User talk:Francine

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

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Welcome to the Dollhouse! ħumanUser talk:Human 20:43, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, Francine, welcome to the snug truffle of the interwebs, RationalWiki! Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:23, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the greeting human bean and Essayist RA. Francine 21:30, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
I am greatly amused that you actually called me "essayist".  : ) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:48, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh, yeah, he's a regular fuckin' Thoreau, he is. "Essayist" indeed.PFoster 21:50, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

112 days until the US signs Kyoto?[edit]

That's what it says on the front page of RationalWiki. In the United States, the process of making a treaty into law is spread out between the branches of government. On 12 November 1998, Vice President Al Gore signed the protocol. The US Senate has failed to ratify it since, despite the Democrats being in full control of the Senate, and the presence of Obama in the White House will do nothing to change this. Francine 22:27, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Supposed to be funny? SusanG  ContribsTalk 22:30, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
And it's different (almost) every time you refresh the page. SusanG  ContribsTalk 22:32, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
True, but we can hope, can't we? Also, while the Dems have held the Senate (barely, I might add) for two years, the GOP would happily filibuster an attempt to approve the Protocol. Do treaties take 50%+ or two thirds, by the way? I forget... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:10, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Two-thirdsFrancine 21:14, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Hence the need for the Dems to win 67 seats in November ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 21:17, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh hai =)[edit]

Wave.gif. I noticed you have added two userboxen to your user page. Just in case you want to see more, we have a parade going on at userboxes. Have fun! trufflespeed! ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ do do da de do da de

Thanks, I found your link very useful indeed.Francine 23:13, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Always glad to help out. Have a great day. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ do do da de do da de

DeMyer's Law[edit]

I have started a discussion on DeMyer's Law about your edit. Also, welcome Wave.gif! - User \approx\piFor best results always render PNG 07:52, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the warm greeting. Francine 09:42, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

You're a sysop.[edit]

Use your janitorial powers wisely, grasshopper.PFoster 21:28, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

As you wish. Francine 21:40, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
You say smart things--like your last NOMA debate edit. I'm not a Christian, but i have profound respect for smart people with a strong sense of faith that they can balance with reason. I wish I could have that faith. Anyways, some folks around here may not be open to some of the things you have to say, but mostly we're a pretty chill bunch. Have fun mopping up. PFoster 21:43, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
If they are not open to some of things I say because I am a Christian, that is...irrational. No? Francine 21:47, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
No, only because we might disagree with the content of them. You've been adding a lot of rather illogical (in my opinion) comments in articles about logical things, say. Well, it all works out. You've also been making edits that improve articles - in my opinion. C'est la vie. Chances are that twisting anything that might call Christian theology into question into a favorable light towards Christianity won't really last long. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:20, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Illogical how, Human? I saw nothing wrong with these edits. Let alone anything to do with twisting things so as to cast more "favorable light towards Christianity". New3.pngPink(Windmills? Tilting at?) 23:24, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
I guess my best answer would be to compare Francine's edit history today with mine and look at things I touched up after she (?) worked on them. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:26, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
I've followed everything she's done today & (typos apart) seen nothing wrong. SusanG  ContribsTalk 23:28, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, Susan is standing up for the godbotherer. This must be the apocalypse. PFoster 23:31, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
(EC)I think you might be imagining things, Human. Just show me one edit where Francine tries to impose her worldview on you; it's much easier. New3.pngPink(Talklink 5 -- Pink loses count...) 23:31, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
You asked the question, you do the research. "Imposing her worldview"???? When did I ever say anything like that? Hi PF, yeah, I just saw a pig fly past my house! ħumanUser talk:Human 23:37, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Quick example: See section above on Kyoto. She makes errors of deduction and claim, as we all do. She has been busy making a couple, amid her amusing and interesting edits. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:38, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
You said "they aren't timid in their efforts to restructure the site to match their view of the world". Don't split hairs. And it was you who made the claim that you'd been tidying up her edits, so you provide the "research" if you want to be taken seriously. New3.pngPink(Link) 23:44, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
All I was doing was answering her question. Why are you so concerned? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:50, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

I think this is clear enough. "This is false on the basis that sin is the transgression of the Law, and Paul was blameless as touching the Law." is not exactly a rational argument. "This is false on the basis of 1 John 2:2 (Christ is propitiation for the whole world), as well as John 3:16 about God loving the whole world that he sent his Son, etc." Ditto. Case closed. Francine, please stop proselytizing or whatever it is that what you are doing is called, on this site. Arguments from some sort of Biblical versifying are not rational arguments as far as I can see. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:54, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Shall I take your eager proferring of this new edit as an implicit admission that your original claim was pure paranoia? Case dismissed; Human, please stop jumping to conclusions and harassing people for no good reason. New3.pngPink(Blink) 23:59, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
No, it was just fresh so it was easy to copy here. It is clear evidence, however, of my comment above. "Harassing"??? I am merely editing the wiki and trying to do so in line with its mission. What's your beef, Judge Pink? — Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs
It is not "clear evidence" of your comment above, because the edit was made after your comment -- and now that I have reviewed Francine's past edits, I can formally confirm that you were talking utter nonsense. All I see from your citing of the Calvinism edit is "I wanted to think Francine was a troublemaker, then I found something to interpret as proof". And my "beef", Mr Witchfinder, is that you're cautioning new users for things they haven't done. New3.pngPink(And Francine deals very neatly with your accusations over Calvinism below) 00:19, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm not cautioning anyone for anything. I see edits to articles on my watchlist, and I check them out. If I think they need improvement, I do so. If they are incoherent, I delete them (not saying Francine's were). Remember what it says below the edit box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly". Witchhunt? Oh, come on and stop being silly. These issues should be discussed at the article talk pages, the fact that they are being argued here makes me wonder. As does Francine's adding every page where she got "undone" one way or another to her "pissing contest" box. Methinks some people are protesting far too much over far too little. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:57, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Cautioning: such as when you comment on the talk page of a user who's barely touched a religious article and tell them "Chances are that twisting anything that might call Christian theology into question into a favorable light towards Christianity won't really last long". What kind of message do you think that sends? Seriously, Human, think about what you're doing. New3.pngPink("Don't bite newbies"TM) 01:08, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
I was answering a question. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:41, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Well, congratulations, Human! Once again, you've managed to weather an entire discussion purely by repeatedly claiming to not understand your opponent's argument -- which, for the record, was "you jumped on a new user based on their personal views rather than their edits"... I know it's complicated, really. Try reading it aloud, or asking an adult to explain it to you. New3.pngPink(Mink) 09:35, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
There won't be any trouble over Calvinism, Pink. I've put that bad boy in my corral of off-limits topics.Francine 00:21, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
No, please don't worry about it ^_^ We don't normally argue this much, really.</slightly embarrassed> New3.pngPink(Aerodynamic) 00:24, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Actually, we do, but usually we try to keep the discussion where it is appropriate (like article talk pages). ħumanUser talk:Human 00:57, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
No we don't. But Human does like to derail discussions by over-asserting formalities like this, so I guess it's true in a sense ^_^ New3.pngPink(Take that!) 01:08, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Sophistry. Pink's comments are verging into the bizarre. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:41, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Ad hominem, Huw? O how the mighty have fallen... (And I'd look up "sophistry" if I were you...) New3.pngPink(Seriously) 09:35, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Wow, all this reminds me of this guy on another Wiki I ran into named Andy. After about a week I got into a disagreement with another editor. Andy defended me in a really creepy way, he said something like "I've been reviewing all of her edits and she checks out." Francine 07:29, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Meanie :P New3.pngPink(That's practically sainthood in Andy's eyes ^_^) 09:35, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
The article is about Calvinism and we're supposed to answer it with reason? Suppose there was a group of people who believed Aslan (in the Narnia Chronicles) was really a goat, and there was an RW article describing their belief. Now suppose a CS Lewis fan came along and edited that article by quoting passages from the seven Narnia books showing how Aslan had a mane, and roared, and had paws, etc. Is that person's edits to be reversed because they are answering fantasy with fantasy? At least the fan and the Aslan-goat clan accept the same source text. Within that sphere, a rational discussion can take place, even if no one else thinks it's "scientific" or what-have-you. Francine 00:10, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
H: it's not so much what you do as the downright rude way you do it, for God's sake, have another scotch or something - or have one fewer perhaps. SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:15, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Susan, as I saw commented elsewhere... is the sky falling? Anyway, Francine, if your point was to counter one set of fictions with another interpretation of them at Calvinism, phrases like "This is false on the basis of 1 John 2:2" without any indication that there is a "joke" involved are likely to be viewed with suspicion, at best. Can you reword your series of arguments against Calvinism in a way that shows taking the Bible as the ultimate source of "truth" is being done tongue-in-cheek? Oh, and back to Susan... I am sorry for your forced temperance, it does rather cast the wiki in another light, doesn't it? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:52, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Huw, one thing: You say that "Arguments from some sort of Biblical versifying are not rational arguments". (BTW: "versifying"? Huh?) While the actual edits in question could perhaps be phrased better, I can't really see why answering one point of theology with another point of theology is irrational. Unless of course you want to argue that the entire field of theology as such is irrational. Granted, there's a certain amount of precedence for such a position. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 07:37, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
I think "answering one point of theology with another point of theology" is completely endian and should be dismissed as irrational. But hey, if there's a sweepstake for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then I'll join in just for the lulz. Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum disease 07:52, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
"Endian"? wp:Endianness? Th unsure.gif
Also, regarding angels and pins, please read this, statim. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 08:10, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
I was aware of that article but ignored the veracity as I needed the snark. As for endian, I was using it in a GT sense rather than the IT. Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum disease 08:21, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
I see. Perhaps you could be a little more specific about what it is you find so irrational about it? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 08:27, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Wow, a sysop in two days. Congratulations! Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 08:32, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, congrats. It took me 3 months. Speakerface 08:44, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I was a bit taken aback by the speed of the demotion. After about 12 article edits.--Bobbing up 12:51, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Maybe there could be a Request for Comment process to undo it. No skin off my back. Francine 13:39, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
I believe Francine is an affirmative-action sysop. Demoted to maintain the gender imbalance after Teresita took umbrage. Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum disease 13:47, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
The Americans have taken umbrage. Whereabouts is that?Francine 14:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks Ed and Speakster, but I don't think they're going to let me keep that status. My posts are being reviewed for ideological purity. Francine 09:10, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Oh, are you a Sysop at Conservapedia too? ;-) Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 09:50, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
(EC)Gotta agree with Kjeldsen's point about answering theology with theology.
Also, can we stop being so hostile? We haven't had a Headless Chicken Mode in months, let's not start now. NightFlare You don't see how sometime can estimate when the truth when someone else conceals it???? Godspeed [1] 10:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Is this how you add one of them thar convenient edit buttons?[edit]

Oh, I'm sure you're edits are going to be scrutinised for idealogical purity, it's part of the game really. Difference with CP is that you definitely won't lose sysopship (is that even a word) or get blocked for it, unless Susan wants to block you for π seconds/minutes/hours for a random reason. Don't worry, Human follows up everyone's edits with a quick touch up (mine mostly for spelling), it makes him feel important. ArmondikoVpathetic 09:59, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
(EC)Gotta agree with Kjeldsen's point about answering theology with theology.
Also, can we stop being so hostile? We haven't had a Headless Chicken Mode in months, let's not start now. NightFlare You don't see how sometime can estimate when the truth when someone else conceals it???? Godspeed [1] 10:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
Maybe it's just overdue a "Headless Chicken Mode", although the last thing anyone needs is for it to get out of hand and become a regular occurance, that would be the actual DEATH SENTENCE of the site. (Oh, by the way, Francine, welcome to RW. You seem to be getting a trial-by-talkpage-rape, I hope your inbox isn't suffering to badly with the notifications that people are changing it) ArmondikoVpathetic 10:09, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Ideological Purity?[edit]

I've gone through some issues with that (usually with particular editors) on things like Globalization, Hugo Chavez, etc. (Somehow, my blatant pro-Pagan irrationality doesn't seem to bother people nearly as much as my agreement with economists on the benefits of trade...) Don't worry--it's a sign that you're actually liked. Researcher 10:25, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm in the middle of the road, maybe center-right. If I wanted to see left-wing propaganda I'd go to Liberalpedia. I don't think RationalWiki have to be Liberalpedia's Mini-Me. Francine 09:46, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
Eheh, RationalWiki is far bigger that Liberapedia. Liberapedia is our Mini-Me. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:13, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
Liberapedia is more like RationalWiki's severed toe. New3.pngPink(One of the small ones) 22:46, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
Is Liberapedia even still alive? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Who was here on October 1[edit]

Who was here on October 2 but not on October 1[edit]

Who was here on October 3 but not October 1-2[edit]

Who was here on October 4 but not October 1-3[edit]

If you have 100% coveting and 0% killing, you believe the rich should be taxed to help the poor, and we should not fight wars or execute people (Democrat).[edit]

Democrats don't believe in fighting wars? Vietnam? Kosovo? Obama's threats to bomb Pakistan and to escalate the war in Afghanistan? PFoster 22:17, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

After the 1972 election, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party renounced US ground forces as an instrument in America's foreign policy toolbox. Kosovo is a peace-keeping/nation-building ground action, similar to the Somalia operation, executed after bombing Serbia from the air. The threats against Pakistan and Afghanistan are bluster from Obama,the rantings of an inexperienced candidate trying to bolster his mojo for the election. No Democrat will unleash brigades of infantry into a place like Iran or North Korea to cause regime change. But sending in 10 or 20 TLAM-C cruise missiles to take out an aspirin factory, anyone can do that. Francine 22:26, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
True, that Obama's a WIMP. Now sinking America into a war it can only win after twenty years and trillions of dollars, and the cost of thousands of American lives, all on a trumped-up lie of a premise told to the American people with a straight face? Now THAT'S a good old Republican war!-caius (ninja) 22:28, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
(EC) Francine, you're wrong....After the 1972 election, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party renounced US ground forces as an instrument in America's foreign policy toolbox. Right. The same ground forces that JFK/LBJ put their in the first place. Plus the massive bombing of civilian populations in north Vietnam. ...executed after bombing Serbia from the air. My point exactly--they BOMBED the country. That's war. No Democrat will unleash brigades of infantry into a place like Iran or North Korea to cause regime change..is that why no Democrats voted to authorize the war on Iraq? Wait, what? Oh..most of the Democratic Senators and a third of the Representatives did? Thats a lot more than "none." PFoster 22:34, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
Okay, I'll concede your point, and change "Democrat" to "Liberal" on my little essay. Francine 22:50, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

8 days. EIGHT FRICKIN DAYS![edit]

I've been gone for eight days and you've moved in well. Who you, if I may be so bold. I'm too lazy to go through all of your edits so I'd like to know a few things. PLEARSE!! --US-O11 insignia.svg Gen. S.T. Shrink GET TO THA CHOPPER 22:25, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Teresita Mercado

  • Age: 43
  • Gender: Female
  • Industry: Government
  • Occupation: Electronics
  • Location: Des Moines : Washington : United States

About Me

I was born fifth of nine in a Roman Catholic household in Washington State. My father obtained American citizenship after enlisting in the US Navy under a unique law held over from the time when the Philippines was a colony of the USA. Although I am first generation Begotten I do not write Adobo but I can speak it to some extent and follow most Filipinos when they speak Adobo. From about age eleven I found myself staring at other girls and ignoring boys. When I realized why, this gave me a measure of peace. But when I followed my father's footsteps and enlisted in the pre Don't Ask Don't Tell Reagan Navy, I learned to keep secrets (ie. LIE). This ability was honed in my field of naval cryptology at Corry Station, Pensacola, home of the world-famous CPO Burger at the Tradewinds Club. I eventually went on to a career as a civilian employee in...you guessed it! The Navy. I met my hot girlfriend Fely in 1987 and we have been married de facto if not de jure ever since. I have black hair which reaches to my lower back, and skin the color of Ovaltine. My philosophy closely aligns with daojia Taoism. My aesthetic is minimalism. Less is more.

Interests

  • Cosmology
  • Electronic Music
  • Internet Radio
  • Issaquah Alps
  • Green River Gorge
  • Lesbianism
  • Linux
  • Lucy Lawless
  • Philippines
  • Taoism
  • USENET
  • Women

Favorite Movies

  • A.I.
  • Apocalypse Now
  • Blade Runner
  • Dark Star
  • Death Proof
  • Eraserhead
  • Evil Dead II
  • Heavy Metal
  • Inland Empire
  • Kill Bill
  • Lost Highway
  • Mulholland Dr.
  • Silent Running
  • Solaris
  • Twin Peaks
  • Vertigo

Favorite Music

  • Laurie Anderson
  • Ron Boots
  • Suzanne Ciani
  • Constance Demby
  • Brian Eno
  • Free System Projekt
  • Gert Emmens
  • Michael Hoenig
  • Jean-Michel Jarre
  • Kraftwerk
  • The Orb
  • Pink Floyd
  • Radio Massacre International
  • Klaus Schulze
  • Tangerine Dream
  • Stars
  • Suzanne Vega
  • Wavestar

Favorite Books

  • Dosadi Experiment
  • Foundation Trilogy
  • Gaean Trilogy
  • Huckleberry Finn
  • Hyperion Cantos
  • Middle-earth
  • Narnia
  • Quantico
  • Queen of Angels
  • Rubyfruit Jungle
  • Slant
  • Strangers in Paradise
Well, not exactly what I expected but... --US-O11 insignia.svg Gen. S.T. Shrink GET TO THA CHOPPER 23:15, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Topics I will not improve or even discuss[edit]

Bible guides[edit]

"[Guide to Jonah|Jonah]]"

Did you add it to the template? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:35, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

I added it to the Guide to the Bible article, but the template has Jonah under the minor prophets and I didn't want to ruin your wiki. Francine 09:34, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Not to complain[edit]

but surely some of those sections above are more appropriate for teh user page? I dunno, I don't care, jes' sayin' is all. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:38, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I will never initiate a topic on my own talk page again. Francine 09:36, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
All I meant was that they look like the sort of thing you want to keep around, on here you might forget and archive them someday? I wasn't exactly saying "never..." to anything at all. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:45, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

Sub pages[edit]

Could the "/allarticles" sub pages be fairly deleted under no interference with user pages rules? She used them to copy wp to her home machine & then vanished. If she came back she could re-create them but all they're doing now is giving RAsomething to exercise his OCD on. Toast s.png (Toast) and marmalade 21:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Why not move them to RA's user space ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 22:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Don't think he'd want them. they're no use to anyone and, as I said, could be recreated if required in the future, but as it is they just cause unnecessary red links when pages are renamed/moved. Toast s.png (Toast) and marmalade 22:19, 30 January 2009 (EST)
I don't want them—they're a pain in the ass when trying to clear out redirects and red links. Can we please delete them? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:49, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Yes. Blame me if necessary. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:25, 31 January 2009 (EST)
Yeah, dump the female CUR's stuff. - User Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng (or dvips + gs + convert)): \scriptstyle\sqrt{12}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-3)^{-n}(2n+1)^{-1} 00:33, 31 January 2009 (EST)
Ouch! ħumanUser talk:Human 00:50, 31 January 2009 (EST)