User talk:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki N

Nag of Four

This article was created to balance Gang of Four. I tried to used the same format as the Gang of four article, but I couldn't quite reach the same level of suppressed vitriol. If anybody wants to to give it a shot please do so. But I'd suggest that we keep the POV's of the two articles seperate.--False Flag 11:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm a bit out of things; should the be jellyfish or chaos?--False Flag 11:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just a made up naaaame, isn't it? Perhaps we could also have Gun of Four (anti-gun control RWians), Gin of four (imbibers of England's national drink), Gong of Four (RWians who like prog), Bang of Four (guess), Ang of Four (RWians who watch Ang Lee films), Twang of Four (country music fans), Gag of Four (pro-censorship RWians) etc? Totnesmartin 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it to be an amusing counterpoint to the slightly nasty "gang of four". I'm sorry you don't like it, but I think the four people mentioned are the most likely to be on the "pro-religion" side of any debate. If you have suggestions for alternative/different/additional names please raise them. The other articles you mention could be interesting as well if you could find 4 RWians who support those issues. Why not write them?--False Flag 15:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sign me up for the Gin of four, please. --AKjeldsen 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gin of Four

Might be difficult to maintain the format tho

The Gin of Four is both an impetus and the drunk side of RationalWiki's supposed pro-socialist bias. In any discussion involving socialism, you can count on at least two of them vomiting appearing on the page. They are as follows, alphabetically:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Naw - don't like it. Bit too nasty, isn't it? Also - who else do we know who drinks Gin?--False Flag 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

George Orwell fans could go in the Victory Gin of Four, of course... Totnesmartin 15:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That reference is sufficiently obscure that the thought police should come for you.--False Flag 21:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's one of my three specialist subjects - obscure references, sniggering at the back, and tea. And announcing my screen breaks by making articles about them. Totnesmartin 21:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gang of Forty

What about a gang of forty for Chaos/Jellyfish's alter egos? :) Totnesmartin 18:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually a "Gang of Forty" for the elder users might be a good idea. I can think of Susan, Human and Bob. Who are the other pensioners?--False Flag 18:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm 42, can I be in the gang of 4x10.5? (or even the gang of 6x9...) Totnesmartin 15:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

42 - Is that an answer or a question?--False Flag 21:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I love this article

But I think I should make a couple of points clearer.

1. I don't know about the others, but I'm not "pro-religion" regarding the position/tone/goals/whatever of RW, I'm pro-agnosticism, which I believe is the most scientific attitude to take.
2. The entry for me seems to suggest that AK is the most "intolerant" towards atheism out of the group. This is simply incorrect: AK is the most level-headed of us.
   

Although, FalseFlag's edit comments suggest this might actually just be a sly dig at the Gang of Four article, in which case you should just ignore this comment :) User:Gloom./sig 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

To a large extent it is a satire on the Gang of Four, though I wanted it to be close to factually accurate as well. If you really think it unfairly maligns AK then please change it. Though it would be nice to keep the "mirror image" effect of the gang of four. With regard to your pro-agnosticism, I don't know what to say. Didn't you recently state on the site that you were some form of, shall we say, "weak theist"?--False Flag 14:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could say I'm a "weak" theist in the sense that I'm not a fundementalist, but I should point out that my faith itself is not weak. By the "pro agnosticism" thing, I meant only that the I'd rather the official stance of RW wasn't overt anti-theism or atheism. I'm not trying to convert anyone. User:Gloom./sig 22:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I used "weak theist" as a counterpoint to "weak atheist". A weak atheist is not "weak" in the sense of their belief, only in the sense of the statement they make. A "strong atheist" says "I can prove God does not exist with x argument." A weak atheist says, "I do not believe that God exists because there is no evidence God exists". As far as I am aware all the atheists on the site would be considered "weak atheists". But, as you will be aware there is nothing weak about their opinions.

Consequently I coined the term "weak theist" to describe somebody who maintains that God exists but also maintains there is no evidence for their position. The other would a be a "strong theist" who both maintains that god exists and that proof can be offered.

The upshot of this is that I wasn't trying to say there was anything weak about you. If the spirit moves me, I may write something about the "official stance" of RW on this matter.--False Flag 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, alright ^_^ In that case I'm definitely a weak theist, then. (<nitpick>Although I would probably say "no objective evidence" rather than "no evidence"...</nitpick>) User:Gloom./sig 05:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I for one have no problems with this article in its present form. --AKjeldsen 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've come round to it too. I probably still had my Wikipedia hat on when I complained earlier. that's the trouble with editing several wikis, you get the styles mixed up sometimes. Totnesmartin 10:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Where am I?

Is MarcusCicero forgotten? For I have risen again!

Ah, but you have to participate for a while to get on the list. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" ^{(cover your eyes!)} 23:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nag of One?

Three of these four are inactive. Editor at CP seems to be having trouble with the new server, so might be back eventually. As for Pink & AKj, who knows? Should they be replaced? The only name that springs to mind is Tolerance. Otherwise, it's just RA of these four that's left. weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 11:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As FF said on the article page, there's also ListenerX and Armondikov. Can't think of anybody else though.--Bob M 13:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that bit. That's what you get for only reading the first screen of an article. weaseLICIOuS ^{Bite Me} 15:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed Pink an she has certainly gone. As has been stated, two others are a bit doubtful as well. I created the original article in to give some balance to the "Gang of four" one. (Obviously this doesn't' give me "ownership".) My inclination is to switch out the two other semi-dead ones and add my three nominations. Any objections?--False Flag 18:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Having had no feedback on this one I've just gone ahead with the change.--False Flag 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Again with that damned "Pink is a sock of RA" meme

What exactly do I have to do to prove that Pink is not a sock of me? Radioactive afikomen 20:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You must drag her to the RWW cabal headquarters in an undisclosed location in Eastern Europe along with her computer, then show that the cookies on her computer demonstrate that she is Pink. Time educated Phantom Hoover! 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Both an Odinist and an atheist"

This is hyperbole. I am not an atheist. — ListenerX 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Gratitude

I should like toe express my Thanks for being included in this grouping. While I Understand it may not be Meant to be complementary I Chose to Regard it as Such.--Tolerance 23:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Nag of Five

I should like to Propose that the NAG be expanded to Five Members to include CUR.--Tolerance 19:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we'll bump the least tolerant person off. It doesn't fit nicely with the Gang of Four if there are five members; moreover, I don't think CUR has done anything other than the essay. In time, we shall reconsider. Time educated Phantom Hoover! 20:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am more of a wild card, Tolerance. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nag of two

As two of the members are no longer present I have reduced this to two. Other nominations of active members would be welcome on this page.--False Flag 22:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add me. (Researcher) 204.198.72.40 01:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You could also add me, Gooniepunk2005, though I may not qualify, since I don't staunchly defend religion on RationalWiki. But I am a religious Neopagan outside of RAtionalWiki. MNpunkboy 03:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the addition of Gooniepunk2005. I have not seen enough of Researcher's contributions to make a judgment. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)