Information icon.svg Consider taking the RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 or see the results.

Talk:Main Page

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Information icon.svg Do you have a general question about the site?
If it is technical, go to Technical support. If it is about the community or the content of the wiki, go to the Saloon bar.
This talk page is for discussing the contents of the Main Page only.
Warning icon orange.svg Please do not edit the main page on a whim.
If you want to play with things, mock it up in the testing area.
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Postmodern Christianity.[edit]

You think of this?: http://www.salvomag.com/unpragmatic-thought.s/?page_id=2 Indeed, the link between contemporary religious conservatism and postmodernism is perverse. — Unsigned, by: 201.255.120.239 / talk / contribs

Quotation question[edit]

To what extent can RW be described in part as 'describing those who subtract from the sum of human knowledge'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In my personal view, coming at this from the angle of the history of ideasWikipedia's W.svg?
Certainly RW is "describing those who subtract from the sum of human knowledge" to the extent of something like 80-90% (of "what we do").
Note that that number is ignoring the ol' conservative-liberal clash on topics of politics, a "battle" admittedly being "fought" across many pages.
And really, that very high figure includes documenting, describing, referencing and debunking — and in "those who subtract from human knowledge", I'm bunching everything from ISIS and David Icke to Ken Ham and Time Cube.
But it's a great question, regardless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Glad you like it - and based upon the quotation from Thomas Brackett Reed.
And what proportion can be said as 'describing which of the patterns that can be set up on the V-Cube 7 [1] describing the particular topic are most appropriate to the situation (a mixed metaphor I know).
'If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?' and 'There seems little point in wasting time on such an explanation since you would be incapable of understanding it.'/'Don't be insolent!/'A statement of fact cannot be insolent...' might also apply on occasion. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean at all... Come again, please? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Some of the areas on RW not covered by 'subtracting from the sum of human knowledge' are 'these are the different possible explanations/viewpoints' (the jumped up Rubik's cube) and summing up the attitudes of 'the subtractors' and many RW-ians attitudes towards them. (Quotes by Orac). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Victory in the Battle for France[edit]

I am beyond relived that the French people used their brains and elected Macron over that fascist La Pen.

At least France's political system isn't as screwed up as our own here in America. We just have to hope that the British public see sense and remove Theresa May's right-wing nationalist government and then all we will have to deal with is Trump and his coming impeachment and removal from office.

I thought this was supposed to be rational, not pushing political agendas.Userius (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Drink (champagne perhaps?) Anna Livia (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

William Shakespeare[edit]

seems to occur rather frequently on the Main Page (every few days in fact): can 'the usual somebodies' improve enough articles so there can be more varieties. 31.49.51.55 (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

We're definitely trying. Feel free to help us get some articles to Main worthy. In particular, I want you to help with bottled water. Vive Liberté! 13:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

An apology[edit]

In an earlier discussion, I provided a link to The Daily Stormer, unaware of what sort of a website it was. I have already apologised beneath the discussion in question but it has been archived so I wasn't sure that everyone had seen it so just for clarification, let me again say that I am so, so sorry. I had no idea what that website stood for. I typed "Militarisation of the police under Obama" into the Google search engine and it was one of the first results that came up. I picked the link in a hurry. The moral of the story: check your sources! That's all. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)