dead Redemption while saying that the games today suck. And I'll still be trying to beat Nethack. Vulpius (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fucking filth

filth. Ace ^{of Spades} 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And this is why I work out and don't eat fast food. Тy^Talk. 01:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

He was clearly an atheist. P-Foster (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

One day it'll be Ken Demyer I am sure. Ace ^{of Spades} 01:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What's worse is the two other people in the house who did NOTHING about it. Dude was sitting in the same chair without getting up for two goddamn years. He melded with the chair. A human being should not be in a position to become one with living room furniture, growing into likely synthetic fabric. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 02:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously an atheist; a Christian would have to go to church every week. CHRISTIANITY - IT GETS YOU OUT OF THE HOUSE! Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Pulling the first reasonable answer from the internet, the body produces 500 litres of urine and 50 litres of faeces each year. Probably more if you're being fed to the point where you need to be cut out of your own house. So I'm thinking the "never left the chair for two years" may be a little fruity to be taken completely literally. Still... ^moral 07:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a story that the more you think about it, the more you don't want to think about it. I mean, how long could you voluntarily stay in one place before you felt the call of nature? Maybe a day for urine, or a week for a crap if you were on some sort of starvation diet? OK, if you were handicapped in some way and couldn't move then what about those who were around you? Are they so insensitive that they couldn't see that you needed some assistance? Yet this guy was supposedly being fed and watered by his girlfriend? Girlfriend? Sex in the chair for two years? I think we are dealing with a group of seriously low IQ people that should never have been allowed to live together. The stalker in me wants to know a lot more but I fear that this will disappear off the radar.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you also manage to read the "community asks questions" article related to it? Quite interesting, in a way. Basically, living conditions like that aren't policed or patrolled or prevented by law. At all. There wasn't a child in danger. There wasn't an OAP in danger. There wasn't a mentally incapable adult in danger. No one was being forced or held. It's not the responsibility of the landlord to babysit them, nor the state. It seems a bit Se7en, but it's still technically legal and above board. I would just not think about it too much or it'll break your brain. ^moral 14:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really address the 'mentally incapable' issue. Given that an IQ of 100 is the may median, it means that there are a lot of dumb people around.

I really want to point out how that makes no logical sense. ^moral 16:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just an update, the guy died overnight. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 10:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Random Advice

Don't try to give up smoking when you're facing a major deadline at work.

Friday can't come soon enough... MDB (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of this guy. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been using that line this week. A lot. MDB (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hang in there, you can do it, and remember, if you do weaken and have 'just one' then you've still got that major deadline stress and you're back smoking again so it's a double whammy. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A formula for how CP works.

loneliness + alienation + fear + despair + self-worth ÷ mockery ÷ condemnation ÷ misunderstanding x guilt x shame x failure x judgment n=y where y=hope and n=folly, love=lies, life=death, self=dark side--Thanatos (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In LaTeX, please? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove the heading and you have some good free verse poetry. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to talk:wigo CP? ħuman 04:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's actually the anti-life equation in the DC universe. Saying it makes people realize how foolish life is and give up their freewill. Kinda fits, no?--Thanatos (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The World's Funnest Elseworlds one-shot(Mr. Mxyzptlk and Bat-Mite tour the DC Multi-Verse,destroying universes as they go) "revealed" that the Anti-Life Equation was "{sketch of Bat-Mite} + {sketch of Mr. Mxyzptlk} = Anti-Life". Learning this caused Darkseid to laugh himself to death. MDB (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What if they didn't believe in free will to begin with? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Dilbert creator Scott Adams has often argued that free-will is an illusion and I think he has a point. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 05:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? Why did he think that? Please consider before responding.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Corporal punishment? ^moral 13:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In LaTeX? ${\frac {lonlieness+alienation+fear+despair+selfworth}{mockery\times condemnation\times misunderstanding}}(guilt)(shame)(failure)(judgement)$ You're welcome. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice - every once in a while some third-tier British university will come up with similar formulas for perfect happiness, Britishness, etc. --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have a problem with sticking this on the CP article?--Thanatos (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Nietzsche Family Circus

Random Family Circus cartoon, random Nietzsche quote. Just hit Refresh. P-Foster (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretty po-mo, man. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Very funny actually. I didn't really find it postmodern, just a random but brilliant concept. Junggai (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you prefer downright twisted to debatably post-modern, there's always the dreaded Dysfunctional Family Circus. MDB (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good times. Тy^Talk. 15:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Best one I've read so far is this one. Doppelheuer (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I liked this one. Just the juxtaposition with the christmas scene is nice. Quaru^{hot dog - You can't explain that!} 17:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's neat. The best ones I've seen are God's boredom, truthfulness, the abyss, & the masses. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Also great. Just too perfect. Quaru^{hot dog - You can't explain that!} 03:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a term for this?

You know how a particular annoying occurrence during routine activities can stick in someone's memory and distort their mental estimation of how often such things happen? For example, you take the bus to work every day, and pretty much every day it's quiet and orderly, but once in a while there's the drunk guy who heckles you or the annoying schoolkids who whack you with their backpack because they're texting and are oblivious to people around them. So, after a few annoying occurrences, you start to dread the bus ride because in your brain, that kind of thing is "always happening."

That's just an example, but people's reasoning is distorted like this in all kinds of ways. Political partisans and bigots are especially prone to this. Does anyone know if there's a term for this fallacy? Junggai (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Generalisation from the particular? --Scream!! (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems related, but as I understand it, generalization from the particular is a fallacy caused by not knowing enough, in other words jumping to a conclusion. In this particular event, even though there's no lack of experience, one's opinion is dominated by a small proportion of the truth. It happens because unmarked events are easily forgotten, and therefore it's the more memorable events which define the experience. Junggai (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's what astrologers, and anyone who takes anecdotal evidence as valid, use: people only remember the relevant events whether they're the good or bad as the case may be. --Scream!! (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation bias perhaps? Тy^Talk. 21:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's called the availability heuristic in psych-speak. It's not really a fallacy so much as a memory bias. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly what I was looking for. This is the best bar in the world. Junggai (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Or Selective memory?

Selective memory more often refers to "lacunar amnesia" these days, where a specific memories are lost. Availability heuristic is more correct in the technical jargon. If there's one thing that really annoys me about psych is the terminology -- i.e., how its changed in recent years and colloquial usage is often swapped for technical usage. It's not even a layman's mistake, there are lots of discrepancies in the published literature as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As a layperson, I occasionally use "selective memory" in a derogatory way about someone's wilful ignoring of some uncomfortable event. --Scream!! (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, recall of an uncomfortable event can cause stress, which inhibits further rehearsal of the memory. This is usually referred to as "motivated forgetting," which would fall under selective memory/lacunar amnesia (because lacunar amnesia can also be caused by physical brain damage). The distinction between motivated forgetting and the availability heuristic is that the former is negative (no or inhibited recall of a prior event) and the latter is positive (increased recall for novel/exceptional events). /wonkery Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Tautology: David Attenborough is Brilliant

Just watched the first part of a new natural history series on BBC2: David Attenborough's First Life. It's basically the story of evolution. Today's episode went from abiogenesis to the evolution of the first carnivore and was typically brilliant for DA. I just wish there was some way to get Schlafly to watch it. Should be on iPlayer soon, and if you missed it, give it a go. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pffft, get Schlafly to watch it? Attenborough is:

1. British = atheist
2. Evolutionist = liberal
3. Brother of an actor = Hollywood values
4. On the BBC = socialist

PZ Myers fat chance! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish that were just taking the piss but it's actually true... With Wonders and the last series of Horizon the BBC are putting out great documentaries at the moment. ^moral 19:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh you're absolutely right - he'd never watch it voluntarily. I was thinking of some kind of chair with arm and leg restraints, plus one of those scary eyelid-pulling-back helmets to make sure he couldn't just close his eyes. Oh, and a gag to stop him talking. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Clockwork Orange-ish? --Scream!! (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the shit we give the BBC, they do produce the most wonderful stuff. BBC funding is being quite severely cut at the moment (rightly so, in my opinion) but I really hope they don't break it.

As an aside, if you want very casual but rational "chats" with the likes of Stephen Fry, Brian Cox, David Mitchell, Dale Vince, Tim Minchin, Rebecca Watson, check out Robert Llewellyn's Carpool. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks AKJ. Ah good old RL - wondered what he'd been up to since playing Kryten. Best. Robot. Ever. --PsyGremlinPrata! 09:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Carpool is pretty good. I think I've only seen the ones with Brian Cox ("will the large hadron collider destroy the world?" - "*%$*& NO!!!" *scrunches up question and throws out of the window*) and Ben Goldacre but I will get around to sitting down and going through the rest of them. They all seem to be really "nerdy" slebs, which is kind of awesome as something like that done by a TV studio would just be a stream of reality TV stars talking bollocks. ^moral 10:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that Sus Rep has watched a repeat. Attenborough's series was first broadcast last November; it was good then, also. And there is no need to equate Attenborough's Britishness with atheism as he is a professed atheist.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh. You're right. I never saw anything about it the first time round. Still. Better late than never. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion

Currently articles can be deleted when three sysops agree, assuming they are unopposed. However we've just had two cases where this has gone awry: the recent YouTube clusterfuck (a bunch of sysops not waiting for anyone else to chip in before deleting a whole chunk of articles), and today's deletion of the (admittedly crap) Walt Disney, where only two sysops and a newbie (not his fault of course) got the page binned. Articles shouldn't be deleted until people have had a chance to have a say (spam aside, that can be shot on sight). I think either there should be a revival of RationalWiki:Pages for deletion. There are too many sysops now, and RC scrolls past too fast now, for everyone to keep up with what's happening. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The time scale is frightening:

"

I opt for delete. Blue (is useful) 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd probably be best. Тy^Talk. 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh, screw the last decision. I opt for delete. The anonymous author didn't put any effort in anyway.--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Тy^Talk. 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)}}

"

--Scream!! (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

More time scale:

(Deletion log); 20:36 . . Me, The First (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Walt Disney" (7 revisions restored: proving point. don't panic)

(diff | hist) . . ! Talk:Walt Disney‎; 20:36 . . (+153) . . Scream!! (Talk | contribs | block) (→How about: ) [rollback]

(diff | hist) . . ! RationalWiki:Saloon bar‎; 20:34 . . (+716) . . Scream!! (Talk | contribs | block) (→Article deletion: ) [rollback]

Clearly our undeleting problem is worse than our deleting problem. Mei III (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, it's a wiki. We can undo anything. Doing something quickly isn't inherently a problem. Mei III (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And the point is... OMG rules holy mackerel we can't have rules, if we have rules we will be JUST LIKE CONSERVAPEDIA !!!1! Cue whiny debate, bitching, misc name calling, nostalgia etc. Тy^Talk. 20:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to add a timestamp to the delete template and wait 24 hours before deletion. (Unless the article was obviously offensive in some way.) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Useful idea. Is the intercom still working? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. This is reminiscent of when the LJ decided talk page comments which were "obviously vile" could be censored - there is going to be a lot of disagreement over whether an article is "obviously offensive." I'd like to think that we would all agree, but I don't see that happening. Blue (is useful) 21:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict) It's irrelevant that you restored it, Me 1, it should never have been deleted with such speed in the first place. If people weren't watching Recent changes all the time this sort of thing could be done all the time. "Down with this sort of thing" --Scream!! (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean restoring it solved everything. I just meant quick decisions can be quickly undone. Mei III (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

For someone who has been here 7 days, you seem awfully concerned with something that has been going on for about 3 months. Тy^Talk. 20:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise there was a time qualification for comments. --Scream!! (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No, there isn't, it is just nice to see the new editors taking part in site policy discussions rather than sitting on. WIGO:CP. Тy^Talk. 20:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There ought to be a minimum of (X) days between initial proposal and final deletion unless there's clearly a Snowball's chance in hell of a change of mind. I suggest X=3. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like tying us down to X number of comments or X days for comment. As as rule of thumb, if something has taken a long time & lot of work to create &/or has been up on the site for a long time, it should be given a lot of consideration before deletion (i.e. wait for a few comments). If something takes no effort to create (a one-line stub or a copy-paste article) it can be dismissed just as quickly. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Тy^Talk. 21:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that some sort of minimum time would be a good idea. The site isn't going to blow if we have an article on Arthur Scargill for a couple of days longer then necessary.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I agree with Bob and SR. The massive YouTube deletion was caused by several editors all agreeing on something within a few minutes, giving the illusion that there were no dissenting opinions. I think there is a real possibility that without a wait period (I would lean more toward X=1 than 3) dissenting opinions might be stifled. Blue (pester) 21:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

1 day is good enough for me. I practically live here anyway. Тy^Talk. 21:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah,1 day sounds good. Unless everybody's inactive, in which case two days would be better. sPaRkY^{Do I look like a lightbulb?} 21:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I missed the YouTube thing so I don't know what it was about, but I think mass deletion of articles should be avoided. As often as possible, deletions should be proposed on each individual article, so that anyone watching those pages is aware. If there is a situation where some editors think a whole series or category of articles should be deleted or moved, they ought to discuss it somewhere prominent like the SB & ideally inform anyone with a known interest (e.g. if all the articles are by one or two users, leave a talk page comment to let them know that their articles up for possible deletion). ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but my point was that the 1-day wait period will help prevent similar issues. Blue (is useful) 21:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of rules lawyering, why don't we have a much simpler policy, "Don't be a dick"? Delete shit, restore it, but if there's opposition to either have a meaningful discussion before doing whatever you did again. Jesus H. Me, we're all supposed to be adults. If people are arbitrarily deleting stuff that they shouldn't be and don't get the hint that they should be waiting for agreement, take their delete privileges away, I'm quite certain we already have endless policies on this. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. But which is better, "don't be a dick" or "don't be a prick"? sPaRkY^{Do I look like a lightbulb?} 23:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Don't be a dick" is already in the lexicon. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. "Don't be a dick" it is. sPaRkY^{Do I look like a lightbulb?} 00:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

First, "Don't Be A Dick" is already in the lexicon, as pointed out. Second, that policy has not worked in any meaningful way, which you would have realized if you'd been paying attention. Why do you think we have fucking rules? Because people--guess what--don't always agree on what "being a dick" means! Blue (pester) 01:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement that waiting five minutes to delete something comes under the 'being a dick' statute. Therefore take Tyrannis' delete privileges away for a few months. Or are we drowning in so much clutter that we need every man on deck to stop us being drowned by useless articles? Didn't think so. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 10:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Тy^Talk. 01:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but isnt the best way to do deletion by having an AFD page?? Or have some sort of announcement go out to everyone that there's an article up for deletion so that many people can see it. Since things run off recent changes so easily. Then at least everyone online at the time gets to see it and have the chance to talk about it. 01:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Articles for deletion. Тy^Talk. 01:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Was this commented on here at the time?

Quote:

Monsignor William Lynn, who served as the secretary for clergy for the then-Philadelphia Archbishop Anthony Bevilacqua, was charged with two counts of endangering the welfare of a child in connection with the alleged assaults, Williams said.

From 1992 until 2004, Lynn was responsible for investigating reports that priests had sexually abused children, the district attorney's office said.

The grand jury found that Lynn, 60, endangered children, including the alleged victims of those charged last week, by knowingly allowing the priests to continue in the ministry in roles in which they had access to kids.

It was in February. He's basically charged with covering up - not actually doing anything himself. Could worry some bishops and the odd Pope. source --Scream!! (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There are so many paedo priests in WIGO world that I don't bother reading them anymore. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Are there more paedos priests than other professions? Or do they get all the limelight cos the church has been covering em up for so long?AMassiveGay (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's because of the cover-up. there are just as many local news stories about paedo teachers etc but the Teacher's Union and Department of Education haven't been hiding the truth or moving accused teachers to other schools. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well we shouldn't forget the greater hypocrisy; priests act as moral arbiters.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The doctrine of clerical celibacy doesn't help either. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Never understood the pedo thing, though. A priest in my local parish got defrocked a few years ago for being too much of an, ahem, "ladies man." That makes sense to me, but why pedophilia? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Proving a date with a photo. The OTHER way round.

Suppose you just kidnapped someone in order to get a ransom. Of course they ask you to prove the person is alive, so what you do is take a photo of them holding today's newspaper and send it.

This is a way to prove that a particular photo was taken no sooner than a particular date, i.e. the date on the newspaper. And this cannot be forged, at least without tampering with the photo.

Now, my question is, is there a way to take a picture so that it is "obvious" that it was taken no later than some particular date? I want to do this for any possible date, not something like a picture of 'X' and the Twin Towers, proving 'X' existed before 9/11; and I want to do that so that "anybody" can be sure of that, not like showing my pregnant wife in the picture proving it was taken before delivery.

Any ideas? Seda-give??? (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't think you're being ignored S-g, we're thinking. Well some of us are. --Scream!! (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thinking... it seems a bit difficult to get one for just any random date. sPaRkY^{Do I look like a lightbulb?} 23:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I've been thinking about this issue for quite some time now, and yes, I am aware of the difficulty. Of course, this is just mental masturbation. Seda-give??? (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: Damn edit conflicts. Seda-give??? (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Upload it to a third-party website with time-stamping. --85.76.218.165 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but those I have to prove my photo to might think I have secret connections with the site. Or just a lot of money to bribe them. Seda-give??? (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Print an extra copy of the photo & mail it to yourself, or to a trusted friend, by a recorded postal service. When the package arrives, keep it sealed & retain the proofs of postage & delivery. You now have a sealed package & evidence of the date it was sent. If anybody doubts the date of your photo, show them the package & ask them to open it & examine the contents & the postage info. The downside is that you can only use it once (unless you did the same with a lot of copies) & it's external proof rather than something in the photo itself, so maybe not the answer you were looking for. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cryptographers are waaaay ahead of you. See wp:Trusted timestamping. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The cost-free way I suppose would be to write an angry letter to the daily mail, encoding the hash of the picture as an acrostic in your screed. Though you'd probably have to add a whole lot of hamming code to it so your hash survives editing. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The letter thing is simpler. I heard thats the easiest way of copywriting something; put your idea in the mail and it proves you had it before that time. Same thing really. Pegasus (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

wp:Poor man's copyright. But that only works when you know in advance that you will need to prove the date. I have my camera time-stamp all my snapshots, and you could prove, to an extent, that it was added by the camera. But obviously there are technical (and not so) ways around that. Hmm.. can you give an example? To set limitations? Quaru^{hot dog - You can't explain that!} 04:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@Seda-give: who are you planning to kidnap, and what is our cut of the ransom? AMassiveGay (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a photo in which your victim is showing his or her hands clearly. Then cut off a finger. Mail the finger out with your next ransom note. You now have a photo and proof that it dates from no later than the day you posted the finger. You can repeat up to ten times; twenty if you decide to use toes as well. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And twenty-one in case the victim is male, of course... Seda-give??? (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Collective reply: the mail thing seems quite effective indeed. The only flaw is once it's been checked it's broken. I haven't really thought out the precise statement (and I know that's bad), but I would like something as easy to do and as obvious to check as the newspaper-in-picture thing, and I would like something that could be stated in advance: the mail is not 100% sure to get the stamp on the very day I need, for example. And it should be possible to perform the check as many times as needed, just like with the newspaper. Godspeed! Seda-give??? (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And of course, no bombing places or killing people after they were taken in the picture for the purpose of dating...Seda-give??? (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it boils down to including a unique item in the photo and then making an irreversible change to it after the photo is taken (and retaining the item for inspection). As mentioned already, a person is an obvious unique item, and an injury that would leave a scar is an obvious irreversible change. If you didn't need the proof to be accessible forever, you could scale the injury down so that it heals after the required window of time. I can't think of any other unique items/irreversible changes off the top of my head that would work well. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This triggered something at the back of my mind and with a bit of Googling I found Canon's Original Data Security Kit. This can securely link GPS data to an image, and I imagine that the GPS data also include a time-stamp. However, there are claims that it can be cracked. You would need to be a professional or an extremely keen amateur to actually use it as in the UK it costs about £750.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Similar to what others have said, take a photo, zip it, turn it into a self-extracting exe, then digitally sign it using verisign's time stamping server and a self-signed certificate. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We've been using those digital signatures with some RWF documents. There are a few other hoops to jump through to make them legal, but they're good at showing that a document hasn't been edited or moved since signing. ^moral 13:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a video of X, near a place where a lot of place "check in" into something (ie, an airline?). The company will have an archieve of when the X combination of people occured, as well as everyone involved would be a witnesses of himself being there at that date. For this to be faked, all of them would have to be in the conspiracy. Sen (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a picture of the person, and then kill them. P-Foster (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Take the photo at a well publicised event, such as a concert, where other people will also be taking photos & publishing them so that there is a lot of corroborative evidence of the venue & event. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a photo and choose a date. Inform the opposing party that if they deny that date they lose all credibility. Sen (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Why didn't I just ask that on CP?? Seda-give??? (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispatches from the Bible Belt

Current law here in the great state if Arkansas makes it illegal for any person under the age of 21 to purchase or have in their possession any "intoxicating liquor, wine or beer." Yesterday, conservatives in the Arkansas State Senate passed a bill that would specify that "intoxicating liquor, wine or beer" in the body of a minor would be deemed possession, and thus a crime.

I have two big problems with this type of legislation. First, it limits the ability of a parent to demonstrate to their kids how to drink responsibly once they do turn 21. I remember my 16th birthday, when my parents cooked me a lovely dinner of lobster tail and filet mignon and allowed me to enjoy a glass of wine to go with it. It made me feel like an adult and I loved it. Now that would be a fucking crime.

Second, this bill is a big step towards a very slippery slope. Does the public really want to grant the government this kind of authority over people's physical bodies? What's next? Will it soon be the law of the land that if I fail a piss test at work, my employer will be required to turn me in to the cops and I'll get a charge for possession of narcotics?

IMO this perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy of the conservative mantra of "small government." </end rant> PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 04:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to the actual bill (requires pdf download). PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 04:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

But, it's to protect the children. Stop trying to use logic. It's been defeated. (On topic, I agree with you. But what do you want? Get out of Arkansas) Quaru^{hot dog - You can't explain that!} 04:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Think of the chillun'!

Defeated? According to my local newspaper it passed the Senate and now goes to the House for furthsr consideration. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 04:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant your logic. The "small govmnt/control of your body" thing. That's logic, and protecting the children is the antidote to thinking. For what it's worth, here in Michigan, there's a zero tolerance(as in B.A.C.) for anyone under 21. But when you're at home, in your lobster dinner situation, is completely legal.. just don't go outside before it's out of your system. And really, how is that different from any intoxication laws? Quaru^{hot dog - You can't explain that!} 04:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I like that you're upset the government will request such things, and then imply it's acceptable for your employer to make you piss in a cup. I'm just saying. Quaru^{hot dog - You can't explain that!} 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you meant now. But I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was implying that it's acceptable for an employer to make me piss in a cup. It's just the way it is unfortunately. And I fear that it could be even worse in the future if this kind of legislation is allowed to stand. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 05:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll go with "It's Arkansas, what did you expect?" You wets keep away from us dries now, y'hear? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Apart from this weird law, I've never understood why the drinking age is set at 21. Americans are allowed to vote when they're 18, they were supposed to do military service at that age, and they're even allowed to buy rifles. What makes drinking so special that people are required to put it off for a few more years? Röstigraben (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's MADD's fault. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What makes this bill especially frustrating is that there's absolutely no reason for it. Arkansas has not had a sudden spike in teen drinking accidents or teen alcoholism, at least none that I'm aware of, and I follow the local news pretty closely. It's like, "Hey, what's a new law we can pass to further limit people's ability to act and think for themselves? Oh, I've got one! Let's extend the government's capacity to police the public and control what they have in their bodies that we don't like! Sweet!" Fuck you conservatives and your "less guv'ment is better" hypocrisy. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 06:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)≤

The small gummint bullshit has been bullshit for a loooong time. Just be happy that you're not underage...and that they're not trying to repeal child labor laws in your state...yet (see WIGO:Blogosphere). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this just another instance of people using the legal system to impose quasi-religious standards on others? The US has a history of weird laws about sex and alcohol which is largely a hangover from the Puritans. Also it appears to me that the US has a more devolved legal code than other developed countries, which permits local laws to be brought into effect without the scrutiny and debate that might be required at a national level.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

STATES RIGHTS Тy^Talk. 13:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Stuff like that makes me scream ^{[citation needed]} though. ^moral 14:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

here read and weep. Тy^Talk. 14:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

April

Any good april fools stuff this year? I like the Google mail one[2]. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Found this year's BMW joke. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There's this from Google. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, didn't you read (and comprehend) Crundy's post? Or is it a reverse April Fools?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And (self-promotion warning) there's this at UESP. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This from the Daily Telegraph. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Did this actually happen? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Wikipedia. The featured article. (And the "Did you know..." and "On this day..." boxes) Traditionally, all of this is true, just misleadingly presented. :D --ZooGuard (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Live Royal Wedding Updates from teh Grauniad, plus they also have an earthquake in Blackpool, which looks like an April Fool's joke, but seems to be genuine. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell SR, at least read my links before reposting them! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I got e/c ed - and it's a different link. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll let you off the second one, what about the first, hmm?

The whole WP front page is full of shit, e.g. "Did you know...that Ntrepid was paid $2.76 million by the U.S. military to create sock puppets?". And the featured article is about "Fanny Scratching". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Did you know... that a typical Labia minor is chocolate brown, up to 7 mm long, and is equipped with pincers?" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops - I totally missed the first link, even after your second post. Sorry 'bout that. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm basically refusing to click any link for the next 36 hours. ^moral 10:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Got a good one from the University's LAN/online gaming society (which we all know is just a massive file sharing ring) saying that they've had to release all of their members details to the Police and British Phonographic Society as they've detected illegal activity and file sharing on their VPN. Though this is pretty close to the knuckle, as I'm pretty sure not all of that porn is actually legal... ^moral 10:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, here's a different Google one - try searching for "Helvetica". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How about Total War: Dinosaurs? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears they got rid of the "ASCII art" easter egg, though. :( ^moral 10:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Google has something in addition to their traditional April 1 product announcement. MDB (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The GOP has launched a fake Obama 2012 add. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

YouTube offers us Top 5 Viral Pictures of 1911 Vulpius (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

[3] --Scream!! (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The best one that I found was this.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Top 100 April Fool's Day Hoaxes of All Time according to Museum of Hoaxes. ^moral 13:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I will confess I fell for NPR's "Nixon re-enters poltics" hoax. "I didn't do anything wrong, and I won't do it again" should have clued me in... MDB (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately (or unfortunately, perhaps) reading too much skeptic literature has made me assume everything is a hoax until outright proven otherwise. ^moral 16:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I am devastated that this is a hoax. MDB (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Make it out of Lego and I'd be demanding they do it. ^moral 20:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Iman al-Obeidi

“”Last Saturday, a young woman lawyer named Iman al-Obeidi burst into a Tripoli hotel and pleaded with foreign journalists for help, showing bruises and crying that she had just been gang-raped by 15 of Qaddafi's men. She screamed as she was dragged away by Libyan agents and has not been seen since......Qaddafi will ignore most international outrage, but he listened to the Turkish government when they asked him to release foreign journalists. Let's urgently raise a massive global call to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan to help save Iman. [Avaaz.com]

"Click here to sign the petition that will be sent to the Turkish government."

Sorry for the linkspam, but it's for a good cause. Mei III (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(Just FTR, this is not an april fools. That would be kinda tasteless) Mei III (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The mother said she received a phone call on Monday from an unidentified caller, purportedly from the Gaddafi camp, telling her Obeidi was at the compound and asking her to instruct her daughter to change the rape claim in return for freedom and other benefits.

awaiting further developments... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sprocket! Mei III (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Art Imitates Life

In last night's episode of The Big Bang Theory, uber-nerd Sheldon's World of Warcraft account was hacked.

His response? Call the FBI. (They hung up on him, so he called the local cops.)

Of course, Sheldon also, in moment of desperation, prayed to a God described as one whose existence he has serious doubts about, so he's not 100% Assfly. But still... MDB (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Assfly certainly is as socially inept as Sheldon, but that's about where the comparison ends. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Though did he call his mother? That usually gets the job done. ^moral 12:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Harun Yahya admits the evidence for evolution is 'overwhelming': Article from Hürriyet newspaper

And may you all have a pleasant April! --Danfly (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Link? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was an April Fools' Day joke. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it was. --Danfly (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Awww. ^moral 20:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

News story on the recent web attacks

Here. Damn those liberals. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Move Over Michele Bachmann

After Louie Gohmert's newest Obamacare conspiracy about Libya being used to call up a secret reserve army using health care reform, can we finally, officially crown Gohmert King of Congressional Crazy? Bachmann has nothing on this guy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann is a known shystress; this fellow seems more sincere. One can immediately conclude which has the potential to do more damage. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am back... kinda

I will only be using my account to read and edit articles, most of the time. Colbert|Fan^{This sig is so outdated} 03:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Who are you? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Тy^Talk. 11:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We're very open here. You don't need an account to read articles.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Colby, you're back... kinda! Not that I knew ye before, but here's a welcome back cookie!--Mr. Bojangles (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame that you are limiting yourself to reading and editing. I'm mean, think of all the other things you could do on a wiki!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathic acupuncture?

Found this after reading this. Anyone know anything about it? --Scream!! (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How to create a new pseudoscience: 1) Take two existing pseudosciences. 2) Mash them up. 3) Profit. Literally profit. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The pseudoscience singularity approaches. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I cover your Homeopathic acupuncture and raise you electromagnetic quantum homeopathic acupuncture. That must work!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit! Ajkgordon (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I found the new age and vampire section to be a pretty good source of lolwut? Here's what I found when I was researching an article for Uncyclopedia: How to determine your vampire belief system. Those kids are pretty messed-up. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 20:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

even Totnes isn't safe from fundies

Couple have topiary buddha in their garden, get poison pen letter saying God will curse them. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And the response from the garden owners and the local vicar is so civilised, so British: "What an extraordinary thing to happen. It is very unfortunate. They are nice people at Hill House – very nice people." RagTop^{Gone sailing} 22:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

But at least 60% of Totnes Today readers will not be watching the Royal Wedding on TV! How did you vote? --DogP (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even look at the poll. However I won't be watching as I don't have a telly and even if I did I wouldn't. When Charles and Diana got hitched i went to the beach and got sunburn, and I still thought i'd made the right choice. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I was half tempted to WIGO world this, but thought better of it - a bit too minor perhaps. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks...

That Phyllis Schalfly and her brood are kind of like the real-life version of Mom and her sons from Futurama?

No. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I had this hypothesis once that Schlafly Stupid is genetic and is carried in some gene on the Y chromosome. I based this on the observation that Andy, John, and Roge are all clearly of less than average intelligence while Ma Schlafly and her daughters, as far as we know, are competent and professionally successful. One problem with my hypothesis is Bruce, who appears to have acquired a position of prestige and security in a field in which total quacks would tend to be washed out quickly. Mountain Blue 07:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What is it with people assuming that because Roger is crazy he's stupid? From what I've seen, he's a talented mathematician with a respectable history of results, not some fringe idiot. Wisest word Hoover! 13:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Roger is certainly much smarter than Andy (as witnessed by by their arguments on CP), he just seems to have some strange ideas about things like native Americans and husband/wife relationships. Also, if you spend any time reading his blogs, the words "fringe idiot" do become more apparent. He's no Andy, but he's certainly no Einstein either. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't question that he is possessed of some extremely unpleasant ideas, and is at best severely misguided, but that has no bearing on his mathematical ability, which, while not at genius level, is certainly considerably above "normal", and definitely in excess of that shown by any relative of his. Wisest word Hoover! 16:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Crosswords again

I've done this but don't get one: 18 Across: the answer (it fits anyway) seems to be FREELOAD but where does the "Leader of nuts" come in? --Scream!! (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Anagram of "leader of" indicated by word nuts (crazy). Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 06:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

SCHEISSE! Thanks Mr Khant. Why didn't I see that? --Scream!! (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Word help

Ok, you clever people out there. I need the word that describes the following: You know those pathways that are made out of loose stones - normally light grey, maybe chunks as big as half you fist, flecks of quartz in the bits - what kind of pathway / stone is that. I don't think gravel works - for me, that's finer, like what you use in tarmac. Any ideas, suggestions, anybody have any clue what I'm on about? --PsyGremlinParlez! 10:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember while doing a summer job for a builder's yard they had a word for it. It's literally on the tip of my tongue right now (there's a word for that feeling too, that I forget) so I might get back to you in a moment. ^moral 10:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's something like "hardcore" or at least something "core". I think. ^moral 10:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I'm picturing a cobbled pavement in my mind from your description. SJ ^Debaser 10:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Cobblestone was the first thing to come to me too. Setts is another possibility. Not sure though. --Danfly (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

wp:Particle size (grain size) Probably gravel, just "coarse" gravel. Cobbles are a size up from what is described and are usually set in some sort of bonding or cement when used in roads. ^moral 10:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The term up here in Lancashire is "Quarry bottoms" - because it's what you scrape up of the bottom of a quarry and use for hard core, etc. and will have lumps upto, say five or six cm across as well as a lot of smaller stuff which will help keep it all in place. Hardcore describes large lumps of hard material, rocks, bricks, etc. used as filling. Cobbles are, by definition, a jigsaw puzzle of interlocking stones probably cut to fit rather than just dumped and tamped down as seems to be described above. I'm not sure if there's a precice definition of gravel but I wouldn't expect particles greater than, say, 1cm across. Mind you, IANAB. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys - I'll give that a go. Just didn't want to be going to nurseries and stuff with the explanation I had originally. Oh, ADK, the word you were looking for is "lethologica." And to tartle is to forget the name of somebody you're about to introduce. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 10:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that one, I will file it alongside "semantic saturation". ^moral 10:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The stuff that sometimes goes under tarmac used to be called "base course" in some circles, and may still be. It is coarser than what that WP table calls "very coarse gravel," but smaller than cobbles, and not so neatly arranged. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be pebbles? --Scream!! (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that would imply that they were worn smooth, like at the beach. ^moral 18:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

For civil-engineering works such as highways, the crushed rock generally comes from, well, a rock crusher. In other cases, a natural sorting process may result in a clast of the desired grain size. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like some kind of aggregate. Sen (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Why Earthquakes?"

Thought the mob might enjoy this little gem of nuttiness which I discovered courtesy my local public access station. Enjoy the laughs. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 14:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Could he have a more stereotypical accent? ^moral 15:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the theme music is suspiciously similar to Pirates of the Caribbean. PhillipA (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

GET TO THE DAMN POINT ALREADY!!! AHAHAHAHGHGHAGHGAH!!! ^moral 15:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot finish listening to this. ^moral 15:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my attention picked up during the mainstream TV rant that kind of went nowhere and then I noticed something curious while he was reading out Luke 21 10:11, notice that he doesn't just read it but actually interjects his own bits into it. Notably "world wars", which is sort of trying to imply that the last 100 years has had the monopoly on them. Which is bullshit, of course, given we've had the 100 years war and the Napoleonic wars, the 20th century has been the most peaceful Europe has ever been, and the two world wars were, comparatively, small blips in a century of peace. It's a very interesting addition to the scripture and I'm wondering if he's doing it consciously or not. ^moral 15:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Curious. He also does it by inserting "the government" after the Bible mentions "kingdom" in the middle of Hebrews 12:26-28. ^moral 15:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My my. Roderick Meredith - theological offspring of Herbert W. Armstrong and now channelling "The World Tomorrow". Assumed that he was dead.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

reference desk?

Why not start a Wikipedia-style reference desk so that people who have query on different topics (specially those related to science-pseudoscience) can get some insight? --James D (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically the SB doubles up as that. I don't think we attract enough activity to warrant splitting things up. It's generally accepted that if you want every user to see it, post it here. ^moral 15:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Would random visitors post here? The suggestion could have some merit.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We could point them here. I think until such questions start to become pretty regular there's no point in breaking them off yet. It would probably be counterproductive, as fewer eyes would be watching a reference desk than our standard watering hole. DickTurpis (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is the reason everything just gets piled into the SB. I mean, it is pretty crowded in here and the turnover of threads is rapid, but it's probably not enough varied stuff to warrant separation. ^moral 16:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The main page says that we invite people do debate us, but we nowhere actually invite questions. Perhaps if we invited them they would come.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A remarkably astute point. ^moral 17:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If evolution is real why didn't the dinosaurs evolve to breathe underwater when Noah's flood happened?^{— Unsigned, by: 81.99.216.214 / talk / contribs}

See, it works. (The flood happened too quickly for evolution to work on most dinosaurs - however the Loch Ness Monster got it right.)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you build it, they will come. ^moral 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I builded it here. Now it needs a link in the community navigation portal. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be something circular.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Exactly. RationalWiki:Reference desk might as well redirect here until usage justifies having a page on its own. Meanwhile, something could be added to the Saloon Bar banner inviting all comers to try and stump the regulars with hard questions ask the regulars nicely about any pertinent topic. Seems to me that the structure for all of that is in place, and if the transition comes, it could be relatively painless, accomplished with small effort (on someone else's part, naturally.) Uncle Sprocket (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I heard that smart remark, you back there in the corner. I don't have access to the portal, so laziness don't apply to that, but I would willingly rearrange the furniture if the time ever comes. I many not know how to cross-contaminate the history well enough to suit the more persnickety ones, but you know what they say about not being able to take a joke. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Added to the bartop. Тy^Talk. 19:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And the sidebar. Now gimme some brandy. Тy^Talk. 19:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sidebar or redirect. I know it's for anyone who is new, but that would indicate that they'd be really messed up by redirecting to here. Not to mention the complete redundancy of two links to the same place. f it goes on the sidebar, it needs a separate page. And then people would have to use it, not just stick their stuff on the SB and then have a mini slagging match over where said comments should have gone. ^moral 20:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the original suggestion was a good one. Frankly I doubt that a newcomer would notice or understand what we've just done. But it's down to the mob. :-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

May i suggest we take it out of the sidebar until we actually have a reference desk? it's silly to put such a misleading link in a prominent place like that. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Тy^Talk. 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

too many itchy trigger fingers round here. People should try decaff. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I drink tea. Тy^Talk. 21:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I... oh god. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

:) Тy^Talk. 21:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I remain in favor of both the redirect (perhaps temporary) and the sidebar link. The redirect to avoid a page full of tumbleweeds and crickets, awaiting traffic, and the sidebar link for strangers who might have somewhat serious questions, and who might think the saloon bar was only for socializing. Click on the "reference desk" and be ushered into the bar where one is invited to ask the community questions, where is the problem with that? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, it was good idea but it doesn't look like anything meaningful is going to come out of it. Thanks to James D for suggesting it. Looks like its time has not yet come. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Skeptic StackExchange may be what that would become. Not that that's bad - David Gerard (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church article on BBC

It's well worth a read. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

“”The family regard it as their duty to "rejoice in all of God's judgements" - murders, cancer, natural disasters, and the loss of their loved ones to the lures of carnality and fornication (the word covers a multitude of activities in the Phelps lexicon, including probably hand-holding and playing the harpsichord in mixed company).

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. sPaRkY^{Do I look like a lightbulb?} 14:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to watch the first one again. I quite like Theroux's docs. ^moral 20:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's on now. Can I add a "HOLY SHIT!" regarding the Jew Dance thing. ^moral 20:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That was like something out of Borat. Confrontations with the WBC usually seem to end with the challenger enraged and incoherent so it's refreshing to see the unwaveringly pleasant Theroux doing his stuff again. The part where Louis and some of the Phelps girls discuss a Dutch acquaintance and he actually manages to disarm one of them with her own rhetoric was especially effective. Grumblejaws (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That was probably the best thing I watched all week. There are people who make me angrier than the Westboro nutcases though. The people who took it out on the damn dog! --Danfly (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the great thing about Theroux, he has this child-like innocence (it's a character he plays apparently) that makes it impossible to get rise out of him, yet the people he interviews just open up so much because of it. ^moral 23:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

When tinfoil hatters try to change the world

Just thought I'd put this here for decoration. Apparently it's proof that aliens are among us and breeding with us or something.

To cut a long-winded story short, I've been added to a Facebook group that is supposed to be about changing the world for the better. Ostensibly it's about replacing war (and activities of the military-industrial complex) with more peaceful ones. Great ideal, except it's ran by a load of conspiracy nuts and it's a little... well, it's already a load of hippy crap but now there's UFO blog posts going up and it might just degrade from there. It'll probably die out and get boring real fast, but I might keep an eye on it and report back if there's anything particularly funny. ^moral 16:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Facebook groups! Changing the world, one "like" click at the time. Sen (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This kind of thing always reminds me of the scene in Alex Jones' Endgame where he's standing outside the Bilderberg conference shouting "End the New World Order!" through his megaphone and the guys pulling up in limousines are looking at him like "Who the hell is this nutcase?" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Linky?? 19:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is an incredible power for good. Remember last year when a ton of people changed their profile pictures to their favourite cartoon characters and child abuse stopped forever? Or how about after the tsunami hit Japan last month and everyone supported Japan by "liking" a page about the tsunami? It's amazing all the fucked up stuff going on in the world hasn't been annihilated thanks to progressive Facebook users! SJ ^Debaser 19:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good post. Hopefully, me liking it will stop hypocrisy and pointless gestures forever! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If it evolves into something interesting I'll post a link, it's definitely a crank magnet. I think currently is a closed group but it may take off. ^moral 20:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. 22:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, SJ. That cartoon thing seemed a tad ineffective. Kind of like those people who ask you to forward a big block of text or post it to your wall. Don't joke about child abusing ending. You'll scare the shit out of Pope Benny. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, didn't you hear? The cartoon thing was STARTED by paedophiles! A friend's status said it so it must be true. ^moral 20:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh up, got the first perpetual motion machine posted. ^moral 20:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed the guy at the end who was skeptical enough to debunk the claims of nailboy, yet he had to close his comments with the assurance that he himself would continue his research in to perpetual motion with the aid of fucking magnets. fun fun fun! Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 08:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is turning into quite a good source of free energy fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhwQt1tJYa8 ^moral 13:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we have an article on the PESWiki? I vaguely remember wanting to write about it.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that I remember seeing. It might be footnoted under some of the free energy articles. Go ahead. ^moral 14:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Water powered cars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME ^moral 16:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

When did this place turn into a massage parlor?

Just noticed that the top of the page says "New massages" instead of "new messages." Has it always been this way and I was just my usual oblivious self? Or did someone change it recently? Either way, I approve. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for my massage from the Swedish Prime Minister, however. or anybody Swedish for that matter. Or just anybody. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 10:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Blue changed it days ago. Тy^Talk. 12:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Blue did it. I hope she's going to keep her promise. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a nice change. Having the santa hat on the brain all year round would be better but I'm grateful for the little things. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 14:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as anonymous editors are monitored by Ceiling Cat, all is well. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Template to search talk pages

Even though my talk page receives virtually no traffic, I still set up archival through Pibot just for kicks. However, question is this. How do I get the template to work that allows for a search box for those archives? I added the |search = yes to the parameters of pibot but nothing shows up. I am just impatient and I need to wait for it to form at least one archive? άλφα^Talk 10:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

At the moment you've got "Template:Talkpage/PibotHidden". No archive links or search box will appear while it's hidden. Change it to "Template:Talkpage/Pibot". You don't appear to have any archives yet, so the search box won't appear until you do. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mmmk thanks for that, makes a lot more sense now! άλφα^Talk 11:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why I read these sites...

it's sort of a sick fascination, I guess. Not being a Catholic, I don't find much of this horribly offensive, but is this a potential Poe or just some other lunatic that found out how to rent domain names? [4] άλφα^Talk 11:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can't say if it's a parody or totally serious, then it's already a demonstration of Poe's law. "Poe" doesn't mean "parody".--ZooGuard (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The only part crazier than the average YEC site is the geocentrism, and it seems serious to me. If it's a parody, it's not particularly funny anyway. --Danfly (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that site is full of teh crazy. In some ramble about the CONfederate states (?) we learn that Prince Albert died because he toned down a letter from Britain to Lincoln and that the first A-bomb was in fact tested by the CONfederate (again ???) navy on black sailors in 1944. It's not quite TimeCube, but getting there. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a link to the Modern geocentrism article.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I reckon it's probably real crankery. This page praises God for the Japanese earthquake (preventing a Russo-Japanese War?!), which would be in very poor taste if it was a joke site, although it does contain craziness like "the Japanese Shinto state religion is a carbon copy of the Papal system at the Vatican". Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the author thinks everything he considers remotely harmful, dangerous, foreign, etc, is a tool of the Vatican. Apparently, Muslims, Vikings, Mongols, Nazis, and Communists are also forces under the pope out to destroy true Christianity. άλφα^Talk 12:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe it is significantly more crazy than the average. --Danfly (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of that stuff reads like Know Nothing Party literature from about 150 years ago. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Beer in NYC.

I will be in NYC next weekend, and will buy a beer or the beverage of your choice for anyone who comes up to me at an appointed place and time and says "Uncle Ed touched me" or "Deny this and lose all credibility." P-Foster (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I know this is not the place...

...but I can't think of anywhere else to put it and I need to put some words to what I am experiencing. And it is will most likely be garbled and incoherent and I will sound like some kind of attention whore.

I am acutely aware that my lifestyle is killing me and I am aware that sooner or later I will be dead, either from some kind of stroke or from my own hand.

I alternate from long periods of insomnia to days where I find to physically painful to wake properly. When I am able to painfully rouse my self, I struggle to fill my days with anything worthwhile. There is lots I could and should be doing but I put of doing them - I do just one more crossword, read one more chapter, play one more level. And what I ever I do do, I do it joylessly. Nothing interests me. I used to watch a lot of films, now they barely hold my attention. I try to read a lot but I find it difficult to find something that grabs me.

On my up days I might go for stroll through London but the crowds of people who I have no connection to depress me further.

Often in the I spend my time trawling the internet for sex. Sex these day brings me no joy ever. It is more of compulsion and is deeply unsatisfying. It always involves copious amounts of coke, mdma, crystal meth, g, or poppers - often a cocktail different chemicals. I so thoroughly associate sex with drugs than I cannot think of sex without them. Whether I am meeting someone specific or just whoring it up at a sauna, it is always sleazy and often risky. It has become more of a form of self harm.

If I am on a bus or the tube, I over hear peoples conversations - about the day they have had, where they are off to, friends they are meeting, how their families are doing - and I am aware that I nothing in common with this people. It is telling that the only book I have read in recent years that I felt any connection to the depicted characters was about drugs abuse and mental health. Well adjusted people just do not seem real to me or at the very least a least a different species, which would explain a lot. I do not feel human but like some kind of beast ruled by my baser instincts - all I do is eat, sleep, shit and fuck.

Sleep feels me with dread. Every time I go bed, I am that much closer to death. If I cannot sleep with in a few minutes of my head hitting the pillow my mind turns to darker places. Sleep is my release from the empty cycle of my days, but is always marred by the unwelcome, painful experience of waking.

Superficially, I am in physically good shape. There is no evidence of the poisons I put into myself. But inside I feel sick. I feel dread about all the things normal people do. I feel on the verge of tears and in my head I feel I am screaming. My face is always passive.

What I have written is entirely inadequate and I apologise for putting it here, but I needed to vent. Regards, AMassiveGay (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Considered talking to someone professionally. A friend went in to a pretty incredible downward spiral, and some counseling made a big difference. Kind of useful to have someone put things in to perspective when we're unable to do so ourselves. Personally I dislike evenings. Either it's going to be fine, or lying in bed thinkings of shit that I really should have put out of my head a long time ago. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 21:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is kind of why I am putting it here. Actually speaking to someone feels me with dread. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not going to be easy. There are likely questions that have unpleasant answers. Really sounds like you need to talk to somebody. This shit rarely gets better if it's just left, it's difficult to objectively piece together a messed-up life when right in the middle of it. A friend has an odd issue in which she's perpetually feeling that she's not doing what she should be. She's not sure what she should do, but she's pretty sure she should be doing it instead of what she's doing now. Had a similar thing years back, but managed to eventually come-up with a realistic understanding of what I'm capable of and what I want. Can't say that I have the latter completely pinned down, but things are better. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 21:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well if you're interested in meeting somebody new - who isn't gay, and who will physically repulse you if/when you meet him - put an email address in you profile and we can meet up for a drink. You obviously have some interest in rational thinking, so we can probably talk about politics, religion and science for a couple of hours. If you don't want to add your email here, let me know if you're interested: rob at robherbert.com or rpe_herbert at hotmail.com. If this sounds a little sordid, sorry. I'm just trying to say that you can meet somebody new for chats if you're interested. I *think* I'm a slightly better option than killing yourself. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Other issues aside, I guess I'd suggest trying sleeping aids or otherwise aiming for a "normal" sleep pattern. To make college easier, I've been on 30-40 hour days for most of each week; I had some serious problems with depression/apathy, insomnia, difficulty waking, etc until I tried sleeping normally for a while (though caffeine and stress weren't helping either). I'm told it's a pretty big factor in emotional health. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 22:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Take it for what it's worth, but you are describing the symptoms of clinical depression. Talking to somebody really can help break you out of this spiral, and antidepressants may also help. If you make an appointment to see somebody, you don't have to talk about anything that you don't want to. Either way, I hope you are able to feel better. ATP (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

ATP is spot on -- these are classic signs of clinical depression. I've been there, the fears of going to sleep because of waking in terror at 3 a.m. every morning with feelings of dread and worthlessness. But life doesn't have to be that way. It might take a couple of different rounds of different meds but you CAN get better. It took years for me to come to the realization that I needed help, years that were wasted needlessly. There's help available and you should get it -- NOW. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My best friend went through something similar nearly a year ago - he was in the closet for his whole life (he was 19 at the time this happened) and all his repression started manifesting itself about two months in the form of insomnia, self-harm, panic attacks and general depression, all before he had a breakdown and confessed it to me and his family. Through meds and counselling he's pretty much back to his normal self now, a year later, except that he's openly gay. As CR said, and I'm sure many of us know from first-hand experience, feelings like this do not get better without discussing it comfortably with a trained professional, and mate, I think that's probably the best advice any of us could give you. SJ ^Debaser 09:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What everybody else said. Looks like a bad case of depression, mate. I've been there too and you need to get help. Talk to your doctor. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

One more voice to the chorus is all I've got to add. Trustworthy help is worth seeking out. From inside the clouds, it may seem that "the helping professions" are filled with poseurs, but if you make the effort to go looking, you may find someone you can work with. What seemed to work for me was a combination of talk, antidepressants, contemplative mindfulness practice, and David Burns's popular book on how to untwist your thinking, of all things. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet another. Sounds exactly like what I went through and am recovering from (just without all the sex and drugs - more's the pity :). Get yourself to a doctor. That's the hardest part. Actually the hardest part is recognising something is wrong and expressing it, like you did above. Next hardest part is seeking professional help - which you absolutely must do.

But, and you should be under no illusions about this, accepting the treatment can also be incredibly difficult. There might be a side of you, like there is/was with me, that revels in the disease. It's self-sustaining. Treatment helps break that.

And if somebody (*cough*) suggests that you wouldn't be depressed if you accepted the Lord Jesus as your personal saviour, kick him in the nuts. It'll make you feel loads better! Ajkgordon (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I wont suggest it because I dont like having my nuts kicked, but organised religion, or a sports club or other social gathering event can help with feelings of isolation. Any group that isnt critical will work. I can also recommend Lorazepam, as an anti-anxiety med it seems to work. I used it for a while after my stroke when I could not get to sleep because of a swallowing problem. Its not exactly a sleepong pill, but it reduces the worry to let sleep happen. I would suggest that you knock off the destructive behavior for a while. No drugs, sex or anything that obviously isnt working for you. Find a volunteer group to do something that helps others, read to people at a retirement or nursing home. Seek medical help too. Hamster (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started to add something several times but backed off. I agree with Hammy, you need to get some socialisation where you can get some positive feedback. Religion is often an easy answer but only because it is a social organisation. I hesitate to say anything too specific because I don't know enough about your personal circumstances but for me getting into the country, gardening or doing some physical activity, preferably something with a goal or product that you can take some pride in. You need to get some purpose into your life and get off the chemicals. Don't be afraid of talking to someone, it's a lot easier when they are complete strangers. You can get counselling through your GP but there is often a waiting list. If your GP can't help then I'm sure you could find some charity groups who could offer counselling services. It is important to know is that you are probably not alone, so there may be some mutual assistance groups in you area. If you're in London then there is almost definitely something. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

'this is not the place'

It's true that RW isn't professionally qualified to give advice like this. But there are still people who care about you here, and you can still talk to us about things like this. We're not 'the place', but we're not 'the wrong place' either. Mei III (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

We're a community. SJ ^Debaser 14:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

We have our fair share of idiots and arseholes - hey, I'm probably one of them - but, as Mei said, generally the people here care and if you need to off-load you'll find we're generally sympathetic. Meanwhile, IRL, my wife is a counsellor and I can attest that she has helped many to find a way out of the woods that sometimes surround us. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I sympathise; my wife was a counsellor (now retired) and has a knack of asking challenging questions but I can confirm that they manage to help many people turn their life round. However, we have a long history of people pouring their woes out and hopefully picking up some good advice - even if it's only "go and get some professional help". Often we know what should be done but just require some encouragement to make the first step. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly

Has this been commented on? If so I apologise but couldn't find it. The California Eagle Forums’ Orlean Koehle reports that while coming off the podium after giving her speech, she missed a step and fell and broke her hip. Now that's not good for anyone to cope with, but at her age (85) it's downright awful. --Scream!! (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Here's hoping she bounces back from this. If you see this, Roger or Andy, pass on our best wishes for a speedy recovery. P-Foster (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Conflict: Sorry: didn't notice the age of the piece (2009) so I suppose she's recovered. Ah well! --Scream!! (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. P-Foster (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That's why actors always say "break a leg" before someone goes on stage. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've stopped saying that after it actually happened. It's a fucking health & safety nightmare. (although not as weird as when a director once said "I hope your cello doesn't explode" and it sort of did.) ^moral 11:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't know how much that has disillusioned me. I always thought of Ms. Dikov as being an exemplar of rationality and common sense and now I find out she's been participating in theatrical superstition. :( Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Bar girls wanted

A part time job advert, shared around via Facebook. Thought it might bemuse some people.

“”Bar girls wanted for Royal Wedding Day Special party being held at a working men's club in and we are looking for 8 girls to work as barmaids to help celebrate! We want girls aged 18-25, and you must be happy to work for the day in a Union Jack bikini top and short Union Jack skirt (can both be provided), and high heels. You will be serving drinks, handing out snacks and chatting to the men helping build up the excitement. Girls will be paid £15 per hour (7 hours work), plus tips, and free food so you will be fed, plus you get to watch the wedding which every girl is looking forward to doing, You do not need experience, we're just looking for friendly, chatty and bubbly girls, must be comfortable in high heels as you'll be on your feet a lot whilst working in heels for the day.

Still, £15 an hour isn't to be sniffed at. ^moral 10:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And where exactly will you be working? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a bank holiday, I will either be taking advantage of free instrument time at the university, or sleeping. ^moral 10:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Damn, I though that I might pop over and take a few snaps for the Bar. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this some sort of gender &/or age based discrimination? RagTop^{Gone sailing} 11:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, of course it isn't... 11:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This didn't come out on the first of this month by any chance?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you mention it, yes. ^moral 16:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I should point this out before several feminists I know make complete fools of themselves... ^moral 16:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Pokemon Link Green

If you're bored and somewhat easily amused, this guy's short series is pretty entertaining. sPaRkY^{Can we really trust the Blathereen?} 16:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If my life choices ever come down to "click a pokemon link or die", I'd have to weigh up the relative merits of each case. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just a parody of the Legend of Zelda and Pokemon series. I'm not going to kill you over it. sPaRkY^{Can we really trust the Blathereen?} 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My Life Is Bro

My sweet amazing boyfriend had fanned this page called "My Life Is Bro" on Facebook. Curiously, I clicked on it, because he's got a great sense of humor and I needed a chuckle. What I found made me feverently wish for a great, all-powerful vagina from the sky to rain menstural blood all over humanity. I know I'm whing about things of which you care not, but I'm so disgusted with sweet boyfriend. Thoughts on this site? Anyone want to troll it with me?

http://mylifeisbro.com/

I feel like this is a picture-perfect image of young adult male life in U.S. ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.255.80.165 / talk / contribs}

Yeeesh, that's pretty disgusting, although, as with all things on the 'net, one has to wonder about the gap between reality and people thinking they're being cool. All that being said, "trolling other sites" isn't really what we're all about. However, if you want to take out an account, write an article on My Life Is Bro and link it to some of our other articles on sex, gender, feminism, etc, that could be cool and cathartic. P-Foster (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's so brotacular, even more brotacular than the time I met Brover Cleveland, Broseidon, Lord of the Brocean, and Edgar Allen Bro while drinking bromide and bro-ning some bromiscuous girl, bro...dude. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, that site is pretty split between parodies of bro-culture (brulture?) and people who think that's actually how they should live their lives. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that site's not meant to be taken seriously, some of the stuff on there is pretty funny. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, Eddy. I wonder about how much the site, and its sister site My Life is Ho speak to an attitude that resonates with college kids today, in which a flagrant disregard for other people as fully-formed human subjects shapes sexual encounters. The woman who wrote this article on the sexual climate ae Duke wouldn't be too surprised at the attitudes expressed on the site. P-Foster (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So... many... shades... of... special... ^moral 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

hmm, now I am a confused old guy. I thought bro was a term used by african americans. Brolly was a surfer term meaning brotherly, and I find the expression 'bros before hoes' just sad. Hamster (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I used to be a most passionate fan of Sperry Top Sliders. I recently found out that's considered "frat". I want to burn every goddamn pair I own. I'm thinking of witholding sex from my boyfriend. ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.255.80.165 / talk / contribs}

There's also this bit of nonsense that came out recently. On the one hand, none of this is really anything new, I know; but given the amount of time and effort that has gone into trying to get some sort of basic feminist message out there (basic, like, women are people), the fact that this kind of thing can be expressed in such an un-self-aware manner is pretty disheartening. P-Foster (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Remember this? --Scream!! (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I do. I also remember, a couple of years back, a bunch of sorority pledges parading across the campus of McGill University chanting "Face down, ass up, that's the way we like to fuck!" Now, I'm no prude and I'm totally down with the idea of women's sexual empowerment, but the two episodes read together speak to something going on with the sexual politics of younger people today. P-Foster (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I lol'ed: "Drawbacks of this philosophy are that you may have to visit the clinic more often than not, but a quick penicillin shot really isn't that bad (trust me)." I got gonorrhea! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A year or two ago the Students Union gave out "his and hers" bags to new students during freshers' week. The mens bag contained a copy of FHM and a full-size tin of beans. The women's bag contained a copy of Cosmo and a half-size tin of beans. THAT is a lapse in judgement. Going around shouting "No means Yes, Yes means Anal" is not even the same ball park as a "lapse in judgement". In fact, I'd go so far to say that it's not even a ball game or on the same planet. I mean, what the hell are you thinking when you come up with that sort of thing, even as a prank? ^moral 11:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe the stories on MLIB/MLIH are true stories. As for whether the attitudes on there are real, it's kindofa great area. The misogyny is exaggerated to extremes, but it's basically still appealing to a sexist audience. Such is often the case in the post-ironic world we live in. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Relevant

'Slut walk' protesters say police blame victims of sexual assault --Scream!! (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My idea for a "compromise"

Saturday evening, I watched a CNN special report on the fight in Murfreesboro, TN over the construction of a mosque there.

It actually became a court battle, and one of the arguments of bigots anti-mosque group was how brutal the extreme versions of Sharia law are.

I came up with a "compromise". "Fine, you can ban construction of mosques based on the beliefs of extremists Muslims. But here's the deal -- the local residents get to decide if the beliefs of any religious group are appropriate before they can construct a house of worship. And it's not just what they say their beliefs are; it's based on the views of the most extreme followers of that religion. Want to open a Christian church? Fine, the locals get to decide whether it's allowed, and the church's beliefs are assumed to be the same as those of Fred Phelps." MDB (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I find your views intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.... but seriously, considering the concept of legal precedent and the fact that US law mandates not favouring one religion over another (even at the loosest interpretation that says atheists aren't allowed rights because it's freedom of religion not freedom from religion, that's still what it says) that means objections to mosques based on Sharia law must necessarily lead to that same decision being taken for Christian churches. ^moral 11:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately a similar story is playing out in a little place near me. As far as I can tell the argument is that it would "damage the neighbourhood".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an Islamic community center and a separate mosque in the central Maryland town I live in. And I could walk to the halal meat market from my office. We're not living under Sharia law that I've noticed.

Of course, we've also got a synagogue and there's a Hindu temple in the next town over. No one is trying to ban the consumption of pork or beef, either. MDB (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

With the warped sense of perspective some people have, the Hindu temple would mean that you ARE under Sharia law. I was once asked via Facebook by some right-wing fucknugget (someone else's friend, incidentally) "You live near Oxford, right? How's all that call to prayer in the morning?" - Yeah, I live "near" Oxford in the same sense I live near Paris, and yes, the UK is ran by Muslims and every morning I'm awoken by the sound of people calling out from the top of minarets telling me to get on my knees and shout at Allah. I think it's a very serious issue that people think like that. ^moral 13:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think even with American Islamo-phobes, I doubt many of them would argue a Hindu temple puts me under Sharia law... MDB (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect ArmondikoV has a stand-up bit from Russel Howard's Good News in mind, where an American was described as stating Muslim and Hindu are basically the same thing. Am I right? --Danfly (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm islamophobic as fuck, but this kind of bigoted religious discrimination is so wrong it's fascinating. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sort of, it was just a facetious point, but I wouldn't be surprised if people did genuinely think it. You have to remember that this evolves out of an "Us & Them" mentality that allows little or no room for any other position. So you have Christian and you have Non Christian. Therefore Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, what's the difference? All sinners, all going to hell, all hate Glorious America. ^moral 15:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Jonanism essentially. Тy^Talk. 15:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember that on the Tea Party Organizers forum, they had to do some research to determine that not everyone who wears a turban is a Muslim...--ZooGuard (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, wasn't a Sikh killed in the US after 9/11 because he was thought to be a Muslim. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What film is it where a guy yanks a Sikh taxi driver out of the car (in order to nick off with it) and shouts "AL QAEDA! AL QAEDA!!" at him a few times and everyone goes and beats him up. Could happen in real life, similar to that "paedophile/paedeotrician" thing (although that is an exaggeration and didn't happen exactly as the urban myth says). ^moral 17:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

urban myth, you say? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The myth states she was killed for being a pedophile. Or at least attacked. Quaru^{hot dog - You can't explain that!} 18:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This page

is suffering a severe lack of cute.

Fixed now. --PsyGremlinPraat! 11:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You want cute? I'll give you cute.

Look at the baby bears! MDB (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought only dogs for the blind were allowed in the bar. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You've been allowing a bear in here for years now. MDB (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Aw! The cute little kitten! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, now it's got a litter. See. This is why. This is why. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Possum is good eating. Тy^Talk. 12:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll see your cute little kitten & raise you a baby stoat. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Baby sloths. ATP (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cute Overload, mofos. I win. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Obey Butterstick. MDB (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama

Obama just announced his candidacy for 2012, as was to be expected. I was too young to vote for him in 2008, but I'm hoping the effects of some of his legislation (consumer protection, hopefully more regulation to come, etc) will kick in before the election and save his chances of winning. No president's perfect, but I see him as significantly better than some of the opposition. MUCH better. Any thoughts on his chances? I'm still unsure how I think he'd fare against a strong republican challenger, since once the republican noise machine revs up anything can happen. άλφα^Talk 12:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

effing possums. See our 2012 U.S. Presidential Election article. Тy^Talk. 12:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. I thought I had to put up a cute picture, otherwise no one would actually read what I say. Well seeing as it's already been uploaded... Sorry about the terrible sizing and location; I never learned anything about images in my previous wiki experience since I didn't have upload rights. άλφα^Talk 12:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Great article! Can't believe I hadn't read that one before; I need to try searching instead of link hopping back and forth. άλφα^Talk 12:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually see Roemer on a weekly basis, maybe I can interview him to try and see what his policies are. Тy^Talk. 12:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama has a big advantage in that he's presumably not facing a challenger in the primaries. Besides the fact it means he doesn't have to spend a dime to win the nomination again, that also avoids the problem of having the supporters of the challenger in the primary being lukewarm-at-best supporters in the general election.

The Repubs are likely have a decent primary fight. Right now, it looks likely to be a Romney/Huckabee fight, but if a Tea Party backed candidate (probably Bachmann, though Trump looks to be courting the lunatic fringe) starts doing well, it could turn nasty. And that would leave the Dems rubbing their hands together with glee, because it would really show the nutcase side of the Republican party. Even if it just stays Romney/Huckabee, they still have to spend money to win the nomination, and that's money they'd prefer to spend to fight Obama.

Since at least 1980, no sitting President who faced a primary challenger has been re-elected, and any sitting President who did not face a primary challenger was re-elected. So if there's no Democratic challenger, history favors Obama. MDB (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

First read has the initial view of the election. Obviously this is really, really early stuff but they have the following:

Solid Dem: DC, DE, HI, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT (67 electoral votes)

Likely Dem: CA, CT, IL, ME, WA, OR (105)

Lean Dem: MI, MN, NJ, PA (60)

Toss-up: CO, FL, IA, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, VA, WI (115)

Lean GOP: AZ, GA, MO, MT, NE (one EV) (41)

Likely GOP: AL, AR, IN, LA, MS, NE (four EVs), ND, SC, SD, TX (97)

Solid GOP: AK, ID, KS, KY, OK, TN, UT, WV, WY (53)

That gives Obama 232 and the GOP 191 with 115 in the "tossup" list. In other words, there's gonna have to be a huge pro-GOP shift it they're going to give Obama a serious challenge. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the Intrade prediction, where Obama's reelection contract has been hovering around 60 (indicating that the market puts a 60% chance on this event occuring). Beating an incumbent is always hard, and I'm counting on Obama to repeat his massive fundraising and organizational feats from 2008. His campaign will be a juggernaut, and I don't think corporate-funded independent advertising can close the gap for the Republicans. Tea-party-style base mobilization would improve their chances, but they'll have a hard time recreating this anti-Washington uprising with a strong Republican majority in the House. The identity of the Republican nominee is a major piece of information that's still missing, but I agree that it's either going to be Romney or Huckabee. Huckabee's the front runner in most polls, charismatic and likeable, and would be closer to the party's base voters, but he's apparently unwilling to run. If he does, I'd say he's the slight favourite to win, otherwise Romney has an advantage. Most of the others are either unelectable (Bachmann, Gingrich, Palin if she runs) or, at the other end, would be solid choices for the general election, but will struggle with base voters (Daniels, Pawlenty). Huckabee and Romney are both decent candidates, but not great ones, so that's another advantage for Obama in addition to incumbency and money. The other big unknown is of course the unemployment picture throughout 2012, which will most likely still look bad, but may show signs of improvement, and trends are usually more important. If it does improve ever so slightly, I don't see any of the Republicans beating him. Röstigraben (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that ex-GOP staffer who said that three things have to happen for Obama to lose: 1) the economy in 2012 has to be either stagnant or in decline in the 10 or so key electoral states; 2) no new major international crisis arises that causes people to rally behind Obama; 3) a [decent] Republican nominee. I agree with you on the nominees though - Huckabee would be their best bet, followed by Romney. I really, really hope they go for one of the others though - after all, the Democrats have never won 50 states.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if the GOP go for one of the less batty candidates. Will the Teabaggers split and pick their own? Will they bother turning out. Lots of fun speculation to be had. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The big problem the GOP nominee is going to have is uniting the Teabaggers with the Rove-approved country club Republicans. My pick is a dark horse like Pawlenty. I expect there will be a lot of PUMA stuff going on within the Rep. camp in 2012. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Republican challenger is the biggest problem. If they pick a batshit candidate, Obama's probably home dry, but if they pick a more moderate candidate then Obama could be in trouble, as the Tea Party would probably swallow its distaste and vote against Obama anyway. The best hope is for a really vicious Republican primary with a lunatic winner, so the indies and more moderate republicans vote for Obama. I reckon the Tea Party could screw this up for the Repubs. They have primary power, but not enough election power (as seen in Alaska, when voters decided they'd rather have the defeated write in Republican instead of the Tea Party-backed, official Republican). EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just one comment re. hoping for a batshit insane GOP candidate. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. *shudder* Ajkgordon (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Palin 2012 baby!! YEAH!!! ^moral 21:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already officially endorsed Jimmy McMillan. Rent is too damn high! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I get to vote in the primary. I'll allow the mob to decide my vote then. Тy^Talk. 01:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What I would love to see is Bachmann losing to a non-cartoonish candidate, split from the party, and run as a Tea Party candidate. She already gave a separate tea-bagger response to the SOTU address, why not carry the banner even further into the breach? Maybe Trump will run with Orly Taitz as his veep as their own birther party. ATP (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

that would be the best option. A separate tea party candidate would only need to cream off 5-10% of the GOP vote and Obama would walk it - just as he won Indiana and North Carolina due to strongishs Bob Barr support there. It would also, hopefully, knacker the wingnuts as a political force for a generation. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll vote for Trump on the grounds of "best Presidential hair since Reagan." I supported Al Sharpton for the same reason. MDB (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A separate Teabagger ticket would be genuinely fascinating. Maybe not in the first election, but if they kept it up and essentially split from the GOP, there could be a serious realignment of American politics. Without the real right-wing nutjobs, the GOP would probably slide left, back to its historical position as a center-right party. They'd pick up right-wing Dems, so the Dems would probably change back from being a center-right party to a center-left party.

In the first election, though, I'm not sure what would happen. Would the GOP dive right to try to end the split, or say "fuck 'em" and abandon the right to try to seize the middle? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Political Wire is reporting a similar concern from within the GOP itself. Here. Basically, they seem worried that increasing wingnuttery could cost them the House next time. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A formal Tea Party would be interesting, and there would be plenty of infighting between the Paul wing and the Palin wing. There would probably be general consensus on economic issues, but social issues could be quite contentious. Are they really libertarians or just greedy theocrats? My money is on the latter. They are fairly effective as mob-based opposition to incumbents, but when they have to agree on governance things will change. As Bloomberg said, "Anger is not a governing strategy. ATP (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

AV (again)

Campaigning for the May 5th referendum on the Alternative Vote has kicked off properly. The No2AV campaign seem to have set off alarm bells and stuck a massive negative from me when I noticed that their YouTube vid has ratings and comments disabled. Of course, we all know that's one of the great signs of Proper Bullshitting, often used by people who know they can't defend against criticism.

Next, I've noticed that the NO campaign have two main talking points.

1. AV is not proportional, so STV is better.
2. AV would apparently cost £250 million to implement.

Now, ignoring that the first point is a logical clusterfuck because STV has not and probably will not be on offer and the fact that the second point is something they just made up, you have to wonder if these two points are actually compatible. Apparently the country can't afford AV because of the electronic voting machines that might be needed, but STV definitely does require electronic voting machines to transfer the votes proportionally. So, what the fuck is up with this? We can't afford AV, even though you're lying about that, but we can afford STV, even though you're also lying about that. Great job guys, great job. ^moral 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The No campaign have been playing dirty from the start. The "He needs a bulletproof vest, not an alternative voting system" nonsense is mendacious in the extreme, and then there's this lie that the BNP are going to swing 35 seats. 1) It probably isn't true, and 2) Even if it IS true, that's democracy. They're trying anything to scare people away. Baroness Warsi has been doing a thorough hatchet job. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I should post on their YouTube videos pointing that ou... oh, wait. ^moral 16:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And here's the latest bullshit. Apparently the Yes campaign is racist - interesting argument considering the diversity of people who are appearing on their literature. ^moral 16:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember seeing that and thinking what bollocks it was. That's a wonderful bit of unbiased reporting from the Torygraph, incidentally. NONE of the arguments from the No camp are about the merits of the scheme. It's just a constant hate screed. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It'd be interesting if anyone can get the public to think in terms of "a NO vote is a vote for the status quo", which would mean the NO campaign considering and campaigning on what the benefits of FPTP are. ^moral 22:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Most people that I've heard extolling the virtues of FPTP say it leads to strong government, but they are only ever happy when it is their strong government rather than the other lot's.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)