User talk:Bob M/Archive6

A huge thank you from all of us

Please install this on your user page!

ħuman 23:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! That goes from all of us. Sorry to leave you with cleaning up to do, but that's one of the penalties of hosting a party. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to 'crat you for all your good work but I see you already are. So, as a present, if you ever come to NZ you may use my fiancee. She's hot too. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 02:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Human and all I shall wear it with pride. :-) --Bob^{Not Jim} 07:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bob, you have been a lifesaver for many of us. I didn't know about your non-stick wiki beforehand but I shall revisit it periodically and do the odd chore if I can. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm serious

I am not pretending. I am homosexual, though I haven't came out in real life. But its funny to hear that I am pretending to be homosexual, while I actually pretend to be heterosexual. However, I consider some anti-gay statesment more seriously than probably most of you.

I am definitely not religious. And conservative ... its more like 50:50.

Thanks for such deep interest (rolling eyes). I can perfectly make difference between rationalwiki and conservapedia.

--Earthland 17:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the right bob? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 17:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on my comment on his talk page I'm sure the comment was meant for me. But I think I was exquisitely careful to avoid explicitly suggesting that Earthland was anything like a concern troll.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the sound of one buttock clapping?

I laughed my arse off on account of the stuff you posted on my talk page. One buttock was reattached, but it's just not the same. --Concernedresident 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If nobody hears the buttock clapping does it make a sound? There are some very profound questions here I feel. It's always nice to be silly isn't it? :-) --Bob^{Not Jim} 20:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We'd only hear about it when it causes a tsunami on the other side of the world, or something like that. That's the tricky bit indeed. I like the RW mix of silly and factual. Not an easy thing to do when addressing some of the woo. --Concernedresident 21:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bob

With relation to your constant accusation that I am a troll, and that the best way to deal with said troll is through complete ignorance, I would like to say that I am gravely concerned. I'm concerned with your level of self delusion.

As you may know, non-catatonic delusions are a primary symptom of early stage schizophrenia. I advise you to see a pyschiatrist.

Yours,

Marcus. MarcusCicero 20:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the Troll--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bob. As you may be aware, constant repitition of meaningless statements may be a symptom of early onset delirium. I advise you to see a pyschiatrist.

Yours,

Marcus. MarcusCicero 20:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the TrollTheoryOfPractice 20:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My beloved Theory of Practise,

As you may be aware, being influenced by simpletons is a classic sign of perception without awareness syndrome. I advise you to see a pyschiatrist.

Yours,

Marcus MarcusCicero 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the Troll--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bob,

I'm considering making a call to pyschiatric services on your behalf. I don't feel you are competant to judge your own actions.

Yours sincerely,

Marcus Cicero. MarcusCicero 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the Troll--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollDon't feed the TrollTheoryOfPractice 20:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One of these days, you'll realize that "Don't feed the troll" = "I'M FEEDING THE TROLL RIGHT FUCKING NOW" ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

To an extent you are right. The two options with trolls are: 1. Ignore the troll. 2. Post "Don't fee the troll". At the moment many people are feeding the troll so I think it's important to post the "don't feed the troll message. But if that's got through then silence it a better response.--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Live and let troll. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Teflpedia favicon

I've been thinking about the favicon and decided to try a different approach: using the first letter of the name for the favicon instead of shrinking the logo, like Wikipedia does. Here are two quick examples (16x16 and 32x32 pixel versions plus different backgrounds):

Didn't want to bring this up at teflpedia because of bandwidth concerns, but feel free to move it there if you want. -- Nx / talk 14:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see Teflpedia is now the 4chan board /t/ (language). --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 15:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That's quite a good idea actually, as the one that was put up does lack a bit of contrast. Thanks for thinking about the bandwith as well. Those few RW days at the start of the month did rather burn it up. And now I've only got 350 left for the rest of the month, which is a bit tight - especially as "normal" activity has now picked up. Given that, if you don't mind, we'll hold off with playing with this until the start of next month. I think that my favourite is the first "TE" though.--Bob^{Not Jim} 15:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually like the shrunken logo favicon a lot. It looks great in my bookmark drop down next to the brains and stuff. ħuman 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

hi Bob

You watch the football today Bob? MarcusCicero 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you like not feeding trolls....

Here's a template for the future: Simply type {{troll}} and it shall appear.Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 07:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have received your very important email

I also changed a setting on the server regarding from and reply-to addresses. I'll send you another very important email. -- Nx / talk 08:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Weird, I don't have yours. I also don't have the copy I asked for.--Bob^{Not Jim} 08:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Still nothing.--Bob^{Not Jim} 08:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sendmail is broken, I'm working on it. -- Nx / talk 09:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I fixed it. I also think I hate sendmail. -- Nx / talk 10:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your mistake is using sendmail. They invented postfix for a reason, you know. Hell, they invented exim for a reason too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I know. But I didn't want to switch to postfix without Trent's permission. -- Nx / talk 10:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, rationalwiki.com doesn't even have port 25 open. If you're not actually using your mailer daemon as a mailer, you might as well just use ssmtp and have done with it. Nothing can go wrong with ssmtp. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that's because of the firewall or because I screwed up while I was fixing sendmail... -- Nx / talk 10:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the DNS for rationalwiki.com doesn't have any MX records anyway, so it isn't like you can actually get mail. I'd hazard that the port is closed on purpose. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I now have received three very important emails from "rationalwiki@gmail.com". They are called: n, n+1, n+2

Hey

I really hate to come across as paranoid, but I'm starting to get the impression that you distrust my motives somehow, because over in the Saloon you keep questioning the reasoning behind everything I do. With the age of consent issue I was merely asking a question because I wanted to know, with the Challenge, I was simply suggesting a game for any RW members who wished to play. I was wondering, is there anything I've done that offended you or gave you reason to distrust me? If so, how can I improve in the future?--Mustex 19:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I was pushing you on your motives because it seems strange that you should wish RW to create plausible sounding "God of the gaps" arguments in favour of religion. I don't understand why you should expect us to do such things. When asked why you thought we would want to produce such things you initially wrote: "it would amuse me"; but I'm not entirely convinced by that, so in that case, yes, I suppose I am questioning your motives.

With regard to the age of consent issue you initially wrote: Hey, just came across what appears to be a new anti-gay allegation by the far right. When challenged, you were unable to explain where you had "just came across" it and provided some hard-to-follow links which you had obviously just run around and found. After further challenges you eventually admitted: "I mentioned that I thought it might be a new argument merely to explain where I heard it. So, if I was wrong about it being "new," I was wrong." Here you seem to be admitting that your original post was - how shall I put this - less than accurate.

So, if you want to remove distrust in the future, be clear about your motives and don't post questions which contain obvious "inaccuracies."--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What motives? For the first post, I like making fun of creationists, and was proposing a game. For the second post, I wrote it quickly, hoping that someone would answer the question and that would be that. How would I be clearer about my motives? I've even been open about the fact that I am religious, but I do not buy creationism. If you feel nervous that someone's going to hi-jack any arguments you make, then just post them with a pre-made rebuttal. Just what do you think I'm trying to do? And why, exactly, is it my fault that the links are hard to follow? If you're saying the focus on the family link was something I had "obviously just run around and found," then yeah I did a google search because people wanted more examples, and I felt kind of embarrassed for bringing it up without more links, but the chick.com and fstdt.com links were indeed where I initially heard this, and I posted it because I wanted to know if there was any truth to the claim that some countries are lowering their age of consent, and if so how fundies could possibly have concluded that it was related to gays, and it took me quite a while to get that simple answer. Could you say, in more concrete terms, how exactly I could satisfy you that I don't have ulterior motives of some kind?--Mustex 21:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if you believe that every time someone makes reference to a belief supposedly held by some group of crazy people, he should cite exactly who these people are and fully research his claim, then I suggest you talk to this person: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZdPGz9bf1s&feature=channel_page You will notice that in the video he makes the claim that there are vaguely-defined conspiracy theorists somewhere in the world who refuse to believe that the Moon (not the Moon-landing, the actual Moon) does not exist. He never states clearly who these people are, and I would let himm slide because they're not really relevant to what he's saying ("You can't 'suspend your belief' in something if it makes sense"), just as I thought who made the claim was not relevant to what I was asking ("Have any developed countries lowered their age of consent? And if so, how did the fundies conclude that the gays are responsible?"). But, apparently according to you, someone who makes the claim "Somewhere in the world someone holds an idiotic belief in spite of all evidence to the contrary" in a fairly non-formal discussion, that claim is somehow suspect.--Mustex 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Related thread posted in the Saloon.--Mustex 23:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. We shall see how things develop.--Bob^{Not Jim} 06:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Answer the fucking question.--Mustex 22:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have sent this user a private email.--Bob^{Not Jim} 14:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved privately.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Transliteration

There's a proposal to foist the above article onto Teflpedia, but it might not be suitable. Would you care to give an opinion on its talk page? Totnesmartin 18:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I de-redded in fear someone would recreate article as "wanted". ħuman 21:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I detect you might not be that interested in mathematics, but...

this is really quite a good philosophy of science paper. Have a read!--Star trooper man 18:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that maths is great and vital to science. It would obviously be impossible to do science without maths. I have the utmost respect for people who understand and use it. But have a look at our objectives on our front page. Anybody with an education sufficient to understand these maths articles will probably not be amongst the believers in woo anyway. Anybody who is unable to understand the maths articles - well, won't be able to understand them. They do not dispel pseudoscience or anything like it. I imagine "psudo maths" exists - but they don't dispel that either. They're just encyclopaedic articles on maths. Which would be great if we were an encyclopaedia, but we're not.

Again, maths is vital and important - but so are many things in this world and I'm not convinced we need these articles. But I'm not going to say anything more about it as they seem to keep some people happy.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

DO you know how one would....

Revert an article back numerous revisions? Ever since that one drive-by editor came in and trashed the Wicca article, I've been meaning to revert everything in it to the last version by Gaston Rabbit, by have no idea how. Conservative Punk 21:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

One way is to pull up the last "good" revision and click "edit" then "save". If you are reverting edits all made by one editor, "rollback" will do what you want. ħuman 21:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I seemed to have figured it our myself. BUt the Wicca article could use some more anti-magic snark. And I'm being serious (and I'm a Wiccan, too. Figure that one out). Conservative Punk 21:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It could indeed. I started a section on the talk page regarding a couple of recent edits. Hi Bob! ħuman 21:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. :-) --Bob^{Not Jim} 07:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

McWicked Co. would like to say.....

All the staff at McWicked Co. wish you a merry christmas.

Most kind. My thanks to the McWicked family business. --Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 13:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Prototypes and categories

If you haven't done something similar already, I highly recommend starting at wp:Prototype theory and seeing where it leads you. I came onto that by way of some kid on another forum (fiddling-oriented of all things) bragging/complaining that she had read Lakoff's Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind for some uni course or other. I find it appealing because it seems to be based on sound psychological testing techniques-- response times and what not. Not trying to be a knowitall, just sharing something I enjoyed. If it doesn't float your boat, the world will continue to spin. In any case, happy New Year! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

[1] Totnesmartin (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Feeding the troll, and all that

I see your point. But then again, won't this debate just conclusively show that MC is a troll? And isn't this a better way to do it than the usual HCM? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

His troll status has already been conclusively shown.

• By his actions on the site.
• By his confessions here.
• By his conversations on RWW.

We have both the evidence of his actions and his own explicit words. A debate will do no more than give the troll another opportunity to continue trolling. Every time that people interact with it represents a victory for it. Frankly I find it amazing that people are still dumb enough to continue doing it.--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 16:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You talk about MC like he's actually dangerous and not just a bored jerk. To a troll, that is a great big cake. Bob M you are feeding the troll. -- =w= 17:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

He is a bored jerk, but he is also dangerous. How many people has he driven away so far. Bob is right about his troll status, but then how are we do deal with him if not everyone is intent on ignoring him? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mc has driven people away? -- =w= 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Has a troll ever been successfully rehabilitated? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Enough already. --Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 18:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's fascinating to see someone who doesn't like trolls and knows they're being trolled, yet continues to feed the troll. These people are gluttons for punishment. It's no business of ours to impede them by stating the obvious like this, but there, I did it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone would bother with it again. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A combination of masochism and boredom, with a possible chance of being oblivious. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. Someone's feelings might get hurt. MarcusCicero (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sidewiki

I did one on Tefl's main page. Can you see it? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 12:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You have to click "next" at the bottom to see it. But it's there for sure.--Bob^{It's cold!} 12:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I put a comment here as well. Can you see it?--Bob^{It's cold!} 12:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 12:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And I can see yours too. So it's Recent Changes which is different.--Bob^{It's cold!} 12:41, 11 January 2010 (UT

C)

My Response

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I put this under the talk page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT6664dldkA --Mustex (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

OK.--Bob^{It's cold!} 07:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)