User talk:Bob M/Archive7

And now you?

Fucking hell.....Aceⁱ⁹ 18:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Just thought that I'd let you know that, seeing as how I graduated from a high school 6 years ago where the majority of student are Latinos and English as a second language students, I recommended your teflpedia site to my old teachers there as a resource for helping them. Turns out, the feedback I have gotten from them is mostly positive, with them grateful for having it as a resource. Anyways, just thought I'd pass that along. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 07:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's both interesting and gratifying as I get so little actual feedback. I assume it's popular because the site statistics show reasonably positive growth and my pageviews last month were over 40,000. Unfortunately few people take the time to edit or comment which means that I'm rather flying in the dark which makes your feedback most welcome. My (possibly generous) assumption is that most teachers are busy people who only really have time to take and no real time to give even though they might wish to.--Bob^{It's cold!} 07:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Was that one of our Minneapolis Public Schools? ListenerX^TalkerX 07:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a charter high school. El Colegio Charter High School to be exact. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 14:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bob, thats great man! Aceⁱ⁹ 08:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ace.--Bob^{It's cold!} 12:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want more in-depth analysis of what they thought about teflpedia, I can surely get it for you, Bob. I'd just need to know what you want to know, and then a few weeks to gather said data. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 14:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be most interesting - though given that it's a wiki perhaps the most appropriate thing would be to get them to make suggestions or changes there. However, if, for some reason that's not possible then some responses via you would also be most welcome. With regard what what I'd like to know - well for a start it would be interesting to find out what would make people contribute. My guess is lack of time and lack of technical ability. Then, are there any particular things that would like to see covered? Anything that is particularly liked or disliked? Any kind of comments really. Cheers.--Bob^{It's cold!} 15:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me, I passed the url along to my mother, who is involved with some literacy council thing in N Carolina, and she said she'd pass it along to them. It's probably these folks. ħuman 10:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Human. Though looking at the site I think they may have a different focus. It's interesting that traffic to the Teflon-Pedia continues to grow. Almost 25% of my bandwidth has been used so far this month. It's the first time that I've had to consider that as a potential problem since the RW visit last year.--Bob^{It's cold!} 11:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I suspect theree might be some overlap, although, yes, largely different missions. Congrats on the bandwidth problem! ħuman 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

LJ Tie

Bob, You and Totnesmartin have tied for 7th place on the LJ. Could you decide between you who is to take the place. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved.--Bob^{It's cold!} 10:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are a gentleman Bob. - π 10:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

He certainly is. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

He's also back in because Genghis has dropped out. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am? I must have missed that. Perhaps not the best qualification for the LJ. On the other hand the mere threat of the LJ's existence seems to have calmed things down. Or something has.--Bob^{It's windy!} 17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What's calmed things down is that the Belfast playwright is annoying RWW instead (and his blog died, arf arf). The only trolls we've got now are those cheerleaders, and even they've gone off the idea. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's good idea

It was so funny. I literally laughed so hard that I had to pea in my pants. If I only could reach your intellectual level. But I still think you are far too earnest. We should all enjoy our life more and more. Who the fuck would give shit anyway? Not you. --Earthland (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry & all that stuff for all my awful overreactions. --Earthland (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ummm. What an interesting, though slightly confusing set of comments to react to! Still it's nice to see some action on my talk page. Thanks!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

'Evidence for' articles

I think there is a consensus to split the article into two, at least, to make the titles more logical and representative. Do you think we should go ahead and split it, or wait for more input? On the issue of redirecting (to a single article) I don't think we are making any progress, so I propose the following compromise -

1. We keep the articles we have but use a template to generate the content they have, so that they are the same and not with odd little differences.
2. We create new ones for pretty much everything RW debunks so that the selection we have doesn't look arbitrary. Right now the articles are clearly just random things that happened to get created on a whim. They don't seem official or particularly considered, and since they're now an extreme entry point, I worry it gives people an incorrect impression of RW, like anything can get into mainspace.
3. We make a 'central' article where you can find them. Maybe something like [[RationalWiki:Evidence project]]. This wouldn't involve adding any links (like a 'see also' section, which would look terrible) to the articles themselves, so they would stay as minimal as they are currently.

What do you think. Mei (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your useful post. I agree that we should split the article. We could ask for more consensus but I can't imagine anyone really objecting.

With regard to you points.

1. Sounds like a good idea to have them consistent.
2. Yes, I agree they logically could apply to anything we debunk from ear candling to dowsing. But that would imply a substantial increase in the number of challenge articles and it might be better to first consult the RW community in general. Secondly, a large number of such articles might result in even more unpredictable traffic surges. While I would have always considered this to be a good thing our present technical difficulties give pause for thought.
3. I agree that some sort of central point which explains the articles in some way would be a good idea, but I assume that you are not suggesting that the articles themselves leave mainspace?

Some other points also occur to me. I have been wondering why these articles generate interest. I suspect it is because their simple visual nature gets the point that there is no evidence for something across very efficiently to people who can't really be bothered reading a full article which really says the same thing in five or more paragraphs.

Nevertheless, in order to capitalise on any potential traffic, I think we should also include a small info box which points people to the main article along with things like the proposed central article, evidence, proof, falsifiability and scientific method.

While I imagine that splitting the article in question will not be controversial, I think that the other points should be discussed more widely. Sounds like something for the forum. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Loya Jirga roll call

Totnesmartin plans to retire from the Loya Jirga, so we're holding a by-election to determine his replacement. We need to know if anyone else has left the LJ, so could you stop by and give a holler? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ping

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Need_a_logo ħuman 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I can change it round if you like the style, the color is easily fixed, It can be a bitmap or a gif if you want, but I wanna be a Executive Convers-ator! ħuman 22:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Monograms put the first or last letter in the middle. You'll get to spend the rest of your life explaining this subtlety to hairy furriners. I stuffed the C in the middle because it looked cool. You could just say that ;) But basically it's "big C over small EE".

"My editing skills are pretty basic. How easy would editing it be?"

Incredibly easy. We can work together off-wiki, or I can coach you on how to fix it up. It's all just text in a box with the "aspect ratio" of a business card. The current version is too lo-rez to send to a printer, if you want me to fancy it up, it will be like a 2000 x 4000 px bitmap or that other format printers use that I forget. Also, 1:2 might be the wrong ratio, that's fixable. We can use pmail if you want and I'll fix the "details", like the made up titles, etc., or if you want as I said I will coach you on how to create the image file. ħuman 01:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fonts. For your card above I used Gentium Basic because it looked classy with the right level of formality, ie, not too much. ħuman 02:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Human. I'll pmail you on this.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 05:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Keeper of the keys

People are nominating you for an important job at Forum:Keepers of the keys. Please could you go there and give an opinion? Thanks. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you get my e-mail? tmtoulouse 23:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I did. Bob is probably asleep by now. ħuman 02:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I didn't. I just tested the "email this user" and it works.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I have an old e-mail address for you, can you send me an e-mail: ttoulouse@gmail.com from whatever your most permanent e-mail is. tmtoulouse 06:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's OK. My spam filter thought you were spam. I'll reply now.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Great idea bob

the result. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're a better (other adjectives are also possible) man than me!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

World food shortage

I see you wrote the original article, basically sans references. I've found a decent ref for blaming the speculators, and it directly contradicts a lot of the assertions in the text. Do you have the refs you used? - David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it was mostly inspired by a New Scientist Article. I'll see what I can find later.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 04:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No I tell a lie, though some of the NS stuff from around that time time is also relevant. The main inspiration was this in the Guardian. But if the consensus on what is happening has now changed there would seem to be little point in referencing what was believed to be happening two years ago except to point out how consensus has changed. If you are interested the relevant NS articles are here, here, here and, I think, here. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 05:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Blighty

Bob, can you raise Blighty? Been: This webpage is not available. The webpage might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address. for hours. 19:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's down for me too. A good way to check is this place. I'm getting: "The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request."--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup! I was getting that (for the 1st doz tries) 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gerard

Why are you allowing Gerard to violate all of the sites rules? A year ago his kind wouldn't be tolerated. 86.40.96.239 (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

For fuck sake Bob. You really have become so spineless. Just because you are incapable of responding to my legitimate complaints reasonably, doesn't allow you the right to slander my good name in this fashion. 86.40.96.239 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this what its come to? What happened your principles? Your morals? Your ethical center? Your sense of being? I'm highly disappointed. 86.40.96.239 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:David Gerard does seem to be a bit more problematic than the "problem", IMHO. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Teflepedia

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.
You been havin' lots of activity? Or greedy ISP? Just askin'. 22:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of activity, both from spambots and from actual human traffic. I remember earlier this month it was getting beat up pretty bad by the spammers, and that managed to kill a lot of the bandwidth, which is unfortunate. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 22:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes spammers sucked the bandwidth out. Bastards keep checking the site out which seems to be the biggest problem. Then they dump spam and then we clean it up all up which uses more bandwidth. I was in hospital when things started to go wrong and wasn't able to do much to fix the situation when I got back so August's bandwidth disappeared. (Despite the heroic efforts of Goonie and TP.)

I could have paid a pile more cash to keep it on the air, but I'm still typing one-handed and I was reluctant to cough up as my thousands real visitors seem reluctant to put their hands in their pockets. It should be back up very shortly though. When I've got access again I'm going to have to do something more radical about restricting IP's I think.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 23:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, now it's back up I've disabled IP editing for the time being.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wondering if you could re-send the New Scientist article

I deleted it by mistake. Me so sorry.--Thomas Wright Sulcer (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. No problem.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It went to my spam folder by mistake and I deleted ten items without going through each one. Thanks for re-sending. Interesting article.--Thomas Wright Sulcer (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I thought so too. That's why it stuck in my mind. It speaks to a number of the issues raised in the debate too.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

An apology

I'm sorry about the Atheists say the darnedest things incident. I didn't mean to make the note so personal.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that note. It's most gracious of you.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning up after me on tBoLA. Much appreciated :) --PsyGremlinTal! 20:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. But I mostly just moved paragraphs about - others did the research and the text.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied ...

... on TP. 17:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Thanks.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to move?

I hear that you might be getting a Biblical theme park. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you mean this one? But, as usual, the UK got there first. I've been meaning to write about this place. It's even been given awards.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget this place. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know about that one. It's even worse.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at their visitors' book for February I'm wondering if Susan has visited it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that they are run by these guys. British based group claiming to be the oldest creationist movement in the world.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a sneaky suspicion that it was indeed the fair damsel who alerted us to the presence of this place. Remember her talking about their "Chinese calligraphy refers back to Genesis" exhibit. Lol, but I'm assuming you were referring to the entry for Feb? I'm amazed they actually published that. --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seemed familiar somehow. But I'm sure it was a coincidence. Still if they are publishing such comments I'm sure a few of our UK members could drop round. .-)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsig

Done as discussed a few weeks ago: MediaWiki:Unsigblacklist -- Nx / talk 17:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So IP users who refuse to sign their pages can be placed here and that will force them to sign? Cool.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What a game!

On the one day where my loyalties are split right down the middle, that was a great game of rugby today. too bad the ref was bloody useless again. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A painful place for a split.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

You have been nominated for the board of the RWF. Please go here to accept or not! ^{d hominem} 04:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I saw that. I'm giving the matter due consideration.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

nom nom nom nom

You hungry or something? :) Totnesmartin (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hungry? No. I just thought that you'd be a cool person to be on the "committee" or whatever.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

replied

... I am not sure if this is the correct way to respond to your message, but I will let you know that I will correct my mistake as soon as I can. At first I just wanted to get more material onto the page quickly, but I shall do it properly as best I can for now on. Have a happy new year.

Sincerely,

Feredir28

Canis lupus familiaris

Nice looking pooch. Resembles one of the dogs we had growing up -- could never place her breed, so I'd be curious to know. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Bob's dog

In theory she's a "working line" German Shepherd. Many breeds come in to different "show" and "working" lines. Show dogs have to conform to a breed standard in terms of their size shape colour etc and they are selected in order to conform as closely as possible to the breed standard. Working lines, on the other hand, are selected according to their ability to carry out the role for which they were intended and as a consequence show much greater variability in shape and colour. Such dogs are also sometimes called grey German shepherds here in Spain, they are considerably less robust and heavy than a traditional German shepherd but are also considerably more agile.

Having said all that she is the descendent of a dog brought from Czechoslovakia. One day while idly looking through pictures of Czechoslovakian dogs I came across pictures of Czechoslovakian wolfdogs some of which look almost identical to her. To confuse matters you can also find the Kunming Dog which looks identical to her.

Now, of course, everybody wants to imagine that their dog is part wolf - so I could be kidding myself here. But that's what I've got on the subject.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Owe grammar! What big ears your pricking up! (Looks like a worthy companion to these big eyes.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she does have a particularly fine pair of ears. When she was a pup they were relatively larger giving her a rather bat-like appearance.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

According to them pesky evolutionists dogs are all pretty much pure wolf.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Will you marry me or not then? How long do I have to wait?!

--Idiot number 59 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Get to the back of the queue.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions regarding your run for board member of the RationalWiki Foundation

Congratulations on your nomination to appear on the ballot for board member. I've created a section with questions for you. RationalWiki_talk:2010_board_of_trustees_election/Election_booth#Questions_for_the_candidates ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cretinism

Cheers for following up those creationism edits. Whenever I'm let loose in the mainspace you can guarantee there'll be a grammatical minefield in my wake. ^{d hominem} 17:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? I always thought that I was the king of the tyops.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Best Typo Ever: one of the textbooks that I use misspelled "phenology" as "phrenology". The author assures me it was an accident but knowing her sense of humor I have my doubts. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

E-mail

Could you please e-mail foundation@rationalwiki.org with the e-mail address you would like to use for communicating on RWF issues? Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hiya, mate. Listen, I've got a question: how can I make a template like those you have in your user page? Thing is, I want to make one template that says I am proud of being Spanish, but so far I can't find none. Thank you.--RationalSpanish ^{Sí, soy español, ¿y qué?} 11:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC+1)

Full instructions are here: RationalWiki:Userboxes. Good luck with it!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, man! Now there will be a template for all Spaniards to use!--RationalSpanish ^{Sí, soy español, ¿y qué?} 13:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC+1)

You're most welcome.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How does the mob deal with this?

Nutty Roux well altered another user’s sig, she complained and he’s being funny. I don’t know what to do. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellent use of Bob's time. I don't know what to do about this user's funniness either. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Crundy's a CHICK?! And I thought I knew that son of a bitch. SJ ^Debaser 19:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Crundy's not just any chick. He's the most beautiful woman in the world to me. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's`important then you (or the offended user) should go here. Thank you for using the Bob M personalized information service.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen this

Hi Bob. I recently discovered The Pod Delusion which I thought might interest you. Clickbot (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've heard it mentioned several times on other podcasts but I've never actually listened to it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

RWF

As a fellow member of the RW Foundation, you may want to chime in here. Thanks. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 23:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking at that, but I thought that it might be something to chew over at the next RW foundation meeting.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 23:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just thought I'd draw your attention to it. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 23:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Which needs to happen...anyone up for helping me make sure it does soon? Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So long as it happens after this coming Thursday, I can help organize a meeting. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 23:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you see what you started?

They're killing the place. Eviscerating it. J'accuse. P-Foster (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Doing what? ^{d hominem} 23:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing, really. Deleting a few lame articles. Almost deleting Mowses; nothing serious, really. I just felt like fucking with Bob. P-Foster (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the law of unintended consequences strikes again. No constructive suggestion goes unpunished. :-)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 02:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Tech question

How much is the hosting for TEFLpedia, and who is it with? Тy^Talk. 20:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to this on RWW.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed, thank you. I shall endeavorer to be more polite in the future. Thank you very much, Тy^Talk. 17:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Free will

Bob, further to your query in the bar, Adams' main point against free-will is that we are largely guided by the pleasure principle and preprogrammed to choose the most pleasurable outcome. I partially agree with this as I think it is generally true but occasionally we go against it. So that we do have free will but mostly don't use it, we go with our emotions. Yesterday on the Radio 4's Start The Week, Dan Eagleman a neuroscientist was talking about how the non-conscious brain does a lot more than we realise so that the notion of free-will is blurred and this has consequences for our judicial system. I've ordered his book (£10 on Amazon) to investigate more. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Genghis. Thanks for that, though I must admit that my question "Why did he believe that?" was meant as a bit of a joke. Because if he had no free will then he would simply be obliged to believe it by the forces of the universe and any other opinion on his part would be self-delusion.

However as you have responded so reasonably I feel obliged to do the same. :-)

In all seriousness I consider the question of free will along with associated questions about consciousness to be the most puzzling and interesting ones we face. Does it (or they) exist? Why? What are the evolutionary advantages? Is it just a story we tell ourselves? If they don't exist what are the legal implications? And so on and so forth. (I tend to get more than a little irritated by the pop-science one-line answers that are sometimes presented in respect to these questions given that they need entire books even to clarify.)

Please tell me if the first few chapters of the book seem interesting - if so I'll get a copy and we can compare notes. You might also be interested in this weeks' Guardian science podcast which talks about such questions and promotes Julian Bagginia's new book "The Ego Trick".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This book is a pretty good read on it. Interestingly, there seems to already be legal philosophy/discourse that doesn't rely on free will as an assumption. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Have you read it? I would have thought that the absence of free will would be an argument against any sort of punishment as one could not hold the person responsible for acts over which he arguably had no control. But I must confess that it's not an aspect of the question which I've spent much time considering.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's probably a bit more dry and academic than your average lay science book, but a good overview of the philosophical/psychological literature on the issue. The "no one will be responsible for their actions" argument comes off as mostly a red herring on the issue (much like "How can atheists have morals?"). We don't let crazy axe-murderers just run free even if we consider them insane (i.e., no free will). The point is finding an appropriate punishment and keeping society safe -- IOW, why would we stop protecting society when we know people will commit crimes? I think free will is the next "god question" for intellectuals, and it's fascinating but in a way less interesting the more I look at it, because I've generally moved toward a position of ignosticism on the issue, and I think the question of free will might just be superfluous and irrelevant to many issues where it seems central. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

enzyte

is not working for you, you're a pussy bob ^{— Unsigned, by: 184.82.108.22 / talk / contribs}

I am sure this is very profound but I'm afraid that I find the comment incomprehensible. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletions policy

I note that you have been nominated for the position of dictator of Rationalwiki. Before we cross that Rubicon your input is desired. [1] --Damo^Hi 10:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have? How odd. I must go there forthwith.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting like CP

93.xxx is not me. You all know my IP sock range at this stage. This is seriously getting like CP and how they used to see AmesG everywhere (Even if they were right half the time...) MarcusCicero (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you, old man.

I understand that you probably just don't care as much, or maybe don't even have the faculties you used to, but if you really don't give a fuck, shut your fucking mouth and do whatever it is men of your vintage do. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I guess old people just bitch and moan. I'll take my own advice and ignore you since you can't ignore me. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why I feel like having the whole Templeton Foundation against me?

Hi Bob, Why folks here are so angry when I write about errors in 1973 "Gravitation" by those 3 physics professors pushing their Big Bang hypothesis (now only two). Couldn't it be rationally discussed at least in RW?

BTW: I've seen that you live in Spain. I'm now temporarily in Poland coming here from the US to do my PhD in physics. I couldn't efford it in the US. My wife (who listens more to radio than I do) is afraid that Poland is going soon to turn fascist after the next elections. As it happened already in Hungary. So we want to move elsewhere and we are considering Spain as relatively safe from fascism (I hope). Do you have some advice for a pair of rather old non believers for whom in Poland is already not too cool and after fascist winning the election might be even less cool. JimJast (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest Jim I don't really understand your stuff so I've rather stayed out of it. However, in general our POV is that any given scientific consensus is correct - it may not be so in fact, but that's where we are coming from. Consequently trying to use this as a forum for overturning any given scientific consensus, be it water memory or gravitation, is not going to make you any friends.

To answer your question on Spain the far right here is quite weak. (The left pretends that the conservative party is the "far right" but they're really centre right.) The dictator General Franco is wildly remembered and generally detested. All the Spanish people I know have a very low opinion of politicians in general who are generally felt to be a corrupt class living off the population. Although Spain is nominally Catholic if you go to any church in the area where I live it's full of a lot of people with grey hair. It's an irrelevance for most people under 30. If you try to explain the concept of Young Earth Creationism they can't accept that anybody could believe it.

Having said that, Spain is a widely diverse country and I only really have personal experience of the Basque county - I'm told that the area South of Madrid is a tad more religious. But I can't see a fascist government here any time in the foreseeable future. But if you want any more opinions please ask.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bob, thanks for a quick reply. I'd like more opinions about many things so I'll write for sure later. Now it's afer midnight here so I'll write rather tomorrow. Thanks again. JimJast (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob, I'm back with more questions:

1. Why it is this nice orange pussy showing her face from the attic practically every time I start typing something for RW (when I want to log in). Couldn't it be made automagically that I get logged whenever I go to RW (having already an account there)?
2. Why my time of logging expires after a while, usually before I manage to sign my piece and then I have to log again only to confirm that it is me. Couldn't it automagically extend my time whenever I keep typing?
3. Why we still have those "edit confrlicts" while I'd seen you didn't like them already in 2007?
4. Why editing is not made by typing over the old text like in any decent editor but it needs two windows, one for typing the other for reading what was typed?
5. Why it is so bad to create articles in the main space? One Thunderkatz sent mie this message yesterday:

"JJ, you've been warned multiple times before about promoting your theory in mainspace. If you persist, you will be declared a vandal. We've been generous enough in letting you spew shit in Essay space, don't abuse that good will by running into mainspace. This is your final warning. ThunderkatzHo! 18:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)"

And I've been only describing "Cosmological principle" (together with perfect cosmological principle), not promoting my theory which I don't have, I'm desribing Einstein's theory which Thunderkatz didn't notice for some reason (possibly since he never heard about it, not to mention understanding it).

I thought that RW wants more articles in the main spece, because how otherwise it is able to compete with WP? So if Thunderkatz is not working for WP his behavior is strange. These are my questions for now and you may answer them whenever you have time since I'm rather patient fellow. For the time being I suspend my "lessons on gravitation" if they agitate folks in RW so much and wait for your clarification. JimJast (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim.

1+2When you log in and enter your details you should see a box below which says something like "remember my log in details". Click this when you log in. The system will then log you in automatically.

3. Edit conflicts are part of the media-wiki software. I can't fix them or excuse them. There is a sort of work-around called "liquid threads" but they come with their own set of problems. For my part, if I post a complex answer I copy it before pushing "Save page" so that it's easy to re-post if there is an edit conflict.

4. That is a consequence of the media-wiki software. Wikipedia has the same system. If they have to put up with it you can imagine that it's not easy for us to fix.

5. You misunderstand our purpose. We have neither the intention nor the wish to compete with WP. You should read this and more especially this. Our main goal in the world is the removal of pseudoscience - our goal is not the production of a scientific work.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob, I used your pieces of advice and they work so the pussy got tamed. Thanks. But you said "Our main goal in the world is the removal of pseudoscience - our goal is not the production of a scientific work."

However, if science becomes pseudo science (as it happens a lot in WP) then what you do? Wait until it becomes rational again? First of all how you can tell not being a scientist yourself? Anybody may cheat you. As I believe is the case with cosmology that the creationists used as the back door to get themselves into science. As you may know humans can be irrational for centuries since it is controlled not only by their reason but also by their self interest. A need to survive is often stronger than the need to be right.

Now, IMHO, science is coming through the phase when those with power and money (rich creationists, see Templeton Foundation) dictate the rest in need of money. So the professors, despite that they know it is BS, teach physics students that perperual motion machines are possible and the students believe and propagate this BS to their students. Science gets slowy forgotten and needs to be rediscovered. The age of reason gets repaced by the age of faith, which creationists consider an improvement.

In my university physics PhDs seriously believe that energy can be created from nothing and only a method has to be found. When asked they bring their professors as witnesses who tell that it was discovered by Einstein, but it's too complex to explain it to a laypaeron (that why Einstein said that in physics there is nothing so complex that can't be explained to your granny).

Do you believe that now perpetual motion is possible because of Einstein's theory? Or you rather prefer me to show you why it ain't possible? Or at list not in the way as the Big Bang seems to make them possible. And so why it all is creationist BS. Why Feynman rant was justified. JimJast (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We describe pseudoscience on the wiki. If something hits most of the points then that is what it is. It is no the same as "wrong". We are not in a position to decide if science is "wrong" and it's not really what we are here for.

I have personally argued here (without much success) that we should not refer to real science at all on the wiki as (a) it is outside of our (self-imposed) remit; (b) we, as a community, lack the skills to evaluate it and (c) it can make us a target for people who want to use us as a vehicle for their "surprising" new insights.

Pseudoscience (as we describe it) is, on the other hand, relatively easy for even a layman to spot and debunk. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Evolution of social systems towards an ideal (if it exists)

Hi Bob. Now I have a feeling that I shouldn't complain about perscution by the Templeton Foundation but rather help you to solve the problems at hand. That's why I added a new section.

First thing is to note that ideal might not exist but being close enough might siffice. RW is already much better than WP. RW allows dessention whle WP is like "American dmocracy" (everybody jumping in joy from application of justice without due process) which might be good for Amricans at present level of their evolution but not good enough for Europeans considering themselves being at slightly higer level of evolution, so far even without death penelty (not mentionig even the due process).

RW is more like European democracies (where similar event, as the recent demonstaration of American justice, might run a different course). RW allowed even JJ, a suspected troll, to publish his pseudo sientific "shit" as an essay, despite its obvious contradiction of emerging new science) which even Feynman was against, and so this emerging new science got to the public. Now is the time to decide which science is "true": traditional conservation of energy or the newly discovered possibility of creation of energy through mathematical manipulations. Obviously the latter is the way prefered by the mob. Now we need to test the superiority of mobocracy over the old fashioned democracy. Surprisingly enough JJ supports mobocracy any time. Why? (since some "old fashioned democracies" are difficult to distiguish from the old fashioned fascism?) JimJast (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

EC.Hi Jim. I'm not sure that the "problems at hand" you note are really "problems at hand" at this wiki. While I wouldn't doubt that we do have the odd issue I don't think they are mainly associated with "conservation of energy", though under some circumstances a bit of "conservation of patience" does not come amiss.

ECWith regard to the rest, it is really not our function to choose between "emerging new sciences" or whatever. Here is a link to our full description.

ECWhile I understand that you feel that you have some great new truth to reveal to the world, this is really not the place to proclaim it. It may be that there is some wiki-community somewhere on the net which would welcome your contributions in the heart of their information - but I'm afraid it's out of place here.

ECI am honestly sorry about this because I'm sure that you really are trying to help us out. Unfortunately you've come knocking at the wrong door.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Bob, let's split your response into parts for easier discussion:

1. We describe pseudoscience on the wiki. If something hits most of the points then that is what it is. It is no the same as "wrong". We are not in a position to decide if science is "wrong" and it's not really what we are here for.

The downside to this approach is that a patient customer, who plans his actions for centuries, like the Templeton Foundation or Opus Dei might, since they count on their rewards after their present life, may finally introduce creationism also into "real" science as it already happend in the "real" cosmology, who is by many (not Feynman though) cosidered "real" and students do their PhDs in it, even JJ, the suspected troll or an alien, (though a legal alien) and that's why he knows it so well. Is this fact clear enough or it needs an elaboration?

What to do about it (WTDAI): we have to get into the position of attracting also people who know something (unlike WP which has an opinion among "real" scientists of "idiots' encyclopedia" since it targets average guy and gal with IQ 100 (which it of course shoud, but we don't need to). Eg. In WP I was voted 9:1 as being wrong about "gravitational attraction" which WP consensus of 10 considered real and little JJ wanted to explain them why it only looks like real. Two in this consensus that declared to remove my explanation as breaking NPOV rule were physicists who hoped that "quantum gravity" is going to explain the attraction as well; I hope that unlike "quantum gravitation aficionados" you understand there is no "gravitational attraction" in the real world).

2. I have personally argued here (without much success) that we should not refer to real science at all on the wiki as ...

As you may imagin I'm of opposite opinion. We should differentiate between real science and just science which has its variation called "magic" (works like science but for a different reasons than proposed) (I've written about it elsewhere, just can't recall the link, if it is linkable at all, but I can make it linkable next weekend). Writing in RW is useless since some "dark force" is against anything written by JJ, the troll, as it (the "force") removed by consesnus of 1, against 1 opposing (not even me) my description of Cosmological pronciple despite it was almost exactly as WP's but enriched by the desription of Perfect cosmological principle that in WP has a separate entry, only slightly different than mine.

(a) it is outside of our (self-imposed) remit;

But you shouldn't impose limits on your knowledge ...

(b) we, as a community, lack the skills to evaluate it and ...

... especially when it comes to your whole community.

(c) it can make us a target for people who want to use us as a vehicle for their "surprising" new insights.

That's of course right and the result of mobocracy but why I don't worry about this one? (you answered yourself in the next item (3)

3. Pseudoscience (as we describe it) is, on the other hand, relatively easy for even a layman to spot and debunk.

Though pseudoscience propagated by Opus Dei and Templeton Foudation is much more difficult to spot and debunk even for a physics professors and that's why we need all the help we can get. You might be aware of the fact that Templeton Foundation gave a gift of $1,600,000 (which is more than Nobel Prize) to a professor, mathematician, physicists, astronomer, and a Catholic priest, whom I happen to know not only personally but from his books. which BTW I like. The gift was just for his work in science (not in religion), without any specifics mantioned, for easing the relation between science and religion, as I understood. JimJast (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Taking your responses one by one:

1. I have nothing to add to my first statement.

2. These are profound questions about the ojectives of the wiki. My userpage is not the best place for such a debate. In any event we disagree.

3. OK, so some pseudosciences might be easier to spot than others. When we have removed all the easy stuff from the web we can start to look at the more complicated stuff. It may be awhile before we get round to it though. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What's going on?

Bob, Did I speak amiss?

Read your message: "ECWhile I understand that you feel that you have some great new truth to reveal to the world" Where did you get this from? I thought that you have such a new great truth called the "Big Bang" (which in the outside world is dead for over 12 years by now) and you still are pushing this dead hypothesis, calling it a theory (look up the diffs), which starts smelling already. And what's this "EC" you start each line with?

N.B.: I'm on your page only since I thought you are the samartest memmber of this community here to whom I could talk about its noticeable problems. To see what they are read the first line of your four line specification of purposes (then think of your possibilities while fighting guys from The Templeton Foundation whith all those phisics professors they may buy). JimJast (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim. I had an edit conflict when you put the big post on my page "EC" shows that I was edit conflicted and tells people that the text might be out of order.

As for the rest, as I said before, you are in the wrong place. I'm sorry but I'm not going to bite. If you are ever up my part of the world drop in and I'll buy you a drink - but you're not going to draw me into debate over this on-wiki.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OK Bob, I'm bailing out. I hope you remember how to handle edit conflicts since you taught me it yourslf. For what I'm grateful. I hope I'll drop in to your place when I'm in Spain. Hasta la vista, amigo. JimJast (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Hope you make things work out. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

HELP - hcm

Everyone is using the term HCM and i'm too stupid to figure it out. whatizmean?--En attendant Godot 15:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Headless Chicken Mode. Where we run around aimlessly. :-)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

OH. Well no wonder I didn't notice. That defines my entire life and natural state of existance. ;-) thanks. --En attendant Godot 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)--En attendant Godot 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Did I mention that it was good to see you back?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Got a bee in my bonnett to say "oh go shove it up your collective butts, you Right Wing fanatics" on many things. this seemed to be the more healthy approach to resolving that, than say showing up at a Tea Party rally with koolaid. Though the thought does re-cross my mind from time to time.--En attendant Godot 17:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably safer here too.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome!

Exactly what it says on the tin. Glad to be here. I've been reading for a while but the latest thing kinda got me involved. --Sasayaki (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Hope you get some action form your atheist questions. :-) cheers.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jesus article

sorry if i get pushy. this article has bothered me from the beginning cause it is very biased and not at all what i consider "rational". I tried at first to make small changes, but they were reversed... i dont' konw if i should care or not. or just move on and edit someone's article on the Sand Flea. It is wrong of me to pull out my "i've a phd and you don't" cause this is just a wiki, and that is an appeal to authority that is bullshit in any circumstances, especially this one. sighs... again, sorry.--En attendant Godot 18:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. But you seemed to be suggesting that all historical claims were "true" unless there was evidence they were "false". No doubt I misunderstood.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, in that you were quite right. my wording was awful. I guess for me it has to do with how much doubt people cast on things, and why. Historians generally do not, at least in my experience with Native American and New Testament writings, say "I will doubt this person is real until or unless i find corroborating evidence". They tend to say "if there is no reason for it to be a lie, i'll stick it in the 'facts not yet verrified' column. Here, the tend is to doubt first, and look for confirmation. eh, i'm frustrated and should just get out. :-) thanks for letting me rant--En attendant Godot 19:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm. I guess that scientific and historical methodologies are different. Obviously in science doubt comes first and our whole outlook is governed by the scientific method. On the other hand I always remember our other long-lost historian User:AKjeldsen complaining that this was not the way to do history.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I suggest treating history in a halfway scientific manner, I get broadsides heaved at me by our resident historians. I think the currently fashionable modus operandi in history is to pull conjectures from where the sun don't shine and then try to get the facts to fit them. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a reason for that. Until very recently (last 500 years) most people were illiterate, most history was passed down orally, except the kind of royal history that is only a very small part of the montage, and usually involves lots of self-aggrandizement. 2000 years ago, 4000 years ago what we have are scant notes here and there of either the single most monumental events, or completely "irrelevant" stuff like "see you for dinner at 8" or "jospehus was here" or "Tom owes me 13 hens". You have to take history with a huge grain of salt and spoon of sugar, and you have to say "what do we know, from our lives today that are well documented, that might give us glimpses into the "truth" from these tidbits. Oral legend, oral history are both seen as truth by the speaker, so you parse from there. And unlike science, opinion, bias and perspective alter truth. "the score was 7 to 3, but did the Broncos play like shit and lose the game, or did the Ravens play stunning and win the game - or something in between". there never will be an objective truth about history. best you can do is have lots of fights, and hopefully the best answers will surface, rather than just the "meanest" or "most determined" will out play the others. I've been in a literal 15 year fight about the myths in Lakota society since most academics rely on one text, written by a "white dude", informed by George Sword, a traitor to his people. The myths in that book do not match anything in the collections by other white dudes. And the one source i had, to base my primary dissertation on, except for the quotes in my actual paper, burned up in a fire in Deloria's house. I won't win, cause i'm not as popular as a 1920's writer. :-) it's history, man. almost as "scientific" as teh study of religion. ;-)--En attendant Godot 20:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it's not a field on which I am really competent to comment. Perhaps we need an "historical method" article to complement our scientific method one. On the other hand, if there are multiple "historic methods", then this would sorta suggest that perhaps there's a bit of a problem.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That was what the other historians said to me also. My reply was that scanty data does not justify completely wild conjectures or twisting or denying facts to suit theories, as is often done. As to the Lakota mythography, there is a somewhat similar tiff among the Odinists; a racist contingent announced, right out of the blue, that Snorri Sturluson was a Christian traitor who had no other motive in writing the Prose Edda but to defame the Norse pantheon. Having thus neatly jettisoned by ad hominem most of what is known of Norse mythology, they came forth with a reinterpretation of some Hindu scriptures mixed with a hearty dose of "Dravidian adulteration" dreck.

There are indeed multiple historical schools-of-thought with different methodologies. Some are peopled almost exclusively with shysters; others not. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Got to say that it sounds a bit like economics.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Of interest?

[2] Pippa (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The "Pope visits Madrid" story is quite big here obviously. (Not not as big a story as the economic situation though). The Pope's visit (and for that matter the economic situation) is also mixed up with the "indignados" (the indignant) movement AKA the 11 of May movement which I keep meaning to get an article on as I think they are going to be important. They object to the money being spent on the visit while public services are being cut.

But it's August, the sun is shining, there are mountains all around me, I'm on holidays .... I lack the dedication to spend too much time on site tapping at the keyboard. But thanks for thinking of me.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

the proto-prophet

I'm considering dropping a rock on the proto-prophet. His revelations have been dull and somewhat inaccurate of late, and I think Maratrea will need to new protoprophet. Any suggestions? Taba (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Taba. Good of you to fly by. Interesting point about a prophet and revelations actually. One certainly would expect a prophet to prophesy something. Needs looking into.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

email

Bob, ordinarily I prefer to keep my RW involvement limited to the open wiki, but you may use SJCogs@LIVE.com if you wish. best, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Pob lwc Cymru!

From one valley boy to another, a little something to get the blood pumping before tomorrow's game. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Cymru am byth.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

For future use.

I whipped up a few two templates for use when writting about, uhm, "foreign stuff". One for quotes and one for references. --★uːʤɱ pirate 19:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Great idea. But ... how does one use them?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As you are here for four years I'm going to believe you know how templates work and believe the above question as a snarky comment on the templates not having documentation. They are illegal immigrants, they have no documentation. No, actually I'm just lazy. --★uːʤɱ kant 20:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Circumcision

I respect what you are saying, but the way. I just think this is more "woo" than it is science. I've read teh studies, and they aren't nearly as good as they are purported to be. I don't really want to address it on the FGM page, but I'll write up an "essay like" page with France's counter arguments, as well as the counters from the american Pediatrics Association, and let you look. If you think there is any merit, I'd like to include a comment or two on the male circumcision page. But if you say "this is all and fine but it's just heresay" after seeing the French arguments, I'll take it out. But I do think you'll be surprised at how political this has become in the UN and the WHO, and who sponsored those studies, and what those studies actually say, and what they DON'T say, and why no one in the West can seem to duplicate the results with western dudes. anyhow, just saying I get your points...GodotThe Peyote God awaits 16:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

PZ Myers had something to say about the WHO studies awhile back. Freemasonry (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty much what the articles I've read have been saying for a long time. 1) how can you have a true "trial" study. it woudl be fully unethical. would you take 10 men, circimuse half of them, then tell them to fuck the same woman who has aids, in the same manner, for the same length of time - and see who gets aids? 2) how is it possible to address a correlation study as a "fact" when doctors the world over can't agree on why it *might* be a reality. what about a circumcised penis would give an advantage? they "make things up", but no two reports of "why" seem to share the reasons. And the reasons themselves have been strongly criticized as rather "pulled out of their ass". 3) how come these studies have not been duplicated with western men, or gay men. 4) even **if** it were true, the effect doesn't make it worth advocating. I have boobs, and they can get cancer. If you cut off my boobs at 13, i'd NEVER GET CANCER EVER in the boobs. That doesn't seem like a policy the world should be supporting. But we'll support cutting off part of your willy on very shoddy evidence. It's been a WHO policy that has long bothered me. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing - circumcision might "help prevent aids" what ever that means. Condoms DO prevent aids. No surgery necessary.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 17:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There are ways around doing things like that. Case-control studies would allow you to do it. The trick is correcting for all the errors and the biases. The general rule of thumb would be that the fewer things you have intentional control over from the start, the bigger the statistical headache at the end to get a meaningful result. An RCT would be straightforward, but studying cases of HIV and checking for circumcision rates would be prone to a lot of (although not insurmountable) confounding variables from background prevalence to lifestyle correlations. There are statistical tests that are there to make sense of this, the trick is to do them right. ^{...I'll feel your rabbit!} 18:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that I've got anything to add to what I said on the [talk page in qeustion]. I'm not sure why the discussion shouldn't continue there.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Review

There's been yet another problem on Iron Chariots, what was published in an earlier version of Jehovah's Witness (Way of the Master) doesn't match what's in the most relevant video, see a later revision. I don't know if Comfort changed his video alternatively made more than one video or if there is a different explanation. Still I fear a great deal of what Feredir wrote here and at Iron Chariots may need to be checked for accuracy, always there's more work to do than we have time for. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

To be completely honest I'm not convinced that transcribing youtube videos is really that useful. OK, it may be of interest to some people but if anybody wants to review his antics they can simply look at the video.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hi Bob. I just emailed you regarding official board business relating to the upcoming election. 21:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I have responded!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadly my mail come back to me saying:

• We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (xxxxxxx (redacted)) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group. A few more details on why you weren't able to post: .....

Such is my life.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Got your email to my regular account. I have no idea what's up with that list. It works for me. My response to you came through immediately. 22:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Odd. Yes, I see that you responded. ah well.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Board nomination

Hello, I have nominated you for this year's Board of Trustees election. Please accept or decline here. Blue (pester) 06:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind of you.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Rugby vs. Football.

I'll reply here as it is quieter without Rob's idiocy. It all started with Rob trolling me about NZ being third world and about how American Football is more evolved than Rugby Union and that Football players are way tougher. When Rob was hands down shown the NZ beats the US in nearly every metric from health to literacy Riob started talking about how US football is better because of the ad revenue it generates. Now it is about advertising dictating the value of a sport and about how fucking great the US is.....or something like that. it is hard to follow. Ace^Moderator 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Kinda sounds like an argument down the pub where everybody has has forgotten the point they first wanted to make but remains determined to show that they were right about something. Time to change bars or watch the telly really.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Or go home, make something to eat and explain to your wife how you came home early because everyone got drunk and started banging on about bullshit but you couldn't be bothered because you gotta get up and go to work in the morning. Ace^Moderator 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Free will wars

Blogospheric dust-ups over free will. Punch "free will" into the search for loads more posts. It's a pretty good quick-and-dirty overview of the arguments. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that I'll dig into it when I have a moment. I always find Massimo Pigliucci's ideas to be very persuasive and I usually listen to his podcast. I've really got to read "Nonsense on Stilts" sometime too.

I used to be very into the "free will" debate and it's associated "What is consciousness and what's it for?" question, but I've sort of lost contact with the main threads recently. Thanks for re-stimulating my interest.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael Gazzaniga was on BSP recently talking about neuroscience and free will. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, Nebby, that was edit 1M. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Neb, I'm getting the podcast. I's also an honour to have the millionth edit on my talkpage.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 11:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I seem to find things on free will whenever you're around. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

JimJast

Actually, my optics prof mentioned JimJast a few weeks ago as "some polish crank who keeps emailing us about his cosmology" Тy^Yarrr 21:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? I'm not surprised that he's still banging his drum somewhere. He was nothing if not persistent.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If we collided Abd and Jimjast, would they cancel each other out? Sophie^{because liberals} 22:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like we're the centre of an internet help-group for these people. ^sshole 22:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Let us not forget User:Maratrean. Do they take it in turns or what?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Bob

Thank you for telling me, i will post at the bottom in the future. B.voorne (talk) No probs. :-) --Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 19:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I would post this to the Saloon bar, but phone editing is hard.

Removing it woild lose the conversations currently using it. Also it might interfer with my 1 in a pentillion chance that I make a phone app. Pi 3:14 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Two undoubtedly cogent reasons. But wouldn't it be possible to switch it off while preserving the history? I have no idea - just asking.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 19:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)