User talk:Eira/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

red links[edit]

Please, if you add a red link, be prepared to write at least a decent stub on the subject? (reffing, god hates shrimp) humanUser talk:Human 01:19, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Certainly, most of the subjects are pretty well known and require little of a stub to present what they are talking about, however "God Hates Shrimp" is quite a bit vague unless you already know about the website. I put in a stub :) --Eira yay! 02:48, 15 December 2007 (EST)

template "more"[edit]

Awesome idea. fits perfectly with our POV/snark/assertion mode of writing! humanUser talk:Human 01:52, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I know... I was totally "jonesing" for a way to tell someone "GodMan, I love this, give me more!" --Eira yay! 01:55, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Too nice to let them delete it[edit]

Does Conservapedia qualify as a hate group?

Some might argue that, like Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK, Conservapedia's bias is akin to the rhetoric from those groups and others. After having completed several interviews (with spokespersons for those groups and others) there seems to be a concern among academics that what CP really does is not educate. Rather, it fosters a kind of supremacy not unlike that of racially motivated hate groups. I don't know that this is true, but I would very much enjoy hearing from people on this site. Please respond here, or at my email address Thanks and have a great day! ItMathers 14:02, 21 December 2007 (EST)

This might have actually worked if it were in the Debate namespace.... no, probably not...
Oh yeah, just so I remember in the future, I did attempt to respond to this guy. It's hard to really consider CP a "hate group", as they do not have any action that is representative for their group. Harboring hate, and thinking hate towards someone is a fundamental right to privacy, and expressing such a view point is a fundamental right to free speech. What hate groups do, is that they step beyond these bounds, or bounds that a reasonable person would consider enforced by social mores. Westboro has actively picketted funerals to make the statement "God is killing our soldiers in Iraq, because they are American, and Americans are supporting homosexuality."
Fostering a bias into children is naturally considered a very poor choice to "enlightened" societies. However, CP relies on parts of the truth. Yes, in many ways, our schools are indoctrinating our children. Girls are actively discouraged from scientific and mathematical fields, boys are discouraged from literary and artistic fields. Our schools indoctrinate Americanism in to our children. Through them, these children experience an event in their life that has great influence upon the mold that our children eventually set themselves with. Isolationism; all rights are protected by means of violence; Protestant Christian sculpts our society's norms; America is the best. All these ideas are indoctrinated into our children, however CP would likely not complain about these. I better stop now before I end up ranting, or essaying... --Eira yay! The Goat be praised. 12:58, 9 January 2008 (EST)


Just curious... did you ever edit Conservapedia under a different user name? You remind me of a certain cat-loving editor over... there. --Ζωροάστρης 18:48, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Hm... well, while still being a very avid cat-lover :) (I love my kitties!) I actually have never made a sockpuppet over there. I didn't really see a point so long as my main account was still available. I also have a fairly distinctive style, and in particular a specific argumentative process. I think I'd get spotted fairly quickly. :( --Eira yay! 10:21, 31 December 2007 (EST)

"essays" (rants)[edit]

You might want to put them in your "user" space, or, if you think they are "ready for prime time", put them in "essay". Because your talk page is community property, etc. Ask me what I mean if you don't understand, at my talk page. humanUser talk:Human 02:38, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I think that I may need to read "islands" a few more times. But, as Human says, you might wish to consider the essay space for some of your stuff as that should invite more comments. :-) (Hail the goat!)--Bobbing up 04:44, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, I have been thinking about that. At least about putting them in my userspace with simply links to them on this page. I suppose I have something to do now besides correcting arguments that are in slight err, or developing bullet proof logical arguments myself. You know, at least for philosophy, science, and logic pedantism is a really good thing. However, of course, not so much for light reading... I am very verbose. --Eira yay! The Goat be praised. 12:33, 9 January 2008 (EST)

This discussion may be continued at Essay Talk:of Islands. --Eira yay! The Goat be praised. 13:20, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Nice to see your stuff. Always good to have new thoughts and ideas to stimulate us old timers. :-) --Bobbing up 13:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)
By the way you are not verbose. Check out User talk:Teratornis if you want to see verbose. :-) --Bobbing up 13:35, 9 January 2008 (EST)
You are mistaken my friend. I'm often unnecessarily verbose. Maybe not to the degree of some others, however I do seem to be unable give a comment without a full rationalized statement of all necessary details. --Eira yay! The Goat be praised. 13:53, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Certainly, I'm very glad that there is at least one person interested in what I'm up to. :) --Eira yay! The Goat be praised. 13:53, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Thank the Goat, the Goat be praised, I was certainly concerned that I may have left an essay on the What's happen on Conservapedia talk page. Fortunately, I do not seem to have done that. :) --Eira yay! The Goat be praised. 14:10, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Actually, while on the subject of essays, there is a convention of which you should be aware. Essay pages should only be edited by the original author. Comments or suggestions about them should go on the talk page. Anyone may respond to those comments there, and the original author may decide to incorporate the comments back into the original article. Cheers. :-) --Bobbing up 13:57, 9 January 2008 (EST)

That's precisely what I was expecting the difference to be. That's why I put issues that I consider, but do not make any definitive stance on as a Debate page, especially if I feel that I was wanting community feedback upon it. While those texts where I make an assertive point to be challenged, and discussed but not debated were made into Essay pages. --Eira yay! The Goat be praised. 14:03, 9 January 2008 (EST)
I mention it because you made some edits to PalMS Essay:The hidden costs of the polio vaccine. :-) --Bobbing up 14:10, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Jonathan Swift[edit]

This is a satirical blog which has poked fun at Conservapedia. His user page at CP makes him look like he's a fully paid up member of the Andy Schlafly when he patently isn't. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 14:37, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Too bad he gave it away with the first talk page edit though, eh? Wasn't really much point, then. Ah well, it's not the end of the world for him (there). UchihaKATON! 14:43, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Ah... now it makes sense! Lotsa thanks! :) --Eira yay! The Goat be praised. 15:09, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Not to give you grief[edit]

But this diff is a bit on the verbose side. Traditionally, WIGO entries are one or two lines explaining why the link is there, the editorializings are kept to a minimum and saved for WIGO-talk. Again, it's no big deal but WIGO is supposed to be a, "hey, look at this". I think you're doing a fine job here. CЯacke® 00:37, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, I was worried about that myself as well. :( I try to make them really short, but ... sometimes my verbosity gets the better of me :( --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 02:25, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Verbosity: well, you admit to it, so it can't be critisized ;) (like how I spelled "critisized"). But, if you like, having edited a few things you added to the site (and myself for years), I think I might be able to offer a few tips - if you are not offended at my suggestion, and don't mind constructive writing criticism from some wikitroll. They're pretty simple, if you are curious, but I ain't gonna hammer on you out of the blue for your self-admitted verbosity. Just say "yeah, ok" and I'll throw out my comments. Otherwise, I will remain clammed up on the issue. humanUser talk:Human 19:31, 14 January 2008 (EST)
While I imagine that any tips you can give me would be helpful, and I would like to hear them, as well, since RW is a mobocracy, then by adding too much information, then someone can come and trim it down, so that I can build some back up where too much was removed so it became inaccurate, and we go back and forth to develop an ideal way of stating something pedantically correct, but also concise and to the point. I'd be happy for anyone to give me pointers, or help me out with constraining my information.
I'd like to think of it like a sculptor... Some are sculptors, they vigorously work to ensure that the a wonderful piece of art has been made from the raw sources. Well, then there are people like me, who are the quarriers. We plop down raw fact in a function over form manner. That then gives the sculptor much more stuff to work with. :) While, I know, some people can easily do both, unfortunately, I may not always be the best person to do that... especially on a first pass. Summary: I'd love to hear your feedback, but also I intend to sink this site with heavy density facts! --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:07, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Shakin' Babbies[edit]

Wow - that post really got to you, eh? As much as that sucks, I'm glad that there are other people who care enough to get that angry. Take Care...PFoster 00:09, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Thanks, although I was also way too emotionally on edge when I read it. But that still doesn't change my opinion of that articel. :( --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

You're back![edit]

Hallelujah! I thought you'd died a wiki-death! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 11:52, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

No, I just had a lot of crappy stuff happen in my life, and it's taken me quite awhile to get back to "regular life". hehe. I did miss RW a lot while I was away... intelligent people here, who are willing to listen to "original research" lol. :) --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 11:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)


A couple of things - 1. It's bad form to edit someone else's talk page. Don't do it. 2. part of the joke was to bring out the fact that the "gentlemen at another website" aren't all men, no matter what Ken says, as I've pointed out many times here. 3. I have a theory about the word "guys" and gender: in the singular, it's gendered male ("He's a nice guy.") in the plural, it's ungendered. Don't believe me? Every day I'll hear a woman address a group of females with something like "are you guys coming to the movie tonight?" or something similar. 4. Stay off my user page; that's what talk pages are for. I can't stress that enough...PFoster 20:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

AKjeldsen did the same thing on valentine's day by vandalizing my page to simply "Happy Valentine's Day". It's a joke, I know how girls use the term "guys", I'm one of them, and I use it a lot. God, when did RW forget that it's supposed to be Snarky? --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:07, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
When you are trying to be some sort of revolutionary language police, language edits like that will tend to be hard to see as truly humorous. I take it the whole discussion above is mere amusing pedantry, right? humanUser talk:Human 21:18, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Actually, it was a metaphor for the Crimean War.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 21:20, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Of course! Damn whiskers... humanUser talk:Human 21:27, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
See my page: "Self-inconsistency is not damning, it's an inseparable part of humans." --21:30, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
So would that make RW as such a metaphor for the entire 19th century? Quite apt. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 21:26, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Good God! This peaceful rhetorical orchard is actually a minefield! I retreat!— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 21:29, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
"Theirs is not to make reply, theirs is not to question why..." --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 21:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I'm already running away. Stop pelting me with loganberries.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 21:32, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
*starts throwing raspberries* --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:33, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

About "omtg"[edit]

Why? NightFlareSpeak, mortal 22:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, interested people demand to know. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:29, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Isn't it "Oh My The Goat"? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Sock of BluesPotion, et al 00:41, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
No, it's "Oh, my—the Goat!" Get your punctuation right, silly. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:46, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
It can't be. It's supposed to be a variation on "Oh my god", so it follows the same pattern. :P <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Sock of BluesPotion, et al 00:49, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Jellyfish is right. except it's for "Oh my the Goat." Capitalization being the only difference. And it's not a variation, it's the ORIGINATION of the alleged phrase "oh my God". BTW, I chose it simply because I'm silly like that and I constantly go "OMG!" on teh intertubes. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 01:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh My Thucking God? That makes no sense. Only My Thinking Goat? Perhaps. But this is LLAMA LADY, folks. Any worship she pretends to pay tot eh goat is superficial at best, and designed to keep her non-existent soul attached to her not-putrefying-yet body as long as possible. At least until the New Enlightenment. humanUser talk:Human 01:56, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Hey, we've been over this, The Goat (the Goat be praised) is the one true Goat, and the Lama came here to tell us more about what the Goat (the Goat be praised) wants us to do. Just because you don't get this isn't the LLama's fault. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 01:58, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

Chemical notation[edit]

Just so you know, the notation on cold fusion was correct -- the superscript number is the isotope number of the atom, and has nothing to do with the structure of an H2 molecule. If I may make it a bit clearer, when doing gas chromatography separation of uranium isotopes, you want to separate the U235F6 from the U238F6, then get rid of the six fluorine atoms attached to the U235 before processing into fuel rods. EVDebs 01:56, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

Damn, my bad... I thought it was <sub> not <sup> --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 04:26, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

The Great Debate[edit]

All that and we didn't even get an RWW article :( New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 21:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

*shrug* I'm not in this for the glory, or comment, or attention. I'm just trying to teach people that believing in schizophrenic delusions just doesn't cut it in this modern society. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 23:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
And in return, I shall teach you about spelling :P New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 23:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd very much enjoy you teaching my spelling. Please, proceed, wise teacher... --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 23:45, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Lesson one... New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 23:48, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Surely, one so brilliant as Eira does not need lessons in spelling? I mean, given how wordy she is, she's bound to make more than the average nubmer of mistakes. : ) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:56, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Make us an RWW article, damn it! Zoff.gif New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 23:58, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Apologies; I have temporarily lost interest in RWW. Upon regaining interest in a month or two, perhaps I shall write one. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" (cover your eyes!) 00:04, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
But you loved RWW! It was like your newborn baby, all glistening and time-consuming and depressingly unresponsive and... Wait, what were we talking about again? New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 00:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
I believe we were talking about your mother. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
No, no. You were rhapsodising about L, and I was listening patiently. Yes, that's it. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 01:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm tired of this charade: Chaos, I've never actually watched Death Note. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:35, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
That was a pretty poor charade, you know. It's not like you ever said you had. Silly afikoman ^_^ New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 01:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
I believe you missed the wonderful "yo mamma" joke I made a few comments up. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, it was far too subtle. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 02:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, in short, I called your mother time-consuming and depressingly unresponsive. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:04, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
But you didn't here it from me. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:04, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
It was covered in blood, poop, and other grotesque slimy liquids. What? Hi Eira! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Libertarian Socialism[edit]

Thank you for the help in clarifying how libertarian socialism differs from other forms of socialism. I really appreciate it. dreaming 10:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Welcome back[edit]

Nice to see you around! Semester over? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
How have things been going? I've been wasting time elsewhere, and forgetting to check in... --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 02:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This site is growing rapidly! Actually, we are chugging along fairly well. New users keep arriving, good ideas keep being thought of, friendships form and deepen... all the good stuff. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Is in your neck o' the woods. Just sayin'. 07:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Now, those links looked OK in preview - still does, but don't collapse properly on save - why? SusanG Toast 07:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
To answer the question more specifically, if someone doesn't close out a bracket further up on the page any link after that will "break". It works in previews since its only previewing the section, but the whole page save includes the broken link. To find it just scroll up till you see the last working link, and the one after that is the culprit. tmtoulouse 07:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I stuck an extra "]" in -works sofar. 07:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I closed the broken link all ready. tmtoulouse 07:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well done: I couldn't find it. 07:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Auburn is actually crazy far away... well, I suppose it's someone I'd go out to meet if he gave me an invitation or something. But I wouldn't want to just show up on his doorstep and be all "zomg hai! i no u frum teh intarwebs!" --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 07:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proof: The Creationists' Nightmare[edit]

It's always good strategy to ask for diff links from someone claiming "vandalism." Since it's a Wiki, they can either provide said proof, or be called out for being a liar. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 21:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, but they do the same against us on their own wikis. And we all know, that just because it's a wiki, doesn't mean proof can be found (CP:oversighting). As well, proof can be insidious, and deniable. That's why we have judges and juries to listen to this stuff when the results really matter. SCO threw tens of witnesses against Novell's four to dispute the idea that their contract had actually not transfered copyrights. No matter how black and white it is, they and I must admit, potentially us as well, can end up denying real evidence in favor of anchoring. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
True, but for our Wiki, we are about as transparent as you can get. So, if someone comes onto this Wiki and claims we are vandalizing their talkpage, the easiest solution is to ask for proof. If they can't give it to you, then you catch them on their shit-stirring. TK, for example, always liked to claim we oversighted the hell out of stuff. But, in truth, every sysop here has oversight powers, and every editor here can see if a post was oversighted because the fossil record will show it. Thus, when Tricksy claims the same, it's very easy to call them out on it here. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 23:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, that makes us feel all warm and cozy in our own little cushion fort, but it doesn't really mean anything to them. They can still claim the oversight, and deny reality. This is not an unknown tactic on their part. I mean, you're presuming that we already knew we were right... so what does it matter what evidence they can provide? It's not like I expect any of them to change their mind over it, and admit defeat. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)