Template talk:According to

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

WE NO LONGER USE THIS PLEASE GO HERE INSTEAD.

ALL ENTRIES AND ARCHIVES HAVE BEEN COPIED OVER

TALK LEFT HERE FOR POSTERITY

What "According to" is for[edit]

Please do not archive this section
Feel free to debate, but I think this should be for "on mission" craziness. It is turning into a (US Democratic Party) news blog feed, which is boring and, I think wrong for the intent of our main page. There is no need to update it every seven seconds. Please just add new MISSION-CENTRIC items - or discuss here if you think I'm wrong. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:36, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

I think a judge blocking the attempted re-endangering of a species is pretty important (while not technically within the letter of the mission) anyway, I think it's a lot more interesting than the four or five Anti-Mccain things that have been poping up SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 04:38, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
Also, in my defense, I think trying to stick simply to issues that are directly withing the mission is going to lead to a very stagnant According to. SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 04:42, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
Let's not discuss specific issues here so much as the general intent. What it shouldn't be is the DailyKoz lite. I agree, the anti-McCain crap sucked too. As far as wolves... why not make an article or a debate topic? It's not exactly a "black or white" (apologies...) issue... No offense for commenting out your inclusion, I nailed another, and I am really sick of these silly political news items getting into "According to" - it's not what we started it for, but we need to discuss this, one and all. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:47, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
Trust me, I've been here way too long to get offended at someone else editing my stuff :) But I just wonder what the actual rules are gonna be for posting things... My general feelings are usually if I read something and think that others will find it interesting or whatever..... So is that how this should work or is there some other litmus test we should be using? SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 06:35, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
I guess I am asking you to help develop some guidelines for this highly visible part of our main page? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:00, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
I would be happy to... sadly, it'll have to be postponed until my return from the great white north... Hopefully the world won't end before that. SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 11:37, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
It started out as things from (other than CP) nutjob sources that make you go "whoa"... but we've never really been very tight about goes in and what shouldn't. And I sure as heck have no right to arbitrarily limit it without at least some interminable discussion and some sort of consensus (which may decide that it should be exactly what "I" don't want it to be, but at least then I'd know and not wield the mighty comment code when things actually belong...). Hopefully some other people will chime in here. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:47, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

Rules[edit]

I have just created RationalWiki:Frontpage Rules Please come let your voice be heard SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 02:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Pope[edit]

I tried to change the wording of that.... while it was technically correct, it seemed to be a rather unfair shot at the Catholic Church.... I'll concede this probably isn't the best verson, but we should keep to the spirit of this article rather than the technical story. SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 17:09, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Very responsible of you Chuck. After all it's not just the Catholics:
The World Council of Churches, when they had their congress in Canberra back in the 1990s, that was the best business period ever.

Jollyfish.gifGenghismutating 17:20, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Don't look too far into it... I don't really care for religion in general, but I like to see a fair representation of what's in the article That said, I do like the work of JPII SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 18:56, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Wedge[edit]

What wedge are you referring to when you say Obama and McCain "[drive] the wedge deeper?" --Lyra § talk 12:52, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

My first guess was driving the wege deeper in terms of liberl/conservative..... You know, keep the people fighting against each other and they don't notice that everyone (but the super rich) are being screwed. SirChuckBOne of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about 19:30, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
As in asking for and reporting their opinions on a fairly irrelevant word, as opposed to an issue people actually care about? I dunno, for some reason Lyra deleted the phrase anyway. I guess it could have used a link or a better description? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:35, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Seriously...[edit]

Have we fallen so low that we need to turn to the Torygraph for our snarky lulz now?! I shall go and hang my head in shame forthwith, and I urge you all to join me at your earliest convenience. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 16:40, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

PZ and his crackers[edit]

Section moved to Debate:Did PZ Myers Cross the Line?

"Meanwhile, a 19-year old college student understands what the PhD and his horde of commenters don't."
This sounds like it was copied straight from CP's front page. Is it meant to be a parody of their style or was it written with a completely straight face? Jollyfish.gifGenghismutating 17:05, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Poll[edit]

I have commented out the CNN poll as the poll says there are 10% unsure. If it add to over 100% I could see the joke but any poll that has less then 100% means people are either noncommittal or voting 3rd party. \approx\pi 21:19, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

It's not about >100%. It's that you can't poll people and not have a sampling error. I guess I give up. You've all been conned by CNN. Sterilesnore! 08:32, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
Okay, I see the joke now. It should say statistical rather than mathematical impossiblitlity. \approx\pi 23:54, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
Isn't it nice how we all just get along.... weep, sob, smile! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:55, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Phrankinthenthe[edit]

That should be an article... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:21, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Calling on gospel to call off debt[edit]

I'm not sure this is really AcTo worthy. It lacks punch and the external link is buried. Any other views? Jollyfish.gifGenghismutating 07:34, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I'm not all that amazed that different groups of Christians interpret the Bible in different ways. I'd be more amazed if they actually agreed on an interpretation. ;-) --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 07:58, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
I think it's too wordy. Simply saying "Some call on gospel to call off debt" ought to be enough. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:22, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
Having read most of the article even that headline is misleading, really. They're just doing financial counseling in the churches, from what I can see - they certainly don't appear to trying to get divine intercession. Is it an interesting story? Yes. Belong on our front page? I don't think so. But then, I don't think much of what is on AT should be there... Anyway, perhaps a nice snarky link to the story from our prosperity gospel article would be good, though. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:34, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

The cracker is dead[edit]

Thoughts? tmtoulouse heckle 14:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Glad it's all over with, maybe. Pinto's5150 Talk 15:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
AKjeldsen is not going to like it. Personally, it just brightened up my day. Jollyfish.gifGenghismutating 15:22, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
It should be at WIGO:blogosphere, not according to. In fact, if we get those WIGOs cranked up properly, According to is going to be close to obsolete... ħumanUser talk:Human 17:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)