From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 8 August 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

HowTheWorldWork's socks[edit]

I don't think anyone's ever actually said that "most" of HowTheWorldWork's subscribers are sock accounts, merely that he has used many sock accounts. Even one video on the subject Thunderf00t favorited presenting the idea that half of his subscribers are sock accounts as a worst-case scenario.--Mustex 12:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be mentioned that Thunderf00t had the privilege of engaging in discussion with Prof. Richard Dawkins. The meeting was recorded and is currently featured on Tf00t's YouTube channel. -- (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What does he do?[edit]

What does thunderfoot do for a living? I think his work in the "Lab" is related to glass work. What is his background? Why does he live in the US? --Opcn (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's been speculated on both YouTube comments and his unofficial Facebook group and pretty much everywhere. However, no one knows, TF isn't saying or clear on it. Some people say chemistry, some people say astrophysics, others say biology. He's not actively hiding the fact or actively advertising it (a few references to "as an educator..."). No one really knows, it's just speculation on all fronts. Scarlet A.pngmoral 18:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Can I upgrade this one to silver? It's relevant, (mostly) sourced and written fairly coherently as far as I can tell with the appropriate length and content. However, I won't do it myself as I wrote most of it (I make no apologies for being a fan boy Banana.gif). Scarlet A.pngmoral 09:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


I pulled a ton of those references in the criticism section. Firstly, the thing is pretty much dead now, so the "he has yet to do so" thing is utterly pointless. Secondly, they had sweet FA views between them. If we were to seriously cite a video with 200 views, then we'd probably also want to start citing comments left by whatever random individual you can find. Basically, if it's just some dude rattling off into a webcam, it counts - in my mind - as no more than a comment posted under the vid (in fact, less because it takes me 10 minutes to watch the same amount of information that I could read in 5 seconds). In short, I'm keeping that section as Dawah and Thunderf00t and everything else is far too yawnsome to count. Scarlet A.pngmoral 00:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiding BoN's biography[edit]

I'm hiding the revisions by BoN. I'm not sure if the personal info is genuine or not, but either way it's neither relevant nor publicly disclosed by Thunderf00t. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 13:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Dawah Films has been looking for his personal details for some time, apparently, so my instinct says it could be something to do with that. Now, it doesn't matter if the "death threat" was a quote mine or not, Dawah is creepy and we know Muslims are nuts. It's something that needs to be scrubbed as thoroughly as possible. Scarlet A.pngmoral 13:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yup, I think being bonkers comes with the territory. All done anyhow. Let me know if I did something wrong. I think this is my first try at hiding revisions. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 13:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Scarlet A.pngmoral 13:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice clean job on the hiding. - π 13:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. I'll have those pages on the watch list in case more junk turns up. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 13:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a certain video[edit]

I know that this isn't a forums, but there really is no other place where there are so many Thunderf00t fans in one place on the web besides his vids, and no one has replied back to me. Therefor, I'm looking for a certain video containing a clip from a space movie, where a A.I. that is a bomb (lolwut) is going to explode and kill the crew on board the ship, and one of teh crew mates convinces the A.I. that his sensors could be giving it false data, and he should regret his rules given from the government (or corporation) about his bomb blowing up ways (I know, it's stupid, but it's philosophical relevant). I know he uses this clip and the subsequent clip showing the A.I. coming to the conclusion that he is God and blows up regardless (lolwut) to show that besides 'I think, therefor I am' that there is no way to prove one exists, or something like that. It's one of his few deep philosophical videos, and I just need the vid or the movie the clips where taken from. Thanks in advance.

This is the film [1] ТyTalk. 05:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Holy suger tits that was quick. Thanks!

Significant blow to Thunderf00t's integrity, I reckon[edit]

His stooping to VFX's level of dishonesty in handling the Coughlan situation: behold. Thought it worthy of mention but can't edit the article for whatever reason. -I fucked the girl in Hanson (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to feel about this.Ryantherebel (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it's not so much the context of it all as that this was obscenely dishonest as to make VFX facepalm. This is what led me to unsubscribe from his channel. - I fucked the girl in Hanson (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Coughlan somehow disgusts me. He's such a pathetic little fuck. Thunderf00t even dealing with Coughlan reflects poorly. And this on top of that? Yeesh... Occasionaluse (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Coughlan is the sort of youtube tit that not even Encyclopedia Dramatica can make an adequate and deserving description of. ADK...I'll confuse your hose! 18:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Which excuses these actions on Thunderf00t's part? Up until this business I liked both of them, Coughlan and Thunderf00t generally being on the same side; the former funny, the latter thoughtful. - I fucked the girl in Hanson (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably not, but it does mean my Give-A-Shit Factor is hovering only just above the line marked "Premier League Football". ADK...I'll deteriorate your arthritis! 23:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This stuff is unintelligible to anyone not already closely following YouTube atheists. Could someone who knows what the hell is going on maybe fix the article's last paragraph in the Criticism section, and explain this stuff, for people like me?--ADtalkModerator 00:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
You know Chris Crocker? Well, Coughlan is basically the PooTube atheist equivalent. Except instead of Britney, it's himself. ADK...I'll repair your lemming! 00:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I actually don't know who that is. You're making me feel less informed!--ADtalkModerator 01:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Leave Britney alone! There is also a WP article. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's the tl;dw version. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Damn, here was me thinking that swapping one shit internet meme for another would have worked! ADK...I'll sniff your wizard! 21:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it just that my mind works a funny way...[edit]

...that I can only see Thunderf00t rejecting the gift of reason in that picture? Seriously, whoever put it together probably should have done something to the shroud... Sake Fueled (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That reminds me, I should really update it to have Dawah on there. ADK...I'll fill your asparagus! 21:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Westboro church[edit]

His video in which he tries to engage 2 representatives of the highly narrow minded Westboro Baptist Church should be mentioned along with the way this attention seeking "god hates fags" church never addressed any of his concerns, instead choosing to have the "I shout louder" argument.

Good point, I will add a piece about TF's talk with the Westboro, but not a thorough walkthrough what was discussed (because in all honesty nobody got anywhere). Feredir28 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This page illustrates the utter hypocrisy of wickedpedia's fallacious "neutral" POV.[edit]

I'm assuming Rational Wiki is an arm of Wikipedia and pretends the same dishonest "neutral POV." Yet both controlled by atheists who think rejecting God is "neutral," e.g. "Each episode usually takes one creationist point proposed by one of their cranks, either well-known or not well known, and refutes them fully." <-- That's not only not neutral, it's nowhere near honest nor ethical.

This is far less neutral than the question long used to illustrate manipulative reasoning, "Do you still beat your wife?"

This egregious lack of honor by the bulk of contributors will always keep Wikipedia from the credibility it/they desire. (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rationalwiki is in no way related to Wikipedia nor does Rationalwiki have a neutral POV. AceModerator 23:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
{EC} You assume wrong. RationalWiki is not neutral point of view. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Shhh!! They think we're a legitimate organisation! Scarlet A.pngpathetic 07:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Thunderf00t's firing from freethoughtblogs[edit]

Effective 7/1/12, motivated by his defense/denial of misogyny in the community and causing backchannel drama. Anyone think they can do a better writeup than I can, as I'm not feeling well and have no attention span? EVDebs (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd even create an entry on Argumentum ad YouTube comment with the facepalm it implies. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It honestly floors me that he thought that was a good idea. --Kels (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of Thunderf00t before the mini drama at FTB, but the posts on Pharyngula intrigued me enough to read all of the related posts and a good portion of the comments. Based on that, it seems to me that this portion of the article is highly biased and uses unnecessarily emotive language. I typically only read RationalWiki for creationist topics, so this is a serious question: Is this acceptable style for an article? For the record, I'm not a Thunderf00t fanboi or a men's rights activist. I've raised my sons to know better than to make women feel uncomfortable by, for example, getting into an elevator alone with them late at night. What is missing from this section, though, is any discussion of Thunderf00t's claim that PZ Myers promised him, in no uncertain terms, that he would not be censored for content at FTB. If that is true, then this is a serious ethical lapse on the part of the FTB administration in general and PZ in particular. It at least deserves mention, in my opinion. Patrick (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, what "backchannel drama" did he cause? Should it be documented in the article? Patrick (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, RW articles are usually biased on unnecessarily emotive. If you didn't want that, there's Wikipedia. But the censorship claim is certainly worth looking into, though mostly the firing was due to behaviour rather than views/censorship. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 00:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I'm good with channeling a little HST when the situation calls for it. I'll see if there is independent corroboration of the promise made by PZ. In any case, in a forum consisting solely of text, the difference between behavior and views doesn't seem to exist. His stated views were his behavior that got him banned. If true, that's a poor reflection on FTB's support for freedom of expression. Patrick (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I think if Tf00t had tempered his original blog entry or had settled in and had had a history there for more than a week before he started launching full scale anti-PZ entries, he wouldnt've taken so much damage. Or, if they had both thrashed it out together on video where they could talk to each other, rather than have their proxies in the commentariat start getting into verbal knife fights. In the event, PZ would pick on one thing TF said and bash it to death. Then, TF would do the same. They were always talking past each other, which can only happen in the blogosphere's epistolary format. (PZ's own FTB podcasts would've been an excellent opportunity for a head-to-head discussion.) When you see TF's hour-long interview with PZ from a year ago [2], you see fulsome respect between the two; it's positively surreal considering all the current bad blood.--Petzl (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The details, such as was seen fit to share, are in Ed Brayton's article in the references. EVDebs (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Patrick (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So, RW is pro-PZ biased?[edit]

Everything PZ and FtB does is "right"? Anything tfoot did is "wrong"? No middle ground? Just checking here. I spent a fair amount of time editing the FTB paragraph to make it sound, uh, rational, and then some drive-by gangsta comes in and reverses my edits. I guess I could reverse his, and then we have a shooting war. So, just let me know if this wiki is a FTB haven and everything that PZ says is The Word Made Flesh. Do the facts matter at all, or is this just an EmotionWiki? --Petzl (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah we are totally PZ sellouts. - π 07:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Fucking trolls. Everywhere.— Unsigned, by: Petzl / talk / contribs
Aw man, I just woke up. It's a little early to take a drink... ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRwalls of text while-u-wait 11:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It's never too early... Scarlet A.pngsshole 14:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, a dual shot of balance fallacy and "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!

When you attempt to downplay claims of misogyny at conventions by starting off your post with a "kitchen" joke, use YouTube as a source of argumentum ad populum, and then have to resort to using CAPITAL LETTERS to make your point, you're not going to look good in our eyes. If Almighty Glorious PZ was doing it as well we'd do the same. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So this is RationalWiki?[edit]

Nice to see the level of bias ITT, and here I thought I came to neutral grounds.-- (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, balance fallacy. Describe what you think is wrong, and we'll change it. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2012 (UTCyou
Were you looking for Wikipedia? RationalWiki does not and, as far as I can tell, has never had NPOV. Thank you for playing. Would you like to spin again? Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 05:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Guess what: Thunderf00t made an ass of himself because of his unwillingness to confront his own prejudices. It was the assy thing that got him thrown off FTB. Live with it. "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! EVDebs (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
OP here, I don't think what he did bares any relevance to the level of bias in the article. There's no need to resort to ad hominem just to get your point across, such comments as "After the first exchange of posts, Thunderf00t apparently lost his head" and "Finally, he decided to actually read a real harassment policy, written by real conference loorganisers." are not needed, not to mention the fact that whoever wrote:the section on the TF-PZ/FTB affair deliberately used internal links as a platform to insult TF (eg For some reason > Stupidity), a practice which is very common in online wikis such as Encyclopedia Dramatica and Conservapedia. -- (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That links were inserted by another user, not by "whoever wrote:the section". And if you don't want your IP to appear, take the time to register. Not even a valid e-mail is required.--ZooGuard (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You're confused if you ever thought RW were neutral grounds. RW unabashedly and snarkly attacks all who would flush rationalism down the toilet. If someone is acting like an ass, then we're going to call them an ass. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Is it too early to break out the wine and drink to this one? Scarlet A.pngsshole 09:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was gonna mention the big sign at the top of the page that said "this article is of FUCK ALL importance to the wiki", but I guess we don't have those anymore. (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This page has never had that from what I can see in the fossil record. You might be getting getting confuddled with TJ's mess. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 10:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, my bad. I'm no good with Youtube names. (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, Why don't RationalWikians simply change the name of the site, or at least add an asterisk to the name? The name is quite obviously leading people to expect one thing, and we are getting something different. Of course, isn't reasonable, and FTB doesn't exhibit free thought, so it's following in tradition, but still... Rather than getting drunk in celebration of people you've misled, would it pain you so much to just pick an accurate name? As for the article, there's so much wrong with it, and it's clear my edits would be reversed, so it's not worth my time. My obligatory username (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, looks like I'm getting drunk earlier than I expected tonight! *hits the whiskey* Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
If you have specific factual points you have an issue with, you are welcome to point them out and suggest improvements. The write-up is not very good. If, on the other hand, you are here just because your idol is represented in a bad light and/or you have a beef with FtB, don't be surprised if people ignore you. Or mock you.--ZooGuard (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)--ZooGuard (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

BoN's, stop deflecting. Things like "TF apparently lost his head" are trivialities that can be edited out in a flash. You are here because you don't believe he exhibited a failure in logic over sexual harassment policy at atheist conferences. Tell us why he should be spared criticism. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Over the line[edit]

Woo, Thunderf00t's stepped over the line big time with this one. Apparently he took advantage of a security exploit in FreeThoughtBlogs' private listserv after he'd been fired, and has been leaking various emails obtained in that way. Understandably, this potentially puts some bloggers in very real danger. Thunderf00t himself has already admitted to doing so, justifying himself as a Wikileaks-like whistleblower, which is about as thin as an excuse as the Climategate perpetrators. And, of course, backed up by the usual gang of trolls, idiots and MRA's who don't care who wins, they're rooting for injuries. This has gone waaaay beyond just being butthurt for getting kicked off a blog site. --Kels (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Way to stay classy and prove to your critics that you are more mature than a 7 year old! Green mowse.pngGodotL'important c'est d'aimer 16:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Bleh. The MRAs and Libertoonians can keep him. ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 16:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm amazed by his bleating about "I DON'T DOC DROP!" Seriously dude, you have the info and you've proven you can't be trusted. Personally I wouldn't put it past him if he feels slighted. --Kels (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
If you give a troll a blog, he's going to want to drop your docs. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Terrible. Who would leak private emails from an organisational mailing list? Rumour has it, he's going to extend his obsession to following the content on FtB and making snarky comments on it.

The hypocrisy in the article is nearly as bad as the disorganised mess it's turned into. I'd try to put some order into it, but I'll wait until people lose interest before trying to put it together in a readable way. Anybody else who wants to clear it up is welcome to do so.Gomer (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You say in a conversation full of people who don't actually follow Conservapedia at all... Scarlet A.pngd hominem 20:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't change the fact its true. -- (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
What is true? Facebook contains a page called "Christian Grey Fan Page", I have a Facebook account, therefore I'm a hypocrite for dissing 50 Shades of Grey at every oppotunity? Same logic. Scarlet A.pngtheist 20:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Always a great way to make a point. Go to a site that is evolving, say "you do the same, so shut the f up", and pat yourself on the back. and yes, i'm snarky. Pro-child molesters do that to me. (different thread, different page, hard to put emotions aside) Green mowse.pngGodotL'important c'est d'aimer 20:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice straw men you two. When someone we don't like gets very private emails leaked, we exploit them. When someone we like gets very private emails leaked, we ring our hands in moral outrage. Glorious. Keep up those high standards there. Making everyone proud. -- (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Who is this "we" you're talking about? IIRC, Conservapedia's group messages were leaked by one of "their own", not one of "us" (if you choose to assume such groups are more than just imaginary constructs) so that's really not the same. TF partially abused a confidential list, partially hacked it, and has information related to identifying people who wished not to be identified. The differences with Conservapedia's oh-so-super-secret groups couldn't be more apparent. Scarlet A.pngtheist 20:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
AKA the ol' "yeah, well you do it too!!!" defense. Good one. Cow...Hammertime! 20:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not even that since it's apparently being addressed to a bunch of people who don't actually do it. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 20:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
You act like I'm trying to defend Thunderf00t. I really couldn't care less about this. I'm just trying to find out why the leak of Conservpedia's stuff was tickity boo, and FtB's wasn't besides "We like FtB and dislike Conservpedia." Also Armondikov, why does how he did it change anything? Is quietly taking a few hundred from a bank any less theft then going after your fired, knowing how the security works, and lifting a few crate-fulls? Also, judging by some of recent activity, you being "Post-Conservapedia" is very much in the minority at this site. -- (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
You really haven't evolved your argument to address the criticisms. Your analogy in fact fails miserably because it's more like a comparison between lifting a ton of money from a bank, and someone else lifting a ton of money from a bank and giving it to you. Even then, that's flawed because you're looking at the difference between something that had a binding privacy agreement and something that doesn't. And still, even then it's still flawed because you're still mistaking what some people do for something all people do. It's really quite, quite bad. Scarlet A.pngbomination 20:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why we nuked ~50% of CP space. The unbusinesslikeman of business 21:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
My problem is that RW is known for its CP fixation. This has not gone. It is still healthy and is proven by the number of edits on Talk:WIGO:CP. I think that Conservaleaks etc are unnecessary and badly advised, but they are there. I didn't do that and I don't agree with that. But would I write an article on RW that condemns that? On a site that obviously condones this behaviour?
We need to either a) get rid of Conservaleaks and all its attendant junk (impossible, despite recent progress), b) acknowledge our (collective) guilt in similar actions and attempt to justify it, or c) rewrite the article so that this question does not arise.Gomer (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Or just get rid of WIGo and the associated BS altogether. The unbusinesslikeman of business 21:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI. The BoN above was I. I was lazy and had not logged in, but now I feel like I should put a name to all of this. Armondikov you're missing my point. Rationalwiki still full exploited a leak in what was meant to be private correspondence. As far as I can tell, no one even hinted that this was a problem. Now that it happend to a group that the Rationalwiki community at large likes, its now something terrible. THATS what I'm getting at. We should move this debate, because really, it has nothing to do with TF at the core. --Revolverman (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
So, this was nothing to do with TF at all? Then take it to WIGO:CP where you'll find the people you need to talk to. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 21:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thunderf00t's vindictive and hypocritical actions in themselves are not relevant, I admit. They do, however, point out they very casual hypocrisy at Rationalwiki that drives me nuts sometimes. --Revolverman (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The actions of a lot that get a bit too deep into CP drive a lot of people nuts, but it's something to shout about at WIGO:CP, not amongst people who don't really follow it much any more. Scarlet A.pngpostate 22:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
As ToP says, this is an institutional question. It's not a matter of whether you agree with something. If you want to write "I condemn this behaviour, but I do so on a site that promotes similar behaviour" then you need to note the contradiction between personal and communal. I don't like the CP pages, but I can't pretend that they don't exist and that their existance has no impact on the external perception of other articles. Moreover, the CP pages still have a lot of activity, so the perception is that they are representative of RW, even if you don't take part.Gomer (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
In which case, as I've said on a lot of occasions, bring it up on WIGO:CP where the people who maintain the CP fascination can be found. You're talking with people who have actively gone out of their way to trim back CP's prominence on the site several times. Feel free to stick in your oar of support the next time I try removing WIGO:CP from the main page list or from the navigation icons. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 22:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The BON has a point. The "tu quoque" defence is a weak sister. As an institution, compared to what this guy did, we are no better. Unless all those "post-CP" people in the list linked to above fought tooth and nail to keep us from dealing in the links and then resigned in disgust when they failed to do so, they're just as guilty. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 20:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We managed to successfully not get it published on the site. Someone else can take care of the hosting costs for that. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 20:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
No, the BoN does not have a point. Right or not, it's irrelevant to what we're talking about. Xe wants to talk about Conservaleaks and how unethical it was to release them? Great, but do it somewhere else. It doesn't make what t-foot did any more or less of a dick move. Cow...Hammertime! 21:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. But then the BON doesn't claim to be defending TF through this line of argumentation. In fact, it makes it just a derailment. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 21:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Was TF party to the emails he leaked? If so then it's the same as Conservaleaks. If not and he went in and stole them, he's just a dick. C®ackeЯ 21:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
No, he was not. ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 21:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
To elaborate: he was party to the emails leaked, but then he got booted out. So he just used the old invitation originally inviting him to the listserv to get back in and copy everything. No one noticed until messages started being leaked all over the tubes. Then people found out and booted him out again and he kept on trying to get back in. So yeah, he's just a dick. Cow...Hammertime! 21:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
He wasn't a party to the ones he leaked to Payton, which took place more than a month after he'd been fired. He also used those emails to build a false case that FTB were attempting to get Payton fired from CFI. --23:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We got linked[edit]

Jason Thibeault linked to this article in his post detailing the exploit. Expect incoming traffic. It would also be nice if the current text is polished. I'm afraid it will require diving into the source material.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Just the recent drama or more generally? Scarlet A.pngtheist 19:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The FtB drama. I'm afraid that for the average member of the atheist/sceptic community a good, relatively snark-free description of the situation would be the most useful part of the article.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Then we start doing it. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fans incoming[edit]

[3] "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! - David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The "things we should have mentioned" paragraph:

Fascinating and informative stuff. I now know that the “security issue” that has been “fixed” is baboon speak for “administrator incompetence”, f’rinstance. But seriously, there is nil information about the actual story that unfolded and the whole section is little more than a protracted trowelling of Thunderf00t whilst portraying FfTB in an innocent victim’s light. It completely omits the critical parts of the story, like the fact that Thunderf00t’s posts had not been removed because even now, long after his ejection, they were still earning more revenue than the next 10 top blogs after Pharyngula. Screw principle, this is business. And it also omits Brayton essentially wanting to renege paying Thunderf00t any of the earnings he is owed. Details, details… Can’t let those get in the way of a good lynching can we? Nothing however, beats the ultimate insult of linking to Lousy Canuck/Thibeault, the homo-hater, for full “authoritative” information about the whole debacle…

I haven't been keeping up with this dispute, but this stuff does sound like it's worth addressing. Balaam (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The primary problem with this article is that nobody here seems to have properly kept up, not some kind of conspiracy. Peter Rapidly running out of marmite 09:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Conspiracy! We're getting paid off by FTB!
If there was wrongdoing on their part it still won't change the fact that TF is a dick. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't alter the fact that his very first foray into FTB was to go into an area he had no expertise in, burn a ton of bridges by refusing to back down when people pointed out how and where he was wrong, get strung along by a host of MRAs from the Bottom Half, and then decided to respond to his critics with insults, yelling and incoherent thought reminiscent of his Park51 rants. And it certainly doesn't change the fact that, despite his excellent oration in his videos, he can't write for shit. What happened post kick-off isn't going to change that. Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You know, I dislike PZ as much as these guys seem to, but shaking up with a dickhole like f00t seems self defeating.--Revolverman (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, I've done a minor bit of editing to change some of the more flippant snarling. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 11:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This is hoggle, not some generic Thunderf00t fan. If you unfamiliar with hoggle, see his entry in Pharyngula's dungeon and search FtB for his name. The guy is among those unhealthily... upset with the Watson-Myers axis since the Elevatorgate thing. Though I'm not sure if he is the same one as the guy who has been unhealthily... upset with Watson since her days at the JREF forum.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
"Proud angry masturbator, aficionado of scat porn, all-around repulsive fellow. " Way to take the high road PZ... --Revolverman (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"If they didn't want it stolen, they should have nailed it down"[edit]

I have some issues with this:

... which is either total 1337 hacking or just exploiting a ridiculous loophole depending on who you ask.

Who called it a 1337 hack? [citation needed] Also, I'd like to point out that the technical requirements of a security breach have no relation to its moral value, despite the attempts of some people to conflate them.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading about the case of a teenager who got prosecuted for hacking (I think it was in the UK in the 1980s) -- he discovered that the admin password to some system was 1234. Honestly, if you are that dumb you deserve to be hacked, and the judge and/or jury who found him guilty likely had zero serious knowledge of IT; so I think technical difficulty and moral status are related. What Thunderf00t did, was slightly more complicated than that, but I wouldn't really consider it "hacking" - what he did someone with very minimal IT knowledge could have done. If he'd done a SQL injection, a buffer overflow, cross-site scripting, etc., attack I'd consider that real hacking. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 12:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought the snarkasm over "l33t hacking" was implied. Certainly TF himself seems to be saying people are claiming it, straw man indeed, but that makes the "who you ask" kinda counter-intuitive. Scarlet A.pngpostate 12:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is absurd[edit]

The amount of sarcasm and personal bias on this page is so absurd its bordering on fear mongering and propaganda. What person in their right mind would think this would pass for rationality? Hes wrong frequently with his FTB controversy but this just makes him look like a cartoon villain. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Then propose an edit that doesn't repeatedly apologise for him and make him out to be a God of Rationality, which is what was rolled back. Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator 02:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
It is techniccly impossible to edit out all the sarcasm and bias that makes this article so nonsensical, without removing 90% of what was said. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Then I suppose your work here is done. Scarlet A.pngtheistModerator 03:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Not signing your posts is a good way to get everyone to not take you seriously FYI. --Revolverman (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, persistently using "rational" and "rationality" as synonymous with "opinions that agree with me" are far more likely to elicit sarcastic responses. Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator 03:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
And treating someone as so cartoonishly evil as this is bound to get people to question a sites collective sanity.
Ah. I see you actually haven't read any of the other pages on people here then. --Revolverman (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

ftb posts gone[edit]

I don't suppose he's archived them somewhere, like on another blog? --"Shut up, Brx." 18:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

bumping--"Shut up, Brx." 23:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieve from Google cache and capturebot, if you care - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
No longer available on cache. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's the links that used to be in the article prior to the last version:

Someone may be able to do something with them.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Over 6 months old? Let's try! [4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9] Yer welcome - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Crap, I had forgotten that it had a delay. Thank you!--ZooGuard (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is too anti-Thunderf00t[edit]

He did a lot for rationalism and freespeach, as well as making many good science videos, but too much of this is negative towards him. I think a some of this needs rewritten(the introduction the FTB bits), yeah I get it doesn't need to be neutral, but to be so against Thunderf00t? One of the most popular YouTube atheist scientists, just seems stupid.User:Mick1le2pick

If he'd been a little more self-aware and had understood the consequences of his actions at FTB, this wouldn't read nearly as negatively as it does. EVDebs (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the guy who's all callous to bullying victims and seems to have an issue with women, right? Fuck him, the article is fine. UPDATE: I think I might have this guy confused with that astoundingatheist guy. Whatevs. Fuckin' vloggers and their fanboys ain't shit to me. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's TheUnamazingAtheist. Thunderf00t's creationist work is still very good. I'm not aware of the article stating otherwise at the moment, though focusing the entire lede on FTB is wrong. That's like a month out of a 5 year career. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 13:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, is he sorry? That'd be the first step in redeeming himself from being an asshat--"Shut up, Brx." 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
He held potentially dangerous personal information on one of the bloggers there hostage in a fit of rage and butthurt; he could have resulted in a real life hate crime if someone really got their hands on it. I'd say he's not sorry. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 03:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It should prolly be rearranged to put things like PEARL higher up. I also think his "'feminism' is poisoning atheism" videos should be mentioned (& not positively). ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Grand Canyon[edit]

The "five minute" statement is completely bogus, he has not demonstrated that. The "five minutes" assume a body of water that travel the whole canyon, which is not the only way this could have happened. There could've been several smaller bodies of water, each traveling downcanyon and cutting out a part of the canyon.

(Anticipating the obvious: No, I'm not a YEC (or any Creationist), and PCS' whole canyon story is completely bonkers, but this particular argument is not able to show it.) — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 11:31, 17 March 2012‎ (UTC)

This is unfairly claiming him as a misogynist[edit]

He made some good points regarding feminism. Yet, he is constantly crapped on like he is an evil misogynist. That's right, throw him under the bus for applying critical thinking to something you guys hold bias towards. For a so called "rational wiki" you guys sure like to close out opposing arguments. Feminism is not, and should not be safe from debates.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
Anyway, where in the article it's claimed he's a mysogynist? The only instance of the word in the article is the title of a blog post of his, which would be more clear if someone hadn't deleted the list of his blog posts at FtB.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Nobody has suggested that feminism should be safe from debates. But Thunderf00t's debates on the subject have not been very impressive. If he has made some good points regarding feminism, what are they? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't explicitly say he's misogynistic, you are correct. I wrote this after reading stuff on here (the talk page) and other blogs and forums, and I should have thought through some of the wording of my original post more. Sorry about that. But the general tone of the article seems to be overly negative towards him, though. He gets way too much flack for being critical of feminism, and many people who consider themselves to be rational thinkers seem to like throwing blanket statements like "TF is a misogynist!" and "TF is a rape enabler!" None of these things are true. To be clear, I'm not associated with the men's right movement, and I agree with a lot of feminist ideals. I just think people should be more open to debate on the subject. I have no defense for the whole email scandal, though. He deserves the criticism for that.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
But there aren't many blanket statements like that. The "negativity" in the article is confined to a single section, and only made it into the lede of the article because it's one of the more longterm and notable events in TF's career. Sure, PZ Myers said he should become a social pariah but that's really the heat of the spat, most people think he's a good guy but presented some misguided thoughts on the subject. His criticism of feminism is really not impressive at all, it basically boils down to "atheists don't need to think of women's rights because the rest of society sucks anyway" - as if average was a good point to aim for. Not terribly brilliant. Of course, it's all marred by the fact that while he can present videos nicely, he clearly can't write for shit and the tone of many of his pieces were terrible. Scarlet A.pngtheist 22:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
He can present videos nicely? Really? The ones I've seen have all been his voice-over accompanied by a montage of demotivational posters, interspersed with the occasional Simpsons clip. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I mean vocally he can talk quite passionately and has developed it quite well in comparison to his blog writing. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

can i get a clarification please[edit]

  • disclosure: i do tend to again with TF but don't think i have enough information to make a complete judgement

"After the obligatory introductory post, his first substantial post was a highly bombastic comment concerning sexual harassment at atheist and skeptic conferences (MYSOGYNIST!!!). The nub of Thunderf00t's post seemed to be that he felt the problem was overstated, and that harassment policies at conferences prevented consensual fun. Several commenters immediately pointed out factual errors in the entry, none of which were acknowledged. In particular, PZ Myers disagreed with him publicly and at length."

reading this seemed confusing as the

"Several commenters immediately pointed out factual errors in the entry"

then moves to "PZ Myers disagreed with him publicly and at length"

reading it seemed confusing and wonder if splitting it up or noting that the PZ line isn't one of the "factual errors" thanks in advanceNailo1 (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk about projection[edit]

"Mason epitomizes the "STEMlord" atheist: a self-congratulatory, "right-thinking" individual who is a complete fuckwad in every other department" --author of article on Thunderf00t.

Feel free to offer a SUGGESTION. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
How about "Mason is a good-natured guy on a slightly misguided crusade against the general vomit-inducing fuckwadery that is 3rd Wave Feminism." Yes, that sounds about right. (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This comment, by the article author, reeks of juvenile resentment and an obvious inferiority complex.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think that the people you're talking down to about "juvenile resentment" aren't mostly STEM-employed people? Curiosity. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
What was I thinking.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

BON's comment[edit]

WARNING! The following article has been found to contain slander against one or more individual(s).

Given that it's written, surely the article could be (at worst) merely libel? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that really such an important distinction? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I like his videos[edit]

I found Thunderf00t's videos about YECs sometime back and thoroughly enjoyed them. Perhaps I am in the minority here. B4Xiphos (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The man does great science videos--I enjoyed his stuff about alkaline metals blowing up in water and learned some neat stuff there--but half (or more) of his videos are him being against the SJWs because that's what's brought him the subs and views. Looking over his recent vid list, his anti-SJW videos are guaranteed to break six digits of views, with some going to three to five hundred thousand views, while his science videos are doing very well if they hit 100k views. And he's got more than half a million subs. Eyeballing the math, less than 20% of his subscribership, at this point, is in it for the science vids. So as a business decision, he plays to the ones who will get him that ad money. I can't blame him, a guy's gotta eat and pay bills, but it's just disappointing that I don't see as much stuff like him dropping sodium into water in a container filled with inert gas and explaining why this will get a better idea of what's going on.--Maxus (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
To be fair... I don't really care for SJWs or what passes for a "feminist" on the internet these days (personal opinion, nothing more). I don't think all of his criticisms are completely unfounded. I will grant you, the videos about feminism are not of the same quality as his other work. You are right however, you can't be upset with him for making money. Many people have made much more doing far worse. B4Xiphos (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica[edit]

This site appears to be more like Encyclopedia Dramatica than an encyclopedic resource of all things related to logic and reason. I thought it was supposed to be more of the latter. I see that the site is requesting $8,000 a year (wow, there must be a lot of visitors, using a lot of bandwidth), and I considered, for a moment, contributing. But after looking around at a few articles, like this one, I could never fund such nonsense, that tells people what to think, rather than how to think. We already have plenty of "news" organizations in the US doing that (opinions rather than just facts). I'm hoping that it's just that the content isn't well-policed, because I thought this was a good site, and I don't want my disappointing recent assessment of this site confirmed. (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Recently, he co-authored a paper on coulombic explosions of alkali metals reacting with water, dispelling previously held beliefs about the reactions. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.

Really?? This is essentially Encyclopedia Dramatica. Won't get a cent of my money.

And using time-relative terms, like "recently", is stupid, too, because the reader doesn't know when it was written. It should say an absolute time, if it's going to mention when at all. Terrible article. (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm adding this to the drinking game. So... Drink! Zero (talk - contributions) 22:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@BON: Isn't it possible that learning how to think also includes learning how to tell good sources from bad, and good parts of good sources from bad parts of good sources (etc.)? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I mistook this site for one that's meant to be respected and taken seriously. What a shame. Carry on. (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
"Someone disagrees with my idol," cried the BON. "I thought this was a rational wiki! It can't be rational if it doesn't sing the praises of my idol!" Hollow (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Too bad calling someone a fanboy doesn't some how magically refute any points that they have made; you might could have actually said something intelligent. (same person, different IP) (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────But you didn't make a point. You just whined about it not being the article you would like it to be. Zero (talk - contributions) 22:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I did make a point. My primary point was to condemn the use of opinion throughout this article (as well as, apparently, many articles on this site). I compared this site to the useless cesspool, Encyclopedia Dramatica -- an entertainment site, at best. I said that this site was not to be taken seriously. And I would have expounded on my positions had anyone actually challenged them. No one responded with any refutation to anything that I said. I was only met with troll-like comments, to insult my intelligence or laugh at my position -- which are actually befitting a site like this, anyway, aren't they? (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Faith and Fables of Thunderfoot[edit]

An email exchange between Thunderfoot and someone who actually cares. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

this seems like maybe a lonely physicist ,with too much time on his hands, trying to molest a disinterested party. Maybe add a jig playing in the background.Jackinthebox (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


I'm new here and I don't understand why this article is so negative and the article on PZ Myers mostly kisses his ass.

Probably because one is kind of a cool guy and the other is a complete asshole? Hipocrite (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I disagree PZ is more of a despondent jackass than a complete asshole. But you are right about the other guy. Real cool science videos.Jackinthebox (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is negative because Thunderf00t is full of shit, as the links and references point out.
Myers, OTOH, is much less in that category. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Myers has a reputation for being a just as much of a douchebag as Thunderf00t but that's glossed over. Given the name and mission statement of this wiki
shouldn't we put personal feelings for these people aside? --Shireknight (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Drink! Zero (talk - contributions) 00:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that's one way of deflecting criticism. What kind of edits are actually tolerated here? --Shireknight (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Shireknight, if you want to try to edit this wiki to be less SJW, you need to be more covert. I've abandoned hope and am more focused on improving other topics. PB (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't give a crap about his videos on feminism. I don't watch them. Its irrelevant to skepticism and RW is obviously poisoning the well here. You should all do a comparison between the section about Thunderf00t getting kicked out of FtB with the PZ Myers article section about him getting kicked out of Atheist Ireland. This article takes PZ Myers account of events without question. Try disagreeing with Myers on anything and he throws a temper tantrum like a 3-year-old complete with name-calling and ad hominem attacks through his blog and twitter feed. Seems to me like Thunderf00t got kicked out of FtB because Myers can't tolerate differences of opinion. --Shireknight (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)