User talk:Nutty Roux/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 18 January 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <1>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>

, (new)(back)

Beotch!

You made me do this to you!

Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 04:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously

Is there a problem? You've not been your usual self at all lately. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It has to be said

You're a good person. Pink_{(Is a perfectly acceptable colour)} 01:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for information

What up. Just arrived home from a long haul flight. Haven't slept for 36 hours and can't stomach wading through pages of gibberish so can you sum up what is happening with this Human issue? Ace ^{of Spades} 04:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Fore shore. Give me a call tomorrow and I'll get you up to speed. Sorry you couldn't vote. You just missed it. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sweet, I'll skype you around 11am my time. I don't know what time that is where you are and don't care because it isn't the "real" time...ya know what I mean? The world revolves around Ace. Ace ^{of Spades} 04:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Spoogemonkey. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm....more whisky solves everything. Ace ^{of Spades} 04:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

8 vodka sodas, 2 klonopins, and a motion to dismiss. I'm fucking cooked. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

wow. you guise are sooo hardcore---brxbrx 04:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider it hardcore, I'd say it's more a case of ageing really badly. Ace ^{of Spades} 04:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I sort of agree. I can't sustain this abuse. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Email

Check it. Time for some aSK fun. Ace ^{of Spades} 01:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

For your delight and amusement. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Booze

Have you been drinking again? I have :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be but I have a job interview this afternoon. Ace ^{of Spades} 21:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I literally just went to the store for a sixer of IPA. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Goddamit Crundy. I haven't caught you drunk on Skype in ages. What happened to us?! Nutty Roux (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that a gun in your hands....

...or are you just happy to see me? P-Foster (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, don't shoot the spider plant. There aren't enough in the world. sterile^talk 02:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a nice solid green one. That one's got stripes. Lemme know if you want a few babies before I execute every one of those motherfuckers. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have one that suffers neglect already. Shit, it needs water. sterile^talk 02:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Never let a spider plant dry out - the leaves slump and fold and never recover their tumescence. I once had one about 5' across and 6' high (top of leaves to bottom of "babies"), it loved the West window it was in and I kept it moist at all times. ħuman 04:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

My "tumescence" keeps it "moist at all times" too. P-Foster (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

About Revelations

I assume that you are going to watch the video series. It's still ongoing and Xoroaster is still updating on previous videos, so we can wait. He's almost finished though.

Anyway, the series claims that the prophecies of Revelations, as well as Daniel and others, were actually events that happened in the past, shrouded with symbolism (The 7 headed beast represents the 7 kings of Rome or something). The writers of the Bible believed in some kind of cosmic time loop and believed history to repeat itself. Snark indeed.

In the begining, God created... me. And He said I was awesome. 23:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for having missed the rest of this conversation, but aren't the seven heads representative of the seven hills of Rome, and the whore of Babylon the Catholic Church? If not its still the interpretation I like most. M.B.E (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Jacques Cousteau could never get this low....

Ace ^{of Spades} 03:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

IfthewerecrapsIrolleda7straightupyo

Light up the sky like the 4th o' July.....

Ace ^{of Spades} 03:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

minimal

Ace ^{of Spades} 11:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you happen to catch last night's South Park? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I just read your comment here

Considering RW has no checkuser (not that it would show anything; that's what neighbors with open networks and open proxies on top of that are for), how the fuck did you know about my little vandalism sprees here at RW, pretending to be MC and the cheerleader? RobSmith been leaking emails again? Frankly I could care less that you know though; it was an experiment. DMorris2 (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the input. 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not MC or LBHSC, I just pretended to be them on a couple of occasions just to see what it was like to stir an HCM and bring a wiki to its knees. DMorris2 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I know you're not MC. I believe you are the cheerleader. 20:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Even I'm having a hard time keeping track or who's who anymore... Occasionaluse (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember Brxbrx is Occasionaluse. Blue (is useful) 22:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not either one of them, but I've acted like them on occasion. Not using my home network though. DMorris2 (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

@Blue: That's a terrible thing to say about OU. @Cheerleader: wutevs. 23:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

@Nutjob Roux, are you crazy? Who in their right mind would create this about himself/herself, troll themself, or vandalize their own school's page with spam for a rival school? Wutevs is right; whatever you're on, can I have some? DMorris2 (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a nutjob. That hurts. By the way, you don't have to actually upload images from wikipedia (and I think wikimedia commons). We've got a magical interwiki dealio that lets you literally just use the file name as if it were already here. 03:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

like this... 03:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm a n00b here, lol. DMorris2 (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuck the apollo Sat night

I am serving you fuckingwife....

Ace ^{of Spades} 12:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

ninja

Ace ^{of Spades} 00:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Because wearing a band that says "Ninja" on it makes one inconspicuous. =____=--Dumpling (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

dumb question

is this stuff with jimjast (?) and Eira like a joke, and they are having fun? Or is it really serious? I should not be nosy, but i can never tell around here. :-)--En attendant Godot 15:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)--En attendant Godot 15:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Creationists...

“”"Kilian James Garvey of the University of New England studied anti-evolutionists, and found not only that they were more highly religious and more likely to believe in God (no shocker) but also that they had a higher “need for closure,” and reacted more strongly on affective (or emotional) measures of fear and disgust."

—[1]

sterile^talk 15:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

“”In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.

—Gregory Paul, Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies, Journal of Religion and Society (Volume 7)

18:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

“”The present research examined the psychological motives underlying widespread support for intelligent design theory (IDT), a purportedly scientific theory that lacks any scientific evidence; and antagonism toward evolutionary theory (ET), a theory supported by a large body of scientific evidence. We tested whether these attitudes are influenced by IDT's provision of an explanation of life's origins that better addresses existential concerns than ET. In four studies, existential threat (induced via reminders of participants' own mortality) increased acceptance of IDT and/or rejection of ET, regardless of participants' religion, religiosity, educational background, or preexisting attitude toward evolution. Effects were reversed by teaching participants that naturalism can be a source of existential meaning (Study 4), and among natural-science students for whom ET may already provide existential meaning (Study 5). These reversals suggest that the effect of heightened mortality awareness on attitudes toward ET and IDT is due to a desire to find greater meaning and purpose in science when existential threats are activated.

—http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017349

sterile^talk 03:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

yo

Ace ^{of Spades} 07:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

botting

may I suggest you adopt the practice, for the sake of those who like to use recent changes to keep up with the wiki? thank you. And no, I haven't a clue how to bot. I asked Nx, but got no reply. I'm sure you know your way around better than I, though, no?--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest you go fuck yourself? Nobody but Nx and Trent has the ability to set the bot usergroup and I'm not waiting around for that to happen. 18:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

=

If you use a "=" in a template you must give its name or number i.e. {{templatename|first substituted phrase|2=two plus two=five}} Pippa (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

see here, it actually mentions {{sbs. Pippa (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still not clear to a cretinous non-tech type like me why <nowiki>=</nowiki> isn't a shit ton easier than having to look at multiple docs to learn how variables in wiki templates work. 19:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nx's clarification on the sbs/doc page is very lucid and helpful. Thanks. 19:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I like your nowiki method. It saves having to remember the parameters. Pippa (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

People more technically competent and with better memories than me should use Nx's explanation. It's very helpful. 19:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the nowiki thing is that you have to hunt down all the ='s in the text, which in the case of sbs can be quite long. It's simpler to just prefix it with 1= and 2=. -- Nx / talk 19:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right if you assume that people will even know that when, like me, they're probably just cribbing the {{sbs}} format from another page. But that's obviously out of anyone's hands and the documentation is now very good. Thanks. 19:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The template now detects if there's a missing parameter and shows an error message with instructions for how to fix it (assuming the parameters are missing because of this). -- Nx / talk 19:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. You rock. 19:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment the other day...

The whole back-and-forth with Terry has gotten interesting since then. Check out the comments from 6/17-18 on the page. I'd like to find a way to make this happen without getting caught in a box. --DinsdaleP (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Well done. He's got a bunch of formidable commenters on his various tracts. I'll have a look at your back and forth and see if there's anything I would add. He's woefully ignorant of the science - you'll notice his initial statement is merely parroting something from CMI/AiG/ICR or the like, but when the commenters eviscerate him he starts making things up. And when they get tired he's left to tell bald-faced just-so stories to the other "exmainers" popping by to pump his page views and advertizing revenue. 16:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Testy Awk

Awc is finally getting testy. sterile^talk 21:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

He's got the patience of a saint but no good sense. 22:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I just can't get over Philips lies. After all that discussion he turns around and says "Ace was saying x" when he knows that wasn't even the topic of the debate. Ace ^{of Spades} 23:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And since Christian presuppositions underlie all of the Christian’s reasoning, then our argument for the truth of Christianity itself must be, in a certain sense, circular. We should try to understand what that “certain sense” is. It is not that we are reduced to saying “Christianity is true because it is true,” or any such nonsense. Rather, the argument is circular in that it appeals to criteria of truth and rationality which are themselves Christian in that they accord with Christian presuppositions. But if that is true, then we are presenting an argument that assumes from the outset that Christianity is true; it assumes, in other words, the conclusion it attempts to prove. Now normally “circular argument” is considered a fallacy. This particular type of circularity, however, I believe, is not a fallacy, but a necessity of human thought. - John Frame[2]

23:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh and Philip's still at misrepresenting what happened in your cosmology lessons. 23:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I know, because he is incapable of admitting error. Ace ^{of Spades} 23:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not just that - he's been claiming you somehow failed to either carry your burden or get some point or something. I don't remember. I just know you're wrong and he's right. 23:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Philip wins every argument. I don't know why we try. sterile^talk 00:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

hi.

I moved the essay to sayasaki's user space. I put a notice on the talk page but got tired of waiting far too soon and I did the move. Actually, I think it's already in essay space anyways. See the saloon bar where he announced the project, and see recent changes.

*cringes*please don't flame me--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Christ, Brxbrx, you've angered Nutty. I'll pray for your eternal soul. Only your God can help you now. P-Foster (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems I've acquired a talent for angering him. A shame I don't have a god... P-Foster, will you be my god?--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

SBS

Hi Nutty, thanks for showing me how the Side-by-Side template works. It looks a lot better than the bubble comments. I'll be using that from now on. Thanks again!--Ironclad (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On a related note. Is there a means by which I can select and change all collapsible-bubble comments to the SBS system, or do I have to go through and change each one manually? Thanks.--Ironclad (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably manually except to the extent they already correspond to an adjacent bit of text you're responding to - in that case it's just a matter of adding {{sbs to the beginning of the section, setting off the 2 parameters with |, and deleting the beginning of your collapse template. Hope that makes sense. 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I understand what you mean, and will give it a go in one of the shorter sections to make sure I understand it. On the note of "you must stop the first-person narrative"; what general amendements would you like to see henceforth? Sorry if it's come across as a bit casual so far.--Ironclad (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at What is a RationalWiki article?, the Newcomer's Guide, and What is RationalWiki? That oughta give you a good orientation. First person narrative is inappropriate because, while RationalWiki isn't an encyclopedia, it's also not a blog. People want RationalWiki content, not your personal reflection. There's always going to be a way of rephrasing something worth saying that cuts the first person stuff to convey just the idea itself. 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Approaching Nutty for advice is like squeezing a hemroid for good luck. I don't know what that is supposed to mean except that it is an underhanded insult towards Nutty. In other words, Nutty sucks. Ace ^{of Spades} 23:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nutty, I'll have a look at those articles and make appropriate alterations from hereon in. As for the rest; I don't want to get dragged into a spat between users.--Ironclad (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, just stay away from Ace. Asking him for advice is like trying to get through customs with a kilogram of heroin up your ass: dangerous, uncomfortable, and likely to fail. 23:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

But extremely pleasureable if the bag happens to burst. Ace ^{of Spades} 23:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what you said about the condom BUT IT WASN'T TRUE. 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, you can't get pregnant from anal intercourse. But you can get Gay Bowl Disease. Ace ^{of Spades} 23:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I wuvs youse

--PsyGremlinSprich! 14:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Party people....

Ace ^{of Spades} 22:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

d00d

OK User:Neo-Nazis are liberal is a douche. But surely a three month block requires some degree of community discussion? Don't get me wrong, I support shitcanning vandals, but should we not heed Bob when he notes that community standards have to be amended before these sorts of unilateral blocks can be dished out? MtD^{Pinko Scum} 03:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Do what you want. That person just goes from site to site spamming the same weird stuff defaming some individual without any real notability. He or she's got a years long record here, CP, wikipedia, etc. 03:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. MtD^{Pinko Scum} 04:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your election to moderator

You were one of the seven elected moderators, the results can be found at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Results. I will be changing your user rights shortly to reflect your new position. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning for incivility

Retract your invicility or face a block. Ace ^{of Spades} 00:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Retract your invicility or face a block. I tried to avoid the apparently inevitable block by giving you multiple opportunities to substantiate or withdraw your accusation (and I found it a little depressing, too). The onus was on you to address the possibility of a good faith misunderstanding, and you failed to do that. I addressed your points by showing (again) that you failed to account for a good faith alternative. I see that you have inappropriately unblocked yourself to make your post, and you repeated the "dishonest" accusation while you are at it. I am changing the block to 1 week. 01:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

substantiate or withdraw your accusation Ho hum, already done that.

The onus was on you to address the possibility of a good faith misunderstanding I have addressed this. The onus is on you.

you repeated the "dishonest" accusation while you are at it But creation scientists are scientists. I fail to see how this is dishonest rather it is you throwing around dishonest assertions. Ace ^{of Spades} 01:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am beaten. I concede to your superior intellect and rhetorical skill, Philip. 01:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Positive Case for Design

FYI, we have The Positive Case for Design.... sterile^talk 00:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I know. There was some unique material in this one I wanted to add. Go pick EvoWiki apart. It's mostly shit but there's some good stuff here and there. 01:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... haven't looked at the EvoWiki stuff for a while.... sterile^talk 01:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You're a bitch and I'm never slipping you tongue again!

but congrats on the election! --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this what passes for discourse on irRational uncivil wiki? Get fucked. 14:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

all woman should wear bras

Ace^{of Spades} 13:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Genuis

Just picked up some tickets for a GZA gig. Word. Ace^{of Spades} 02:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Choose the sword and you will join me. Choose the ball and join your mother in death. You don't understand my words, but you must choose. 03:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, bad dreams are only dreams. What a time you choose to be born... Ace^{of Spades} 03:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your lyrics are weak, like clock radio speakers

Ace^{of Spades} 00:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I am gonna go and stick it

Ace^{of Spades} 05:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This shit rocks so much it bleeds granite

Ace^{of Spades} 07:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, as a punk nerd who was also listening to a bunch of Fugazi, Hoover, A minor forest, Big Black/Rapeman/Shellac, Unwound, Brainiac, Mousetrap, We'd rather be flying,etc. in the early 90's, Enter the Wu-tang was a total game changer that got me hooked on the hip hop of the time and back to more of the early 80's electro that made it possible. We use to sit up all night watching The Box on stolen cable waiting for the Wu-tang Nas and Gang Starr to come on. This is one of the dopest mashups I've ever heard. Thanks.

06:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)