RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/0003

Chemotherapy

“”The next year, when I went back to Seattle for the tournament, I saw Dr. Fred and hesitantly asked him about Nels. He looked startled, and said, “You know, it’s amazing. Nels went into total remission some time after you saw him, and we sent him home. He’s apparently cancer-free!” Three years later, his wife wrote me a sweet letter, informing me her husband had “gone to be with the Lord. But these last three years have been the happiest of our lives. Nels felt wonderful, we’ve spent time with kids and grandkids, and loved every minute. Just thought you’d want to know.”

Total remission and three years later he's snuffed it! So much for prayer. My wife was diagnosed with a rare form of multiple myeloma five years ago, she had radiotherapy, chemotherapy and a stem-cell transplant. She briefly considered the woo of the Bristol Cancer Centre but eventually put her life in the hands of the NHS and came through. She had hospital in-patient care for over six weeks, a £50,000 pound titanium implant to replace her damaged bones and it didn't cost us a penny more than our national insurance contributions. She has a mild chemotherapy/bone strengthening infusion every two months and her prognosis after five years is good. When the hospital priest came round she told him to get lost, she didn't need any mumbo-jumbo. The above quote about Nels is presented as some sort of religious miracle. My wife's survival has been a miracle of modern medicine and all done without the benefit of prayer. Publicly funded healthcare and science have triumphed over the sort of bullshit promoted at Conservapedia. It was a fucking tough time for both of us but now she's walking 500 miles to raise funds for Myeloma UK, she raises funds to help build a specialist centre for blood-related diseases at the hospital where she was treated, and she supports a Nepalese school providing education for orphans. I'm proud of her, the UK National Health Service and all the nurses and doctors who helped her. Genghis ^Marauding 17:17, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Genghis, first, a hearty "hurrah!" for your wife! I'm so happy for her. And happy for the UK. And a hearty "hurrah!" for the sentiment too. My girlfriend's thesis adviser had a similar experience - we were at college in Tx, and her adviser, an atheist, had to muck around with doctors who told her to "turn to God," when all she wanted was the doctor's personal assurance that s/he'd done the best possible. After a grim prognosis, 10 years later, she's doing great, but still angry that Texas medicine saved her life only after trying to force her to God first. So much for the patient's wishes.-αmεσ (tinker) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the story, GK. My heart and cares go out to you and your wife, I hope you will continue to find the best care available. To only get slightly political, I hope the same quality of care one for me & my colonial brethen (someday?). Peace be with you. human 00:51, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Genghis, my heart cannot cope with your wife's, and your, tribulations so I'll refrain from comment apart from wishing her and you all the good fortune that she obviously deserves. My husband died from cancer in 1979, unhappily we'd fallen out of love before that but I still cried myself to sleep for over a week (we were talking divorce before he was diagnosed but were still good friends). The week after he died the local vicar appeared at the door and I'm afraid I told him to "fuck off" - he was a little upset(!). Susan^Purrrrr 05:38, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks for everone's kind words. I should point out that my wife is in remission, there has been no indication of any relapse since her stem cell transplant and her consultant is confident that he will be able to sign her off as completely clear in five years time. Genghis ^Marauding 07:45, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Rapturous rejoicing at 'I told you so' shooting

It's not just CP who revel in shootings! Rapture! Susan^Purrrrr 05:40, 20 February 2008 (EST)

“”The secular world is at a total loss to explain why mass murder is on the rise. We've always had people with emotional troubles, but they've never committed acts of this magnitude.

Of course the availability and sheer killing potential of automatic weapons has nothing to do with the number of people who die when somebody flips their lid. Is the secular world still at a total loss to explain it? Or is this some alternate reality? Genghis ^Marauding 07:38, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Tories and suicide rates

I'm glad someone caught that - I just heard about it on the radio. I wonder if they plan to expand the study to include US data? Although US Dem v. Rep is not truly parallel to Tory v. Labour, it might be similar enough. Anyway, thanks for the article link! human 13:51, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Blocking YouTube

Check out the comments here from all the whack job extremest. Regardless of the potential sophistication or liberalization that a religion might be able to develop...in practice this is what we get. tmtoulouse ^oppress 11:59, 25 February 2008 (EST)

I went head and pulled some random comments off in case people dont want to wallow through a comment section on BBC:

I dont know it need to be banned or not. but as far as cartoons are related..to express that in the shadow of "freedom of speech" is not acceptable at all. To all of those who are in favour of this so called "freedom of speech", if someone spy your mum and put her naked video on youtube, tell me honestly, wud u like it? certainly not...so remember. our Beloved Prophet Muhammad(Peace Be Upon Him and His family), is dearer to us than anything else in the world, even our parents and ourselves

YouTube only have themselves to blame for not controlling their content. They have repeatedly put the emphasis on users to report offensive material rather than taking the lead themselves. I have no sympathy for them at all. On the real question of whether countries should be allowed to restrict internet sites then I think they should be allowed because of the increasing amount of material designed to cause offence.

I agree w/ the govt of Pakistan. This is simply a matter of stopping the filth from propagating. All I hear is freedom of expression. If you have no morals or ethical values - this is what is expected. In Islam we love our dear prophet more than ourselves, something the west civilization cannot understand - because they have chosen the greenback as their god, superbowls and world series as their religious holidays and the politicians as their prophets. I guess we shall see who wins in the end

The cartoons lampooning the Holy Prophet of Islam are unacceptable to every Muslim the world over as they are blasphemous. The Government of Pakistan's impromptu move to block out the media is laudable in arresting the fury of the mob. Freedom of expression comes attached with a social responsibility. Have you ever seen a Muslim artist lampooning Jesus Christ ? Muslims respect Jesus the Messiah as an apostle of Islam. To emphasize, Islam abhors the radical fanatics as those who have gone astray

^{— Unsigned, by: tmtoulouse / talk / contribs}

In the words of the great prophet J. R. "Bob" Dobbs, "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke". I think humor is a sign of sanity, and I can't have much respect for any religion or deity that can't tolerate a little criticism or parody. --SockOfGulik 16:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Starvin' Marvin...

Hey Linus - what's that all about - a story about how religious dogma led to a kid losing a third of his body weight isn't on mission? How about this - think about it: the story is on Faox News, right? And it's designed to make the Arabs look bad, right? And the American white boy look like a victim, right? But it turns out the Arabs are Christians - so everyone (except the poor kid) looks bad....talk it out, but don't just jack the story, mmmkay? PFoster 21:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Is America ready for...?

Clinton or Obama? (Youtube video--I found it howlingly funny.) --Gulik 02:57, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Jerusalem Shooting

Well, that took a while & still no claim that gunz iz gud. Susan^purrrrr 18:45, 6 March 2008 (EST) Wait for it! Susan^purrrrr 18:47, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Conman

Not quite up to front page standards but is the conman any more to blame than the greedy 'religious dupes who were after 3000% return in 6 months? (Of course he is but ....) Susan^purrrrr 15:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Old News but new to me

Turkey's possibly suing Dawkin's publisher. (last November but, as I said, new to me. Susan^purrrrr 15:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

15 month old baby dies.

from religion!!!!! http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_032408_news_faith_healing_death_15_month_girl_.2096e0ed.html?npc ^{— Unsigned, by: 142.68.81.118 / talk / contribs}

Oh noes, not again?! human 20:55, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Wait a minute

Two things, one regarding the changing of the muslim thing.... We attack Christianity all the time which much more offensive stuff than that... We can't have it both ways... if the consenus is to stop bashing religions in general, then fine lets do that.... but we can't attack one and bring out the kid golves when it comes to others.... and two, why is the list being trimmed so often? I thought it was extended to ten items? What's the final on that? SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 00:20, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I would have objected to the language regardless of the religion. T:AT is for satire and rebuttal, not blatant mockery, and the singling out of any faith for an insult would run afoul of that. The template should be intelligent commentary, not just "ha ha"-αmεσ (tinker) 01:11, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I see your point and would agree to it... but for things such as "Apparently the new move by YEC nutjobs is to play "docent" at museums and explain what the exhibits really mean!" which was up for a good amount of time... I guess I'm not seeing how referring to a group (which is basically comprised of two or three religions) as nutjobs is ok, but pointing out that Muslims are crazy isn't... I hope I'm not coming off as too much of a dick here, I really just wanna understand so we're all on the same page SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 01:22, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I think it's more that "YEC nutjobs" isn't condemning all Christians, whereas "Muslims" is a blanket statement. I'm not gonna get into a rant about perversions of Islam (cos i'm sure my "facts" are all wrong) but we should be able to say Muslim fundamentalist (or whatever is the preferred nomenclature) the same way we say Mormon nutjob or YEC wacko. We should be able to mention honour killings or the bombing of abortion clinics as evil dressing itself up as religion no matter what member of what religion commits the crimes in the knowledge that the religion isn't to blame - it's the evil bastard "interpreting" it to suit his own ends and agenda. airdish 06:04, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

ireland story

i removed this for two reasons: the link doesn't work; and i presume it's the story on attitudes to rape, which has already been mentioned in an update to the Iran rape story (which is still on the front page). airdish 02:46, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

No pimpage?

Sorry, I don't want to all of a sudden be too much like Kenservative :-). Good call Human - ! -αmεσ (tinker) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, and it certainly does belong at the movie article. Glad we didn't disagree (also, according to was getting a bit Expelled-heavy!) You weren't getting Kendolly at all, just eager :) human 23:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Please shoot me if I start acting like Ken. I trust you on this, old friend.-αmεσ (tinker) 23:33, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

I think we all have standing orders to shoot any of the mob should we display even the slightest Kendollism in our character. I'm not too worried about it, especially in your case. human 23:36, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah…

"As the Pope arrives in the US, he's "'ashamed' of US clergy abuse". Oh, my mistake - it's not the clergy being abused, it's the same old Paedophilia story."

Um, Susan, the position of the site is not supposed to be one of anti-religion. I really tend to believe that this should be deleted, but before I do so, I'm posting this here for discussion. Thoughts? --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 20:37, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Apparently, all the child-screwing by the priesthood the fault of... the Permissive Media. Yeah. --Gulik 15:52, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I dunno what the item said, but comment on the way Herr Popenazi is addressing the rape of (huge numbers of) children by the management of the operation he now runs is up our alley. Religion has nothing to do with the scandal, except perhaps to explain how so many have remained free after its exposure. human 22:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Brawl between Greek and Armenian Orthodox...

"...and pummeled police with palm fronds." Best thing I've read all week!! PFoster 21:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I'll take a fronding over a fondling any day...or night, (unless I know you fairly well, anyway). CЯacke® 21:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Edit War

Jeez, I go to one show and everything goes to Mephisto's Realm.... what happened? SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 01:01, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Linus took a bit of text out because it seemed anti-religious. Shabohdanders then reverted him to promote mischief, and so began a humourous revertwar. A grand time was had by all. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.} 01:19, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Concerning this "summons" thing

There's a lot of variant stories floating around Entrurb and elsewhere about what may or may not have happened in this case, but it is quite clear that the protester in question at least did not receive a summons at the protest. He did get this - not a summons, but rather some sort of semi-official warning thingy. I haven't been following this case in recent days, so he may have received a summons later, but as far as I know, the case is still under consideration by the CPS. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:05, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Interesting! Thanks for the expansion AK, I was led astray by the biased liberal media of longhairs and lefties at the Grauniad, it seems.... DogP 15:09, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

School (Non) Issue

I've commented out for now, but I won't remove pending other opinion... but the link about the school thing is pretty pointless. This is nothing new. Teachers have long been able to confiscate notes, phones and pretty much anything else. It has long been established that any items brought onto school grounds are considered searchable (if that's a word). As a teacher, I have confiscated many items, including phones. This seems to be simply a Fox News "let's bash the public school system" articles... and Why the hell are we linking to Fox News anyway? SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 02:44, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm putting it back in because, well, it's my bit....I think the story fits in well with our mandate of trying to expose some of the thinking behind political fundamentalism, which is essentially what is going on here - using the culture of fear to make schools a more invasive place. And I think there's a marked difference between being able to confiscate a cell phone (how many times did I have my cassette walkman confiscated back in the old days....) and being able to read a student's personal text messages for clues that they are "up to something - that's Big Brother/political fundamentalism writ large...a lot of people here would be totally happy to link to this story if it was about a Florida school board teaching ID or allowing prayer as that sort of thing would be using schools to advance an agenda that is politically unacceptable. Well, using public schools to advance the agenda that it's okay for authority figures to go rooting through your text messages on fishing expeditions for signs of nefarious plans and ideas is as, if not more politically dangerous than teaching ID... As for why we're linking to Fox News, we link to any number of corporately-owned/operated/oriented news sites, including the New York Times, MSNBC, and CNN. Fox News, while it has its own set of faults, is as much part of the corporate media and its agenda as those other outlets. PFoster 11:26, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

The tech frontier is always a weird place for any rule-making (schools, courts, etc.). Is this just the next generation's version of a teacher reading a confiscated note, or, because of the nature of the device, is this a bit more probative? I'm going with the latter, simply as a "plain sight" kind of issue. It's one thing to read a note that a student passes, but it's another to root through his notebook looking for notes he passed. Don't get me wrong, if the kid is texting in class, that phone is gone and the kid is punished. But do we really need to know the content of the message?

That said, the headline does seem overly alarmist. "Means of oppression" seems a little drastic, especially since I'm not sure what's supposed to be being oppressed. Violation of privacy maybe, but I don't see the oppression. Jeeze, I'm just pissing everyone off today, eh? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 11:41, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Foster, I disagree with you on several points, but I won't push the issue about removing it.... I will say however, that nowhere does the article say teachers can simply stopa kid and demand his phone so they can look through it... but In these days where students are trading nude pictures and taking photos of other kids without permission, there is a strong reason for teachers to be vigilant about cell phone use... I really think you're implying a large threat to civil liberties that doesn't occurr. Cops have the right to search through cell phones if they think it contains evidence, and the government can take your computer to look for evidence.... I hardly think these are serious threats. As for Fox News, they have a clear Right wing agenda, part of which is defeating and defaming the public school system. It's like linking to the Washington Post for information on the Moonies. When your source has an obvious bias, they're not a good source. 13:16, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Chuck, a couple of things. Cops and gummint agents need warrants and due process to perform the kind of searches that these teachers are going to be able to perform virtually on a whim (""If we suspect kids are plotting together and we have that suspicion, we'll search that," Manatee County School Board Attorney John Bowen told the station."). and yes, Fox has a right wing agenda, as opposed to the slightly-less-right-wing-agenda of any other corporately owned American news outlet (including such allegedly left outlets like the NYT and MSNBC. While I hate to sound like one of those assholes that you meet on college campuses, have you read Manufacturing Consent or Necessary Illusions ? Or, check out what Bobby Fisk has to say about the Times and other American corporate news outlets here: [1] (Correction - Fisk is using the LA Times as his main example, but his argument holds true regardless...)

That is not always the case. Cops have the right to search a cell phone and go through the contents without a warrant if they beleive there is probable cause that the phone was used as part of a crime. Agents have the right to an immediate search with a retroactive warrant if the situation calls for it. Let me pose this question to you. If a student took a picture of another student in the Locker room, and then posted this photo over the internet.... Would that be ok? Now, if a teacher could've confiscated that phone after finding out about it and saved the victim from endless humiliation and the school district from a costly lawsuit, would that be acceptable? Again, I think you're overestimating the behavior of students. Kids do hurtful, dangerous stuff and Teachers should be able to step in and resolve these issues, even if it means going through a kid's cell phone. SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 13:59, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Chuck, since I'm not a lawyer like Andy, I'm not going to debate about what cops are and are not allowed to do with and without a warrant - but the important thing is that they're cops, and as such are allowed to do a number of things that math teachers are not. In regards to your attempt to seize the moral high ground with your question...of course it's not okay to take a kid's picture in the locker room and distribute it. Why? Because doing that is a crime: and when a crime is committed, I want the police to deal with it, not some motley collection of people that we've deputized in the name of the culture of fear. My solution - the teacher can confiscate the phone if he/she has reason to believe that such an act has been committed, and turn it over to the proper authorities (the police) to deal with in the ways that the legal system allows for.PFoster 14:22, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I will end on this, as it's obvious that we're merely shouting opinions at each other.... I was not trying to take an moral high ground, I was using a hypothetical to illustrate a point. My final rebuttal is this... I have serious doubts the police are going to send an officer to the school three times a week to look at cell phones. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, and I am by no means an expert, no crime is committed by the act of taking the picture, unless intended for sexual purposes... The crime is committed when the picture is posted maliciously. Why should we wait until the crime is committed. I will also point on, considering the difference in treatment certain .... colors get from Cops, I really don't want them dealing with minor behavior issues in multi-cultural schools. SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 16:24, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Great discussion! I would like to point out one "minor" (ROTFLMAO, I break myself up!) point, which is that students typically do not enjoy "full" adult civil rights, especially in school buildings (dress codes, anyone?). I haven't read the story, though, so I abstain from commenting on the particulars of this incident. I will, instead, shout some random nonsense past the conversation... When I was a kid, we couldn't bring toys to class. If a teacher truly suspects a student of having incriminating "stuff" on their cell phone, they surely must have the strength of their convictions to take the search through public, legal channels. I also, however, respect Chuck's point about discrimination in those channels, and my own subtle racist bias in saying what I said (I went to a 99.5% white HS, for example). We should transfer this discussion to a debate page ;) (someone tell me if they do it pleez?) ħuman 21:31, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh my god.... Someone else actually acknowledging a difference in treatment with law enforcment... I may faint. Human, if you don't mind my asking... as you a minority? or just hang out with a lot? SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 03:05, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Chuck, I'm so friggin white I'm "light green". But at least I hear and listen and try to learn, and then try to learn more, and then realize, in the immortal words of a reasonably good episode of South Park - "I don't get it". Meaning, if I ever claim to "get it" I'm wrong. All I can claim - at best - to do, is listen, hear, and try to understand. I'm not a real "minority" in the US, being "light green" (seriously, I might get a tractor tan, but my skin is light green!), but as an immigrant, sometimes and outsider, or an exception to the rule, maybe I am slightly more sensitized to the cause? Eh, probably not. I have a long history of seriously feminist girlfriends (oops, I think I outed myself!), and I get constantly schooled on what I thought I think. And what I think I thought. But let me say, some of my best friends are black...

A day or so after returning from my parents' 50th thingie in NC, you know what struck me? (Knowing, as I'm sure you might, that anywhere I went in NC there was a far more copious AA/black population than I ever see here in White Hampshire). Of all the sixty or so guests at the party... all were white. I'm still kind of creeped out by it. If I lived in NC for 15 years, I know I would have friends who weren't all white. Not by trying to be all race-cool and such. Just because, well, you meet who you meet, and make friends among them. As I said, I'm still a bit freaked out about this. The party went well, and was fun, and all. But it also did not seem to represent the community I was moving through, at all. Call me a racist for noticing? Or an anti-racist? This stuff is hard for a guy like me - although life is easy, as a white man. If you want to bring this conversation to my talk page, you're welcome, feel free to copy stuff over to get the conversation jump-started. PS, I spent a couple years in Missouri back in 78-79 or so at college (and post college, = dropped out) and went through the same sorts of "am I a racist or not, or just confused" episodes.

I hope I did not offend you in any way with my story. If I did, I sincerely apologize, and welcome your chastising on my talk page. ħuman 03:32, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Smarmy Git

[2] Never did like the smug, sanctimonious wazzock.   ^Contribs_Talk 08:54, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Indeed. He is as slimey as a....uhm....slimey thing. And Cherie's a moose as well. I feel sorry for their children. Spica the Hiver ^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Rapturous emails

"There won't be any bodies, so probate court will take seven years to clear your assets to your next of kin. Seven years, of course, is all the time that will be left," it explains. "So, basically the Government of the Antichrist gets your stuff, unless you make it available in another way."

Gotta love the guy's reasoning. The global Satanic government will wait for probate to be finalised rather than just changing the rules to suit themselves. And so what if they do get all your stuff after your dead, the whole world's going to blow in seven years anyway. Conservatives just can't seem to let go of their worldly materials. Genghis^marauding 09:13, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

New Warnings

Can we do something about them please? If I were a first time visitor to the site and the first thing I see are these glaring warnings basically listing rules for posting, I'd wonder what the hell is wrong with these people? I think we should either re-word them or comment them so they're seen when posting, but not otherwise. SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 05:58, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I think someone forgot a </noinclude> at the end of the section and it wasn't supposed to show up on the front page. At least, that's my guess. -- 129.125.180.6 08:11, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Whoops, sorry about that. I'm not sure I'd call it a "warning", but some of these said nothing about what they were referring to. A simple sentence goes a long way towards letting someone figure out if they want to read an item or not, I think. It's one thing to have WIGO CP items that just say "irony meter: broken again", but (and the irony of my screwing up the formatting here is delicious!) this thing goes on our front page. So thanks for catching my dumbass goof, but your point also reinforces mine, I think. ħuman 17:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Teach the Controversy!

This is funny: A site with "Teach the Controversy" t-shirts for.... various topics. --Gulik 22:59, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

That is awesome, Gulik. We should link to that somewhere, methinks. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

RationalWiki:blogroll, the most ignored and under-linked page on the wiki? ħuman 00:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Eh, no, that would be RationalWiki:Moral Matrix. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:35, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, yeah, but that sucks. Blogroll really should, as you say, be linked tastefully on the mainpage. Maybe I'll get on it. Maybe I won't. Who can tell? Hard tellin', not knowin'. ħuman 01:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Who ever said it had to be tasteful? : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:04, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

ME! Hahaha. Y,W,H,W, etc. ħuman 01:16, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Must you talk in code? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I love the Discworld one! <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.} 03:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Which one was that? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:15, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I pity you, Rad. You have so much still to see :(

The Discworld one is (possibly) the one with the Disc-upon-elephants-upon-tortoise -- but it is possibly not supposed to be a Discworld references after all, because it should be a turtle. I are disappointed. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.} 03:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah. Y'know, for a moment I thought you said "Discoworld", and had made a tasteless disco '70s reference. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:22, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Hey, that's the prime of my life you're disparaging. Genghis^marauding 15:17, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

I so didn't need to hear that. *trying not to imagine Genghis dancing a la Saturday Night Fever* Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 13:03, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

New item

I'm not thrilled with it, but it's the best I could do at 3:30 in the morning.... feel free to play around with it, but know that I may come back to rewrite it at any time SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 05:25, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I removed that final part about criminal charges since I'm not sure what you were getting out. Also, I think it was approaching conservapedia's way of putting up a news item and then making some smarmy comment about it. BeastmasterGeneral 13:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)'

I don't know if you looked close, but we do that all the time... in fact, we had the franchise before Conservapedia did SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 14:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

We really don't want to do that (get smarmy) on the front page though. Let's try and keep these reasonably well written and informative - and on mission. I also made some comments at talk:main along these lines, I should have copied them here. ħuman 21:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia Audience link

I've not edited here before, although I'm a long-time reader of RationalWiki. I hope you don't mind me adding this link, but I thought it was something that you'd be very interested in here 81.102.156.177 20:34, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for bringing it up - we usually keep the CP stuff over at what we call "WIGO CP" - the link at the bottom of the right side of the main page. I cut the link you left and just added it as a section on WIGO's talk page. ħuman 21:54, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

low blow?

The headline about the man who went on a spree in a factory seems like a callous, opportunistic low blow, worthy of Schlafly's "Heath Ledger died; let's blame Hollywood." Regardless of whether gun control would have stopped it, it seems inhumane and unfeeling to keep it up. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:28, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree. It's pretty tasteless, and I think we're better than that. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 21:48, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the cleanup. This isn't WIGOCP, this is the main page we're editing here. ħuman 21:52, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

News Items one sided

I realize we are only putting stuff up here that we find interesting/appalling but I really get a CP feel when I look at this. The last one (that I just updated) was about scientists claiming there will be no ice at the north pole, which is NOT what the article says. Scientists said there is a 50/50 chance that there will be no ice. This is the kinda stuff that assfly and his cronies pull all the time. The smarmy comments that ChuckB notes we have been doing for awhile get under my skin too. I don't want to be part of a liberal version of CP. BeastmasterGeneral 07:43, 27 June 2008 (EDT)