Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

User talk:Epsilon3

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Epsilon3!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

JorisEnter (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Opium and coincidences[edit]

I'd honestly bet that the people in charge didn't consciously decide to invade those areas for their opium. What stake would the US, for example, have in increasing the opium trade? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I might have been, also, until I performed some recent research on this subject for a short story I wrote. Remember, this is the French and, further, the French at a time of decline. They desperately needed the revenue, and stories like "The French Connection" make a bit more sense this way. The theory is (I know, conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy, but then Colonel Oliver North might have something to say about the "kernel" of truth in this one) that the U.S. needed the revenue to cover covert projects (as a government scientist, I think it imprudent, at best, to use congressional appropriations for these needs). Still, this is why I wrote it as a coincidence (although Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran are all interesting when strung together this way).— Unsigned, by: Epsilon3 / talk / contribs
Hm. So you'd frame it much like the Iran-Contra deal then? A way for the governmetn to get money when Congress wouldn't approve? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I have heard of this conspiracy before and it was called the Golden Triangle. It is a lesser known one compared to the one published by Gary Webb about the CIA helping the Contras traffic cocaine in order to raise revenue for the war effort. Wikipedia as a list of allegations about CIA drug trafficking and it is probably missional.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC) 02:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm no conspiracy buff, but I have seen a few recent examples of so-called "conspiracies" that have developed into a sort of truth (the "Bilderberger Meetings" are my best example of this). As a government scientist, I can attest to the size of our budget. I can also attest to the EXTREME fiscal oversight attached to those budgets (the GAO has personnel on site where we spend it, in fact). Add the "Snowden problem" into the need for clandestine missions, and you have a prime motivator for a non-congressional source of funding. In my opinion, I believe it is VERY likely at least some of this "black" funding comes from the drug trade. In fact, "Air America" is a document source of this income during the Vietnam War. Why should it have started/ended there? — Unsigned, by: Epsilon3 / talk / contribs 2016-07-12T15:12:20

Board election[edit]

It's supposed to be a somewhat serious business - going around placing copy-pasted text containing ___ instead of the name for every candidate isn't what the page is meant for.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

My bad. I was having trouble posting to the page, so I was testing the input. Then got distracted and have not had an opportunity to go back and edit. The problem, it turns out, was editing the section - the posts only stuck when I edited the whole page. I'll go back and correct. Thanks for the reminder. — Unsigned, by: Epsilon3 / talk / contribs
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I was doing it the hard way just now. Also, I want to do it the right way, since that makes me look less dumbass. Incidentally, I just endorsed your candidacy for what it's worth. We'll discuss the bribes when you win. As the prostitute said to the leper, "Thanks for the tip!" (BTW, PC, political correctness, is a peeve of mine, so I hope you don't mind bad taste [said the leper to the prostitute, ha ha ha]).--Epsilon3 (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC) (Signed the SHIT out of that one.)


Did you actually take this picture? We try to take copyright half-seriously here. Falsely claiming you own the copyright on something is a no-no. You can automagically use Wikimedia Commons images on here, just like on Wikimedia projects. --Ymir (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm still learning the ropes, so I'm not sure what I claimed. I initially tried to claim "fair use", since it's an academic discussion about the diagnostic value of anuses and no commercial exchange is expected, however, I could not get past the rather obtuse messages on the system. After several attempts, I refreshed my profile and it was there, so I'm not sure what it came in as. I thought I put it in as "ignore warning and post it anyway". If it's wrong, point me to something simple that describes the process (that a non-wiki kind of old man can understand) and I'll correct it. (BTW - as I typed, it's not MY sphincter, so I doubt very much I own anything related to it - though I think it is "public domain" or, at least, "fair use".)--Epsilon3 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The welcome template someone slapped on this page at the top links to our help pages. We try to keep a higher bar for claiming fair use than "I want it on my user page", i.e., stuff that's being discussed in articles. And in this case there's no real need to grab a random image with unknown copyright status off the Internet because Commons has plenty of freely-licensed pictures of anuses you can use. Categorized for your perusal. The wonders of the Internet! --Ymir (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


Based on your edits and time on the wiki, you've been given RationalWiki:Autopatrolled status. This makes it easier for you to edit and lets you bypass the CAPTCHA. If you have questions, feel free to ask me or another editor.--(Ir)RationalWikian (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Leftist hack in personality"[edit]

I'll have the hole filled in right away. My dentist tells me I can have amalgam, gold, or the solidified tears of conservatives. Any preference? ;P 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the humor. Actually, I prefer the palpable whine of self-serving liberals. One of those types could probably drill the hole, fill it and complain about the results, solo (with, of course, a sizeable handout and a DIY manual from the government).--Epsilon3 (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC) (Shit, I keep forgetting the protocol and those squiggly things.)


Check -- you're not an "eligible user", account's too young. Sorry. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Just checking to see how alert the candidates are. I'm guessing you're left-leaning sentimentality has inspired a healthy cynicism (it's NOT paranoia, a'la Joe Stalin Style). Good for you! Epsilon3 (Your Mother Does!) 21:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

RW and politics[edit]

For reference, I'm one of the ones that want less politics on RW (see Essay:RationalWiki and politics) and have gotten plenty of hate for it. Leftist bias or not, I think that RW can only grow into a mainstream skeptic resource if it jettisons opinions on mainstream politics (regardless of whether or not mainstream politics is antiscience or pseudoscientific). Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)