Information icon.svg The 2019 RMF board election has started!
We are electing 3 board members for the 2019-2021 term.
Vote here and read their campaign slogans here!

Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki:What is going on at ASK?"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(June 2009: Splitting into two WIGOs.)
(June 2009: Breaking news - nothing is happening.)
Line 14: Line 14:
 
===June 2009===
 
===June 2009===
 
<!--POST NEXT ENTRY HERE. CHECK THE NUMBER OF THE PREVIOUS ONE BEFORE ADDING AN ENTRY. DO NOT REUSE A NUMBER OR LEAVE AN X IN PLACE!-->
 
<!--POST NEXT ENTRY HERE. CHECK THE NUMBER OF THE PREVIOUS ONE BEFORE ADDING AN ENTRY. DO NOT REUSE A NUMBER OR LEAVE AN X IN PLACE!-->
 
+
<vote poll=ask122>Nothing. Or at best [http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&hideminor=1&namespace=0 very little].</vote>
 
<!--<vote poll=ask117>Is rape abusive?  Most people wouldn’t have to ASK. PJR  isn’t sure.  
 
<!--<vote poll=ask117>Is rape abusive?  Most people wouldn’t have to ASK. PJR  isn’t sure.  
 
[http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruylopez&curid=79&diff=17664&oldid=17661]</vote>-->
 
[http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruylopez&curid=79&diff=17664&oldid=17661]</vote>-->

Revision as of 00:13, 22 June 2009

Template:AOTW Navigation Add your observations on what is happening at A Storehouse of Knowledge here.

Same rules as WIGO CP. New items at the top, archive when it gets big.

Always be wary of Poe's Law - if something seems too outrageous to be true, it often is. If you see an entry that you think is questionable add {{poe}} to it.

If you decide to join up there, you might want to consider signing the RW Moles Declaration.

Archives

What is going on?

June 2009

upneutraldown
5Nothing. Or at best very little.
upneutraldown
3Whatever you do, don't let Proxima Centauri see you cleaning up one of her pet spelling errors articles.
upneutraldown
-1Looks like Christians need warnings about evolutionist arguments that just might be strong enough to disturb their faith. [1] Don’t let the faithful see any suggestion that God set out to deceive us. [2]
upneutraldown
-2The fossil record doesn’t show changes over time, pathogens don’t evolve antibiotic resistance, microevolution doesn’t happen. Well Philip J. Rayment thinks he knows better than the scientists who study these subjects and removed the "false" information. [3]
upneutraldown
5Man, back in Biblical days, being a slave was awesome!
upneutraldown
5Aww, isn't that cute? He thinks he's making a point.
upneutraldown
0Say, if  K e n  D o l l  lets this one go on his talk page, does that mean he'll be intellectually honest and remove this bit of quote mining? And maybe pigs will fly.
upneutraldown
7Bradley scolds a Member for exceeding her rights, even though there's no rule about it. Ad hoc rules are always popular.
upneutraldown
0PJR asks a completely bizarre question.
upneutraldown
4PJR: Every single thing I pluck out of the blue, like a television, can be considered a god; therefore atheists obviously have gods.
upneutraldown
11 K e n  D o l l , being pwned on the subject of elementary genetics, responds by calling it all "bunk science."
upneutraldown
0PJR: When God Almighty makes a law, we wretched sinners should have some thoughts of our own as to whether the rationale behind the law still applies. Bonus: Being apparently unfamiliar with the term canonical, he uses "non-apocryphal" instead.
upneutraldown
1LowKey adds some background reading material illustrating CMI's, er, rather odd views about aliens and God's activities of ethnic cleansing.
upneutraldown
6The God who personally murdered children in Egypt, killed almost everyone on earth at one point and told a man to murder his own child before saying "just kidding" has had his feelings hurt by you calling him a vindictive creep and needs me to protect him, delicate flower that He is.
upneutraldown
-1Dinsdale, through due diligence and scrupulous intellectual honesty, determines that Jesus didn't really support Biblical inerrancy. This should spark a re-evaluation of the concept by Philip and Bradley. Yup, aaaaany time now.
upneutraldown
4Get a crazy religious newsletter to shill for your encyclopaedia, get crazy religious guys free.
upneutraldown
12Hold on...is Philip saying that Mosaic Law only applied to the Israelites and doesn't apply today? I guess that means we can stop using Leviticus to prop up anti-homosexual bigotry. That's good news.
upneutraldown
11Dahmer is not representative of atheism...he's just the logical result of atheism. See? Not representative at all except all atheists follow the same ideas to a lesser degree.
upneutraldown
11Philip's little definition problem continues. So now the key terms that he has not or refuses to define include "information", "meaning" and now "absolute morality".

May 2009

upneutraldown
2GENTLEMEN! I have arrived to announce ...that there will be no more Gentlemen?
upneutraldown
11Philip finds a reliable source on atheist morality. Update Say, have you met my straw man?
upneutraldown
9While I like the suggestions for the accuracy section on the Dawkins article that doesn't deal at all with his actual work, I'd like it to smear him and all other non-Christians more. Do you think you could manage that?
upneutraldown
2aSK's public relations arm swings into action. Theresa was right Bradley, you really are a worthless tit.
upneutraldown
6Seriously Philip, that would have been a perfect example.
upneutraldown
2What's good for the goose... Update Philip uses the debating skills he learned at CP to deal with valid criticism.
upneutraldown
13 K e n  D o l l  accuses RatWikians of being obsessed with his Homosexuality article, in a conversation (hell, in a page) where no one had mentioned it. Seriously Ken, Cineplex projects less than you do.
upneutraldown
-35A RationalWiki mole and signatory to the Moles Declaration writes a fun essay on religionists' morality. To give it a wider reading, the mole then proceeds to splatter it all over the Wiki. The mole is banhammered for a week.
upneutraldown
7I don't normally compare PJR to Andy, but these first couple of lines are pure CP shitheel. Way to go, Philip.
upneutraldown
5Shorter LowKey: I'm not saying anything negative about Richard Dawkins. I'm just saying he can't tell true from false and probably doesn't even know deceit is bad. Who'd see that as an insult?
upneutraldown
12This lovely bit of prose deserves to be enshrined somewhere. Substantial reply pending.Update: Glad we cleared that up.
upneutraldown
0Gulik thinks that only some people can take trustworthy photographs. Lowkey reacts by seemingly calling Gulik a troll. Classy. Update: "Oops. To be perfectly clear."
upneutraldown
11Mr. Reasonable valiantly resists defining meaning despite it being a central pillar of his argument. Apparently he just feels it in his gut.
upneutraldown
5PJR gives us the chance to watch someone who doesn't understand Shannon information lecture someone about...Shannon information.
upneutraldown
4Ominouser and ominouser!
upneutraldown
5If you haven't seen it yet, Timsh posted a beautiful takedown of Philip's "genes are just like english" nonsense and a number of other topics. Don't expect Philip to concede a cm though, since that's how he rolls.
upneutraldown
2PJR on MOAR PSIANZ: "Even if I grant that duplication 'allows for' increases, it's not itself an increase, so citing it as one is incorrect." PJR also states that Andy made incorrect statements about Obama, but no one can show how PJR is wrong about Dawkins.
upneutraldown
7RationalWiki is a "...place of filthy and blasphemous language, replete with name-calling, smearing, innuendo, hypocrisy, and other undesirable attributes." according to PJR. High praise indeed.
upneutraldown
5Thanks for writing, Theresa, you ignorant slut.
upneutraldown
1Philip refines the art of character assassination: "Dawkins doesn't believe in God The Almighty and thus has no absolute basis for morals, so he might be a filthy, deceitful liar!" But, uh, I'm not saying that he actually is a filthy, deceitful liar, you know?"
upneutraldown
2Point of etiquette, Phil. You shouldn't ask someone to "please explain" right before you block them for a week. Especially for saying what we're all thinking.
upneutraldown
2Not like CP: This is incivility, this is not. Can you figure out the difference?
upneutraldown
5Mr. Reasonable has had it up to here with civility. GOAT: PJR becomes Andy: "I do expect readers to understand what atheism is about, and have no in-principle concern with them finding out that direct from the atheists." Also Assfly quality: "They have enough of their own platforms in the education system, the media, and the like, from which the biblical worldview is effectively barred, so why should we give them a platform here?"
upneutraldown
1"I am NOT like Andy Schlafly," little Philip screamed, stamping his little foot. "I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I'M NOT!"
upneutraldown
1OMFG, Ungtss: "However, religious believers do not typically support personal freedom in the areas of sexual behavior, abortion, and other criminal activities, because they believe that in those cases, the interests of others outweigh the interests of individual freedoms." Update: Ungtss reads WIGO.
upneutraldown
8While the rats are away, the...uh...what's lower than a rat?
upneutraldown
8Mr. Reasonable tells us that you can't say the Bible supports men owning women, that would be sexist. Husbands owning wifes[sic], on the other hand, that's just fine!
upneutraldown
0Science hater Ungtss declares materialists use science to prove the non-existence of god. The usual "science can't explain free will" and other creationist arguments pop up. And that science can't test history! Glad to know creationists are redefining science in order to point out its shortcomings to other creationists.
upneutraldown
2PJR alllllllmost has an epiphany. Too bad it's only to point out why something sounds like parody.
upneutraldown
3Captain, the article canna take any more quotes! They're almost half the article as it is!
upneutraldown
13PJR's quote policy: Any old crap by a creationist is okay, no matter how little evidence. Anything from an actual scientist, so long as we have the slightest excuse to call it "opinion" is banned. A little closer to Andy every day.
upneutraldown
4PJR: "We don't condemn Mormons. The Bible does."