RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 10 April 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>

, (new)(back)

Paris Hilton

OMG I totally forgot that video. Thanks a million. Or a billion? ħuman 06:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Between that and Repo! The Genetic Opera, Paris Hilton has been shooting up in my opinion recently. This is quite scary. ^pathetic 08:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. She was the smartest GOP candidate for president, and now, um, what, er? Linkies? ħuman 08:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus the Ox-driver

User:Π, thank you! This made my day. --ZooGuard (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Pedophile Island California Governor candidate

We should vote for him. He wants the State of California to go into the weed selling business, undercutting the street dealers by cutting the price in half if you buy from the State. The man's a genius. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know man - I have seen Escape from Absolom and Escape from New York so I know what happens on these "prison islands". Aceⁱ⁹ 20:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean everyone on Pedophile Island would have to wear an eyepatch? Yeah, that would be a mean sonofabitch of an island to go to. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And Ray Liotta would be their god. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As political candidates go, he's almost, but not quite as great as Lee Mercer Jr. who ran for President in Obama's 'landslide'. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist on Hannity

Oh dear God. That was insane. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"REPENT!" DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, the best Hannity could do is call her a nut. Although I guess that's all there really was to do. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Best. Poe. EVAR!!!

You realise that story dates back to 2006? Still insane though. I hope there's a special place in hELL for the good folk of the WBC. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 10:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I only noticed that later Psy....weirdly, it appeared on the front page of Fox for a period on Saturday, and I didn't notice the date when I WIGO'd it. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, send them to Heaven, so they can spend eternity being lectured by Jesus on just how wrong they are. "What part of 'love thy neighbor as thyself' and 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' did you fuckwits not understand?" MDB (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated. The Bible is like a book of random numbers. One person interprets the book as a list of prime numbers, obviously encoded in such a way that requires the reader to ignore the non-prime numbers listed. Another person, through similar hand waving, reads the numbers as being references to measurements of ancient monuments. I believe that individual books can, to a certain extent, be correct interpreted, but the Bible as a whole is pretty much what the reader wants it to be. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 12:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Farah's book

'"Never, ever contact me again," wrote Time magazine senior writer Jeffrey Kluger.' Can that be made a pull quote on the WND page? Suitable place? - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think right at the top of the article would be the place for that. - π 13:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the article could do with a section on WND Books in general. Place it at the top of that. - π 13:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made a section from the reviews Mr Farah so proudly quotes - David Gerard (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

WND/Jesusland Poe?

Is this^img email to WND (in response to this article) parody? If not, is it worth a WIGO? I particularly love the rhetorical question at the end regarding the War of Northern Agression.

(I have a screen capture of the Email to the Editor page as it changes regularly and have also added it to the Capturebot2 wishlist but being a newbie amn't sure how best to include the images here, so all help is welcome) --NotANumber (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been an advocate of southern succession for years. I've even redrawn the borders, based on geographic, not necessarily state, borders. They basically get the South, much of the plains, and parts of the mountains. We get the rest. This time we let them go peacefully. I see little downside to this proposal. Although I think based on my plan we do lose parts of Colorado and all of New Mexico. And me might end up retaining Utah. Nothing's perfect. DickTurpis (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but not all of us down here are for such action. From Mobile, AL: Ravenhull (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I just actually read that piece of drivel. I love things like how 95% of the active military would automaticly join them and such. What idiots. Ravenhull (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the 5% that side with the lefties are the gay ones. ^pathetic 20:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My only complaint with this 'solution' is that some of Dumbfuckistan would have nuclear weaponry. That prospect terrifies me. --Gulik (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My parents live in the South. Would the borders remain open so I can go visit Mom and Dad.

On the other paw, sealed borders would mean I'd no longer have to deal with my redneck uncle. Hhhhhhmmm.... MDB (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama "Trial"

Regarding the Obama "trial"...

I just conducted a private insanity hearing for the following:

• Coulter, Ann (aka Coultergeist)
• Schalfly, Andy (aka Assfly)
• Hannity, Sean (aka the Manatee)
• Limbaugh, Rush (aka Orly Taitz Limbaugh)
• Beck, Glenn (aka Lonesome Rhodes Beck)
• O'Reilly, Bill (aka Bill-o the Clown)
• Savage, Michael (aka Michael Weiner)

and have found them all to be a danger to themselves and others. They are therefore ordered to report, under the 10th Amendment, to the nearest mental institution for indefinite commitment and heavy sedation (except for Limbaugh, who likes sedation). I expect the Congress to enforce this decision.

(Note I listed them last name first, so its all legal-like.)

MDB (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the article again, it seems even WND is taking something of a mocking tone about the "trial". When your right-wing antics have even World Net Daily laughing at you, you're not just out in right field... you're in the right field of Dodger Stadium for a Cowboys/Redskins game. MDB (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

But you will get such a great view of the Stanley Cup Final there though. Yeah even WND are biting their cheek on this one. Still the craziest thing I have seen in a while. - π 12:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Cup? Meh. (I work at a company surrounded by hockey fans. My opinion of hockey is "it's soccer, on ice, with sticks and violence.") MDB (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you clone eels play hockey on grass at all? Over here hockey is played on grass (or astroturf), and ice hockey is the hitting-each-other-on-ice one. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Obligatory quote - I went to a fight, and a hockey match broke out CS Miller (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Clone eels"? Oh, wait, "colonials"?

We call that "field hockey", and its usually a thing for future lesbians high school girls. If we don't specify otherwise, "hockey" is played on ice. MDB (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Judge" is great! He mentioned that the proceedings must be legal because the government had not intervened, but the same logic applies to a game of Buckaroo. At least I learnt something. I was aware that Obama is a Muslim, but not that he was a member of the Taliban (see the sign outside the church). --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 13:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if they also think he's a socialist, which is kind of an odd political philosophy, considering the Taliban came into existence fighting the Soviets.

Oh, wait, I'm expecting logical thought from Birthers. Nevermind. MDB (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And there lies madness. Let's play a game of Buckaroo for Glenn Beck's life. Winner gets to (legally) drown him in a bucket of chicken and mushroom pot noodle. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 15:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I simply must ask -- what is Buckaroo? MDB (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a fine game. There's another version of it called Bedroom Buckaroo in which during sex you say the name of your ex-girlfriend/boyfriend and then try to hold on. I suggest we play the former. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 16:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There's also beer-can Buckaroo - when you're at a party & someone falls asleep drunk, the rest of you take turns to carefully balance empty beer-cans (or any other random objects to hand) on their snoozy carcass, with the loser being the one who accidentally wakes them up. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who hasn't seen it already, here is Pastor Manning a-rantin' & a-singin'. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Cumbria Shootings

Nothing on the shootings in Cumbria yet? Surely the following are bound to turn up in the clogs within a week: 1) A piece saying the victims were in some way to blame. 2) A paranoid conspiracy theory claiming that this is part of a NWO plot to increase gun control.

Notice how much 'Cumbria' sounds like 'Columbine'? It's obvious that this guy was an ebil liberal agent, just like the two kids that shot up the school. All part of the efforts to take our so needed arsenals away. Besides, only godless liberals would name a town 'Cum'bria... -Ravenhull (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Baby Stomp WIGO

I don't know about you, but there is no question in my mind that the Daily Fail has been taken in badly with this one... and stupidly. Looking at the two pictures, notice the child is in the exact same position in both. And then there's the lack of injuries. I'm sorry, but it's a brutal truth that babies are not granted some invisible aura of immunity to violence. If the first picture is accurate, there is virtually no chance that he child would have been critically injured or killed by the assailant. My guess, somebody created a piece of narmish glurge, and the Daily Fail bit into it without even checking the freshness date. Ravenhull (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are some slight difference in the pose of the baby, but nothing that Liquefy couldn't have done very easily. But if the second image is after the kid had been stomped on, then it's far too close to be coincidence and the lack of injuries (although I'm not exactly sure what you'd be expecting, it'd obviously not turn into a pancake and it's not guaranteed to bleed externally from such an attack) is another good point. ^pathetic 19:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk 2 Action

Talk 2 Action seems like a fairly sensible site reporting fringe lunacy. Should it not be in the blogs instead of clogs? ^{— Unsigned, by: 95.150.14.106 / talk / contribs}

Maybe the topic is clogo rather than the blog itself. - π 11:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not clogo wrothy

But I wonder how profitable WND is given that today his column is a straight-out beg for money. - π 11:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Pull my penis off"? More like pulling the nation's leg...

Bullshit. I call bullshit on this story and the entire premise. There is no fucking way the writer is 11 years old. 11th grade? Maybe. 11? Not a fucking chance. Ergo, the rest of the story is as pure a fiction as you are to find on Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly's nightstand. Fuck conservative shit stirrers and fuck everything they stand for. Fuck 'em all. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing is everyone commenting on it takes it for real. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Agreed. My bullshit detector went to red alert when I read that. Absolutely no way in hell that kid is 11, and I demand proof otherwise. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 02:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Many of the comments seem to call BS, but equally people are saying "oh, but he got help from his parents". Which, if true, undoubtedly means there's a kid with thick-as-planks right-wing parents who think they can manipulate people by sticking their kid in the spotlight. An 11-year-old won't understand politics like that unless they've been told exactly what to say by their parents (You see the same thing when you watch interviews with those kids from Prussian Blue, they clearly don't understand it, so have to cue themselves from their batshit-racist mother). It's either that or an outright hoax, but to be honest, there's very little difference. ^pathetic 14:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I call hoax. I don't buy most of the little stories. It just feels like they're trying to hit all the important talking points.. "where the teacher was reading a book about the importance of mothers and the inferiority of fathers" I don't buy this ever happened. Besides, if anything, the liberal mind-set is more about co-parenting, instead of only the mother being important to rising children. "Boys go to college to get more knowledge, girls go to Jupiter to get more stupider,"? From my childhood, I only ever heard this with the sexes reversed. Because, those of us with penises didn't do our insults in rhyme. "We were taught that minorities were victims and therefore good, and members of the majority were, by inference, bad"? Who the fuck is teaching this?? If this is what they got out of a lesson, maybe they weren't paying attention? "It wasn't until the Democratic primaries ended in 2008 that things started getting really bad. Liberals everywhere" When you where 9? I barely remember when Bush Sr. got elected, and I was 8. I remember the anti-Dukakis jokes, but that's about it. "But according to what we now know about the hockey stick graph" Well, maybe he's 11. He obviously knows shit about this. "She made it completely obvious that she thought those who didn't like Barack Obama needed to see a doctor" if only they could afford it.. I have to stop reading. if this is truly an 11 year old, someone should call protective services. Quaru (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I admire you for even being able to watch an interview with Prussian Blue. What little I've seen of them just turns my stomach. MDB (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This story (if you can call it that) presents one hell of a straw man. Clearly not written by a kid, & I doubt it's written by parents either. More likely a regular blogger/columnist making up a story out of nothing. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ^pathetic 21:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Double hmmmm Yeah Actually, come to think of it, I recognise the face as he's been brought up before. I still see no tangible evidence for the kids claims so I can only assume its the batshit parents doing it. ^pathetic 21:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's actually depressing. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I really can't see a pre-schooler being aware of political realities. Shit, when I was in pre-school I got in trouble for urinating on the slide and once I played truant 3 days because my cousin and I found a gravel pit to play in. My knowledge of politics was confined to my dad complaining about his tax over the dinner table. So yeah, the parents have a lot to answer for. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That is so obviously a put-up job. In the "interview" he is just reciting canned talking points, and the "interviewer" is asking him for them. The only part they missed was wikipedia being six times as liberal as the American public... ħuman 22:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This was written by an adult, an adult trying to imagine what he thinks growing up know is like based on his unfounded bias. Phrases such as, "I had just lost my enthusiasm for my embattled gender" and " only male teacher I had might as well have been castrated" are far too old, even for prompted 11 year old. - π 09:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But they're at least trading on the kid's name. ^pathetic 13:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that video before. Given the way he was answering the questions, I would say he didn't write the article, he doesn't talk like that especially when he changed his answer on what the partition is for. He seems like he is being prompted, especially as you can hear the gap between when he hears her (why was the sound on at his end?) and his reply. This is his parents pushing this now they have jumped on the homeschooling bandwagon. - π 13:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If I knew you were aborting I'd have baked a cake

I call Poe. Some of the reactions are pretty hysterical (in both senses of the word) Jack Hughes (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is someone trolling Yahoo answers, I got kicked off for less than that. - π 12:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Still, even as some trolling, it's pretty sick and tactless. ^pathetic 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the reactions he got were priceless, especially all the people posting how they won't answer that question. The woman who started going on about how she loved the baby was best though. - π 00:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious, but the responses, especially the 6th amendment commandment one, were priceless. ħuman 10:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My favourite has to be the grammar fail near to the top "YOUR TWISTED" - "my twisted what?" ^pathetic 10:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you know THAT BABY HAD FINGERNAILS???? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Light bulb

Edison made a good one and it into a business. But Swan came a few years earlier and quite a lot of people invented things very like the Edison bulb well before either - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about that article. On the one hand many of the "misconceptions" are right, although I don't remember being taught any of them - I assume American kids just get taught rubbish. However, the entire thing is really badly explained to the point where it certainly belongs amongst the clogs. ^pathetic 16:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edison was a good businessman rather than an original inventor. He took other people's ideas & made them work - good on him. 16:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is really, really, really badly written. Electricity is a flow of protons?? Ions, maybe (H⁺?, or "holes". Quite a lot of electrical behaviour is best figured out as the movement of holes. (Electrons don't move very fast at all in a wire - what's moving is a wave front.) It reads like it was fed two ways through a translator. But I'm not convinced it comes from the proper gibbering mindset one expects from a decent clog - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Terrible article. Children are taught Edison invented the light bulb, but this is untrue because he invented a lot of other things too? WTF? The sun doesn't rotate? Who's taught that? Many students probably don't learn that the sun does rotate, but I don't think they are taught specifically that it doesn't. Lightning doesn't strike twice? That's an old cliché, not an academic lesson. What's next, an apple a day doesn't necessarily keep the doctor away? Girls are not made of sugar and spice? Who writes this crap? DickTurpis (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait.... You mean I've been eating apples every day for nothing!?! Shit!! And that was my poor-mans health insurance.. Damn! Quaru (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It reads like one of those trivia books designed for young kids, only translated from another language. It really is poorly written, but I don't think it's specifically *wrong*, especially the two items mentioned in the WIGO. X Stickman (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The one I take issue with is the natural selection one. It just leaves it there hanging. Who thought of natural selection? When did they think it? Why was it different to Darwin? It's well known that "mutability of species" was known well before Darwin, indeed it was Erasmus Darwin that was one of the central pioneers of that observation. And NS was suggested, but it was Darwin that did the bulk of finding evidence for it as well as creating a framework that was actually workable by realising it was a case of things competing against members of its own species, rather than competing against different species (which would imply that there would never be any predator/prey relationships ever). Mythbusting is a noble cause, but you can't just say "this is a misconception" and move on, even at a beginners level. ^pathetic 10:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Chrissy Satterfield and the dumbest thing I've read in July

OK, so give me credit for getting to the end of that piece of shit post, but this struck as incredibly stupid: "You shouldn't be able to call yourself an American just because you were born here or because you took a citizenship test." Oh really? Then I must ask what would satisfy her.... I mean, if being born here (which is part of the Constitution) or taking a citizenship test isn't grounds to be a citizen, what is and how would she enforce it? SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 09:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you should steal people's shit and if they don't assault or shoot you for it, they are not American. My favourite part though:

“”Anyone who thinks it's OK to fly Mexico's flag or Canada's flag or the Confederate flag or any other flag above the American flag should be escorted out and sent packing back to the country they still have feelings for.

Emphasis added. - π 09:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting through it, I got the gist and left the last few paragraphs on the grounds of tl;dr (I was impressed by the "buy flags from our superstore!" advert in the middle). I don't mean to pull a Godwin here, but this extreme reverence and idolization of nationalist symbols is one of the key components of fascism. And I don't mean the "UR A FASIST!!!!11" type comments that get thrown around the internet, I mean real nationalistic authoritarianism. It's actually quite scary. ^pathetic 15:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It turns out she graduated from the same school I got my MS from. I'll ask around to see if anyone knows anything about her. --MJMelcher (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Gawd, she is a nutwhack. I guess there's a decent living to be made off jingoistic stupidity? ħuman 05:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Decent living, eh... it makes me wonder, how much does Farah pay for an article that's published in WND? If we cobble together some guys to write parody posts and sell them to the right wing media, we could fund the RationalWiki Foundation for a good few years. ^pathetic 11:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Farah does have his limits - his disgust at the Conservative Bible Project suggests he's nothing like as susceptible to parody as Conservapedia is. I suspect he's paying approximately bugger-all, given the recently turned-up volume of the begging for cash. All those dead trees carrying the words of wingnuts mouldering in the warehouse ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh Irony!

I don't really know were to put this put I had to capture it and put it somewhere here: Oh Irony, thou art a heardless bitch! --85.182.145.82 (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily on Kagan and Obama's Birth Certificate

Apparently, CP and WND share more than ideology; they share an editing style.

When WND got caught lying about Kagan supposedly helping to cover up Obama's birth certificate, they just deleted the story. MDB (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooh this so needs to go into their article. - π 11:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. MDB (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks MDB. - π 11:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What amazes me is that they still have at least one of the stories where they fell for a completely phony "Kenyan Birth Certificate". I wonder why they decided to delete this one. MDB (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, there will be articles attacking Snopes in a few days to make up for it. - π 11:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I also note this: conservatives gleefully watched as Dan Rather's career was destroyed over the story about George W. Bush's National Guard service. How many times has WND been caught lying (or, at the very least, publishing stories that were later proven to be false), and conservatives still flock to it? MDB (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My favorite always has and always will be Janet Porter's column about how her friend knew about a guy who knew some other guy who's wife knew all about this secret Russian Commie plot to put Obama into the White House.[1] We also have her "Evolution" series for those who want to see especially bad ones. [[2]] Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, WND -- all the journalistic standards of high school cheerleaders at the lunch table. "So, I heard Brittany say that she heard Tiffany say that Amber's dad hear that Obama is a gay communist Muslim!" MDB (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Get CaptureBot to watch here?

WND rewrote their ridiculous Kagan article when Snopes busted them talking utter bollocks. Worth setting up Capturebot to watch here? The only issue that springs to mind is capturing as of a given date - clogs tend to change their contents without changing the URL - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Free Republic and Wikipedia

Wow. Just. Wow. ^pathetic 10:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Refusing to pray

The daily fail just loves to distort and misrepresent stories like this. I'll be my bottom dollar that this story is so distorted as to be fundamentally untrue. However I can't find any refutations, just knee jerk reprints of the Daily Hate. A lie has gone around the world before the truth has got its boots on. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And, incidentally, it's at least two years old. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops; I did not notice the age of the article. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember seeing this and googling it around a bit. While I was almost certain that it was twisted and distorted (because, if this were what happened, it'd have been reported by everyone and there would have been an upcry). I imagine that in fact the kids probably got detentions for being dicks, and the mail misrepresented it. "We're going to learn how Muslims pray." "Why would I give a shit about those cunts?" *DETENTION* ^EXTERMINATE 17:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but it looks to me like the uproar in the comments is, as the WIGO suggests, because it's the wrong god they were praying to. I definitely remember doing something similar in middle school RE (and then trying to repeat the exercise while drunk with some Egyptian guy and few years ago). I remember the lessons seeming sort of utterly and totally pointless. Also, I've just double-checked age vs years and it would have put me at 9-10 years old when I did it - is that a bit young to be cynically thinking "this is total bullshit"? Those lessons were a pain in the fucking arse, I credit the RE teacher with my atheism; being totally patronising to the only Sikh girl in the school ("oh, so what do you believe, then?" in a right old faffing, lets-pretend-I'm-not-looking-down-on-you voice) and dodging any interesting question I had about how the world was fucked up and why were there other religions. ^pathetic 01:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to authority (claiming without supporting evidence that the pupils were "dicks") falls on deaf ears here. The age of this article does not make it any more repulsive. I understand that freedom of religion is not as respected of a right in Europe as it is in the United States, but one has to wonder why states like Oklahoma overwhelmingly vote to ban Sharia law. It's because of shit like this. Muslim fundamentalism is no better than Christian fundamentalism in the schools (and trust me, I've grown up in the South most of my life ... I get Christian fundamentalism in the schools). ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Who said the teacher was a Muslim fundamentalist? I suspect she's not even Muslim. A later story suggests the school found the claims bullshit anyway [3] but the teacher was still sacked. BTW Jack Hughes, do you remember how you came across the story. I read it recently not from here but can't remember how I came across it. It may have been when I had the dumb idea of checking out AtlasShrugs which seems to have had it recently although after you. (I also found it on AboveTopSecret apparently also shown recently but I don't think I saw it there although vaguely think I've heard of that before.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see ConservapediaEditor's response until now, thought I'd answer, since I totally disagree. Questioning the role of the students in the alleged events is most certainly not an appeal to authority. The Daily Mail is notorious for taking a story and changing the details, making it a black-and-white issue of morality. I think it's fair to say that -IF- this happened, it'd have been reported elsewhere, which it was not. Secondly, a child given detention in an English school for 'refusing to pray for Allah' would probably end up in an outcry from other teachers, and not happen. If we accepted that there were some fact in the article: That there WAS a lesson involving simulating muslim prayer and that two children DID end up in detention (these are the two facts that it'd be difficult even for the Daily Mail to simply make up), then we have to ask what more happened. Either the teacher was in the wrong, and gave them a detention for refusing to pray (which, as I said previously, would have led to outcry) or that the lesson did end up in two detentions, but for different reasons - i.e. the children were in the wrong.

Now, I've said that you can take the two basic facts from the article, and either accept that the teacher was being outrageous or that the children got the detention for other reasons. Then I've said that it seems unlikely it was for refusing to pray, as this would have been widely reported. So, to ask if the children were at fault - being offensive/insulting when discussing islamic prayer, swearing, etc. is neither unreasonable nor an "appeal to authority." Next, "I understand that freedom of religion is not as respected of a right in Europe as it is in the United States." Bulllllshittt! Sure, freedom of religion is respected throughout the United States, if your religion is Christian. But to claim that freedom of religion is more respected as a right in the US than in Europe is bullshit. I'd argue it if you particularly disagree, but can't be bothered right now. Now, to go ahead and say that people have voted to ban sharia law because of shit like this is exactly correct; namely right-wing fearmongering leading people to solve problems which don't exist. Your implication that Alison Phillips is a fundamentalist Muslim is, again, the exact same thing as the Daily Mail have done - take a loose idea, and run with it as fact. ^EXTERMINATE 18:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Coulter

I love that she has become so irrelevant that she has to say crazier and crazier shit to get anyone to notice her.... Pretty soon she's gonna challenge Michelle Obama to mud wrestling match. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 22:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This is fairly mid way down her level of craziness. When she says that registered Democrats should not be allowed to vote because they will vote Democrat, then you know she is just trolling for attention. - π 22:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

She's not far off that. She's already saying that they should refuse the vote to a demographic who don't think like her. Real fucking mature. ^pathetic 01:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be easier to repeal the 15th Amendment? I mean after all, all the Negroes, due to their lack of intelligence, are going to vote for Obambi no matter how bad he fucks up (/Obama Derangement Syndrome off). ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Giroux - Freire

I'm a little surprised to find this on the "clogosphere" page, as it is exactly the type of article usually found on the "blogosphere" page.

To be fair to Giroux, Freire actually IS "one of the most important educators of the 20th century." Also, he is not talking about a takeover of education by "liberal forces," but by "neo-liberal" forces. There's a pretty big distinction between the two. While some neo-liberals are to be found among contemporary liberals, most of them are found on the right of the political spectrum -- generally among conservatives and libertarians. Neo-liberals are those who want to restore a version of the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century. Educational neo-liberals are generally those who believe in "free-market" and "competitive" solutions to educational reform, running schools like businesses, merit pay for teachers, and easing certification requirements to allow people with "real world experience" to step immediately into classrooms. Generally, these are not "liberal" positions. Though, as I think that Giroux is arguing, the dominance of political discourse recently by free-market ideology means that even many Democrats (the party) are supporting neo-liberal positions these days. --Jkd2 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence, being translated, says that "politicians who deny the laws of economics no longer have many buyers for their bullshit." That was not the case in Mr. Freire's heyday; he was such a politician, who seemed to think that what Mao did during the Cultural Revolution was acceptable, and also seemed to think that it was a teacher's moral duty to turn the education system into a political propaganda mill. His votaries, all three of them (he is not a Dewey or a Montessori in that respect) appear to have inherited the latter of these notions.

And Prof. Giroux's criticisms are not limited to "neo-liberals;" he is bashing all sorts of liberals, which is not surprising, since liberals believe in educating students, while Prof. Giroux believes in minting proles into good little foot-soldiers. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

New Yorker

I'm not certain that the article linked is as bad as it seems. Its not like the scientific method was handed down from on high, so its bound to have flaws in it. If you remember it was developed in the seventeenth century. During that time few people were pursuing "science" (I think they would have called themselves natural philosophers or something) and those who were were a fairly tight nit community, often well educated upper class males who may have all known each other. Today science has grown and changed from what it was back in the 1600s. Where its done, who does it, what it examines, how its done, etc. are markedly different. Elements of the method developed back then may not exactly work today, which means that the method ought to be "self correcting" as well. To me this seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to point out. Jsonitsac (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The "method" is fairly straightforward, though. You analyse reality, come up with a conclusion, test your conclusion and ask others to test it too. The execution of that can often be difficult, and any criticism of science is usually in the application of (or at least the failure to apply) the method by individuals. Most examples like this don't bring into question the fundamental ideal of stating your theory, presenting the evidence, and being open to scrutiny. ^pathetic 21:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on the abstract (which is all I have to go on) that doesn't seem to be what the New Yorker is talking about. The author does mention that in some cases there are conscious and unconscious biases, but it also mentions this:

"In the late nineteen-nineties, neuroscientist John Crabbe investigated the impact of unknown chance events on the test of replicability. The disturbing implication of his study is that a lot of extraordinary scientific data is nothing but noise. This suggests that the decline effect is actually a decline of illusion. Many scientific theories continue to be considered true even after failing numerous experimental tests. The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything."

That sounds like a reproducibility issue and something that philosophers of science like to legitimately debate, and something that scientists probably need to pay more than just cursory attention to. Jsonitsac (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely true. Although when you talk of "scientific theory" and "extraordinary scientific data" I immediately start thinking of relativity, and gravity and atomic theory and cell theory... I don't think you can apply that reasoning to those broad and well tested theories. That would be implying that such things could be thrown out as completely false because no-one has bothered to check the details, even though everything we do in science is based on those theories and thoroughly consistent with them. However, at the more specific levels of science (the day-to-day analysis of chemistry, biology and physics) I think it is very much an issue. But the entire point is that you can fail to replicate certain pieces of work and disprove established theories (I'm currently in the middle of possibly disproving some chemical catalysis work done in the 80s, and my work in general has a very high rate of ending in unreproducible results) but it requires many eyes to look at it and test it or a very thorough dedication on behalf of an individual and a willingness not to jump the gun on a fluke. Similar to errors in Wikipedia articles, they will be caught if there are a lot of people working on that topic trying to verify it, whereas the smaller things will go unnoticed for some time. The thing is, basic peer review doesn't include replication, which is where the problem lies - there are arguments for and against it including that, of course. ^pathetic 16:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to seem disrespectful to your research, but guess what could easily happen thirty years from now.... I just get the sense that most of science is done in small bits, not large leaps and bounds, especially considering the sheer number of scientists that are working as compared to 100 years ago (maybe even 50 years ago). That will probably compound the problem. Still, I guess you've got to have faith that there are more big things out there to be found which will then be replicated and the major premise of the method will stand, even if the method itself undergoes revisions.

I think I know what you're getting at there but you don't seem to quite understand how actual research evolves. Older ideas aren't just randomly thrown out. The best example would be from The Relativity of Wrong. We used to think the Earth was a flat disc (the fact this is a myth shouldn't detract from the beauty of the example). But the Earth isn't a flat disc because we found some more data that said it was a sphere. But the Earth isn't a sphere, we have data to suggest that it is an oblate spheroid. Science gathers evidence so that theory asymptotically approaches reality. To suggest that things could just be thrown out in thirty years time would be like saying some observation made tomorrow would make the Earth an icosahedron. This is flat out wrong. Perhaps "disprove" was too strong a word in the case above. What I'm looking at is a relatively major overhaul of a fairly minor catalytic reaction mechanism, but nothing that would actually invalidate the original research. Science has never worked in leaps and bounds, it's always been in small steps. They only look like "big" discoveries in retrospect once you're own hindsight has removed the failures, the timescale and the collaboration to leave a single, grandiose "eureka" moment that never really existed. ^pathetic 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus was killed by the liberal courts

Regarding the guy who wrote the liberal courts killed Jesus! article...

He's coming in second to Saint Sarah of Wasilla in RedState's straw poll. And between them they're pulling over 50%.

Of course, there is at least one case I know of (a-hem) of a deceitful liberal trying to influence the poll... MDB (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Herman Cain

Who is this loony with his 'Jesus was killed by liberal courts' crap? I've never heard the name, but scarily, he's second behind Wolf Killer in their latest poll. --Ψ GremlinTal! 11:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Herman Cain. Former CEO of Godfather's Pizza. Hinted he's thinking of running for President in 2012. MDB (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and as mentioned above, I know for a fact there was at least deceitful liberal trying to influence that poll... MDB (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian Persecution

You know this stuff really gets me sick. Even though I'm not a Christian I know that there is real persecution of Christians out there, and the stuff that Defending Christianity posts isn't it. In each of the cases listed on the site the aggrieved parties have legal/legislative/democratic means to redress their wrongs. They have a day in court, they had a fair hearing, and may have lost. That is far from persecution. There are places out there where people (typically of minority faiths) don't have that luxury. Where Christians are punished, driven from their homes, killed, etc. Its not just limited to Christians either. I guess what I'm saying is that people who claim that persecution of Christians is happening in America insult to those really suffering because of their faith (no matter what it is) and have no means of redress or escape. Jsonitsac (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've always likened this false persecution or the right wingers saying how their "freedom" is being taken away to a white suburban kid complaining how their life sucks. Not to mention the fact that likening your situation to say, that of Nazi Germany, is just pissing on the graves of the people who actually did go through hell. If Christians want to see real persecution of Christians they should go to the Middle East or China. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 22:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Although it does bury this caveat slightly, it does sort of specify "in America". But I suppose that also hammers home the same point; that if this is what they've got to bitch about, they really don't have anything to bitch about. When gay people become the majority and prevent Christians existing, then I might slip a little sympathy their way. (though I might add that the analogy of the "white suburban kid complaining how their life sucks" is a little simplified. It's known that depression can hit the well off on two levels; in addition to their source of depression they have the secondary burden that their life "doesn't suck" so they shouldn't be feeling that way. Hence such problems can be confounded further. Whether this also applies to the case of obscenely homophobic Christian groups, I'm not sure.) ^pathetic 01:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Islam4UK article - link removed

Why was the link to the article on "Islam4UK"'s anti-Christmas poster removed? I just noticed this now. Did the fact that it was a DailyMail article have something to do with it?--ElvisHairDude420 (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Bryan Fischer is a clueless douchebag.

RE: This WIGO

You, sir, are a fucking idiot. "We have feminized the Medal of Honor. ...every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan) has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one."

Then you compare today's modern battlefield with storming the beaches at Normandy.

Seriously? No Medal of Honor has been awarded for actions like those in previous wars because the current war(s) and the current type of warfare employed (by both sides, mind you) does not provide opportunities for displays of heroism like those in previous wars.

It's called "Asymmetrical Warfare" asshole. In Korea, WWI, WWII, and Viet Nam, there were actual, uniformed enemies with actual, fortified positions from which they would attack our forces. Destroying those areas, or at least inflicting casualties and causing damage to them, would give our forces a momentary edge with which the momentum of combat could be pressed against the enemy and the war could make "progress". Maybe not so much in Viet Nam, but there were uniformed VC and Chinese with patrol bases and headquarters and the like.

In the War on Terror, we face plainclothes combatants who are nearly completely decentralized. There is no front line. There is no limit of advance. They use guerrila tactics and strike from a distance when they sense an opportunity. Their weapons are mortars, homemade landmines, rockets, sniper rifles and suicide bombers. The only things that our troops can do is patrol and wait for contact. When it comes, there will only be reaction. There is almost NO force-on-force warfare, except in limited, small scale skirmishes such as the one that SSG Giunta displayed his mettle in.

You might as well call this war a "Pussy War" if you're going to be so bold as to assert that our expectations of heroism are "feminized" because we award the protection of life and not, apparently, the wanton, unrestrained destruction you so clearly crave but are too fucking cowardly to engage in yourself, you shit-eating, warmongering, asshat-wearing, imbecillic, douchetastic fucktard. Fuck you.

That is all. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear! I can also add that chickenhawks like that shouldn't be allowed to talk on such matters. If he wants the MoH to go for killing people, he should grab a gun and sign the fuck up. ^pathetic 18:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm coming late to this party, but part of what he said offended me thinking on the significant number of men on the list of MoH winners who were medics/corpsmen. Not only were these men not 'inflicting causalties', but many were in those positions because they were conciencous objectors who were 'punished' by the military by still being sent to the front lines without a weapon. This man should be informed of the number of men (and if they had been sent as well, women too) who showed they had far larger balls than this man ever did, without being a Ranbo wannabee... Ravenhull (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan

Wow, Weird Nutter Douchebag is getting more and more bizarre. As if the whole "oh noes! Obama is going to give Manhattan back to the Indians" isn't bad enough, have a look at their poll on the subject. I've been looking for the button to actually rate the article. Surprise, surprise, there isn't one. Just various ways of saying 'I hate Obama'. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 15:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Are there even enough Indians to fill up Manhattan, even if all the tribes in the US decided to move there after Obama boots the whiteys out?--74.193.55.195 (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Psy, you should extend the focus of your blog to all the right-wing loonies, it would give your dedicated readers (me) more to read. - π 02:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

End of the World

I look forward to his rapture. Think what a paradise Earth will be when all god botherers everywhere just fuck off all at once.AMassiveGay (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that their website has a large "Donate" button. If the end is only a few months away, why would they need donations?--74.193.55.195 (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The folks at Ask an Athiest are having a bit of fun with this one, with their sister site: We Can't Know: Countdown to Backpedelling. Ravenhull (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL at no explanation for the tides.

I'd imagine the man in the moon is sad because of that. --GastonRabbit (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say the opening part of this, but Rush Limbaugh was right about Bill O'Reilly: "the man is Ted Baxter." MDB (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

While I'm sad that the atheist rep didn't chime in to explain the tides, he possibly might have made an important choice there. Once he explained the tides, then O'Reilly may have just shifted goalposts into something that we really can't explain. OBTW I do love though how they can "Hate the Sin not the Sinner" but we can't "Hate the Religion, but not the Religious followers." --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 14:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My suspicion was so shocked the Bill-O the Clown didn't understand "moon causes tides" that he was unable to think coherently for a few seconds. The expression on his face is priceless. MDB (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And here was me thinking that he was one of those Fox pundits that could actually engage the grey matter every now and then... ^pathetic 14:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What I find so puzzling is that the billboard in question depicts the symbols of five religions. By O'reilly's definition at least four must be scams. Seems to me like he's almost defending islam.Eyeaskew (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Colbert did a bit on it last night and the crowning moment was when our scientific rockstar Mr. Neil Tyson dropped in to give a single sentence refutation of Papa Bear's claim and when asked why he felt qualified to comment on astrophysics, simply replied with "Well, because I'm an astrophysicist!." Great stuff...Saladin (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Watching that again, I can't help but feel that O'Reilly would talk over himself if he had the chance. He should be sued for false advertising because we were promised O'Reilly v. Silverman and what we got was O'Reilly jabbering on for 5 minutes out of 5 minutes and 26 seconds - with those 26 seconds being him telling his guest to shut up. ^pathetic 12:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WBC

I think this may be the event where someone gets seriously hurt... We all know Phelps is disgusting pile of cells masquerading as a human, but this is absolutely beyond acceptable..... For the first time in my life, I can honestly see how people can driven to acts of major violence. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 05:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The trick is to see through it to what it is; a publicity whoring scam. WBC often bring their youngest children along to demos and in the past they have been the ones that get hurt when people turn to violence. We shouldn't rise to it because that's exactly what they want and they know fine well what they're doing will cause people to get angry. The best thing that could happen is for no cameras to film them, no one to throw things at them and for no news reports to even mention they were on the scene. It would do more damage than any amount of sticks and punches. That's not going to happen, of course, but wouldn't it be great if it did? ^pathetic 12:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Also remember that WBC is chock full o' lawyers. (Fred Phelps is one himself, albeit disbarred for life.) One of the ways they make money is to provoke people into attacking them, and then suing them for damages. MDB (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Haven't they had issues actually collecting on a number of those decisions though? I was reading somewhere about a large number of people who refuse to pay and manage to avoid it? SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 15:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This side o' the pond we have CONDUCT LIKELY TO CAUSE A BREACH OF THE PEACE which is arrestable. Strikes me that Phelps would be in trouble here. Him (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

They can't even get in the country. They've been officially banned from ever setting foot in Britain. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 16:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If they turned up at a squadie's funeral over here they would get the absolute fuck knocked out of them. I don't give a fuck about their beliefs (as it happens they are correct - the god of the bible does indeed "hate fags"), but doing what they do at funerals is the height of bad taste and disrespect. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

But do you think they don't know that already? The entire raison d'etre is attention. They're one of the few ultra-hardcore religious groups that have little interest in converting new members, therefore their only outlet for belief is this sort of protest, raising awareness of their existence however they can and they've basically been trained, almost BF Skinner style, to protest funerals because they know this is the sort of thing that will turn the cameras and the comments towards them - negative or otherwise. ^pathetic 16:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For what it's worth, "angels" will be preventing the mourners from viewing WBC. MDB (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Armondokiv is 100% correct as far as the best way to "defeat" Phelps and his spawn. They thrive on negative reactions to their congregation, both mentally and financially (some law entitles them to lawyers fees from the state whenever someone sues them, and as they're all lawyers that money goes directly into the traveling troll show). It's all part of Fred's theology that his "elect" will be persecuted and hated for their beliefs, which is in reality an admittedly ingenious tactic for blinding his indoctrinated family to the outside world. Any reaction whatsoever is just more "proof" to them, so the best way to combat them is to simply deprive them of any and all attention i.e. no interviews, no counter protests, no threats, etc. It's like the old saying goes "any press is good press" for them. Just ignore them as you would a regular troll, though I doubt everyone else will follow suit just because of the horrible things these cunts stir up Saladin (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

While no counter protests are a good idea, it might be better trying to solicit donations that are directly opposed to the WBT (e.g. asking for donations for the local church), or simply blocking their view by parking a few large trucks. If directly asked about why they're protesting, just say they're the equivalent of the Landover Baptist Church - both are preaching material that they don't actually believe, and are actually satirizing those who believe that junk. --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Awhile back I heard that a gay rights group went to one of their protests and asked for donations in WBC's name. Then WBC got thank you cards in the mail for the pro-gay rights donations.--74.193.55.195 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WND's "Legal Defence Fund"

I'm curious. WND are trolling for funds (where are the conservative advertisers?), in part for their "legal defence fund" because "lawsuits and threats that always accompany honest journalism." I'm curious, has WND ever been sued, and what was the outcome? --Ψ GremlinParlez! 10:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Libel and slander. WND loses a lot of money in out of court settlements. - π 10:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

However WND tends to sue other people at the drop of a hat, so that also would chew up a lot of funds in lawyer fees. - π 11:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And psygremlin, have you seen the bottom of the page and the email address just below all the books they think we may like? ppsygremlin@gmail.com Is there something you are hiding from us all? :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You subscribed to WND!!!! Noooooo!!! ^pathetic 15:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I for one am actually glad that he's subscribed to WND to give us the low down on what they're doing rather than that filth having to clog up my email... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Back in 2001, Wingnutdaily was sued by Clark Jones for libel (a fundraiser for Al Gore) because of an article that claimed that he was a "dope dealer" and was under criminal investigation. WND payed him an out-of-court settlement to avoid going to court.--74.193.55.195 (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a story about this? I'd love to read more. Majintahu (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Alarmist "zomg pedestrians are dying!!!"

From the article given, I read: Pedestrian traffic has gone up. As a perfectly normal and expected result of that, pedestrian deaths have gone up. To: this is a bad thing!

You know what would solve all our pedestrian death problems? Forcing everyone to stay off the streets. Good solution?

*grumble* --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it we could keep all cars off the road, that'd save so many lives!! ^pathetic 17:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Malkin

Suicide bombers are the hallmark of religious zealots, and given the history of violence between Russia and Islamic radicals, Malkin's assessment may be premature, but I'd wager money she's right in this case. DickTurpis (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. the Chechans are really the only terrorists the RF deals with, and indeed, they are Islamic. Web (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Barry Soetoro Birth Certificate

The entire article is a rambling of idiocy. Not every state requires name changes to be published, and some don't even make it that expensive. Would you like to go check every county record house in the entire nation for "Barry Soetoro vs. Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr."?

The idea that Obama never officially changed his name to BHO is sheer idiocy, because Passports and Social Security must be issued in the official legal name of the individual, and there is no way he could ever obtain either without submitting to the Federal State Department, and the Social Security Services Bureau a legal court order approving a name change. So this notion that he's not qualified because his legal name is "Barry Soetoro" is pure idiocy.

It's like this guy doesn't actually understand how the world works, but he's happy to explain how it all makes sense in his own model of reality. "You see, if Obama is actually an Elf who speaks Quenya, then his name would naturally be written in Tengwar, which is why no one can find his Birth Certificate, because it's written in TENGWAR not in Latin script!" --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No women in heaven

To answer the question posed in the WIGO, I'd say it's just the pastor being a dick. His entire line of reasoning seems to be that A) Angels found women hot and B) of the few mentions heavenly beings get in the bible, they're (nearly) all claimed to be male. Then he takes his premise as valid and runs with it like an idiot. X Stickman (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Egypt

RE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x310141

While I did let out the biggest grunting laugh ever seeing that, I think it's fairly clear someone's just done a copy/paste job of a previous graphic and not adjusted the parameters properly... either way, stupid mistake. Does Hanlon's Razor let you distinguish between two types of stupidity? I'd much rather believe that the Fox graphics department just don't know how to operate their software than don't know how to operate an atlas. ^pathetic 18:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

More digging: It's from 2009, apparently. ^pathetic 18:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And fake. ^pathetic 22:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The BoingBoing article referenced by the Huffington Post to back up the claim of it being fake actually states that it is "Just one problem: this image was circulated two years ago, and who knows if it was real or Photoshopped in the first place." So, they don't claim that it is fake, they say that it is unknown if it is real or not. HufPost turned that into a definitive statement of fakeness. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

View from the UK

I just discovered Brutal Britain, an offshoot of Jerry Springer The Opera-hating Christian Voice. A bit like CP's MPR but for the wingnut Brit. Thought I'd share, like Steve Kay (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice. But don't they need to compare it with data from the 17th century? ^pathetic 14:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're using PIDOOMA anal-ysis, as is on-trend in this field. Steve Kay (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfect subject for an article... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible Jinx sighting

I've been reading the comments on the Jim O'Neil article in the CFP - and one of the Christian apologists has a handle Duke-Jinx. Is this a rare sighting of our old friend? I miss his particular brand of inanity. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Link? - π 11:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Its in the comments in this Canada Free Press article - see the WIGO Jack Hughes (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's him, the rhetoric seems to fit ("Secularism is rising in America, so is garbage in landfills!"). I've entered the fray of that comment section, though I don't foresee logic and reason winning out in a conversation where people seriously say "I'm going with the Judeo-Christian God "theory" (FACT!)". Some stupid is just buried too damn deep... Saladin (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Tubby Michelle Obama

In what world is Michelle Obama fat? I realise these folks are being beastly for the sake of it, do they really think she is fat? like Rush limbaugh fat? These nutjobs must be dangerously underweight. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's probably Ann Coulter's fault. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Eatting babies does keep you slim. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose if an emaciated harridan like Ann Coulter is your standard, then Michelle Obama is fat... MDB (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I assume that in this case "fat" is a standard applied only to women, and means "has some fat on their frame" So yeah. Tubby. Quaru^{orc - You can't explain that!} 22:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Insults attack the self-conscience weak-point of the general culture of that group. Women are called "fat" because it can make us cry. Men are called "fags" or "gay" because it makes them feel all self-conscious and all "zomg, do they think I'm really gay? ... ... ... no homo." As another example, it's common to attack a girl's chastity for insults... think about it, almost all of the bad words to call a woman mean she sleeps around: "slut", "ho", "whore", etc. But if you're in a "polite" conversation (meaning you're artificially avoiding curse words) you're going to switch it around... "What are girls always complaining about? oh yeah! being fat!" --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

My horrible, evil, dirty mind...

I haven't even gotten into the interview with Christwire yet, and already, I'm laughing hysterically at this: "being around young impressionable boys give me so much pleasure." I really need to get my mind out of the gutter... but then, hey, I'll thank the Catholic priests for cuing this association up. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

DAMN YOU POE!!!! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Halal

Jesus. Just when you thought the US right couldn't get more pig ignorant. I also notice that in true conservative fashion, you can't comment on the post, but I've taken the liberty of dropping him a letter. --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 13:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think this can be put down to ignorance. Perhaps the Pastor is ignorant, but the guy writing WND surely googles this shit? He's just stirring up hatred, or seeing what people actually believe? When I saw it, I was like, "What the fuck?" and a little research showed absolutely NO online reference to animals, "facing mecca." Just wow. ^EXTERMINATE 19:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I had a Kosher hotdog the other day.... Does that mean I'm eligible for Isreali citizenship? How fucking dense can you be? SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 21:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, people make major decisions made on even hazier criteria than that. ^pathetic 23:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User Dalek, I'm sure you found that to slaughter an animal under Halal, it has to be prayed over and blessed to Allah. Prayers must be properly offered by facing towards Mecca. It's an implicit part of prayers in Islam. At issue here is not some sort of "zomg they're confused about halal", but rather the religious intolerance of "zomg, I can't eat your meat, it's been blessed by your pagan god!" As SirChuckB points out, we have no problem with "creeping Kashrut", so why are we having a problem with "creeping Sharia". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

""In order for it to be halal, they have to slaughter the animal facing Mecca" (from article) But I agree, it's not important what the actual nature of halal is, it's about the irrational fear. ^EXTERMINATE 22:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There used to be an 8mm film in my family of a sheep being slaughtered in the neighbor's yard. It seems that once a year Muslims commemorate the time Abraham spared his son and sacrificed a sheep instead. Time for the whole neighborhood to get big helpings of baa-meat at the expense of whoever can afford it.

We were west of Mecca, so if the the praying butcher faced east while laying hands on the animal's back, then the critter was facing south. It twitched some when the blade touched its throat. While the blood was draining out, the sheep was facing Mother Earth. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

GLP & shrinks

That is actually all kinds of wonderful. Polite e-mail: "I'm conducting an online survey regarding beliefs in conspiracy theories..." Reaction "OMG!! Rogue shrinks are targeting us, they want our brains! The want to abuse mentally ill people"

Best quote ever from Trinity: "I know a lot of people here suffer from some form of mental illness and I will NOT TOLERATE what these sick fucks have been doing to you guys.." Ha! Ha! Ha! --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 07:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the funniest things I've seen all week. Bunch of absolute nutters. Webbtje (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Trinity is the site's owner and webmaster. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I left a polite comment (honestly!) asking what the guy had done wrong. I've just come back from my day and found that my IP's been banned, can't even view the forum. How charming! Webbtje (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)