User talk:Genghis Khant/Archive4

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Excel graph, date style[edit]

Out of consideration for Euro vs US date formatting, can you pick a date format that prints the 3 letter abbr for the month name to reduce confusion for us small-brained folks? (like 01 Jun 08 instead of 01/06/08) To my untrained eyes all the dates in your new graph look like January ;) Thankies... ħumanUser talk:Human 16:21, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Well boyo, I use the purely digital format to make the labelling more compact. But let it not be said that I am culturally insensitive so I will deign to appease your small-brain and upload a revised version. :) Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 16:44, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Thanks! You can always make the month one letter, J F M A M J J A S O N D is pretty understandable to most (English-reading) people... ħumanUser talk:Human 16:53, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Statistics gathering[edit]

I saw you posted Image:CP page views.gif. Would it be possible to create a graph of the daily change, rather than the running total? I find it very difficult to differentiate graphs in my head, but it would be easier to see patterns if we could view the data that way.

Also, the program that collects the data it is probably running daily (or more often)? I planning to write a Perl script that collects the following bits of information every ~hour. I'll very likely implement these sooner or later, but if they're something you might plan on doing, let me know.

  • What periods of time Conservapedia's HTTP server is totally unresponsive, as well as times when it's responding, but you have to reload 5 times to get a page. [it's been down quite a bit lately, I'm curious if there's any kind of trend]
  • When "night edit" mode is enabled [others pointed out that it seems to be enabled/disabled at widely varying times]
  • (can go off of [[Special:Recentchanges]], after fetching [[Special:Listusers/edit]] and maybe some others)
  • When user creation is enabled. [again, seems to be almost random]
  • ([[Special:Userlogin]] will have a "Create an account" link when it's enabled])
  • The number of edits per day, and the net-bytes-added, per namespace, per day. [an attempt to get a more accurate gauge of how many positive contributors they have]
  • Reports will be similar to the various edit counters I did at Wikipedia.

Bonus points if the last one could be run against Wikipedia/Uncyclopedia/RationalWiki for comparison, but it's probably not worth it if it takes much work. --Interiot 17:42, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Interiot, I'm afraid that my data is just copied from the stats page into XL whenever I remember. Some of the early values were taken from Conservative's runningstats on CP and early stuff was dug up from odd sites like way-back machine. Whenever I have been away or on vacation I have gaps, so daily views could only be interpolated averages. However, I don't just collect the running total I also save the page counts for the top articles. When I started it was just the top hundred but I've been doing it for the top 5000 for the last 6 months. This was so I could monitor which pages were being manipulated. I'm afraid my coding skills are not up to what you propose. Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 18:18, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Because it would be inconsiderate to ask you to do more stats-related work for us than you already have, would you please email me the latest version of the macro you used to update RationalWiki:Active users, so that way I can update it? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:58, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

RA - something has changed since I last posted RationalWiki:Active users I need to debug it before I can pass it on. Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 18:18, 16 July 2008 (EDT)


What talk page. The Beastiality talk page has nothing to do with vegitarianism. --US-O11 insignia svg.pngGen. S.T. ShrinkUS-O11 insignia svg.png Get to the bunker 02:22, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

 ? If you had a little patience you would see that I have made that point. Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 02:24, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
I like the edit because the article seems to be pro-freedom to have sex with animals, and that seems to go along with it. I have no problem with eating meat or beastiliaty personally. And the way I read it meant you had discussed it already. --US-O11 insignia svg.pngGen. S.T. ShrinkUS-O11 insignia svg.png

Get to the bunker 02:26, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

If you are against slavery you should also be against forcing animals to work for you and then rewarding them by killing them --Zoophile 02:30, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, not quite, as we are a tad more evolved. --US-O11 insignia svg.pngGen. S.T. ShrinkUS-O11 insignia svg.png

Get to the bunker 02:33, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

That's is the same argument the nazis used to kill the Jews --Zoophile 02:35, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
No creature is "more evolved" than any other at any given time. And I assume, zoophiliac, that you eschew all animal products and the results of their efforts? We could probably use an awesome article on veganism... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:37, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Also, Jews don't bleat. --US-O11 insignia svg.png Gen. S.T. Shrink Get to the bunker 02:39, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Most animals don't bleat --Zoophile 02:41, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Jews don't cluck or bark either. --US-O11 insignia svg.png Gen. S.T. Shrink Get to the bunker 02:47, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Just because you can't understand the speech of animals doesn't make them inferior the Greeks used to say non-Greeks says bar bar, even bees can communicate --Zoophile 02:49, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
ANd when the greeks tried to kill these people...these people killed them. --US-O11 insignia svg.png Gen. S.T. Shrink Get to the bunker 02:50, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
What about the Ameglian Major Cow? How would vegetarians respond to that I wonder? Also there are often very small animals that we ingest without knowing it. Are vegetarians sizist? Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 02:59, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
And, if anti beastiality people are trying to make a baby, wouldn't they get some kind of bacteria on their genitals? Anyway, Genghis, are you alright with some inclusion of it, possibly it it's currect form? --US-O11 insignia svg.png Gen. S.T. Shrink Get to the bunker 03:02, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
It is a point that could be made on vegetarianism but not on bestiality. Our coverage of bestiality is hardly an exhaustive analysis of the topic and is only included for the lulz. Deviating into the ethics of meat-eating effectively dilutes the snark and we may as well delete the page all together. I gather that it is only there to cover the whole spectrum of human sexuality which the religious right get so hung-up on. Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 03:12, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Makes perfect sense. --US-O11 insignia svg.png Gen. S.T. Shrink Get to the bunker 03:14, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
I tend to notice that the Zoodiac does not answer questions, it just spouts arrogance as if it is somehow "better". ħumanUser talk:Human 03:24, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
It's odd. A conservative vegan. --US-O11 insignia svg.png Gen. S.T. Shrink Get to the bunker 03:26, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

[Undent] I've been watching the exchanges for a while now, and (s)he's just trolling now. Engaging in revert wars, nit-picking and generally wasting people's time. I vote a move to the vandal group. But then, it's early here and I have little patience at this time of the morning. Bondurant 03:28, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

They can consider this last warning. Pinto's5150 Talk 03:30, 15 July 2008 (EDT)


Please explain what i'm doing wrong. "Put cats in the box" will be a lot of work for you, but i can't see the code that you changed. --WaitingforGodot 16:53, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

I moved the categories into the navbox that appears on those pages. That way the cats are added automatically to every page that has the navbox. No need to edit each individual article. Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 16:57, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Ah, I see. I did try to read the "fossil record" to figure it out, so's not to bug you. But, being a bear of very little brain, I failed. Thanks!--WaitingforGodot 16:59, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Just a matter of experience. Always looking for the easy way out. Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 17:05, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

According to: Abortion[edit]

Thanks for adding that headline to the front page. I was so furious when I read that comment in the paper yesterday. I vented here at least once (oops. grins). I just have no idea how we got to a point where religious conservatives think they have the right to say "no" when filling a doctor's prescription, or helping a rape victom NOT get pregnant. And the latest news is that an ambulance driver in Miss wouldn't take a woman who was bleading out to the abortion clinic, cause she didn't believe in abortions... GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR--WaitingforGodot 11:14, 18 July 2008 (EDT)


Thanks I appreciate you porting over the history lectures, CP is driving me nuts at the moment. tmtoulouse frustrate 10:37, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

At the moment it's just a question of being in the right place at the right time if you need to get them. Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 10:40, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for desysopping me. Your trust is appreciated.

"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that I edit, but for fun -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up for it is life itself."

Auld Nick 09:51, 31 July 2008 (EDT)


I appreciate it, but I'm on far too many semi-public computers at school. 129.9 CorryTalk

Karajou's Page[edit]

You're completely right, I had done that as a joke (specifically the Harry Potter character having the same name but different spellings) and no one questioned, so I just left it.... I went ahead and added a comment right after your edit... I didn't mean that to be as harsh as it came off. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 02:49, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Not a Potter fan - nothing against them, just never felt the urge to read them. So the joke was completely lost on me.Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 02:53, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
I figured it would get called out much sooner, but it didn't. I sincerly apologize for any inconvien inconveienec anger caused by me SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 17:43, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Boycott Fun[edit]

I set up a page for folks to post their favorite goat/pope/W... jokes during the boycott, in case you want to add a link from the WIGO Talk page. Boycott Jokes -SpinyNorman 10:56, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

From the dumbass who can't tell the clogosphere from the blogosphere[edit]

Thanks. And it took me ten edits to be so wrong. I should go back to CP Exasperate me!Sheesh!Not the most impressive contributor here 11:21, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Could still have problems[edit]

Regarding this, I wouldn't call it stupid by any means.

CP came back up awfully fast. The only way I know how to do that safely is to restore a Ghost-like image. But that would mean that a few edits at the end were lost, and I haven't seen anything that indicates that occured.

Which means that they probably didn't do enough due diligence to make sure that there wasn't a backdoor left running. We probably can't substantiate that in any way, but it's more than just idle speculation since there's motivation for attackers to keep a zombie host around. --Toiretni 19:24, 15 August 2008 (EDT)


I'd have thought you'd have mended your ways after your grovelling apology

I'd explain it to you, but it would involve a lot of big words that you wouldn't understand. 23:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh dear, Jizz, how many more places do you need to respond? And as for your big words, well give them a go because you would probably use them incorrectly. It is often more difficult to use shorter words and retain clarity, big words are the sure sign of a bullshitter. Why don't you actually write some articles for Conservapedia? Your contributions to date have been remarkably thin on the ground. CP claims to be an educational resource but you are just a dumb attention-seeking ideologue who makes no positive contribution. Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 03:23, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
I find tedious and prolix writing much more preferable than the lack of obfuscation one is forced into with smaller words. The more pleonastic phrasings compressed tightly in a written communication the better. tmtoulouse frustrate 03:31, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Can I quote you on that, endlessly? [sic], of course! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:35, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Now you can. tmtoulouse frustrate 03:37, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, now you fixed it, there's no fun in it :( ħumanUser talk:Human 04:18, 17 August 2008 (EDT)


You are only 30 edits behind Sid to crack into the top ten all time contributors. Yes, I am bored. tmtoulouse frustrate 20:50, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Wow, it's a tight race, currently you're on the twelves place: Chaos! is catching up fast... --LArron 06:21, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
I am quite annoyed to see Chaos climbing so fast. It makes me feel inadequate. Also, I used to be ahead of Tmtoulouse—what happened? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:38, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Active CPers[edit]

Hey Genghis, I believe you're responsible for this very impressive endeavour. Any chance of an update? I'd be quite curious to see what it's looking like over there now. Things like this are way beyond my abilities. Thanks. DickTurpis 17:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I need to sit down with it again and sort out a few things in my macros, both for RW & CP. Once I start on it again I'll get obsessed with sorting it out, but until them I procrastinating. Jollyfish.gifGenghisunbelieving 12:55, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Well, thank you for admitting it. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:53, 22 August 2008 (EDT)


What Immanuel Kant, Genghis Khan? --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 03:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Well deduced. But also can and can't. Jollyfish.gifГенгисunbelieving 05:38, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
That's what I figured. Also, I like your Cyrillic. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 08:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
Too much time in Kazakhstan. Jollyfish.gifГенгисunbelieving 08:42, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Have a fanfare :)[edit]

Thank you very much. Really. It must be awful to sift through that much information. We should probably get that thing automated, really. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!</font>Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. 18:56, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

It was but the automaton broke when they upgraded the MediaWiki software. Jollyfish.gifГенгисunbelieving 19:01, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
Really? When we did upgrade our MediaWiki? I don't remember that. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!</font>Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. 19:03, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
Well it was several months ago, but after the last update of the active user page. Jollyfish.gifГенгисunbelieving 19:05, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Gang of Four[edit]

Somebody has entered you along with Susan, Jeeves and I into a Gang of Four on RWW. To show "proper" appreciation you might wish to use - or indeed improve on - this userbox:

DANGER This user is a member of the feared Gang of Four and may react sarcastically to superstition and religion.
--Bobbing up
Yes, I noticed that yesterday. I must admit that I was surprised it was such a small group. However, someone has guard the "rational" aspect of this site and no-one has yet demonstrated to me the rationality of religious belief. I'll have a think about the userbox, most are too clunky to my liking. Jollyfish.gifГенгисunbelieving 06:27, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
That's cool. On the other point. Indeed, given the general point of view of what seem to the majority of users it seems a little strange to pick out four. Still, we seem to have done our job well enough to earn our own little attack.  :-) --Bobbing up 06:32, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Remove the anti-party gang of Four! Down with the capitalist roaders! Long live proletarian revolution! Out with the four olds! Unlimited rice pudding!!1!eleventyone11!! Totnesmartin 06:41, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Genghis, I think the burden of proof is on you. I find it pretty irrational to dismiss religion on your grounds. Editor at CP 06:46, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
No, the burden of proof is on those who assert there is a god. Religion as codified dogma (as opposed to the simple belief in a god) is largely a self-serving man-made institution. I recognise that there are certain aspects of religion which brings people together to achieve useful ends, but those same ends could be accomplished without a religious backing. Jollyfish.gifГенгисunbelieving 07:11, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Two different burdens of proof. Sure let them prove that there is a God, or that religion or any Church has any useful aspect. Instead what I am arguing is that dismissing religion as a dogma, a social system or a personal belief as inherently irrational is a strong claim, which should be proved, instead of saying "they are not rational, if they are they must prove it". That sounds Aschlaflyan to me. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 08:28, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
I may have misunderstood, but isn't the existence of god fundamental to all (at least western) religions? Furthermore isn't an insistence on the existence of something for which there is no evidence apparently irrational? Or am I missing something here?--Bobbing up 08:43, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
First of all I don't dismiss all social systems as being irrational, most religions have codifed social prohibitions into their religious rules (murder, theft, bearing false witness etc.) which are essential to the efficient working of society. When there wasn't an efficient constabulary to enforce the law it was useful to make the populace believe they were being watched by some invisible mighty being, although I regard the fear of retribution as a moral guide is ethically weak. Secondly, there is no requirement for utility if people enjoy it, supporting a sports team is largely irrational but gives many people joy. The irrationality is when actions are taken on the basis of unsubstantiated belief, especially when they impinge on others. As for dismissing religion as a dogma, a social system or a personal belief as inherently irrational then what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof; what is uniquely rational in religion that is not also encompassed by secular humanism? Where is the rationality in believing a cracker turns into the flesh of a long dead man, facing Mecca to pray, covering women's faces, cutting off foreskins or eating fish on a Friday? Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 09:06, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Bob, "apparently irrational" to you. We are again at the starting point. What does the word 'rational' mean? And what does 'irrational' mean? I contend it doesn't mean "based on scientific evidence", and I don't see religions in opposition with the Wiktionary definition for example. Plenty of philosophers and scientists (and mostly at their time they were both) have discussed religion and the (in)existence of God. While you may embrace or dismiss their arguments for or against the existence of God, I wouldn't say that these celebrated minds or their arguments were irrational. Sure, some of them kept religion as inherently irrational, but they provided their own reasoning, logic and "proof". I can't find anything irrational in facing Mecca to pray if that is the result of a muslim's own view. Again, equating "rational" with "scientific method" is just wrong. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 09:44, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
And a suggestion for an article, relating to what is rational and what isn't, but a bit off topic here. Why is socialism and communism a failure every time they are tried? My personal take - and don't take any offense anybody - is that while there could be something good in them, they contrast with Human nature. Human nature is not good or bad by itself, it's just what we are. We are both violent, greedy, selfish as we are good and friendly and compassionate. Some parts of that are at odds with a successful community based on communist ideas (again, my humble opinion), or other utopistic worldviews. Again, need for religion is part of human nature. One could argue that it is just human curiosity, need of knowledge, sense of mystery that has led first to the creation of religions and then to science, which purports to explain the world around us - in that case religion and science would be in contrast, as science could "dismiss the need for religion". Instead, I think that there is more to that and need for religion and/or spirituality, in all its modern "atheist" forms too, is an inherent part of human nature. It would be fascinating, for a rational wiki, to investigate the relation of "rational" with "human nature". But I'll leave it at this. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 09:51, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
So .... is there now any evidence for the existence of god, and if there is, what is it?--Bobbing up 09:52, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
EC) The irrationality is insisting that this is the only way. There is no rational way to pray, if god is everywhere why face Mecca? The trappings of most religion are merely "conventions" but insisting that things be done in a certain way has no basis in rationality. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 09:54, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Bob, again, "rational" and "based on evidence" are not synonyms. Генгис, again you are missing the point. They are merely conventions, not inherently rational or irrational. What is irrational is your view that "religions are inherently irrational, atheism is the only rational way". Religions are just that, religions. Beliefs, conventions, social systems, set of rules. But they trascend the field of (ir)rationality. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 09:58, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
I hear what you say, but could you answer the question? Is there any evidence for the existence of god?--Bobbing up 10:00, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
How would I know? I'm not very interested in these matters. Ask Akjeldsen, he is interested in these things and a practicing Christian IIRC. I'd suggest you a visit to Vatican's homepage, a very rationally kept site with plenty of information. And what about evidence against the existence of God? Editor at CPLiar at RP! 10:05, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Not that I'd consider evidence against God's existence relevant to a set of beliefs or particularly rational or irrational. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 10:07, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) For a starting place, see Wikipedia. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 10:10, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Ed@CP, you are putting words into my mouth, I have never stated "atheism is the only rational way" as the existence or not of a god is impossible to prove. However, the likelihood of a capricious supreme deity being concerned with and intervening in the minutiae of the lives of individual organisms' in such an enormous universe is extremely unlikely. Basing one's actions on a collection of assorted myths and fables from over 2000 years ago, concocted by a bunch of superstitious (and by modern-day standards) ignorant nomads who believed in talking serpents and the Earth standing still is highly irrational. Even if one accepts the existence of God (or any other deities) how is most of what comprises religion rational? One may rationally accept the ethical teachings of a historic figure (real or concocted) but turning that into a religion with spurious obligations and taboos is not rational. Philopsphers may have debated about the nature and/or existence of god in rational terms but one should not confuse that with man-made religion. If you can point me in the direction of any particular religion which has a rational foundation rather than just incorporating some rational values into its mysticism, then please do so. In the meantime, asserting that I am irrational because I dismiss the trappings and dogma of religion is much closer to the arguments of Andy and Jinx hi Jinx! than me being like Aschlafly. Show me the evidence and if it stands up to scrutiny then I will change my mind - show Schlafly and he will dismiss it. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 12:36, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Rationality will not save us. Stalin was rational when he purged the Soviet Union of "dissidents". Khrushchev, Fidel Castro, and John F. Kennedy behaved rationally during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and they still came this fucking close to nuclear war. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

All people are as rational as they can be given their circumstances and conditions. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:59, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

First of all I agree that no-one is completely rational, otherwise they would be very boring. Human beings have a disposition towards emotional responses but that is not to say that they should not consider their actions in a rational manner. However, you are making a grave mistake if you think that Stalin was rational with his purges. He may have "rationalised" his actions but that does not make mass murder a rational act and you are being disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 17:25, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Reading all of the above makes me glad I like the deist way the best. I interpret deism as rendering it down to this:
  • Yes, there is a god!
  • This god is unknowable within the human mind, therefore
  • To attempt to know this god is an exercise in futility and irrationality.
CЯacke® 19:07, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm kind of surprised our sentiments were so similar on that—I, too, think that if everyone were always rational, life would be boring. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:43, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
And your (possibly irrational) reasons for believing the first point would be?--Bobbing up 03:25, 5 September 2008 (EDT)


So what are you/we going to do with all this stuff from your astrologer? Are we going to be writing an article on her? We've got plenty of material, and I think there's some other sites that give out warnings about her. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 18:59, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, I keep getting hooked into long drawn-out discussions over the meaning of religion so I get diverted from this important matter. I was surprised that all my characters have received more junk, even though their "transits" have passed. I need to go back in to the "readings" as I discovered that some of them had changed second time round, things like different transit lengths or tarot cards (which also didn't match their descriptions). So yes, it will be an article, but the stuff just keeps coming. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 19:09, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
"I keep getting hooked into long drawn-out discussions over the meaning of religion" -- ^_^
"the stuff keeps coming" -- Yeah, I can see that. Still, at least there's a massive article to look forward to. And the eventual unmasking of the six middle-aged businessmen who manage the "Jenna" persona, of course. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 19:16, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
What'd be awesome is once you crack the supa-accurate Jenna reading code used to generate the ultra personal bulk mailings the amazing Jenna sends out, then write a template for rationalwiki to generate your very own personal reading. Also, guaranteed to cleanse your energies! --JeevesMkII 19:18, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
I see this as RW's equivalent of Ken's cp:Atheism article. :) Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 19:23, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

This shit must be a license to print money. Would it be ridiculously unethical to sell these fraudsters a pack of software complete with all the pictures of meteorites, new age junk and a canned website in an easy to deploy box. Hell, even a pre-packaged amazon EC2 image you can just configure upload and run then rake in the cash? --JeevesMkII 19:36, 6 September 2008 (EDT)


There's a programme about Mongolia & GK on BBC7 (radio) NOW Marghanita Laski 04:34, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Marge! Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 04:53, 7 September 2008 (EDT)


Greeting Cap'n, Couldn't let the day pass thout throwin you me well wishes. I be hoping ye day was grand, and I'd like to leave you with me favoritve pirate joke:

Two pirates are walking through town and one turns to the other and says: "Captain, there be a steering wheel stickin out of your pants." And the Captain says, "Arg, I know, and it's driving me nuts." SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 19:31, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

LOL. Hoist the Jolly Roger! Jolly-Roger.png Cap'n GengOh, me wooden leg! 19:59, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Arg, I had a feelin ye'd like it. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 20:03, 19 September 2008 (EDT)


I am officially stunned. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 14:14, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe when you're as old as me you will appreciate what I'm saying. But hey, someone had to be controversial on that topic. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 14:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, I appreciate your opinion, however controversial it might be ^_^ I doubt I'll ever be convinced, though. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 14:21, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
In what way do you think I am wrong? Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 14:31, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
In that love exists and is distinct from both sex and friendship. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 14:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
And what do you define love as? Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 15:16, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
The only way to know it is to experience it in full. As a lesser alternative, the best definition is found in the Giants of Literature (and Music, and Cinema, and...). Editor at CPLiar at RP! 15:21, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
And before anybody starts, love, in its wonderful insanity, is perfectly rational. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 15:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
No it's not. Love is the height of irrationality. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 15:25, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Semantics perhaps, but love must be embraced, not repulsed. We humans define what is rational, and we humans experience love. Love and rationality don't mutually exclude. On the contrary. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 15:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, it's mostly semantic, but I still think it's true ^_^ I don't think the illogical nature of love makes it any less real or meaningful. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
I was "in love" - about fourteen times to date. There are also people I love. The word is so incredibly vague, it means nothing. Do I love my parents like I loved my first girlfriend? (I hope not) And yet, did I "love" her more? It's just chemicals in my brain, in the end. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:42, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
It is not at all vague, but simply indefinable. It is impossible to define any form of beauty -- art, literature, music -- but are those things vague? New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 02:53, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Your comment added nothing. Many forms of beauty have been "defined" (and then the definitions turned upside down). "Love" is undefined due to meaning too many things. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:16, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Yawn. We know perfectly well which meaning of love we're referring to here: romantic love. Forget the rest and then read my above comment again. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 03:23, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I know what you are defining it as. And you need to look up what you're talking about. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:26, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
No, I need to look up what you're talking about. Could you give me a hint? New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 03:30, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

And while I'm at it, your definition of God is wrong. Wikipedia agrees with me. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 15:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(EC) I don't. It can't be defined. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 15:25, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I'm with out on the love thing Genghis. I don't think love as we accept it is real (as in falling in love). I think extreme affection for a family member or close friend is possible. But I see it as just a strong Psychological response to an evolutionary need to procreate. And this from a youngin SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 15:26, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Aren't you a bit presumptuous? Knowing that something doesn't exist because you haven't experienced it? Sure, everything can be explained from a different point of view: biochemically, physiologically, psychologically, with Evolution, natural selection, anthropology. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 15:37, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
When you touch a boiling kettle, you will feel a "strong psychological response" that we call pain. That doesn't mean the kettle isn't hot, or that it won't burn you. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 15:41, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Actually, when you touch a boiling kettle, you feel a "strong PHYSIOLOGICAL response" that says HURT! LET GO!. It sure as hell isn't a "psychological response". ħumanUser talk:Human 02:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
False distinction. The pain is wholly created by the body, but, despite that, it is grounded in reality. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 02:53, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Completely blank response. Psychological vs. physiological. Which is it? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:16, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
It is both, but more importantly, it doesn't matter. Both are only chemical (or electrical, possibly) reactions of the body -- my point is that this is a description not an explanation, and these reactions still relate to real events. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 03:23, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
How real? Burning hand, versus, a "burning" heart full of desire and pain? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:26, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
If you really think love is unreal or meaningless somehow, I don't intend to pursaude you otherwise. I was only pointing out that human reactions don't become "false" somehow just because they're chemical. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 03:30, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Without taking a side on this, I see that nobody in this discussion has actually come up with a definition of this thing called Love.--Bobbing up 15:44, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Sory, bit too quick with that - I see that SirChuckB did.--Bobbing up 15:46, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
It isn't possible. New3.pngPink(Astronomy Domine) 15:48, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
"Love" is nothing more than a construct; it does not "exist" in any naturalistic sense. For that matter, neither does ethics, or moral philosophy, or a belief in an intrinsic value in anything. Thus, Genghis' observation on the nature of love is obvious yet also misses the point. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:39, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Hmm. Love exists in naturalistic sense. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 04:54, 21 September 2008 (EDT)


Conservapedia Talk:Difference 16 - Professional Names#Bugler His name's actually up to CP standards, surprisingly. Barikada 14:18, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely true! His real name is B. Ugler!  : D Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Or maybe Bugle Robinson.... I've known soem kids with strange names before... Bugle, come eat your dinner... SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 15:00, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Naw... it's Brian Ugler. Too bad... I liked calling him "Young Bugle Richards." :( Barikada 15:04, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
That would have been "Bugle Palin", Chuck. Sarah's 6th, the one that was born blind, with the cleft palate and thalidomide flippers. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:20, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
XD Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:10, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

For future reference[edit]

I see nowhere where I ever vandalized the site, but if another Conservapedia is what you want, where everyone is assumed to be a vandal until proven otherwise, another Conservapedia is what you'll get. (and already have). For future reference, you may wish to save the "vandal" category for those who actually vandalize the site such as blanking pages. You are hereby invited to show me any diffs of mine showing any vandalism at all. See ya, and you paranoid little Andrew Schlafly wannabees enjoy your pathetic shell of a life. NEED PERCOCET NOW 16:12, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Perky--you arrived, asked to be a sysop with your first edit, and got what you asked for, and a little more. This place can be like eighth grade sometimes, but bear this in mind: If we tease you, it's because we like's all about the lulz. PFoster 16:15, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
You gotta keep your wits about you on this site. I gave you the powerz but you ignord vem. Reedmpshun iz at and iff u axept the shh! Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving

OK, I have to ask....[edit]

Why is it you're obsessed with removing excess whitespace from the various WIGOs? It seems fairly inoffensive to me. --JeevesMkII 13:17, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

The devil lives in the cracks. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 13:53, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Number of Edits[edit]

Hi Genghis, I tried to integrate the new data on the site RationalWiki:Active_users. But I run into a problem with the lines: I just took into account the 100 most productive editors and adjusted {{Rwau}} and {{Rwaunum}} accordingly - or, so I thought. Could you take a short look at it?

Thanks, --LArron 17:30, 24 October 2008 (EDT) (PS:Yes, I can update the site again in five days, and will do so for CP's pendant. LA.)

Somehow, I messed up the class="sortbottom" part... :-( --LArron 17:41, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for cleaning up the mess I made - Next time, I'll do better! I just took the Top 100 editors - and didn't look whether they were bots or not. Would you prefer to add some editors, or take another number of editors (excluding bots, of course?) --LArron 08:35, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I only took the bots out to get the number down to 100. There is still a bot left in the list. A hundred is probably enough and keeps most regulars in the list. For some reason you need to keep the align=left as a template in the last row. It's so long ago that I can't remember why that is the case. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 08:45, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm afraid I don't know anything about templates for wikis - is there a nice introduction anywhere? Next time, I'll leave out the bots and take a total of 100 editors - and then, I'll alter {{rwausum}} accordingly ...--LArron 10:23, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Re: templates, try Metawiki - it's a start. Terra 10:33, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, Terra. I was just about say the same thing. Redchuck.gif Генгисunbelieving 10:38, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Actually this is probably better - it's more like a tutorial than a reference. ->Genghis "It's so long ago that I can't remember why that is the case." Heh! COMMENT YOUR CODE!! CaycePattern 10:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Duff link[edit]

in "other" The Abimelech Society link gives: "404 Page not found". Just sayin' Toast 09:16, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

thanks for the grammar backstop[edit]

I was writing along in singular, plural,singular, plural,singular, plural,singular, plural - well you get it - and then tried to fix it and DAMN, I missed one. And you found it and kindly fixed it. Life is good. Einar akaCarptrash 04:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)