RationalWiki talk:Forum

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm going to leave the wip template up there, but I'm going to bed now. That's basically it, the only problem is that multiple scrollable dpl thingies use the same parameter, so scrolling one will scroll all of them. Perhaps it would be best to leave the scrolling off this page, and use separate "archive" pages which list all the threads in a category using scrolling. -- Nx / talk 01:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the bartop should be taken down. For one, it says "Saloon Bar" rather than forum. & With the chalkboard etc. it takes up the whole screen so you have to scroll down to see the threads. This is fine in the Saloon Bar where you'll be scrolling down anyway because the page is so long, but here it's taking up half the page, which doesn't make much sense. Either remove it or use a more compact version (e.g. the Saloon Bar style sign without quotes, jukebox, etc.) ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. -- Nx / talk 17:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I've tried making a more compact version of the it. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should add a link to the SB in one of the upper boxes. I know it's linked in the left side community section, but a more "formal" reciprolink would be nice. Thoughts? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to fold the SB into the Forum, then the SB will essentially become a stickied forum thread in General discussion. I can't put it there now (I don't want to hack the templates, and the dpl excludes redirects, so that wouldn't work), and IMHO it's not necessary. People know about the SB already, so we don't need to pimp it, unlike the forum. -- Nx / talk 22:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, this is how it would look. Please rollback this and delete Forum:Saloon bar when you've seen it. -- Nx / talk 22:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting. That should work very well. I hope that the DPL thing I stuck on the SB won't list the redirect, of course. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The name[edit]

Can we think of something more imaginative to call this than "forum"? I think it's going to cause too much confusion for new editors if we have two completely different parts of the site labelled as forums. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The expanded versions[edit]

This looks awesome. My only problems is that when I click on the expanded versions what I expect to see is the same page with the expansion now in place. Can we mock the expanded pages up to look like the main page? - π 00:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There you go. I'd rather leave the Saloon-bar like expanded view as it is though. The idea is to make these boxes collapsible, but the current implementation of the collapse script is insufficient. -- Nx / talk 00:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Renaming forum threads[edit]

Can a forum-page be renamed in the usual way without messing anything up? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The redirect won't be listed since it's not categorized.
Sorry for moving your comment, I hope this will help people find it in the future. -- Nx / talk 19:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WIGO NAV[edit]

Why not add a forum icon to it? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Question for the Webpage Masters or Code Masters.[edit]

I didn't know where to enter this question, so I can only hope I've chosen an avenue that will reap the informatoin that I am searching for. Sorry if I have put it in the wrong place ( I looked at all the areas of post so ??? ): here it is..... In my exploration of a topic, I find it essential to ask for guidance from people with a more analytical view of these to subjects, as to which direction I might consider taking. One focus is technical involving software and O/S evolution but the second is a more difficult one - Science verses Religion. As I stated to Ty I accidentally fell into this site via while on a quest to comment on what I perceived to be very extremely overly fabricated, ( more to the tune of creative science fiction writing ), views than anything else. Five fundamental weaknesses can be extracted from the many that exist on this subject matter of religion. All the information on the issue of religion originates from manuscripts: a) written so long ago and contain content that is disputable as to its authenticity; b) the original volumes were first written in unfamiliar ancient languages and archeologically proven in part to be incorrectly translated; c) the original scrolls where archeologically proven again in part to be modified by individuals with diverse preconceived notions; d) there is no absolute archeological or rational fact evidence to whether all of the accounts in these original text are indisputable events, (although some of the information has been scientifically proven by archeologists), the original texts contain in the most part unsubstantiated narratives; e) but most importantly the manuscripts and scrolls when found where in such a state of decomposition, archeologists could not complete the works in their entirety. Therefore any version drafted from these works would have been incomplete and inaccurately restructured, this including the James version bible. Quite obviously this introduces the logical fallacy of begging the question and therefore anything based solely on assumption, ends up making, Assume = Ass + U + Me; or out of anyone who decides to go down that road – of course this inference is stated by numerous people and places, this particular one from: (http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/as_the_saying_about_assumption). So, if you could give me some direction with this dilemma, I would very much appreciate it. Finding your site has only released some inner ankh’s ( please mind the pun ), and put me on a quest to try to write one of your better User pages. I, however, have found out from your many associates that I have great trouble with writing and feel compelled to ask for further editing help in this process, ( if that’s alright ). I would like to thank you in advance for any input that will hopefully be introduced via a return thought or two ( or three, four, five etc ), but there is also no need for speed on this. I have found myself becoming deeper in thought about which concept direction I really want to go with. For some reason my uncertainty expanded instead of defining itself and I would like to feel completely satisfied that my final decision is the one truly for me to complete. Again, apologizes for such a lengthy submission, but felt it necessary to give detailed information for what I perceive as vital observations from you, that I feel I need to adequately put forward a thesis. TLOS 11:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I only answer technical questions. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
TLOS, I think the questions you pose are only an issue for those who choose to base their religious faith on history. For example, there is a certain sort of Christian, who believes that Jesus' historically literal death and resurrection was necessary to save them from eternal damnation — if it was proved that Jesus never rose from the dead, or that Jesus never existed, their entire religion would be destroyed. On the other hand, there is another sort of Christian, who thinks Jesus' message and example and ideas has value for us, but if it was proved that Jesus was a myth, it would make little difference to their faith — it's the message that counts, not whether the messenger is really real.. I'd say there is a difference here between Eastern and Western religions. If Moses or Jesus or Muhammad are myths or monsters, then tradition Judaism or Christianity or Islam are destroyed. Whereas, if the historical Buddha was a myth or a monster, a lot of Buddhists wouldn't care, since it is the ideas and practices in the today that count for them, not whether they originated in the manner tradition claims.
So, if you choose to have religious views — and it is your choice whether you have them, or which ones you have — you can either choose those views which are dependent on history, and then the issues you posed are difficult problems urgently needing to be solved; or you can choose those views which are independent of history, and then those issues are of limited relevance. Your choice.
As to me, I believe in parallel universes, and I believe universes can divide, so this universe might tomorrow split into two identical copies, which would thereafter start to increasingly differ, and after some time end up completely different. If that is true, then we may not have a single future, but rather many simultaneous and different futures. But if we can have many futures, might we not equally have many pasts? Maybe as well as universes dividing, they might also sometimes merge? Maybe, as well as divergent futures, we might have distinct pasts converging on to a single present? If that is true, then there may be multiple equally true but completely different pasts. People ask the question, "Did Jesus really exist?" Some people say "Yes", others "No", but everyone assumes the answer must be either "Yes but not No" or "No but not Yes". What if the answer is in fact "Both Yes and No", in multiple pasts? I don't claim to know if there are multiple pasts or not, so I can't rule out this third answer as a possibility.
I also believe that God (or as I prefer, Goddess), earnestly wishes to fulfil our deepest desires, and if we desire something strongly enough, Goddess will make it true; she will even create an entire universe (or to be more precise, a universe branch), to fulfil their desire. So if someone earnestly desires that Jesus really existed, she may create for them a past in which Jesus really existed; and if someone earnestly desires that Jesus never existed, she may create for them a past in which Jesus never existed; and if there be some who desire each, and their desires be equally matched, she may even create both pasts, to fulfil the desires of both of them. Probably sounds crazy to you, but this is what I believe. (((Zack Martin))) 09:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Madam /Sir Associates:[edit]

Oh, and I meant to add, my bad writing/spelling habits come from the fact that I almost lost my left hand last year. I had a tumor that was wrapped around the main nerve of the left hand, and it had eaten into the muscle of the thumb ( just over an inch in diameter of flesh was gone ), and had infiltrated the thumb nerve. Needless to say my Surgeon saved my hand. Although, in having to get at the tumor, the Surgeon had to disconnect the carpal tunnel completely. As I was trying to rehab the wrist to begin strength and movement training, my left shoulder froze by Christmas. You see, this tumor was my fourth one in my life, I am a survivor. Anyway, part of my rehab to work on my fingers is typing, ( and although I’m a tech and really want to be able to use the hand again ), suffice it to say, getting the fingers to do exactly what I want, when I want them to work is a chore. As well, the shoulder/arm isn’t exactly releasing and it has been to long in the freeze stage….. so a couple of weeks ago I had the capsule blown up. If this doesn’t work, it looks like another surgery for me, and a really big hope that I’ll actually be able to use my arm again, to at the least 50% (of course I’m a warrior so I am going for 90%-fingers crossed – well on the right hand anyway) – so there you go ….. my life story to explain not excuse bad writing/spelling/and we might as well stick sentence structure into that as well….. TLOS 00:29, August 26 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hope you get better TLOS. Sorry to hear that. I'm sure as a programmer, losing hand function must be particularly hard. I have nightmares about losing my hands or my eyes... I could still cope if I was deaf or paraplegic or legless, I think, somehow... but armless, handless, sightless... how do I code??? I'm sure I could find a way, but it would make the whole process far less efficient. (((Zack Martin))) 09:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)