Talk:Blogs 4 Brownback

	This Internet related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Various Chatter

Good article :) -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 16:26, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! MiddleMan

I can't help thinking this blog is the work of some deep-cover Democratic operative with an overactive Sarcasm Gland. At least that's what I hope. --Gulik 16:37, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

There are a couple places in the article (in the intro and right near the end), when "heliocentrism" is used and I think you mean "non-heliocentrism" or "terracentrism" or something like that. But I haven't read enough of b4b to be sure, so I'm not just changing it. --jtl^talk 19:10, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Geo--centrism (hey, it's a Friday night...) MiddleMan

I still maintain it's gotta be a hoax, but, like Richard, it draws out the real whakos. Oh yeah, and as to the grain of sand thing, um, GRAVITY!!--PalMD^{-yada yada}

I think that new article (about the 13-year old boy) and the discussion that follow it deserve to be on the main page!

What do you think? MiddleMan

It's beautiful, but we have to try to figure out who is a hoax and who isn't. Sisyphus, from what Ive read on the blog, is a clever hoax. I'm not sure about the others. I'd love to get some CP people to start commenting there, or to link to them.DocSock 16:19, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, Sisyphus is a parody. ----Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 15:51, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

I really hope so (a clever plot to make sure Brownback DOESN'T get elected!), but at least some of the other fundies that comment there are serious, I think... MiddleMan

'http://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2007/05/28/even-intrepid-eighth-graders-can-outargue-darwin/#comment-3865'

“In a vacuum, everything accelerates at 9.8 meters per second squared, be it a feather or a bowling ball. It’s air resistance that causes a feather to fall more slowly.”

Nature abhors a vacuum, so these objects would expand to fill it, possibly even breaking apart into a dust in order to do so."

Sorry ... cracking up laughing ... just had to post ... --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Headers

Great article! Glad to see it up here. I believe the consensus is that it is brilliant parody. And, indeed, it is done with great effort, heart, and soul. Anyway. Does anyone mind if I knock the headers down a level (= to ==, == to ===)? They are kinda big... It wouldn't alter structure, as far as I can tell. human^{be in} 19:24, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Cabinet positions

I'm surprised they didn't go all the way to "Department for the Promotion of Virtue and the Discouragement of Vice" --jtl^talk 16:53, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

I think the Department Of Christian Affairs, Department For The Promotion Of Traditional Values and Department Of Christian Affairs are frightening enough... MiddleMan 16:57, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Sissy-puss

I think he all of his contributions should be cleverly merged into CP. The man's a genius!--PalMD^{-yada yada} 17:07, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Is Sisyphus for Real?

This guy CAN'T be serious. No one can be *that* stupid. He is either intentionally ignorant or is one of the best covert operatives I have ever seen. --Patthew 11:55, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

You're not the first to say that, but like the article says, whether Sisyphus is a parody, or not, some of the posters at B4B are serious.

There really are people like this, and not just in some caves in Afghanistan... MiddleMan 14:41, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Maybe, but if you ask me Sisyphus is a holdover from Scrutator. If you guys don't remember that site, you should check it out.User:ickygoblin 21:16, 13 June 2007 (EST)

Interesting, but he raises some interesting questions. I must seriously think about many things I once held dear.--Bob_M (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm 100% certain it's a hoax, and a good one at that, although I think the refridgerator story [1] may well have been his downfall and he has blown his cover I reckon. However, well done him (or her), I say. Doggedpersistance 14:51, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

UPDATE: CP has declared it to be a hoax [2]. Doggedpersistance 15:04, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Pox has tagged it for speedy deletion. Looks likon Simon's copybook has been blotted. Of course Pox always gets his ideas here first. God's peed ^{Babel fish}ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†_{Now look here!} 16:55, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

:P לול 17:01, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, it must be true then. :-)--Bob_M (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

I used to think CP was a great idea, but they are very reactionary and stiff over there. A friend of mine updated the Sam Brownback page, including our blog (B4B) in a list of blogs in favor of brownback and it was removed without discussion. He tells me the talk page was immediately locked to prevent discussion. I don't know how accurate that is, but if true, it is an outrage. What are they afraid of? --Psycheout 00:22, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Psycheout

Why nothing about Psycheout and his immortal posts? I think this article needs to be researched more fully. It certainly needs to be updated. I think the quotations are a little too long. And not enough time is spent on the wisdom of Psycheout and the benfits of a virtuous Brownback candidacy. Hopefully this will be rectified in the near future. --Psycheout 21:25, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

You're absolutely right. I'll get on the job! --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 21:31, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Their theory on angels being electrons would fit perfectly in here.

My contributions and observations

I added a fact tag regarding the B4B contributor syphilis (sorry if I spelled that incorrectly). It seems to me this character is probably a parody. In any event, the blog itself is an interesting mix of caricatures and truth. That is, classic (and ametuer) disinformation operation, at least that is my initial assessment. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 22:52, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Just please try and keep your contributions NPOV, or at least rational. Unless RationalWiki is meant to be a mirror image of Conservapedia. --Psycheout 00:16, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Um, I did the math. Newtonin and Einstien (sp.?). Gravity is a force indistinguishable from a field in which there is a constant acceleration. This is actaully simple calculus. human^{be in} 00:44, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

That's not what I was responding to. HeartOfGold used words like parody, caricatures and disinformation, as well as calling the author "syphilis" instead of "Sisyphus." That's fine here on the talk page (I guess), but not in an article that is NPOV, if you guys follow that policy. --Psycheout 01:17, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Psycheout, don't mind human, I think he made a mistake responding in this section. Anyway, I couldn't recall the spelling...apologize if you're the guy (though I doubt you are...sorry). Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive}

I think you're right. No big deal. --Psycheout 12:30, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Heavier objects DO fall faster (nerd fight)

This is true. Do the math. Use the Earth, and a cue ball with the mass of the sun dropped from 10 feet. The cue ball falls toward the earth, but the earth falls toward the cue ball much more quickly. The overal acceleration, a_t=a_e+a_c is greater. For a normally massed cue ball, a_e, the acceleration of the Earth due to the cue ball, is astronomically negligable. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 00:01, 14 July 2007 (CDT) Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 00:00, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Do you enjoy being wrong? I have the distinct impression that you are some form of intellectual masochist who enjoys making stupid statements so you can be mocked, belittled, and generally laughed at.the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 00:20, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

LOL. Umn, do the math, then get back to me. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 00:19, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

G.A. Click the link to see how to calculate gravitational acceleration. Here is a hint, it is not what you posted. So here is a tip, do the accurate math yourself before instructing others in what they ought do.the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 00:23, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I am confident you will soon be corrected. I'd do it, but math is not installed here. Would rather have you rebuked by a fellow lib. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 00:23, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps next you will want to suggest a large ball tied to a small ball will be slowed down by the slow ball pulling against it. At least Aristotle would like you.the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 00:27, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I was invited here, and I don't know why, by HG. Um math doesn't work yet on this wiki (bitch and moan! they are working on it!). Here's the deal: F = Gmm/r^2. It's how we landed men on the moon. What is your question? Large objects fall faster than small ones? Um, experiments have shwon that to be wrong. But thank you HG for inviting me to this basic physics forum. Now I will read the context and comment further.

By the way, HG, your math is insane and wrong. Soryy... human^{be in} 01:02, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

That has to hurt, I am sure HG was expecting your support and to shoot evil old me down. The disappointment should have been expected, what with fighting against hundreds of years of progress.the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 01:07, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Do I have to pwn to libs? Reread what I wrote. Careful about your experiments....the negligibility I already spoke of for a cue ball of normal mass is smaller than the resolution of instruments in your Physics 101 class. I am loosing respect for you Human. DA aka EM is what is known as a useful idiot. Pwn. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 02:50, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I hope the image helps you two noobs figure out your Newtonian physics. If you do the calculations for a cue ball with normal mass, you will see that the difference between the combined acceleration and the acceleration of the cue ball due to the Earth's mass is so small no physics 101 lab has equipment capable of measuring the difference. However, if you assume the cue ball weighs as much as the sun, you will see that your own eyes will tell you the difference. Hopefully, this should teach you which ideas to question (hint: your own). Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 03:05, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I see someone has finally crossed into Ad hom. Congrats, it was bound to happen. If you will notice that the equations used to calculate gravitational acceleration(falling, yours is not used to calculate gravitational acceleration or acceleration in general [the change in velocity over the change in time] but appears to simply be pulled out of thin air). And your example of the cueball fails to take into the consideration that gravitational strength plays a role in that acceleration. In short you are making an elementary mistake that I would pray a high school science student would not make. Were the sun and earth to both fall toward an object with a mass, they would fall at the same speed. But since the sun is greater in mass, and therefore has a stronger gravitational pull than the earth, if one were to fall towards the other(itself impossible as the sun cannot technically fall to the earth owing to its density in comparison to earth, another elementary mistake on your part) they would not fall at the same rate by the principle that each has a separate gravitational pull. Do you care to write some more so that we can see how little else you understand in science? :edit: you do realize those prove what human and I have said, right? Or have you honestly just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about?the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 03:06, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm done with you, as there is no point conversing with a wall. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 03:17, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

A classic cop out. Your own image posts disprove your statements so you make snide comments about bowing out to try and save face and privately feel victorious. The truth is you were wrong. You know you were wrong. You had explained and shown to you how you were wrong. And you dislike that.the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 03:20, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Your own image posts disprove your statements so you make snide comments about bowing out to try and save face and privately feel victorious. Good lord, you mean the image you tried to supress? Just go away. The equations show that what I wrote was correct...you remember the exchange, I hope,...here, let me help...Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 03:29, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

---

This is true. Do the math. Use the Earth, and a cue ball with the mass of the sun dropped from 10 feet. The cue ball falls toward the earth, but the earth falls toward the cue ball much more quickly. The overal acceleration, a_t=a_e+a_c is greater. For a normally massed cue ball, a_e, the acceleration of the Earth due to the cue ball, is astronomically negligable. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 00:01, 14 July 2007 (CDT) Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 00:00, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Do you enjoy being wrong? I have the distinct impression that you are some form of intellectual masochist who enjoys making stupid statements so you can be mocked, belittled, and generally laughed at.the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 00:20, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

---

Where was I wrong, nimrod? Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 03:23, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh how witty. Did it take you long to come up with such a clever yet effective insult. Let us pause a moment to immortalize this in history. In fact, I believe they shall be quoting that sagely wisdom for years to come. As for where you were wrong, let us examine.

• Heavier objects DO fall faster //proven wrong over course of discussion
• a_t=a_e+a_c //proven wrong by your own posted image
• Use the Earth, and a cue ball with the mass of the sun dropped from 10 feet. //the sun cannot fall toward the earth but vice verse
• I am confident you will soon be corrected.
• Careful about your experiments....the negligibility I already spoke of for a cue ball of normal mass is smaller than the resolution of instruments in your Physics 101 class. //actually a lab on earth will show a difference in the falling rate from air resistance unless the lab created a vacuum to perform the experiment in, as far as typical earth atmosphere conditions is concerned the two will fall slower owing to wind resistance(with the heaviest perhaps even falling slower)

in short, nothing you have stated to this point has been accurate. You keep shoveling on the bs and are burying yourself in it.the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 03:35, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Just plotted these in a spreadsheet, while you were busy making false and misleading assertions. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 04:09, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Also, can you tell me about a Physics 101 lab instrument that can measure an acceleration differential on the order of 1E-24 m/s/s in the time it takes an object to fall ~3 meters? Slightly more negligable effect than air resistance, huh? Also, I suppose you'll try to claim you were making some linguistic or semantic point next. Typical lib. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 04:23, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Look, guys, I'm a physics undergraduate and I can tell you that heavy objects don't fall faster, HG, you're right about the Earth being attracted upwards a tiny bit faster with a heavy object, but as you said yourself this is negligible and somehow I'm sure this is not what the people at B4B meant. They believe in a flat Earth, where Newton's laws do not apply, in fact they stated that Newton was a pedophile and a heretic. MiddleMan 07:34, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Whether or not B4B understood the facts of the matter, I do not know, but the truth is, they are right. I wrote the following:

This is true. Do the math. Use the Earth, and a cue ball with the mass of the sun dropped from 10 feet. The cue ball falls toward the earth, but the earth falls toward the cue ball much more quickly. The overal acceleration, a_t=a_e+a_c is greater. For a normally massed cue ball, a_e, the acceleration of the Earth due to the cue ball, is astronomically negligable.

Which is sufficiently precise in the cotext of undergraduate physics problems to not be challanged with:

“”Do you enjoy being wrong? I have the distinct impression that you are some form of intellectual masochist who enjoys making stupid statements so you can be mocked, belittled, and generally laughed at.

I do suspect that the B4B poster (SISYPHUS, who is attributed as having written "Heavier objects DO fall faster") as aware of the theoretically different results achievable when comparing the time it takes less massive objects to fall and more massive objects to fall the same distance. (Theoretically different owing to limitiations of instruments used to conduct such experiments). I also suspect the fact that the B4B poster was aware that this difference is so small, in the case objects with masses small enough to peform an experiment on, as to be below our ability to detect the difference, but that as the mass of the object increases, the difference in accereration rates (and hence, time for objects to come in contact) becomes measurable. At the very least, it is possible, and hence exculpatory, that the B4B poster knew this.

Classifying this as a nerd fight is probably not accurate, except to the extent of my initial, Human's and your involvment. I was just offering a possible and rational explanation to substantiate and/or mitigate the ostensibly outragous B4B claim that "Heavier objects DO fall faster...", and was wikistalked and wiki-assualted by a communist who thought (based on his own limited understanding of Newtonian gravitation theory and, likely, based on his recollection and limited understanding of oft repeated simplified descriptions of said theory) he had an opportunity to expose me as a "intellectual masochist...making stupid statements so you can be mocked, belittled, and generally laughed at." Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 09:47, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

HG, you give B4B way to much credit, go read their posts and then tell me you still believe they are aware of "the theoretically different results achievable when comparing the time it takes less massive objects to fall and more massive objects to fall the same distance." They plainly state they do not believe Newton's Laws to be valid. And for godsakes, there are no communists here! MiddleMan 10:09, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

MM, I may be giving the B4B poster too much credit, but it is a coincidence theory to suggest the fact that the B4B statement is in fact scientifically correct (once you account for sloppy terminology interchanging weight and mass), even if not discernable. And, perhaps, as in the case of a lucky guess during what appears to be slander, the truth of the claim mitigate (or eliminates) culpibility, whether or not the perp. (B4B poster) knew the truth at the detail we've discussed. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 14:27, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

The big problem, HG, is that when we observe the falling of an object, one object is observed as stationary, which, according to relativity, is indeed valid. Thus a change occurs in the relative velocity of both objects, and thus the rate remains the same. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 10:29, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I'd be interested in you showing me how taking relativity into account at these veloocities nullifies Newton's equations with regard to a heavier (read: more massive) object falling faster. My (somewhat educated) guess is that there will be an error (difference in results) in the Newtonian equations compared to the relativity equations, but the error will be orders of magnitude smaller than the already infinitisimally small (and impossible if not virually impossible to measure) difference in time it takes for an object to fall a fixed distance. That is, my (somewhat educated) guess is that you are partially correct, but that taking relativity into account will not significantly affect the conclusion that more massive objects do fall faster, as already demonstrated.

But if you want to pursue this, and have the desire and ability, why not do the math, and generate equations and graphs, akin to the ones I generated, showing that a cue ball weighing .1 kg and another weighing 1 kg, individually (and sequentially to keep it a simple two object system) dropped from a fixed height (3 meters above sea level, to sea level), and precisely timed using a hypothetical infinitely accurate stop watch, in a hypothetical vaccum.

And, even in the Newtonian calculations, a simplification is made, namely, that of the effect on the force as the object falls (and the radius changes), e.g., dF/dr. Taking dF/dr into account will produce a more accurate acceleration (and time to fall) prediction, but we still wouldn't have an instrument cabable of measuring the difference. It's probably not important to the article, but if you're right, and I am not, some of these communists might be able to save some face.

Lastly, for m_c << m_e, a_t~=g=a_c is a very good approximation, even under Newtonian only equations (hence the oft repeated simplification that objects with different masses fall at the same rate). Note << is "much less than". Likewise, for a fall distance p that is much less than r, the radius from center to center of two spherical objects under consideration, the dF/dr affects can be ignored. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 14:27, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I didn't read the intricacies of what is going on. Is the issue whether objects dropped from different heights and/or involve different masses will have the same speed? --Marvin the Paranoid Android 15:43, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Umn, no. Whether one sphere with one mass m₁ dropped at a height h would fall more or less quickly than another sphere of the same size but with with mass m₂ dropped at the same height h. The math says, in fact, that the more massive object will "fall" faster (read: collide with the Earth). For some reason, people touting their physics credentials are being outsmarted by a B4B contributor (as the B4B contributor has it right). Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 16:27, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

What I mean is that, as motion is relative, we assume that one object is stationary. Therefore, the effects of the two being attracted to each other are negated, or so it appears to me on the surface. --Marvin the Paranoid Android 16:50, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

No, they are not negated. If you were in an independant frame of refernce, you would see that the two objects are falling toward each other, but here on earth, dropping real or hypothetical objects, the Earth is the traditional and most convienent frame of reference, and a_t=g+a_e. That a_e is infinitesimally small for objects with masses much less than the earth (i.e., most real objects) allows us to simplify and assume that a_t=g. But there is no negation due to the Earth being the frame of reference. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 16:57, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, as I said (did I?) I didn't actually run the math, so I will. That was my first reaction. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 17:00, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Probably. Sorry. If there is any moral to this story, I still say it is not only is it good to question, it is good to question starting with your own ideas. Your questions were fine, and I do get excited when science is on my side and another (not you) who it appears is also trained in science accuse me of being an "intellectual masochist" making "stupid statements". If you shoot me an email Linus I can send you a spreadsheet which you can review. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 17:06, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Okay, so I've scanned this and have a few things to say (some of which may have been said already). The time it takes for two objects to meet due to gravity is dependent-on, and decreasing-with the product of their masses. So, to phrase another way, objects whose combined mass is larger meet faster than objects whose combined mass is smaller. BUT, this does not mean that objects fall faster if they are heavier. The acceleration due to gravity of an object is solely due to the mass of the attracting body, it does not have anything to do with it's own mass. If, for example we have two identical planets (approximately earth size and shape), with no atmospheres, and two balls, one of weight 1 kg and the other of 1000 kg. If we drop each from 1 km above sea-level at the equator (assuming, of course, similar sea-level rises due to similar global warming events), we see that each ball falls with initial acceleration of 9.7888098183 ms^-2. However, the planet with the 1kg ball moves towards the ball with an initial acceleration of 1.6396666362E-24ms^-2 (or 0.0000000000000000000000016396666362ms^-2); while the planet with the 1000kg ball moves towards its ball with an inital acceleration of 1.6396666362E-21ms^-2 (or 0.0000000000000000000016396666362ms^-2). Now, without doing all the calculus and taking a simplistic version of events (i.e. rates of acceleration unchanged during experiment), it takes around 14 seconds for the balls to travel 1km towards the planet. In this time the planet with the 1kg ball could travel 1.675041876E-22 m (or 0.0000000000000000000001675041876 m), and the planet with the 1000kg ball would travel 1.675041876E-19 m (or 0.0000000000000000001675041876 m). The difference in distance each ball would have to travel here is negligible - about two parts in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000, or about one trillionth the diameter of a hydrogen atom. So, yes, the time taken for the smaller object to hit the bigger one is less but it's on a scale in which only quantum mechanics is useful. But back to the main point. I think HG's usage of "fall" is misleading. The objects don't fall faster, the ground comes up to meet them - but only by <<infinitesmal amounts, really, it's so fucking idiotic to argue this point, more so that i've spent this long typing this idiotic paragraph. damn. Д^ιЯɖі$ɧ _ɥοםЄʟ^{βЯƏакĐΩωΝ} 11:15, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I am going to wade into this dangerous territory as well now that the smoke has cleared. Everyone is right, and Airdish pointed out why. The problem was you guys didn't settle on your terms before you began. HG decided to define falling "faster" as a decrease in the time it takes the two object to collide with each other. Everyone else was defining "falling" as the speed in which the "heavier" object versus "lighter" object would move towards a reference. These are subtle but different enough definitions that you were both arguing what was correct but arguing past each other. And all of the stems from the B4B reference, which prima facie, and not being pendantic, was a stupid thing for them to say. QED mother f**kers. tmtoulouse ^annoy 11:25, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

New Look!

I have reformatted the entire article. Now it looks much better. And one can actually read the quotations now. I hope y'all agree. --Psycheout 00:36, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I have also moved "Heliocentrism Is an Athiest Doctrine" to a separate article and linked to it from here. I left the summary in the main article. This seems to me to be the way to do the other "Notable essays" so that the main article isn't so bloated. Just a suggestion. I'll leave it to someone else to handle the other sections (I've done two), unless I get really bored this weekend. --Psycheout 01:13, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Psycheout, we're all amused by your attempts to "relocate" the most ridiculous statements to other articles, in a futile attempt to make B4B credible. But nobody's going to fall for it. MiddleMan 07:36, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

With all due respect, the article was rather bloated, although interesting. I think you did a pretty decent job putting it together. I relocated the Random Quotes section and linked to it because it was an overly long part of the article. If this were wikipedia, that's probably what would have happened. I moved the first notable essay and linked to it because it would make sense to deal with each notable essay separately. It gives those sections room to grow, if desired. I moved the first one first as an example. The original text is still in the article, commented out. There was no futile attempt to do anything except to improve the article, and make it more readable. Reformatting the quotes so they can actually be read would be the last thing one would do if trying to obfuscate. You can always uncomment the original section (Heliocentrism) and delete the separate article if that's what the RationalWiki editors want to do. I actually was trying to help in good faith. I guess I'd better not make that mistake again. Sorry if my presence has tainted your project. --Psycheout 10:42, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

No, I was ok with relocating the random quotes because there were too many, but then you started moving more stuff. MiddleMan 10:45, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I tend to agree with Psycheout that the article was rather illegible… I'm not sure exactly what else he moved, though. My opinion of Psycheout is similar to GL's of Bohdan. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 10:47, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

You can always compare the original (before I did my first edit) with what's there now. The quotes are exactly the same in every section. The only change was formatting. I used blockquotes rather than the leading space method of enclosing text, since it's preformatted and overflows the margin.

quotes were originally like this and if the text kept on going and going it would overflow the right margin, and linebreaks would appear in
:odd
:places.  blockquotes are better -- the layout engine handles linebreaks.

I moved the Quotes section and I moved the Heliocentrism article. The idea was to leave the summary on the main page, and put the outtakes and any rebuttal in a separate article. This is the kind of thing they do on wikipedia when a section grows too long or is a block of quotes or trivia or bullet points that disrupts the flow of the article. I won't do any more and will let you catch up. I did not sabotage the article, I assure you. I think it's much improved, formatting wise. The content is the same. Don't side with me though, until you get a chance to verify that I did what I said. It was MiddleMan's article in the first place, and I can understand if he's concerned about my restructuring and editing. No slight was intended. --Psycheout 10:59, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

To be more clear, the changes are cosmetic and technical. The spirit of the original article is still there. --Psycheout 10:59, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Make sure the spirit stays the same, the quotes do look better now. MiddleMan 11:07, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. There's a spot in the main article where you might want to insert a couple of representative quotes, the Random Quotes section. I left a placeholder. I wouldn't presume to pick which quotes from the external page, if any, you want to stick in the main article. Just drop them in place of the "To do." The rest is up to you RationalWiki editors. Oh, the Random Quotes page hasn't been reformatted yet. Someone else will have to do the work since I am not trusted here. Good luck. --Psycheout 12:09, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

MiddleMan edit

Umn, Middle man, you simply assert something, and then in your comment reverting a citation request, you simply leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine that they are radical.

this edit.

Well, two sets of rules seem to exist on RW, one for the swarm, the other for me. Uncited essay-like assertions on the part of the swarm are not a problem (e.g., "In doing so, the site is considerably more radical...").

Anyway, funny, since liberals are usually hyper-concerned about hypocrisy (e.g., more concerned about the supposed hypocrisy of conservatives who support the death penalty but are against abortion, as though this hypocrisy is significant in comparison to the number of human lives terminated every day thanks to abortion.) But generating articles that read like essays is not a problem as long as it supports the readily apparent purpose of this site: attack religion, especially christianty, and traditional family norms, in the guise of science and reason (even if it requires the supposed rational people disputing the Law of gravition itself). Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 13:34, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm going to have to side with the guy with the golden heart. If you visit the sites in B4B's blogroll, you'll find that we are not radical at all, relatively speaking. Just applying a little "moral relativism" here. Ha ha. Is B4B considerably more radical than, say, Little Green Footballs, Atlas Shrugs, Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Confederate Yankee, Dan Reihl? I don't think so.

At least some RW editors are not afraid of hypocrisy when it benefits RW's team. If RW is supposed to be the mirror image of CP, fine. Just don't pretend that it is not. This editor spent quite a bit of time improving this article and what was returned was barely concealed anger and paranoia. It certainly has been a learning experience. Is this place really so much different than CP? Be honest, now. --Psycheout 14:55, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Hmn, thanks Psycheout. You have a familiar writign style I cannot quite place. Anyway, middleman, I reverted you. For now, the mob is small, and against you. You can either inlist other members of the swarm, make a better case, or find some sources. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 17:17, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Interesting. I'm not sure whether that's good or bad (about my familiar writing style that you cannot place). If you figure it out let me know. Frankly, I'm stumped. :-D --Psycheout 19:55, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Look, they're f*cking advocating for laws that would force women to cover themselves, they say France should be nuked, they think heliocentrism is an atheist doctrine, that little angels (electrons) make machines work, that science is evil, etc... Sisyphus and Mrs. Gaines sound like their from some backward inbreed village in the mountains of Afghanistan, they makes Conservapedia look liberal, that's what I was trying to say.

Please don't start that crap about me attacking "Christianity" and "family values", these people come closer to Satanists than anything else. HG, you should be ashamed of those people calling themselves Christians, I know Jesus would be. So condemn them, call them heretics or whatever, but don't go defending them, or do you actually agree that women should strap their breasts, cover their faces (and be flogged if they don't) and that the world should be nuked? MiddleMan 13:51, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Something tells me MiddleMan has lost his objectivity. If B4B is so bad, one should be able to make that clear without injecting editiorial comment or uncited assertions. Just saying. I don't think HeartOfGold is condemning or defending anything here, as far as I can tell. It seems he was just questioning the arbitrary deletion of a {{fact}} tag without a clear and justifiable reason. I see no reason to take things personal and get all hot under the collar.

Perhaps MiddleMan should ask himself: how does one prove that one "site is considerably more radical than most other conservative websites?" What does the set of "most other conservative websites" contain? How do you do a greater than/less than comparison of the one (B4B) against that set? It's a pretty tall order, in part because more or less "radical" is a value judgement, not a factual judgement. Therefore, I put it to you that the statement is subjective, therefore it requires a {{fact}} tag until somehow proven, or it should be removed altogether. And don't use "some say" or some other such nonsense. Just my opinion. --Psycheout 19:55, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

How does one proof one writer is more prolific than another, it is a value judgment. How does one proof a blog is ultra-conservative, it is a value judgment. Why do you care if I call this blog more radical than other? The people that do support the blog are a tiny minority in the United States, even among conservatives, or at least that's what the polls show. MiddleMan 09:37, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

No, I disagree with your first assertion. One writer at B4B has written more posts and on more days than another. That is a factual judgement. It can be measured. For example, Sisyphus has written over 180 posts, while Psycheout has written under 140. That can be objectively measured (total words, total posts, days posted, etc). Perhaps "prolific" is the wrong word. If it is, make your case for that. This editor didn't write the words "ultra-conservative" but I don't see anyone disputing that. If you are, add a {{fact}} tag. If you have a problem with the use of the word prolific, add a {{fact}} tag or call for a vote regarding its removal, or however you do things here.

Why do you care if I call this blog more radical than other?

I don't. Just back up your assertion. It should be easy for you. You wouldn't just insert that in the article without having a way to back up your claim. Baseless assertions have no place in a factual article. Somehow I have a feeling that you haven't read enough websites to make this claim. Otherwise you wouldn't. --Psycheout 15:24, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm sure there are some websites that go even further than B4B, but large conservative websites such as conservapedia, answers in Genesis, uncommondescent.com, etc... are certainly to the left of B4B. Really, forcing women to strap their breasts is considered radical by most people in the western world, including the US. If this were not true, democracy would already have made it a reality, and as I pointed out before: Brownback, the most conservative Presidential candidate, only has a few percent of the republican vote, that's how I back up my claim. MiddleMan 20:22, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

You really seem to be hung up on women's breasts, strapped or otherwise. Have you never touched any? Is that what this is all about? So let me get this straight: you're backing up your claim that B4B is more radical than other conservative websites based on Brownback's poll numbers? Give me a break. The two assertions are unrelated, MM. --Psycheout 01:41, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Sure, go for the ad hominem, easy isn't it? Or you could just acknowledge that virtually no one in the western world shares your views, not even most conservatives in the United States. MiddleMan 08:55, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Pardon me

For butting in but I was under the distinct impression that B4B was strictly Parodius hilaritum taking quirky things Brownback has said and running with to create a sardonic worldview to rival the Islamic fundies' version of things, (a "whose fundies are fundier" sort of thing). If my impression is wrong and there are people (with internet access and all) that actually HOLD these views perhaps the article should oughta be factually base and such. MOO CЯacke® 10:37, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Pardon me, but I think the article oughta be factually based FULL STOP. That's why I'm here. To help steer biases into objectivity. There does seem to be a certain amount of resistance to my effort, but soldier on I must. --Psycheout 03:48, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Nerd fiiight!

I concede defeat, HG is right. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 18:41, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 22:18, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Well done, HG. I bet you'll do well with the ladies when you tell them you won a nerd fiiight. Have fun. ;-) --Psycheout 01:43, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Married. To a beautiful nerd. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 09:18, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Well congratulations, HeartOfGold. I am indeed very happy for you. You must not be a liberal, as I have heard that most of those people live in sin. I wish you a long and happy marriage. --Psycheout 03:50, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Marriage is no sign of liberal or conservative tendancies (Hillary is married). Thanks, though I am suspicious of your genuinness, I will assume good faith, and leave it with "thanks". Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 15:45, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I am 98% certain that liberals have more affairs than conservatives, and that they are much more likely to lie about their affairs. Liberals are also hairier. Godspeed.

Now that's funny! I'm 86.5% sure of that! --Psycheout 21:19, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Snipers for Brownback???

Does anyone else think that this picture (Taken from a B4B banner) makes it look like someone has Jesus's face in the cross hairs of a rifle??

You're on the wrong talk page. That's Baptists for Brownback. --Psycheout 02:00, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

A sure 'sort of' parody

I noticed that the time zone is in Mountain, but Sisyphus (the founder of the blog) says that he was a Northeasterner. I also think that he is a 'normal' Brownback supporter who doesn't believe EVERYTHING he says. Earlier posts also seem to reveal sanity, but when liberals went to the blog, I think he started posting stuff just to piss them off. Comments?

I think it's time we admitted it's a parody.

I think its time that we accepted that its a parody. Pretending otherwise just makes us look silly.--Bob^{bing up} 08:17, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Protection?

It was suggested to me on my talk page that we protect this article, since it is a common vandal target. Although, I notice the only activity since January has been four vandal edits over the last two days. Thoughts? human 13:36, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

No need for protection, imo. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 13:41, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I see no need. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 14:02, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

By all means, protect it! Lock it up, keep it pristine! If you need help locking things up, just let me know. Or not. ;-) --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 14:21, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Looks unanimous to me. (Unanimous is Anonymous' kid brother - that's my JOTD) human 14:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Abstain. Genghis ^Marauding 14:54, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I will watch it, then. Thank you for your consideration. Dark Matter Glaucopis 15:25, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Bottom line, Dark Matter, it is a wiki. Anything can be reversed, and to lock something up too quickly/easily, gives more importance to casual vandalism than it deserves. Trust me, I have come to learn this from experience. While if it were policy here to do so, I would abide it, I have been on the wrong side of this issue before, and the stated policy here is better. --TK_/MyTalk^{"Lowly" editor} 15:42, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, TK. Dark Matter Glaucopis 15:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)