RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $5800Goal: $6000
Information icon.svg The 2018 moderator election has started! We are electing 6 moderators and 2 alternatives to serve in 2019. Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 31 March 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, (new)(back)

Can we date these entries (when we added them and when they were posted)? Please? humanUser talk:Human 20:24, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't that make them a bit unweildy? Where do you want the date, anyway? --Kels 10:16, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
I didn't think so... how about adding for example (posted May 5 2008) after each item? (Meaning, the date the blogger committed their thoughts to print) It will show what's stale and what's fresh, at least. I guess our "posting order" (new at top) kind of takes care of our "post date" thing. We could just use monthly headers for that, I suppose. humanUser talk:Human 15:08, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
How's that look? --Kels 16:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
Looks good to me. As people add more things in each section, of course, we'll have a better idea of what matters and where to say it. Thanks for adding some stuff, I think it makes it easier for others to follow. humanUser talk:Human 16:54, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

on conservative erotica[edit]

  • I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it. --glances at a example of conservative erotica-- yawn . . . that is definitely not it.
  • mary and john closed the bedroom door and presumably retired to their separate but matching beds because the time to reproduce was not yet nigh.

HAHAHAHAHA . .. oh . . sorry. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 12:43, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

To steal from Bill Maher, they think sex is bad because sex with them always is! --Kels 13:10, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Shelly the Republican[edit]

... it's a parody. It's been around a few years and was debunked not long after it started (can't remember where) D-Notice 18:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Ray Comfort has a blog![edit]

And his obsession with food analogies continues. tmtoulouse irritate 11:44, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

I fixed and posted a revision of his Atheist starter kit to his latest entry. Here it is if you're lazy.

THE THEIST STARTER KIT

If you are a beginner Theist, there's a belief system you should embrace and a language you should learn, or you will find yourself in trouble. Here are ten suggestions for the novice:

1. Whenever you are presented with a lack of evidence for your God's existence, call it a "straw man argument," or "circular reasoning." If something is quoted from somewhere, COMPLETELY disregard anything preceding or following the bit you want and ignore all context clues.

2. When an Atheist says that creation does not prove that there is a Creator, dismiss such common sense by saying "That's not what my Bible says."

3. When you hear that chestnut about the Pascal wager, firmly insist that YOUR religion is the only religion that his statement could possibly apply to, regardless of the fact that all of the other religions also believe the same thing about their dogma.

4. You can also deal with the solutions to any moral issues by insisting that there is evidence that your prophet existed. Just no specifics.

5. Believe that your Bible is completely accurate in every detail. Do not read it for yourself. That is a big mistake. Instead, let your clergymen read it for you, interpret it for you, and apply it to you. Believe and imitate them in every aspect. Learn to despise the use of big words. "Godless heathens” is about as far as you want to stretch your syllable count.

6. Say that you were once an Atheist, and that you found it to be false. (The cool thing about being a Theist is that you can lie through your teeth, because you believe that there is but one moral absolute, and that is to defend your dogma at all costs.) Additionally, if an Atheist points out that this is impossible (simply due to the very definition of Theism is knowing the existence of a God), just reply "My Bible says…'" PLEASE NOTE: It cannot be overly emphasized how learning and using these little phrases can help you feel secure in dismissing common sense.

7. Believe that nothing is 100% certain, except your Bible. Do not question it. Believe with all of your heart that there is credible scientific evidence for Creation. When you make any argument, pat yourself on the back by concluding with "Man, you’re going to burn in Hell!" That will make you feel good about yourself.

8. Deal with the threat of eternal punishment by saying that you firmly believe in the existence of a Hell. Then convince yourself that because you believe a certain dogma, you are safe from it. Go ahead and follow that logic onto a railway line and an oncoming train.

9. Dismiss all religions for the atrocities carried out in any God’s name--when they tortured Jews through the Spanish Inquisition, imprisoned Galileo for his beliefs, murdered Moslems in the Crusades, or blow up innocents on the street.

10. Finally, keep in fellowship with other like-minded Theists who believe only as you believe and encourage each other in your beliefs. Build up your faith. Never doubt for a moment. Remember, the key to Theism is to be unreasonable. Fall back on that when you feel threatened. Think shallowly and keep telling yourself that you are intelligent. Remember, a Theist is someone who pretends there is a God.

JBraman 16:10, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Not quite a Nobel[edit]

$100 and a book. Wow! these people really know how to value their best people. SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:25, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Anonymous[edit]

Isn't that the guy attacking Scientology? DLerner 05:31, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

I think Anonymous is a pretty cool guy, eh is awarded awards by creationists and doesn't afraid of anything! --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 18:34, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

It was a joke[edit]

Errr, can't you guys get the joke... it wasn't a tyop! הרב ד.לערנער Ask the Rabbi a question 05:31, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

But the post is about bilingualism, not literacy or grammar. ~ Gloom(is never asleep) 05:33, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
It should be written in Spanish, methinks. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:20, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

English Fail[edit]

(Re: Phyllis about Obama and learning a second language)

I know that that's not strictly her point, but this section of her column cracked me up (emphasis mine):

Most Americans look upon the English language as the number-one factor that defines our national identity: "e pluribus unum," one nation out of many peoples. We want English to be our national, official language, spoken by all who call themselves Americans.

Yep, English sure defines your national identity, which is summed up in a non-English phrase. Brilliant. --Sid 17:33, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

And one suggested by a Swiss artist, even. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:37, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I fell off my chair when I read that, too. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:20, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
I read some where once "e pluribus unum" comes from a poem about making salad dressing, usually credited to Virgil. \approx\pi 18:43, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
I just copyed it to paste it here, only to see many of us saw the same damn thing. Et Tu, brute?


Should we be linking to paysites here[edit]

I went to the scientific evidence for irreducible complex article and found I couldn't read it for want of a subscription. I wonder if allowing linking to paysites will (a) make this section less reliable and therefore less popular(b) could result in blatant advertising in the future (not saying that this necessarily is). — Unsigned, by: Damo2353 / talk / contribs

I think it depends on the nature of the paysite and what is available for free? IE, I went to one the other day (some science journal) and the synopsis was enough to tell me what I needed. If I want to read it for free, I guess I could head to the local University library. If a site requires paying to read anything, it's not a very useful link, of course. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:12, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Ron Paul[edit]

As someone who does not live in the US, who is Ron Paul and why won't he give up?\approx\pi 08:04, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

I second the question. And I ask who is he likely to hurt if he gets a few votes?--Damo2353 08:09, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
According to our article he is a Republican so he will be hurting McCann. What I don't understand is why he has not conceded defeat and why he thinks he is so important to continue down a futile and destructive path. \approx\pi 21:12, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

He is a libertarian/republican political crank that developed a very abusive and "large" internet presence of crazy kooks during his race. His is famous for winning ever online poll. He and his followers are total nut cases that I get a kick out of poking. tmtoulouse irritate 21:17, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Well he is Republican, but he seems to have a very Isolationist foreign policy, perhaps even more so than the Democrats. Plus he seems to invigorate a large youth market that might otherwise vote Obama (or I could be talking out of my ass). Would his nutcases vote Obama or McCain if he weren't there?Damo2353 21:19, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
There's a difference between isolationist (RP) & non-interventionist (Dem). SusanG  ContribsTalk 21:22, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
Neither, they are actually a very small number of the voting population, maybe 50,000-100,000 "hard" supporters, another half million weak supporters. Most would not vote, or are voting other third party options like Barr. Primarily dominated by extreme libertarian sects of the population. tmtoulouse irritate 21:23, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
I first became interested in him from following the tax protester movement that decided he was their messiah. Those are his followers, they are that far "gone." tmtoulouse irritate 21:25, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Of the people I know at school who supported Paul, one was a libertarian, who I think will vote 3rd party, and a couple more were toward the liberal side, who would either vote Obama, or not at all. --CPAdmin1 21:27, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Darwin conspiracy[edit]

I thought that the general premise (Darwin wasn't first) was generally accepted as true. Like most "discoverers" of scientific breakthroughs he "stood on the shoulders of giants". Wallace and he both came up with the concept concurrently & Darwin was the one to publish & get noticed. "Natural selection" was probably a Wallacism.

"in the mid-1800s, Darwin and the British biologist Alfred Russel Wallace independently conceived of a natural, even observable, way for life to change: a process Darwin called natural selection." http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/history_14

It was luck and good PR that got Darwin the Kudos - like most such things it was collaborative - although unwitting. SusanG  ContribsTalk 07:16, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

It's one thing to put it the way you did, which is of course how most breakthroughs occur. It's another to say Darwin "stole" the ideas in his book, and to propose a conspiracy to support him. Right? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:29, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
The idea of "evolution" had been around for a long time (Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, etc) so that was not the "breakthrough." The breakthrough was the idea of natural selection, if that was a Wallace idea that Darwin adapted than Darwin did nothing but collect specimens. The truth is Darwin had been writing in his notebooks the early idea of natural selection even as early his last few weeks on the Beagle. Certainly he had formulated the outlines of the theory by 1840, and had started sending the idea out to a few choice friends in letters decades before Wallace sent his letter to Darwin. No, Darwin did not borrow the idea of natural selection from Wallace. tmtoulouse irritate 20:21, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
The actual story, in brief, is this. Darwin went on a long boat trip to several locations and observed what he noticed to be a fascinating array of adaptations in organisms, and spent years tapping away at a book. As he was working, another guy (Wallace) also noticed some pretty fascinating stuff, and contacted Darwin to ask him some questions. Darwin went a bit over the "Oh crap!" side, and released is contributions, but worked with Russel, so both of them got credit. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ I like uncivilized padlocks

Commenting out[edit]

The reason I commented out the Jinxmchue entry was because it was on the front page, even though it's about Conservapedia. It seems silly to say "We're boycotting conservapedia!" then have a clogosphere entry about it further down the page. Totnesmartin 12:55, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

The link is solely to his blog, not to CP and it was posted before the boycott. Also we still have all the CP WIGO entries active so commenting out this one is pointless. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 13:10, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

Wiki4CAM[edit]

"Only CAM practitioners can participate in this wiki." Quacks. I personally think that homeopaths should be made to wear pointy wizard hats and have a gong sounded when introduced to a patient. CorryTalk 00:06, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

They don't? \approx\pi 00:10, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Unfortunately the recent internet attention has netted them what looks like a complete mess of vandalism. I will come back to it tomorrow or something. 24.36.227.74 00:12, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Those are some enterprising bastards. CorryTalk 00:18, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanx!

I don't think it took much effort - their "all pages" fit on one screen, and there were no hands (apparently) on board to check wandals. I'm sure they can fix what I didn't tomorrow. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:38, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

I particularly liked this as well: "where they can build their knowledge base without any undue skeptical diversions." Yeah, skepticism is teh suxxors. Smyth 12:41, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Not WIGO worthy but funny:Tooth fairy deserves respect![edit]

I am in a fight over at wikipedia on the Law of attraction page. It can be seen here. One of the good guys shows up and says "you know saying there isn't much scientific research done on the law of attraction is like complaining that there is not enough research done on the tooth fairy." The reply is that the non-existence of the tooth fairy is merely his opinion and a minority one at best. That people must tolerate and respect other peoples beliefs in the tooth fairy. Yes these are adults. tmtoulouse irritate 21:11, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Where, it is really long and I like reading less than Andy. \approx\pi 21:15, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
The easiest thing to do is ctrl-f tooth-fairy cause I cant link right too it. The uh hello world stuff is related to a new extension idea I am working on. It should be gone now. tmtoulouse irritate 21:18, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks T, you are doing a great job keeping this place running. \approx\pi 21:20, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

The No Shirt, No Shoes lady[edit]

Is this Julie really notable? Making fun of her column in a third rate Virginia newspaper seems like going hunting at the zoo. Of course, so does making fun of Conservapedia, I guess... CorryTalk 12:55, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Julie's comprehension is pretty poor, but I guess that we knew that already.
"Father Jeremy Davies an exorcist with the diocese of England and Wales..."
Yes Julie, just one bishop for the whole of England and Wales. Her reference says "A priest of Westminster, the leading diocese of the Catholic Church of England and Wales." Maybe she is just too easy a target. But hey, that makes our job so much easier. Jollyfish.gifGenghisRationalWiki GOLD member 17:47, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
I actually suggested we start tracking christian nut case bloggers because of Julie and her blog. She isn't notable in the WP sense but, given the purpose of this page, I think she fits right in. Besides she is funny as hell when she doesn't make me feel queasy . . . besides the pilot is a first rate Virginia newspaper which makes it third rate in the rest of the universe so overall it is a wash. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 12:58, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Don't cover her so much, though. We don't need to read everything she writes -- it's flooding out the WIGO, dammit. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!</font>If I had to choose between the continued possibility of nothing happening and of doing nothing, I would unquestionably choose the latter. 13:01, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Who knew invertebrates were so fucking cranky? Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 14:31, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
"Flooding out the WIGO"??? Right now it looks like one post/day for August. Pretty mellow, and if it weren't for the Julie-lickers, it would be dead... ħumanUser talk:Human 04:19, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Asking the experts[edit]

Afternoon, all- long-time lurker here who never had anything useful to say before now, but I found this[1] little piece of insanity today and I can't work out if it's parody or the real deal. I don't suppose anyone here could take a guess? --Symuun 10:17, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

It looks legitimate. It's pretty inevitable that creationists would hate the idea of Spore. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 15:11, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Hey Symuun, you don't have to be useful to contribute, just need a sense of fun. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:15, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
I know basically nothing about this game, but it seems to me the ID crowd should like it, after all, isn't the point of the game that you intelligently guide the process of life? YEC shouldn't much care for it, but the Old Eart crowd should approve. DickTurpis 15:27, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, you'd have thought so. But then the distinct lack of penis monsters in the real world suggests that if there is a God, He has no sense of humour at all. --Symuun 18:24, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
I thought actual penises were proof he does? --Kels 19:39, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, on further consideration, and reading the latest post, I think I'm converted to this person's point of view. [2] --symuunWords! 09:31, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Antispore[edit]

We should have post something on Antispore, but I'm not sure whether to put it in Blogosphere or clogosphere. Advice plz? Totnesmartin 11:32, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

What should happen is a post in Blog that posts the site, posts a few initial reaction blogs, then a few of the post-poe blogs. Tell the whole story. tmtoulouse irritate 11:34, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
AntiSpore's a Rickroll, isn't it? --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 11:43, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

god loves bridges[edit]

that's great! God loves indoor plumbing too! and the hoover dam! and probably the third Reich in its day! -- All those grand products of organization and engineering aka intelligent design! 204.248.28.194 15:16, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

McCain's past lives[edit]

Karma doesn't work like that. --Kels 09:33, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Where did that come from? - User \approx\piFor best results always render PNG 09:56, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
The entry about McCain winning because of handwriting analysis. There's a thing at the bottom saying that McCain and Palin were both great leaders in past lives, so their karma would help them now. --Kels 14:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
er . . that's Instant KarmaTM Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 14:31, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Technical point[edit]

I have a few things I'd like to add to this page, but I'm unsure over what qualifies. Is this for blogs only? Or can we post stuff from "legitimate" columns? If it is the second, I think we should create a rogue's gallery for posting and quotes from Coulter, Malkin, Bozzell, O'Rielly, Hannity, etc. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 14:55, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I think any batshit insanity written as personal commentary is appropriate here. I have added mainstream stuff from newspaper/TV journalists in the WIGO:blogosophere section so the reverse should apply here. The only consideration is how it differs from RW mission. Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh, etc. are obvious candidates but just because someone is politically conservative then that doesn't mean they belong here. Although as a site we are a bit "pinko" there have been some more conservative editors here and we shouldn't exclude them out of hand. Of course moderate conservatives probably wouldn't be a candidate for WIGO:Clog anyway, but let's just keep diverse viewpoints in mind. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:43, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
Beggin to differ, I personally don't think this page should be for celeb news but from relative nobody bloggers that spout irrational views-- belief in demons, conspiracy theorists, race-baiters, over-the-top partisanship . . . stuff like that. I think that Coulter, Malkin, Bozzell, O'Rielly, Hannity are celebs and may deserve a spot of the own "What is going on with the Illumi-Nutty?" Also, whoever keeps giving the thumbs down to my drooly Jule posts, shame on you! Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 09:01, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
I do kind of agree that it's good to get clogs from as far into the realms of insanity as possible, but when Coulter (why, why is her name always brought up on a friday to spoil my weekend!!) et al open up with something suitably outlandish (well, more outlandish than normal), it should be posted too. Although, just not too often as WIGO isn't exactly supposed to be an RSS feed of someone's blog is it? If you had two WIGOs to cover small and large blogs, you'd run into the problem of who decides what should go where.
To answer closer to the original point, I reckon "legitimate" columns are good. Basically "blog" when referred to political websites is just a new word for an opinion piece that may or may not be also published in the newspaper or magazine too so there's really no actual difference. There's obviously a consideration whether someone will find it interesting though. Some larger international blogs certainly, more country specific ones, what about city specific. If people can't relate to it then it won't be interesting to them, even if it is "on mission". I can probably find some interesting pieces from my university's student press (some extreme moonbatery) but that's not widely appealling at all. ArmondikoVpostate 10:19, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

Sounds familiar[edit]

Is it just me or does Julies' writing style sound quite a bit like that of The Onion's Jean Teasdale? Or do all half-wits sound the same? DickTurpis 18:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

I think Julie writes more or less like she talks. I think some half wits talk alike. The Onion has clearly tapped into this, as has Poe of Poe's Law. Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 18:32, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama's grandmother's passing[edit]

Same as the link on the project page, and I think it is fucking disgusting that people think it was euthanasia for the sympathy vote. People really piss me of sometimes. Aboriginal Noise What the ... 19:09, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Is there any chance some of them are parodists. Otherwise I feel a little ill myself--DamoHi 19:19, 3 November 2008 (EST)
on freepress? Not likely.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 19:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Even if half of them were parodists, that still leaves plenty of sick jerks. Aboriginal Noise What the ... 19:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)
The freepers are pretty insane all the time, I doubt most of them are parodists (although a few probably are). I hate to think of what goes on at Little Green Fascists at the moment. --Kels 19:34, 3 November 2008 (EST)
They are losing, soundly. so they will pull every trick out of the book. You know that CA republicans are suing obama for the trip to see his grandmother, right?--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 19:36, 3 November 2008 (EST)
What??? Why???? This election is getting weirder every minute. I'm gonna miss it... Totnesmartin 19:40, 3 November 2008 (EST)
Here's teh Kos link. i havn't read anything more on it, cause i'm about at the point where i'm so sick of the non-humanity they display....http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/3/141032/949/825/651082--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 19:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Stormfront and D&D[edit]

BLarg! People like that give gamers a bad name. (And the answer to their question is, yes, duh, Driz'zt or however you spell that is BLACK. That was the explicit subtext of the books! Yes, it's anti-racism, you stupid ****s.) Researcher 09:36, 12 November 2008 (EST)

While we're on it, aren't we supposed to not link to Stormfront directly, on account of not giving them traffic and the content generally being NSFW? ArmondikoVpostate 10:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I thought so too, but I'm not the one who put it there. Then again, I remember hearing something about our links not actually counting or something, but that was way above my head. Researcher 10:20, 12 November 2008 (EST)
I put it there. As far as I can see, the above policy worked for Metapedia, since we were linking to a site, but it's harder with a thread. Oh well, tinyurlin'. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

42[edit]

Why haven't there been any updates to this page for ages? Wisest time Hoover!

Stupidity burnout? --Gulik 16:01, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Er . . . my local blogger has just been rehashing her typical silliness. I'm waiting for her to say something new and shocking. As soon as she does, I'll post it here. No way I'm going to keep all that win to myself Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 11:19, 9 December 2008 (EST)

"women are deceivers" WIGO C[edit]

OK, I see the comment way down there, thanks for fixing, Kels. This whackjob actually looks like a fun source, maybe we should even link to him/her/it? Shit, I forgot to keep the tab open so I could paste in a link to what the hell I'm talking about. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:48, 24 December 2008 (EST)

I saw the edit summary saying "Not sure if this is really a great WIGO-C, really." I apologize if I'm unclear on the basics here - I joined RW after having contributed a few times as an anon, and I've been wanting to post the link to that 0.9999 blog for a while now. I stumbled across it when Conservapedia had a link to a Dembski article on Intelligent Design, and the whole "Science and Math Defeated" blog just struck me as an extreme nutcase, with "notedscholar" rambling about how such things as calculus, probability, infinity, and negative numbers are all "false" because "math wizards" try to intimidate people with technobabble. - Cuckoo 14:13, 24 December 2008 (EST)
Well, I said that because I really wasn't sure, mostly based on it being about a comment he makes halfway down, rather than the main article itself. As Human said, there's some wacky stuff among the main entries that might be worth mining, or maybe make the WIGO-C about his denial of basic math, and just make a side comment about "a woman disagrees with me, who is always right, therefore women are decivers" or something like that. Just ideas. --Kels 14:17, 24 December 2008 (EST)

I'm thinking of invoking Poe's Law for this site, especially for its "Nazi Technocrats Harness the Power of the Sun" article. D-Notice 16:12, 24 December 2008 (EST)

The new one on the "War on Christmas and 9/11" makes me suspect he's a joker. That said, has anyone tried to get him to "help" CP yet? He's at least as good at math as Ed and Andy... --Gulik 17:07, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Does ANYONE pay attention to Conservapedia besides "Liberals"?[edit]

It just occurred to me--aside from Eagle Forum and the occasional blogger Conservative begs to help, does anyone in the ConservaBlagoWeb pay any attention to CP? --Gulik 23:39, 24 January 2009 (EST)

No. The one thing Andy and especially  K e n  D o l l  fail to realise is they are entirely irreverent in the conservative movement, no one use them as an actual reference site, and all they are doing is acting as easy source of derision for their political opponents. - User \pi 00:11, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Pretty much what I expected, but you'd expect the occasional fellow wingnut to toss them the occasional bone. Or are even they embarrassed? --Gulik 00:21, 25 January 2009 (EST)
Yes, I suspect they are. CP is so bad, no one would seriously link to it as a resource. It is just a joke site, a clump of feces swirling after the flush. Still smells bad, but at least it's pretty much gone. I dare anyone to call Rust Lintball to tell him about this incredible conservative resource! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:02, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Obamessiah blog[edit]

Has got to be a right-wing parodist. Or maybe one of those disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 00:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Agreed. Certainly not real. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 01:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)
You never know... Poe's Law cuts both ways, after all? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:52, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Christwire[edit]

[Christwire.org] Any idea as to whether this is legit or parody? I think the latter, but... damn. Just... damn. --NTemple 22:24, 10 February 2009 (EST)

They link to Landover Baptist Church so they must be fake. - User \pi 22:28, 10 February 2009 (EST)
Ah. So they do. I see. Should I kill the WIGO? --NTemple 22:46, 10 February 2009 (EST)
If you want to. Do you know how to do it right? That is, comment it out, not delete it? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:18, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Er- no...--NTemple 01:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Kent's Descent Event[edit]

I just realized I hadn't heard anything about my favorite bat-shit insane YEC Herr Doktor Kent Hovind in a while.

I jogged on over to CSE Blogs and was ASTOUNDED to see that his delusions are getting so bad that not only is he having a FULL ON conversation with God himself EVERY DAY, but he's also beginning to hallucinate bilingually.

Not to mention the fact that these are apparently illegal immigrants that God has sanctioned to teach Kenny a lesson, but as illegal immigrants, they probably paid more in Federal taxes than he did, too. (Imaginary or not...)

Also, don't miss the ENTIRELY FACTUAL and SCIENTIFICALLY RECORDED conversation between the K-Dawg and Charles Darwin wherein a birthday greeting is given and much wailing and gnashing of teeth can be heard.

I watch with bated schadenfreude to see what the remainder of his sentence is going to do to him, his faith, his mind and his followers. JBraman07 13:41, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Interesting. Please feel free to update the article to encompas these latest developments. :D ArmondikoVpostate 13:52, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Science fair[edit]

"2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"

Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.

Bootiful! 19:49, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I think I'm going to cry...... Seriously, this is so so so sad. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 22:48, 28 February 2009 (EST)
It's funny, but it's a parody. I think it shouldn't be listed here. 85.178.168.112 09:32, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I've marked down a Poe's Law disclaimer at the end of it. ArmondikoVpostate 18:41, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I've been poed.... On the bright side, I don;t have that bile taste in my mouth anymore... They really need to add smileys. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 19:42, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Dating entries[edit]

Can we remove, "However, please include the date of the original blog post after each entry."? I see the intent above, but no one does it. Sterilewalkie-talkie 09:06, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Republicans for Brown[edit]

I posted this, but someone said it's a parody. Are you sure? They're over the top, but that doesn't always mean parody. Czolgolz 16:27, 7 March 2009 (EST)

http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/use-updates/

Definitely parody. The content is usually indistingushable, but mostly there's a style thing where you can tell. E.g., the "Unplanned Sexual Event" I think is a real term that some Conservatives were throwing around recently, but putting it on that poster (with some mediocre at best MSPaint work) with a pic of Jesus gives it away. ArmondikoVpostate 18:53, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Really? Really, World News Daily? REALLY?[edit]

What the hell kind of a jacked-up, shit-headed, kind of fuck-stick poll is that? 17 god damned options and the closest any of them get to the fucking truth is "No, this is all just sour grapes from the conservatives"? Go shit in your hat. That is all. The Foxhole Atheist 20:33, 7 March 2009 (EST) P.S.- Fucktards.

My favourite of the options is "Yes, I have seen the light. Obama's hiding something". Vague irrational suspicion = divine revelation. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:42, 7 March 2009 (EST)
I've noticed that some Cloggers insist on referring to Obama as "The One" or "The Lightbringer" (not kidding) and similar, as they seem to think that us EVUL LIBRULS think he's the Messiah. And since we're EVUL, that makes Obama T3h ANTICRHIST!!!@!!two!! --Gulik 20:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)
Don;t you watch the Daily Show? He's not the Anti-Christ, he's Hitler. Jeez, amateurs. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 22:21, 7 March 2009 (EST)
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:49, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
Yes, well, every balanced person knows that it really is sour grapes on behalf of the right wing. Really, surely the options in that poll actually prove this! ArmondikoVpostate 10:55, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
OK, but it's the replies that sent me for a shocker. Who knew that in WND land both parents had to be citizens for you to be a natural born citizen. And this chick is chiding *us* for not knowing the constitution?--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«I don't think in any language. I think in images. V.Nabokov» 11:38, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
Sod the "natural born" part, most of them probably won't be happy until they reinstate "...and of the White Race" into it. ArmondikoVpostate 12:13, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

WND apparently slipped up...[edit]

Not sure if this belongs here or on Blog/World (and also not sure if it was covered elsewhere), so I'll post it here, if just to get it out if it's new.

I was kinda surprised that CP didn't post that one in their BiasWP or News sections [Nevermind, they did. So this could technically also go to WIGO-CP, but I won't crosspost it. If anybody else feels the case for WIGO-CP is strong enough, be my guest]: According to WND, Wikipedia whitewashed the Obama entry and blocked a Wikipedia editor who tried to insert the "OBAMA NOT BORN IN THE US!" stuff Andy loves to push.

Problem, as discovered here:

The poor editor who got blocked... was possibly Aaron Klein, the WND editor who posted the story. Hmmm. And a short time later, the WND entry was suddenly whitewashed to not mention the editor name (who apparently only edited the Obama entry... and Klein's...). --Sid 17:21, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Haha, it's such a small world. If you go to Jerusalem21's talk page, you'll see a supportive post from a familiar bunch of numbers. Jinx hi Jinx!, you don't call, you don't write... --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:36, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
...and we LIKE it that way! --Gulik 17:42, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
Well, if WP is ran by "radical leftists" I'd hate to see what you'd have to call CP's or WND's main contributers... ArmondikoVpostate 11:51, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
"Moderates"? --Gulik 17:44, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

The TROOF Is Out![edit]

Courtesy of The Washington Independent by way of Conspiracy theorists Say The Darndest Things (CSTDT) we are treated to this nugget of rationality and sanity racist and paranoid bile:

Quote# 60462

[Wikipedia edits posts about Obama's alleged out-of-US birth out of its entries]

Wiki's editing and censorship is just another part of the vast global conspiracy (which includes all the members of the mainstream media, several foreign governments, and the CEOs of many of the banks currently receiving taxpayer money) which seeks to foist the illegitimate and inadequate black man onto the back of the hardworking American Patriot. The goal is nothing less than the complete domination of the black man over the white man, and a socialist/communist Utopia where minorities and gays will lounge in the comforts provided by an enslaved white majority.


Troof

And we have to count these people among our ranks in humanity? The Foxhole Atheist 14:32, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

That's one of the many reasons I'm a SubGenius. If they count as human, I don't WANT to. --Gulik 21:44, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
I assume the editors didn't know where to put that one. It could go under fundies, racists AND conspiracy theorists say the dardest things! ArmondikoVpostate 11:55, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
That gave me the image of an editor with a scratch pad and abacus in one hand, tearing out his hair with the other, and screaming "I can't keep track! The stupid, it BURNS!" The Foxhole Atheist 10:11, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
The true funny part about that is that if we were to become a true communist state, everybody would work and everybody would receive. If you didn't do your share of the work due to laziness, you wouldn't get any gains from the group.... Do these idiots actually know the political theories, or do they just repeat the scary buzz words they hear from Hannity? SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 13:12, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Kent Hovind Action Update AAAASSSSEMBLLLLE![edit]

WOW!

After 38 long years, (who knew he was contemplating this a mere two years after being "saved"), Dr. Dino has come to the conclusion that the idea of prison is against god's will. So he's hawking a "prison is immoral" booklet, The Kennel (sounds suspiciously like a Chick Tract), by Elijah Green at USD 5.00 a pop. Hey, at least it's half off the cover price from the publisher!

Also, pay special attention to the comments for such treasurable gems as the financial layout for Kenny-boy's Supreme Court appeal (including the phrase "And by the way, don’t send the $1 to CSE as the government might confiscate it…") and another semi-random one stating: "During the sentencing, the judge declared that the crimes Dr. Hovind had committed were worse than rape."

For an even MORE thrilling ride down the rabbit hole, read this post by a Hovind correspondent, complete with Hovind-style grammar and shitty formatting.

— Unsigned, by: bunchanumbers? / talk / contribs

Bad pictures of Obama[edit]

So, what about Bad Pictures of Bush? Surely that would be labelled unpatriotic or whatever bollocks they come up with. I assume everyone's seen the "Bin Laden Pounds Bush" pic? ArmondikoVpostate 11:56, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Soccer[edit]

Please tell me this is very inspired parody and not the extreme amount of typical American ignorance I think it is. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 05:51, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I've read it and re-read it and, much as I'd like to believe it's (Warning: Poe's Law in action!) I think he's serious. I think part of the problem certain Mercans have with Footie is that they think it's a girls game because it's one of the few truly international sports where they don't dominate. Silver Sloth 07:14, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
Anyone who think Soccer is a girls games has obviously never seen the aftermath of a foot to head colision. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 16:32, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
This might be the dumbest thing I have seen on the internet. PLEASE tell me it is a parody...? Dendlai 01:40, 28 March 2009 (EDT)
While I don't like FOOTBALL (Rugby is much better on account that when footballers fall over they cry, while when rugger-buggers split their head open and tear their arms out of their sockets they just get back on the field for some more) most of that post is pretty off the wall and wrong. I mean, he says that it basically limits you to using your feet (that's wrong in the case of the goal keeper, throw-ins and the fact that you use your arms to block tackles) and then goes on to cite baseball, but I've never seen anyone kick a baseball, in fact, you don't even hit the ball with your hands, you use a stick. So, it's either a parody or it's a case of extreme xenophobia or jealousy that the US don't do well in that sport, or probably both. ArmondikoVpostate 12:10, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Poe! ToastToastand marmite 13:38, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
That's what I wanted to think, but I can't tell. I did some research on the author, and he is a college professor, but he just enough history or crazy that it might be real. If it is parody he is parodying himself. Yorick 13:59, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

"Millitant Black Obama Youth Group" WIGO[edit]

I don't understand what this WIGO is supposed to be saying, especially after looking at one of the video replies. What's the "joke"? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 13:20, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

I think the point is that someone took a video out of context and then posted it claiming that Obama was creating black militant groups. The comments thing was just talking about the massive quantities of stupid that come with public forum posting. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 13:33, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
I'm the one who posted it. I found the act(?) the kids were putting on so downright bizarre, and the comments contemptible. --Gulik 17:51, 17 April 2009 (EDT)
I think it's one of those things that's started as a fairly sick joke and just spiraled out of control a little. It looks more like bizarre performance art to me rather than anything malicious like the description claims. ArmondikoVpostate 18:40, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Ed Rogers Neighborhood[edit]

Ed Poor wants to help those new, fragile wikipedians. Czolgolz 22:31, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

I risked my WP-cred and left a "comment". Ed Poor is fucking creepy. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:45, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
PS, Ed's WP talk page is a great read... in cluelessness on his part... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:49, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
I wonder why after 4 years you are the first person to edit it? Also can we take this to either the Saloon bar or talk Clogo seeing as this has also been posted there. - User \pi 22:48, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
Because I have a "silly pattern of editing"? And, yes, it doesn't belong here. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:50, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
PS, links pleez? I didn't see it either of those places. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:51, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Uncle Ed at 2005?[edit]

Is that news? Or just trolling for lamebait? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:54, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Made subheader since the thing at talk:main got moved here. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:56, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
We could start trolling him there if you like, could be good for some lulz. I do find it amusing that after 4 years someone else finally edits, it despite the fact that it says new people are joining to help YOU all the time. - User \pi 22:58, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
You guys are always getting me in trouble at WP ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 23:07, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
I look for him all teh time (watchlisted) he's not around much though & is usually trolling hiself. ToastToastand marmite 04:31, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
I like Ed's user page which says that he also has an account at Wikiversity where I find just 22 Edisms in 3 years: 17 of which were on 19 July 2008. Also the list of the favourite articles 'what he wrote' has Template:Article age which is linked to by just two pages - Ed's user page and the template itself. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 05:07, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

How to stop gay marriage[edit]

It's as simple as building a giant gay-repellent umbrella. Neveruse513 13:05, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Small Rant[edit]

I just put this up... But I had to say something... WHAT THE FUCK IS JIM CARREY DOING TALKING SCIENCE? Forgive me, call me elitest, whatever you want, but the guy who became famous for going "all-righty then" has no fucking business spewing this ignorant crap over the world and endangering kids because he can't the handle the fact that bad things sometimes happen to good people. Vaccines didn't cause the illness, genetics caused the illness. Get over it. Thank you. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 16:49, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

And it's a huge flamewar in the comments--between the people who think Big Pharma has an evil plot to turn our whole nation autistic to preserve their profit-margin on one side, and the people who think the anti-science loonies are going to bring back the Black Plague on the other. Sigh. --Gulik 05:44, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Movie Reviews[edit]

I have to disagree with the latest post (about the Movie reviews). It is well known that Christian Answers Movie Review Section is the best on the intertubes.... I give you the following review for Dreamworks' Monster Vs. Aliens

Negative - This is the first time I've submitted a comment, even though I have used this Web site for years. My husband and I took our 14 year old nephew and his friend to see this movie. I hated the movie, and was embarrassed. Even though the boys didn't think it was as bad as my husband and I did, they weren't impressed. The humor was crude, the plot was limited and undeveloped. The female clothes were too tight. The disrespect for authourity, male role models, the office of president of the USA, etc. is the last thing our children need exposure to. The thing that saddened me, was the very young children in the theater that laughed at some of the crudest, most inappropriate parts. I don't know if they got it, or were just following the adult's lead. Don't waste your time or money seeing this movie, and certainly don't take any children to see it.

Not to be outdone on the crazy factor, the next person left this gem

Negative - I was lured in by the PG rating and now feel I have to preview every “kids” PG movie before my 8, 6 and 3 year old can watch. I do not think that the previews depicted well that this is a movie for older kids, and may be even was closer to a PG-13 rating.

The most offensive part was the teen boy and girl parking. I was flabbergasted that this scene was included. The girl is very sexually aggressive toward the boy who is portrayed as a wimp for turning her down. He then is afraid to go investigate the bright light (alien ship) while she is excited by the prospect. He falls and breaks his ankle, which is shown dangling grotesquely and the girl carries him uphill, as if that would be physically possible. The males in this film were all depicted as shallow, insensitive, and sexually confused.

I wanted to stop the film repeatedly so I could have a heart-to-heart chat with my kids. In the final scene, a monster with a male voice who is named Bob, gets confused again with who it was who dated the male lead, him or the female lead. The scene felt contrived to open the door to kids suggesting a normalcy and intending to encourage acceptance of same sex relationships. It may be a frequent occurrence in today's society, however, it is a parent's position to explore those questions with their children at the appropriate time, it is not the media's job to present it thinly veiled in a film marketed to the very young.

The film offers some humor for much older children (the usual fall-back of body parts, odor, almost-cuss words, etc.) and it did often set a good example through the female lead. She demonstrated an attitude of respecting others, being supportive of her loved one's dreams, and then when she finally realized that he was not capable of loving her in the way each of us deserve to be loved: with respect, fidelity, and with actions showing high esteem, she did confront her boyfriend and walk away from the relationship. That, however, was the only redeeming quality to this movie. Everything else was just… disturbing. My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 3

—Karen, age 43 (USA)

I rest my case. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 08:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Gofishproductions have this wonderful review of The Love Guru;
Extremely scatological, perversely sexual, somewhat Hindu, pagan worldview containing a lot of psychobabble, constant obscene sexual, infantile jokes with a solipsistic self-centeredness, plus very strong mocking of Hinduism, Christianity and religion and very strong homosexual jokes; 68 obscenities, two profanities and many instances of mocking religion, including an African American Baptist church; intense, over the top, slapstick violence such as midget shoots across the ice after being electro-shocked to revive his heart, hockey players beaten, kicked and hit in private parts at one point by two young pre-teen girls, a fight with mops soaked in Guru's urine, and many other cases of over-the-top violence; constant sexual innuendo from the names of the characters to the locations as well as the dialogue, constant homosexual references especially between the guru and his assistant, two elephants mate on the ice, references to self-abuse, references to defecation, man does yoga position putting his head in his rear; upper male nudity, women in revealing costumes and disgusting visual references to male and female sex organs; alcohol use; drug use and references to drug use; and, anything immoral and objectionable that a wicked human mind can conceive.
I must say the "68 obscenities, two profanities and many instances of mocking religion" and "drug use and references to drug use; and, anything immoral and objectionable that a wicked human mind can conceive." sortof wins the day for me. I rest my case, too. :) Dendlai 09:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
That sounds exactly like the reviews off http://www.movieguide.org - they were quoted by Fox News with some stupid quote which said Passion of the Christ was a pro-American movie. - π 12:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, I lolled at "upper male nudity"... ħumanUser talk:Human 16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Rebuttal... I present the review of Happy Feet.... The movie about a tap dancing Penguin:
Many Christians are offended by the film’s in your face references to Christian fundamentalism. The vulture-like Elders of the High Council frequently intimidate the penguin masses by telling them that unless they believe in “The Quin” and heed all the rules (along with whatever the elders tell them), the penguin population is blasphemous and will never survive, as “The Quin” will not bless them. Also, the spiritual “guru” Lovelace’s (Robin Williams) performance mocks donation-seeking televangelists, and at the same time implies the f-word, then adds:

“I shall retire to my couch of perpetual indulgence. Okay ladies, who’s first?”

I felt uneasy for families in the theater. I wondered what a parent sitting next to a 7 year old would say when the child turned to them and asked, “What did he mean by that, Daddy?”

I also present:

Happy Feet” is pushing the envelope on the anti-Christian involvement within our society, and it is right that parents have decided not to see it with small, impressionable children. It is also right that some families do not plan on buying the DVD, as kids do watch them over and over, embedding messages in their subconscious.

And......

Negative - I took my family to see this movie and was very displeased. Although my expectations for secular movies are not high, I draw the line when they try to undermine religion and highlight atheistic views. “Happy Feet” was based on this premise. Working from beginning to end, the movie destroyed the belief in God (the penguin version of God) and lifted up the “free to do as you please” world—loosed from consequence and sin. The movie attempts to shape and mold our children’s minds into a belief that religion is narrow-minded and ineffectual, while strengthening a sense of scientific explanation and atheism. Before I give something my approval, I first ask myself if God would approve of it. In the case of “Happy Feet,” I believe God is greatly displeased. If something displeases God, then we also should be displeased.
Here are a few examples of how they slam Christianity:

1. The great penguin in the sky sets the tone with a Christ-like cross. 2. The man who everyone goes to for wisdom is supposed to be a prophet who speaks to the almighty (except we realize he is a fraud). 3. The leader of the penguins is a pastor-like figure who literally speaks hell and condemnation. 4. The entire subplot is how Christians are unaccepting of anything different than them, and how we will not allow someone into our church who has an alternative lifestyle. The character in the movie who the leadership of the fold is harshly against, is the penguin with Happy Feet. He dances instead of sings, therefore they look the other way every time he is around. There is even one point where they say to him “Repent and Turn” and then they kick him out of the fold for his evil ways. Yes, this is a HUGE pro-homosexual agenda and is not accidental.

5. About 16 other reference to how bad Christians area: Continues mocking, jokes and jabs. There are way too many to list in my review.

There are way too many to list out one by one.... So I'll just end with the direct link SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I will see your reviews, and raise you this one [3] of Mama Mia:
Very strong hippy Romantic worldview with strong feminist view where girl searches for her father who could be one of three men because her mother slept around at the time she was concieved, plus some solid homosexual references, including men kiss and want to "get married" and there are pagan references to a Greek goddess; 6 obscenities and at least 48 profanities (two strong)
Do you seriously think you can beat that? And that's only part of the review... Dendlai 03:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I can beat that. From the same movie...
the sexual implications, references or suggestive gestures are woven through the film almost from start to finish. Despite this, the profanity is kept fairly mild.

One of the potential fathers, it turns out, is gay.

There is absolutely no respect for the covenant of marriage. The entire underlying theme of the film is love, emotion and feelings.

In the non-glitter clad version of reality, this exact scenario could prove devastating. It could potentially destroy the heart of the child and alter the lives of the mother and possible fathers. I realize this is only a story, but we see it in the world all around us—paternity tests, afternoon talk shows and fatherless children. I just felt that, perhaps, it treated a very real and common scenario a bit too carelessly.

And here is where Christian Answers wins... The comments from real people:

Negative - Why must we be sabotaged again by Hollywood's attempts to sneak in yet another gay storyline when not expected. I was already bothered by the increasing support of sexually destructive lifestyles from the women. I could not believe some of the things they tried to push in the movie. Then, they just had to throw in a gay character. It is always at the end of the movie, when one is generally commited. Why can't there be some kind of attachment rating, like “GF” for gay-free, to warn people. I know to stay away from a movie when the storyline clearly mentions gay lifestyle. How can I and so many others be protected from the brainwashing of Hollywood? My Ratings: Moral rating: Very Offensive

Negative - One of the worst films imaginable, simply a portrayal of a society without any direction, morality, or concept of the Creator's intention for godly relationships. At the same time, it is a great portrayal of the tragedy of wasted lives, wasted talent, and a great portrayal of “the way of the transgressor is hard” (Proverbs 13:15).

My Ratings: Moral rating: Extremely Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 1

SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 08:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That is crazy. But look at this, from the review of Friday the 13th [4]:
Very strong, excessive, demonic, pagan worldview with no redemptive content whatsoever; 73 strong obscenities and five profanities;
They actually COUNT the number of obscenities and profanities. How obsessed is that? And from the same review:
unmarried kissing, implied fornication, masturbation, pornography, backwoods character is implied to have fornicated with a mannequin, etc;
What can you say...? Dendlai 17:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Pleaes tell me we have a snarticle or something where we can preserve the best of these! Scarlet A.pngtheist 19:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite disappointed by Christian Answer's comments on Repo! The Genetic Opera, I thought they'd be far more damming. Scarlet A.pngtheist 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
suggestive (homosexual) eye movements

-CAPalert, Rocky Horror Picture Show

Clearly, guys, CAP is superior. Barikada 14:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this debate, but the gofish site has the best sentence ever written. Their review of Zak and Miri ends with the following line: "woman defecates on man's face and negative portrayal of marriage". Checkmate. DickTurpis 15:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wot heh lulz? UNIQ31fc4f9525d8e943-nowiki-00000000-QINU?[edit]

The whole page is full of "UNIQ31fc4f9525d8e943-nowiki-00000000-QINU?". Why? What? Eh? Dendlai 03:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The sheer amount of stupid documented here finally caused the page to implode and mutate. BEHOLD! SCIENCE!!!! ENorman 04:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Same for me. But it looks normal, when you go to the "fossil record" and open the current version as permalink, like here [5]. Maybe the server update yesterday caused the trouble? -- 85.178.174.53 10:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
What? I'm not seeing anything -- Nx / talk 11:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The first occurence is here: "If you see an entry that you think is questionable use ?UNIQ31fc4f9525d8e943-nowiki-00000000-QINU?." Then the rest of the page consists almost entirly of these strange codes (including the TOC), but the structure of the page is preserved (You can even read the months in the headlines). Out of some reason, this problem is only with the WIGO-CLOGS page. I didn't see this on any other RW page yet. I'm descibing this because IPs cannot upload pictures (There's certainly a good reason for that, but I also have reasons for not creating an account).
I just copied the source of WIGO-CLOGS to the RationalWiki:Sandbox, and my browser shows it correctly there. Maybe the page title has something confusing MediaWiki or Firefox? BTW, I'm using Firefox 3.0.8 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de-DE; rv:1.9.0.8)). -- 85.178.174.53 13:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't reproduce this, I tried logging out, using Firefox3.5s private browsing and Opera, but it's all fine here. These codes are from MediaWiki's parser, and they usually indicate a parser error, so it's not your browser. I have no idea why it's only appearing to you. What happens if you edit the page and click show preview? -- Nx / talk 14:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It's fixed! (At least for me) Maybe your last change did it. Now I also cannot reproduce the problem anymore. Anyone else?
What happens if you edit the page and click show preview? It was OK then. When I edited the page, look at the last diff (also showing the content of the page) or looked at it via the latest permalink, it was OK. But opening the page in the usual way produced the crippled version. Very strange bug... -- 85.178.134.38 15:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I've been ...53 an hour ago
The last edit was from yesterday, when I was fixing a dpl bug and screwing around with the Parser, I must've temporarily done something there to cause this, and it got cached in your and Dendlai's browser cache like that. That would explain why the difflinks, permalinks and show preview were unaffected. -- Nx / talk 15:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

DaVinci Code[edit]

I'd bet good money some people DO think it's historical fact. --Gulik 18:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, one of the filming locations had to put a massive sign up declaring it as such to deal with the tourists. Scarlet A.pngtheist 19:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Its not unheard of for people to confuse fiction with fact. Harlan Ellison recounts a story about a woman coming up to Dan Blocker ("Hoss" from the TV series Bonanza) and telling him "now, when you get back to the Ponderosa, you tell your Daddy he needs to find a Mama for you and your brothers." Blocker patiently told the woman, "ma'am, Bonanza is just a TV series with made up stories. I'll be going home to my wife and children." Undeterred, she told him "well, that's all well and good, but when you get back to the Ponderosa..." MDB 12:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

Since, obviously, it isn't automated, should we archive some of the older months? ħumanUser talk:Human 08:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Psychic Test[edit]

Just for shits and grins, I took the on-line psychic test referenced in WIGO clogs.

My first score: one out of ten.

The analysis:

You might have some psychic abilities. You might have some precognitive abilities, but you may not want to rely solely on your ESP to make decisions. (advertising for the test and PsychicCenter deleted)

My second score: three out of then.

The analysis:

You probably have psychic abilities. There is a good indication you have strong ESP! Your gut instinct is pretty reliable, whether you know it or not. (advertising for the test and PsychicCenter deleted)


So, I'm not really qualified to do statistical analysis, but each question had four choices, and there were ten questions. So, by random chance, I should have gotten two or three correct. I got one the first time, and three the second time.

The first time, I do worse than I would have by random guessing, and I may have some psychic abilities? The second time, I get pretty much what random chance says I should get, and I'm probably psychic? I wonder what ten out of ten would indicate: "We recommend you apply at Professor Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters", maybe? Feh, feh, and triple feh. A pox upon the house of "PsychicCenter". MDB 12:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sex ed Test[edit]

I scored 100% the first time around! Well, not that I think those answers are correct, I just exploited the pattern the test maker has in mind anyway. Thieh"6+18=24" 13:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Deliver us from liberals[edit]

[6] and [7] not really wigo worthy, but why the hell have two websites that are exactly the same. One of which is of the .org variety that is being run specifically for monetary gain. They have do have a handy hitlist though. Yorick 05:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You might like to go and hit "liberal" on their wheredoyoustandometer though. (do it on both sites for a double count- bad cookie management)ToastToastand marmite 05:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The "about us" is really quite scary. It says "we're satirical" as if to try and convince people that it's all in good humour and then it goes on a complete scathing attack with the usual humourless venom and pettiness you expect from these kind of people. And people wonder why they often mistake Landover Baptist for the real thing... Scarlet A.pngtheist 07:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

World Nutters Daily[edit]

Seems to be (temporarily?) down: "Host 'ch-ny-wnd-app1' is blocked because of many connection errors; unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts'" This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 09:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If only it was not temporary. I live in hope that the server has finally collapsed under all the stupid. - π 09:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Answers Research Journal[edit]

So, apart from the quote in the abstract that shows that they're not entirely sure what they're talking about there are a number of things wrong with this. They clearly need lessons in abstract writing, it contains twice as many words as it needs but only half the information it needs. It has far too much rhetoric that should be shoved into the introduction and shows no overview of the methods used or the conclusions drawn, beyond the quoted phrase which is laughable and clearly just their pre-conceived notion. Yet more, who writes "For a comprehensive review of these see.2", sentences should work regardless of whether or not there's a cite at the end. Speaking of citations, they have four about the same mutations in bacteria but nothing following a clear factual assertion that mutations are limited in scope. Any paper that has the phrase "Adaptive mutations in bacteria are a testament to the grace of God in supplying for His creation" in it is also clearly barking. Then we move on to the conclusion "Rather than being an example of “evolution in action,” adaptive mutation is an awesome witness to God’s design of bacteria" which basically says "well, God designed bacteria to evolve!" how convenient.

I can't say I'm enough of a biologist to go picking apart some of the paper (which like the abstract is much longer than it needs to be). A quick glimpse shows that it's the usual creationist tripe of trying to pick holes in evolution rather than postulating something and testing it (they make a fair effort compared to most, but it's mostly "well, it's so blatantly obviously true we can't discount it but Goddidit so all's fine".

It's clearly what Ben Goldacre would describe as "Cargo Cult" science. Scarlet A.pngtheist 09:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)