User talk:Andy Franklinson

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Andy Franklinson! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Hello, and welcome to RationalWiki. Please pull up a goat and have a nice day. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 16:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Indent using multiple colons

thus

and thus

and even ...

well, you get the idea. Scream!! (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

see here Scream!! (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you! ^_^ --Andy Frankinson (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hallo!

Velcome! Even though you've been here for two weeks. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 23:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha, thank you! ^_^ --Andy Frankinson (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Mod

What attracted you to apply for the mod position? Just curious, as it seems like a brave thing to do with so few edits. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 20:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to help this place out. :) Andy Frankinson (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's suprising that someone with <35 edits knows what a moderator even is (16 of which were before the moderator elections), and is so invested. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 14:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I've looked around the site pages a fair bit. --Andy Frankinson (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sysop

Happy now? Theory of Practice "the standards of the site are ultimately an expression of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies." 20:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Andy Franklinson (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Cosmology

I always thought the essay was going to deal with cosmic inflation. Then I saw your comment. I am not trained in any of the sciences but I have deep interest in cosmology and astrophysics and I would consider myself very well read on the topic. Fascinating stuff. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, cosmology is pretty cool! ^_^ --Andy Franklinson (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You wanna read the most frustrating cosmology discussion with a creationist I have ever had? I ask before linking to it because I don't want to unnecessarily inflict it on you. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, please do! --Andy Franklinson (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Here ya go. I would say "enjoy" but it isn't fun. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look it over in detail a bit later. But...do you think we should have try to have good articles on RW in those areas (cosmology, science, etc)? --Andy Franklinson (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I do think so and have tidied up some of the relevant articles we have in the past. It is a big topic though and I don't have heaps of time. However I have been meaning to adapt this essay into an article but needs work. Also I'd quite like to improve on/list some of the other theories which aren't as mainstream such as Roger Penroses' 'Cycles of Time' idea. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to work on it, but people would tell me it's not within RW's mission. :/ --Andy Franklinson (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the link above...people would tell me it's not within RW's mission What people? Fuck 'em. It's science. As a moderator I'll will publicly shame people who try to tell you such things. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ace. This is obviously a troll account (for precision strikes only, that should be obvious also). I'm breaking character to voice my discontent. I used to productively edit a lot but there are too many divas who think they have unilateral say over what constitutes missionality. I made that last word up.--Elvis (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ace, here's an example. Thanks! --Andy Franklinson (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You sir

Sir, I assume you're the "Andy" on Ameriwiki. Are you aware that "Sam Coulter" is indeed Fergus Mason. His cronies have no interest in your scientific ramblings, only liberal ideology and in the case of Chicken Ass: Taylor Swift. Not a good project. Try Knowino. --Elvis is King (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh...I never realized liking Taylor Swift's music made you an evil liberal. o.O --Andy Franklinson (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes. That fucking sysop on that site is totally gaga over her and her so-called "music". He's also a liberal Libertarian,He's a disgrace. You shouldn't contribute there. Really. Look at his userpage!!!--Elvis is King (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol...who is "he"? And by the way, I'm liberal myself lol. I've seen what I presume is your site (conservatism Wiki) and I have one word to describe it: batshit. "A vile Taylor Swift lover, Joseph Stalin killed millions in the Soviet Union." How. The. Fuck. Could Stalin have been influenced by Swift? Swift was born way after Stalin was dead I presume. --Andy Franklinson (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This fucking bastard, liberal Ameriwiki bureaucrat. Look at his userpage there. He plastered the abomination that proves his incompetence to lead a site. As for Conservatism wiki, it was owned by the late George Fitzgerald, founder of Ameriwiki. As for the claim, it was satire. It was meant to piss off Sammy and Chicken Ass. Chicken Ass loves her, I tell ye! It's not a credible site. Don't waste your time. Try Knowino instead. --Elvis is King (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, when talking about the people on AW, you haven't talked about insulted me! I feel left out! :( And how does him liking Swift make him crazy? --Andy Franklinson (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

All right:You're a fucking stupid evilutionist who defends usurpers and Taylor Swift lovers. Feel left out now? He likes Swift, he wrote this fucking article, plastered a photo on his userpage, he's nuts! He's too incompetent to run AW. He's an immoral ape, a man who is in the mindset of a preteen girl. --Elvis is King (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You haven't added it to your userpage. I still feel left out. :( --Andy Franklinson (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Added. Also, let me ask frankly: do you deny that Chicken Ass loves Swift? --Elvis is King (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you! ^___^ Yes, he does seem to like her. So what if he does? --Andy Franklinson (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

He's a fucking bureaucrat on the site you call home. Unless he's a preteen girl, he's an immoral liberal ape imbecile. Do you disagree? These are well-founded accusations. Andrew Schlafly would never appoint a liberal Swift lover as admin. --Elvis is King (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you met the resident jester. He likes to make fun of me. --Colonel Sanders (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Colonel: Is he a parodist? --Andy Franklinson (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I am a true conservative. Don't trust the "Colonel" who never served in the army- he fucking loves Swift! --Elvis is King (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No; he's a mental case. He's a CP admin who made it his mission in life to destroy AW, for some reason. --SamCoulter (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

He's a CP admin?! Which one? And he just called me a "fucking stupid evilutionist who defends usurpers and Taylor Swift lovers"?! That seriously just made my day! --Andy Franklinson (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

He's only a minor CP admin; more one of Schlafly's lapdogs really, rather than a real sysop like Ken or Karajerk. He goes by the name "James Wilson" there and he's easily recognised by his sycophancy to Schlafly. --SamCoulter (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am a true American Conservative Patriot and will demolish you now for defending the usurper and Swift lover. --Elvis is King (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This guy seems like he's trying to be a parodist of James Wilson with how he writes like a babbling madman. From what I remember about Wilson on CP, he seems a lot more (relatively) sane than this guy. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You, sir, are a bacon eater. I assume you are going to defend that Swift lover?? --Elvis is King (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

He used to be. However did you see his antics on Ameriwiki? Also, James Wilson just blocked my latest account on CP, right after Elvis is Kinky threatened to do it here. It's James alright. I can only assume that his mental health is suffering. --SamCoulter (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

James, would you like to come back to Ameriwiki as a bureaucrat and clear out all the stuff you don't like? --SamCoulter (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Only if I can get rid of Swift!!! Psyche!--Elvis is King (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well tough shit. You're permabanned and you're staying permabanned. We've had enough of your childish rubbish. --SamCoulter (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, say bye to "Rosso"! You usurped George. --Elvis is King (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No James. George got himself banned for messing around on my site. So did you. --SamCoulter (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Who fucking founded AW? Who wrote the policies? Answer that, Fergus.

George came up with the name Ameriwiki and set up on a wiki farm. I founded Ameriwiki.org with George's agreement. The wiki farm version still belongs to George; Ameriwiki.org never did. --SamCoulter (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How can it still belong to George? He's fucking DEAD! Also, you never told him he would lose ownership of AW. Therefore, you deceitfully usurped him. But, I'm a reasonable guy: delete the Swift article and I'll quit the entire rampage. A good deal for your sanity, hmm?--Elvis is King (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure Jimmy, he's dead. Anyway I never intended him to lose ownership of the project - the project, mind, not the site, which was always mine - and he wouldn't have if he hadn't teamed up with Karajerk and tried to kick me off my own property. We all know that Popeye is a lying sack of faeces, so why George decided to throw in his lot with him I have no idea. In any case he tried to kick out all the people who'd built Ameriwiki and replace us with the likes of you and Ronald, and as AW is a community-based wiki rather than a dictatorship like CP we decided not to let him do that. George's "usurpation" was entirely self-inflicted. --SamCoulter (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the man who calls me king. Taylor Swift is over the hill. Positively geriatric.--Elvis (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

Something like this? Aceⁱ⁹ 02:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's sort of what I had in mind. :) --Andy Franklinson (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Debate

I challenge you to a debate. --Elvis is King (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

On what, exactly? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 11:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

OOoooooh! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! ^sshole 11:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks as though James wants a bit of attention. SharonW (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Should I debate him? Any idea what he wants to talk about? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 20:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Bear cavalry versus wolf cavalry. Тy^{Bother me} 21:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I will talk about the bastardizations of American conservative values created by "tolerance" and the negative effects of your man-child friend on American conservatism, among other issues.--Elvis is King (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, thanks. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 21:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Scared you'll get your ass handed to you? --Elvis is King (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, because me and others have explained these things to you several times. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 22:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your ignorance is brought to you because of a lousy public school education brought to you by James E. Carter. You believe evilution and defend usurpers and Taylor Swift lovers. George is probably rolling in his grave right now. --Elvis is King (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your ignorance... You believe evilution That is so ironic.... --Andy^{not Schlafly} 22:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You're an ignoramus who believes we came from pond slime, that stealing websites is OK, and it is acceptable for a grown man to like Taylor Swift. You're clueless, and ignorant. Crack open a Bible and be exposed to the truth. --Elvis is King (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As Penn Jillette noted, the fastest way to become an atheist is to read the Bible.... --Andy^{not Schlafly} 22:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Penn Jillette is a fat turd, an ignorant libertarian atheist. The words of Jesus > Penn Jillette. --Elvis is King (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

But he's right about this...The Bible has a lot of disgusting things in it... --Andy^{not Schlafly} 23:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

They were wicked. Jesus died for--Elvis is King (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC) us all.

Right.... --Andy^{not Schlafly} 23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you denying evident truth, Darwinian freak of nature? --Elvis is King (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that I don't believe you when you say "those people were wicked." By the way, how exactly is the big bang theory "pseudo-science"? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It is extremely unlikely everything as we came to know it happened by random chance. There had to be divine intervention. --Elvis is King (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Big bang theory says nothing about the existence of gods. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and He designed the Universe and had it evolve according to the big bang model. That's consistent with it. (I'd say that it's highly unlikely that a higher power exists, but that's irrelevant to the question at hand.) --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been proven, and the odds aren't in favor of everything randomly appearing the way it is. Life could have not been created by random chance. --Elvis is King (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been provenNo, but then again, what has been "proven?" The big bang model has a mountain of evidence supporting it and the creationists just have an ancient book...Life could have not been created by random chance.When are you creationists going to learn?! The origin of life has nothing to do with cosmology. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 01:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The origin of life would have to be related. Without divine intervention, which the big bang theory assumes, it would have all happened by random chance. How in the hell is the universe thirteen billion years old? How is it eventually going to collapse into the "particle" it came from? --Elvis is King (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The origin of life would have to be related. Without divine intervention, which the big bang theory assumes, it would have all happened by random chance. Again, they have nothing to do with each other. Maybe the big bang theory is correct, and the flying spaghetti monster created life on earth. How in the hell is the universe thirteen billion years old Just apply the laws of physics. How is it eventually going to collapse into the "particle" it came from? Gravity. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 01:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The universe would have to be more homogenous than it is. No gravitational wave background has been observed. Glad James E. Carter gave you a mediocre education that led you to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?--Elvis is King (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The universe would have to be more homogenous than it is. No, the growth of structure is very well accounted for. Basically, the very early universe only had very small inhomogeneities and those grew (via gravitational instability) to the galaxies and large scale structure we see today. No gravitational wave background has been observed. The reason for this is that we don't have the technology to do so. No high energy gravity waves have ever been directly detected, let alone the low energy ones we'd expect from the Big Bang. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 02:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It ignores the theory of an oscillating universe. Also, no first cause from the Big Bang has ever been successfully identified. If the big bang theory did happen as they say, matter and antimatter would have been created in equal quantities. --Elvis is King (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It ignores the theory of an oscillating universe. What...? What proof is there of an oscillating Universe? (Actually, it is consistent with an oscillating universe. The big bang theory actually says nothing about the big bang itself, nor the physics of when the Universe was Planck-sized. In fact, some models of quantum gravity predict an oscillating universe.) Also, no first cause from the Big Bang has ever been successfully identified. The big bang model says nothing about the very early universe--to do that, you'd need a quantum theory of gravity. If the big bang theory did happen as they say, matter and antimatter would have been created in equal quantities. This is a rather interesting problem, and one that is unresolved. However, certain decays are not symmetric w.r.t. antimatter/matter. So, they are probably not symmetric. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 18:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The big bang implies that the universe was created from an explosion. An automobile isn't built from a tornado. --Elvis is King (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the big bang theory (that one would get by assuming that GR is correct at arbitrarily large energy scales) does not say the universe began in an explosion of matter into pre-existing space....But that's a moot point, since it really says nothing about the big bang at all! With our current understanding of physics, we can only go back to the epoch when the Universe was Planck-sized; we can't go back any more because we don't know how gravity behaves at those energy scales. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 12:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Then explain how random chance happened to create something that can sustain itself? There's a one in one bajillion chance life on Earth could've happened with something so random. --Elvis is King (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Cosmology has nothing to do with abiogenesis. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it. It still doesn't explain how stuff came to be. --Elvis is King (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Cosmology does not seek to explain the origin of life. Pretty simple concept, no? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It may not seek to do so, but it's either God or random chance that allowed life to be created. Without just the right positioning of the solar system, there would be no capacity for life. --Elvis is King (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sir, cosmology is concerned with explaining how the Universe came to be (on fairly large scales). It is not concerned with the origin of life on Earth. Whether life on earth was created by natural means, by god, or by the FSM, has NOTHING to do with cosmology. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

So you think. Fact is that big bang implies random chance, which implies no life. Get that through your thick skull. Divine intervention was necessary, and the Bible says nothing about big bang or billions of years. SIX DAYS the universe was created. --Elvis is King (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not either "random chance" or "strictly biblical creation." There's sort of a scale. Maybe the FSM created life on earth. That's consistent with big bang cosmology. (Not saying I believe that....just using it to illustrate that the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with abiogenesis. This debate isn't about abiogenesis.) --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Studying

Since you appear to be quite into astronomy/cosmology, I was wondering if that's what you're studying right now in school/college. It's very interesting stuff. Sam ^Tally-ho! 23:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a math/physics major. I've taken a couple courses on the astronomy/cosmology, but I've learned most of it on my own. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Bwahahahahahahahaha. Тy^{Bother me} 01:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What's so funny?! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 01:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I was a physics major once upon a time. Тy^{Bother me} 01:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's cool! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 01:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I did graduate with a minor and worked in a spectroscopy lab for a while. Bah. Kids. Тy^{Bother me} 01:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice! What was your major? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 01:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Science of Computers. Тy^{Bother me} 01:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like fun! --Andy^{not Schlafly} 01:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds that way. Тy^{Bother me} 01:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Was it hard? --Andy^{not Schlafly} 01:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it was mostly boring. Тy^{Bother me} 01:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That sucks. :/ --Andy^{not Schlafly} 01:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it makes Bachelor's #2 easier. Тy^{Bother me} 01:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What made you leave physics? Sam ^Tally-ho! 01:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A lab instructor so horrible it resulted in a department reform.Тy^{Bother me} 01:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't taken my labs yet. I am NOT looking forward to them.... --Andy^{not Schlafly} 01:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for you, being a science student must mean you're exceptionally gifted. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha thanks. --Andy^{not Schlafly} 14:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)