Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(A "situational" political test?)
Line 596: Line 596:
 
*[[User:Bob M]]— MO: -5, MR: 4
 
*[[User:Bob M]]— MO: -5, MR: 4
 
*[[User:Editor_at_CP|Ed @]][[User_Talk:Editor_at_CP|<sup>but not the Poor one!</sup>]]—  -4, +6
 
*[[User:Editor_at_CP|Ed @]][[User_Talk:Editor_at_CP|<sup>but not the Poor one!</sup>]]—  -4, +6
*[[*[[User:Genghis_Khant|Genghis]]MO: -2, MR: -1
+
*[[User:Silver Sloth]] MO -6, MR 1.5 (Godless commie and proud of it)
 
 
====Bring out the color swatches!====
 
I'm a lazy ass. So ''you'' get to pick the color of your ''own'' dot on the grid.  I already have Human's and my own.  There's a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colors page on Wikipedia] with a list of computer-compatable colors if you want to look.  By the way, if you say something like "green", I'll go with whatever number-letter code Wikipedia gives for it.  --{{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 07:05, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 
:I think it's pretty much time to port this to its own article, eh? '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 07:09, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 
::Well, darn it, I guess so.  Can we leave a very prominent link to it here?  [[RationalWiki:Moral Matrix]] perhaps?  --{{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 07:12, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 
  
 
===<big>Shit Damn</big>===
 
===<big>Shit Damn</big>===
Line 644: Line 639:
 
<blockquote>United States: 241,097; United Kingdom: 23,934; Canada: 23,571; Poland: 15,891; unknown: 15,337; Portugal: 11,898; Sweden: 10,561; Australia: 8,143; European Union: 5,617; Germany: 5,534; Netherlands: 5,193; Denmark: 4,561; Finland: 3,589; France: 2,957; Spain: 2,698; Brazil: 2,347; Norway: 1,677; New Zealand: 1,604; Belgium: 1,392; Italy: 1,232; Ireland: 1,088; Romania: 1,001; Hungary: 969; Slovenia: 656; Israel: 636; Switzerland: 632; Japan: 616; Austria: 609; Greece: 567; Czech Republic: 544; Argentina: 540; Slovakia/Slovak Republic: 501.</blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>United States: 241,097; United Kingdom: 23,934; Canada: 23,571; Poland: 15,891; unknown: 15,337; Portugal: 11,898; Sweden: 10,561; Australia: 8,143; European Union: 5,617; Germany: 5,534; Netherlands: 5,193; Denmark: 4,561; Finland: 3,589; France: 2,957; Spain: 2,698; Brazil: 2,347; Norway: 1,677; New Zealand: 1,604; Belgium: 1,392; Italy: 1,232; Ireland: 1,088; Romania: 1,001; Hungary: 969; Slovenia: 656; Israel: 636; Switzerland: 632; Japan: 616; Austria: 609; Greece: 567; Czech Republic: 544; Argentina: 540; Slovakia/Slovak Republic: 501.</blockquote>  
 
:This isn't all of them, if you want the full list go [http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home&action=Distribution&choice=United%20States here].  --{{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 06:08, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 
:This isn't all of them, if you want the full list go [http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home&action=Distribution&choice=United%20States here].  --{{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 06:08, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::I call shenanigans!!!  First, over half of respondents are USians.  Second, they "claim" to be neutral 'cause the average is close to 0,0.  But it's not.  It's a full point to the "north".  By the way, their graph suck because it lacks coordinates.  Also, remember that their whole "perspective" came from some right wing US guy's book.  '''Where were the questionms about school prayer, eh?'''.  I prefer the zillion question PC site, myself.  The axes on this one are just weird.  But it was still all good fun. Like taking "[http://home.comcast.net/~human747/surveys.htm internet tests]" - deeply meaningful. '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 06:38, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 
:::Actually, George Lakoff himself is solidly left-wing.  The people who wrote the test are all right-wing, but they liked the ''ideas'' in his book enough to make the test.  --{{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 06:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 
:::Oh, and just for that comment I'm going to make your dot ugly :)  --{{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 06:51, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 
  
 
===Someone else (not me) should take all this stuff and move it to an article called, oh, how about "Moral Matrix"?===
 
===Someone else (not me) should take all this stuff and move it to an article called, oh, how about "Moral Matrix"?===
Line 686: Line 678:
 
Do you think it might be possible to devise a sort of situational political test that more realistically models how the beliefs of the test taker would actually play out in a real governmental situation? Would there be any point to it even if you could? --{{User:Jeeves/sig}} 04:40, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 
Do you think it might be possible to devise a sort of situational political test that more realistically models how the beliefs of the test taker would actually play out in a real governmental situation? Would there be any point to it even if you could? --{{User:Jeeves/sig}} 04:40, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 
:Whatever happened to taking political quantification tests for the fun of it?  --{{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 05:47, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 
:Whatever happened to taking political quantification tests for the fun of it?  --{{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 05:47, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::These "tests" all suck, even the one I like ('''the''' political compass test) does not satisfy teh Assfly.  The problem is that people think politics are simple, and try to show how sophisticated they are by graphing them on "two" axes.  When in reality there is an axis for virtually ''every'' issue. '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 07:12, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 
:::Are you suggesting that I'm insecure?  --{{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 07:15, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 
::::No, just that you are... like all of us!  Happy to get attention?!  I cast no aspersion on the size or cuteness of your genitals... '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 07:18, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 

Revision as of 12:21, 11 January 2008

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

OK. Who turned out the fricking lights?Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 10:16, 22 December 2007 (EST)

That was me. Can we have the pretty gold back? I thought it fitting, since we had the big countdown to the solstice. ГдлессЛиберал 10:19, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Actually I quite liked the black as it showed up all the fancy sig colours, and is probably more appropriate for the shortest day. I'll change it back but someone else can revert if they like.Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 11:11, 22 December 2007 (EST) --TK/MyTalk 00:30, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Another random name at the top! Yay! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:47, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Can I or Can I not...

edit the page. I was able to revert the changes despite being locked, but now I can't make the vandalisim BETTER. Shame--Closer government 13:18, 17 December 2007 (EST) !!!!ONE!!!1ONE1!!!!!! DogP 03:37, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Religion's War on Reason

Moved to Debate:Religion's war on reason--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 13:40, 20 December 2007 (EST)

New sysop guide

I just started a rough version of RationalWiki:Sysop_guide. Please to all and sundry to make it a mob project and not just "my" ideas. humanUser talk:Human 18:21, 20 December 2007 (EST)

RW.info

When is this gonna get updated? I keep checking but nothing seems to have happened since it went up. What gives? *BeastmasterGeneral 10:17, 21 December 2007 (EST)

I think since TK and RW have made up, we shouldn't expect it to be updated anymore...-αmεσ (advocate) 12:30, 22 December 2007 (EST)

RationalBlogs

So, anyone care to help me beta test this? --Linus(plot evil tech) 15:03, 21 December 2007 (EST)

"Registration has been disabled." Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 09:52, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Well, that was precautionary, but I'm going to enable it now. --Linus(plot evil tech) 12:28, 22 December 2007 (EST)
OK, so I've signed up now what do I do? (Sorry to be dumb about this). Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 13:13, 22 December 2007 (EST)

RW Christmas Party.

Any ideas?--Bobbing up 17:59, 21 December 2007 (EST)

  1. Work on War on Christmas article
  2. Enlist in the War on Xmas
  3. Get drunk tonight for the soltice (roughly 1 AM EST)
  4. Party like it's 1999
  5. Kill a tree for Jesus
  6. Get drunk
  7. Pick a random user talk page and have a goat party there

humanUser talk:Human 18:08, 21 December 2007 (EST)


One should remind people the location of each tradition within the modern Christmas celebration - from the day it was chosen (see Sol Invictus) to the Great Ashen Faggot that sits on the hearth (assuming its not a day when burning things is restricted because of air pollution in cities). Once one looks at what each thing that is celebrated, most of Christmas is pagan... not that thats a bad thing, just makes it easier to absorb into secular capitalism and Saint Nick Santa Claus. I bet Andy doesn't have a Chi-Rho ornament. --Shagie 18:13, 21 December 2007 (EST)
  1. Get on IRC
  2. Invade someone's user talk page once every 10 minutes
  3. Plan an RW convention (?)
  4. Change the wiki color scheme

Anything else? --Linus(plot evil tech) 18:33, 21 December 2007 (EST)

I am an insufferable killjoy, and as such am highly offended whenever someone wishes me a "Happy Holidays". I am offended by the very idea of people enjoying themselves with shameless excuses to party and get presents. SHAME! --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 160 edits! 01:40, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Happy Holidays! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 10:16, 22 December 2007 (EST)

thumb!leftHow about everyone going over to CP and helping them decorate the place? Maybe we could even play some old-fashioned games like YEC Consequences or hold a homoschoolers Spelling Bee. (Of course we would also have to litsten to the Queen's Christmas message.Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 10:02, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I hope everyone stood up when she came on screen ;) Spica 17:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)
They must have edited that bit out :) Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:18, 5 January 2008 (EST)

THIS WEBSITE IS COMMUISTS AND GAY

VCBCXVB— Unsigned, by: Love Gods Way / talk / contribs


And i like it that way ^_^ GayAndProud 20:08, 21 December 2007 (EST)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! HOW COULD YOU BE PROUD TO BE GAY! ITS NOT NORMAL YOU HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED BY SATAN— Unsigned, by: Love Gods Way / talk / contribs
lol.— Unsigned, by: GayAndProud / talk / contribs
PLEASE COME INTO OUR PROGRAM IT IS BETTER IF U ARE STRAIGT SUPPORT THE NAZIS — Unsigned, by: Love Gods Way / talk / contribs
nO.— Unsigned, by: GayAndProud / talk / contribs
THEN U WILL BE THROWN INTO PRISON 4 NOT BEING STRAIGHT.— Unsigned, by: Love Gods Way / talk / contribs
yeah, there's absolutely NO homosexual activity going on in prisons, nope. CЯacke® 20:14, 21 December 2007 (EST)
THEN U WILLL BE BURNED— Unsigned, by: Love Gods Way / talk / contribs
Please sign your rants and please also, do not use all caps as it's distracting. Thanks. CЯacke® 20:18, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Think we're gay? Check out Conservapedia. They are wall-to-wall and up to their ears in homosexuality. --Edgerunner76 20:16, 21 December 2007 (EST)

NO THEY ARE A FOCE OF TRUTH I LOVE THAT WEBSITE— Unsigned, by: Love Gods Way / talk / contribs

Well, of course it's communist. I'm on it. (And so is this person.) --Linus(plot evil tech) 20:20, 21 December 2007 (EST)

And this one. ГдлессЛиберал 20:22, 21 December 2007 (EST)
I'm not a Communist! My username is just a coincidence. :) GrandSoviet 22:46, 21 December 2007 (EST)
I'm a social democrat, which is the practical iteration of commie gay/race/class/etc.=people love. humanUser talk:Human 23:58, 21 December 2007 (EST)
I'm something. --Cheers,Ryanǂ wuz here ǂ 00:06, 22 December 2007 (EST)
I'm a communist. But not a communism-ist, if you follow me (more into the theory that the practice, I guess....) Also, not gay, but remarkably open-minded after a few good drinks. PFoster 00:19, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Gawd, I love my open-minded friends here on RW! I hear ya, bro! humanUser talk:Human 00:53, 22 December 2007 (EST)
I'm a liberal authoritarian, which means, if given half a chance, I will take away all your guns and drugs, force atheism onto you, and build large monuments to myself. Like Stalin, minus the fake communism bit :) --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 160 edits! 01:34, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Your evil. --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi!
You're only saying that because my signature is longer than yours. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 160 edits! 01:41, 22 December 2007 (EST)
No, authoritarianism is teh evils. --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 01:42, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Well, admittedly, my vision of authoritarianism only works with two stipulations: (1) corruption in the government does not exist and (2) beauracratic inefficiencies do not exist. Those are the only problems with liberal authoritarianism. To try another tack: if it could actually work, would you make the public dissemination of creationist propoganda and curriculum illegal? Why not? If an idea is clearly factually incorrect and/or immoral, then why allow it continue competing in the "marketplace of ideas", as if it were on equal footing with other, more valid ideas? I might add that both (liberal) authoritarianim and libertarianism make naive assumptions—authoritarianism's I named earlier, while libertarianism assumes that humanity will always be able to discern charlatanery from legitimate ideas, which we all know, is simply not the case. So, shall we agree to disagree, and both continue making our "perfect world" assumptions, Elassint? --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 160 edits! 02:06, 22 December 2007 (EST)
NO STARTING WITH THAT CRAP. ELASSINT HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING WRONG. --Cheers,Ryanǂ wuz here ǂ 02:45, 22 December 2007 (EST)
...I'm sorry. Would you explain to me what I did wrong? Sometimes I need help knowing when I've taken things too far. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 160 edits! 02:51, 22 December 2007 (EST)
god... I've taken things too far, you did nothing, I have no idea where I got the idea from. Ignore me :P --Cheers,Ryanǂ wuz here ǂ 02:55, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Ts'all right. Already ignored ;) --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 160 edits! 03:00, 22 December 2007 (EST)

New Section

I noticed awhile ago that there is no direct link to the Essays or the Debates. Given the fact that they are important enough to get their own namespace, shouldn't there be a link to them on the main page? Personally, I believe that if they did get mentioned on the main page, they would get more attention, especially the Debates, which, given the dearth of them, seem to be quite neglected, relative to the rest of the namespaces. In furthering that goal, I have created a new section to be placed on the main page. The page is located here, check the edit history here to give yourself some idea as to my thought process while making it.

What do you think? Now, I already tried previewing it on the Main Page, but the dimensions don't look aesthetically pleasing, so I'd appreciate your input on this. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 160 edits! 04:25, 22 December 2007 (EST)

P.S. For some odd reason, I can't get the code to NOT include any text written below the template. The box automatically includes it in the box. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 160 edits! 04:25, 22 December 2007 (EST)

P.P.S. If you all do like it enough, I request that I be the one to add it to the main page. Not to be petty, but I just want to be able to look at the front page and say, "Yes, I am the one who added that." I'm such an egomaniac, I know ^_^ --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 230 edits! 05:50, 22 December 2007 (EST)


Not sure if this addresses your PS thing, but I think I fixed your box (the outer table wasn't closed) --Sid 07:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Thank you! It does! --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 230 edits! 11:35, 22 December 2007 (EST)
  • I like the idea. Where on the main page are you thinking of putting it? --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 12:41, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I think this a very good suggestion. Should we reduce "According to (ahem) Some People" to make room for it?--Bobbing up 13:37, 22 December 2007 (EST)

How about we put it above "According to (ahem) some people"? We wouldn't necessarily have to shrink it. We could just move "Here's the latest news from Conservapedia!" to the bottom left. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 230 edits! 13:48, 22 December 2007 (EST)
It's good, yes. Put it above or below 'according to', agree. Move wigo to the bottom left, agree. Might want to make sure the color plays nicely with others. Ideas for a name for it? main page/navigate? humanUser talk:Human 15:14, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Yay! Added the new section to the front page! Feel free to modify it. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 270 edits! 15:43, 22 December 2007 (EST)
The right and left sides aren't lining up perfectly. Anyone know how to fix that? (I just pilfer wikicode, I don't understand it.) --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 270 edits! 15:43, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Could we add links to, "lively debates" and or "most recent essay"?--Bobbing up 15:57, 22 December 2007 (EST)
As I said on earlier on another talk page, we don't have any lively debates right—the debates possibly the most neglected part of this wiki—and I would prefer a "best of" listing of the essays, similar to what we have under the "Best of RationalWiki" section. Otherwise, the essay link may lead to some piece-of-crap essay. I would prefer only the best (or at least the most coherent and complete) ones get featured. I guess I'll go through them one by one and categorize them accordingly, then. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 270 edits! 16:04, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I'm gonna beat on it a bit - the link is wrong, for instance. I'll see if I can get it to line up, and is it ok with the mob if I make the header background color the same as the others? humanUser talk:Human 18:11, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, using three more templates for the "blurbs" makes it really tough for people to improve or update this. Shall we just have all the stuff in RW:miscellanea? humanUser talk:Human 18:17, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Well Hi to all.

Hi

Just stopping in to say hi to y'all as a new member.

Aaron User_talk:71.83.130.152

Aaron, please register an account, its easy to do - follow the link at the top right of this page. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 09:48, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Hi Aaron!-αmεσ (advocate) 12:30, 22 December 2007 (EST)

A Question

If a person supports a white candidate in a run for mayor or other political contest because he is white, would that make him a racist? — Unsigned, by: WHITE POWER / talk / contribs

Counter question: Who would you vote for if you were blind? CЯacke® 01:30, 23 December 2007 (EST)
I saw it, too, Cracker. That's why I tried to head it off by clarifying the reasoning behind my answer. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 230 edits! 13:16, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Yes. While supporting a candidate who happens to be white is not racism, supporting a candidate because s/he is white is racist. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 230 edits! 13:11, 22 December 2007 (EST)
If one supported a white candidate only because the candidate was white, they would be knocking on the door of racism, in my opinion. But let me skip a step here and refute the argument that you'll make next, that supporting Obama because he is black makes people just as racist. First of all, in the real world, I don't think many people would support a candidate just because of his or her race, but for the sake of argument, let's say they did. When the power dynamic between whites and blacks in America is equal, when blacks are not on the short end of the socio-economic stick because they are black, and until there has been real material and social restitution for centuries of slavery and racialised class discrimination, then I'll listen to your argument, White Power.Until then, go crawl back into your little hole,you racist S.O.B. PFoster 13:13, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Is that the reasoning behind affirmative action? --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 230 edits! 13:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)
There is a difference between exclusionary racism and inclusionary racism. What you practice, WHITE POWER, is exclusionary racism. You make judgments based off of people's skin color for the purposes of excluding them from greater society. You would vote against Sen. Obama because your ultimate motive is the exclusion of blacks from full participation in society. Voting for Sen. Obama because he is black is inclusionary racism, which has the ultimate goal of facilitating the full participation of blacks in society. Exclusionary racism is bad, inclusionary racism is okay. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 230 edits! 13:37, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Blacks are not on the short end of the socio-economic stick because they are black. Rasist bastards like to say they are. — Unsigned, by: WHITE POWER / talk / contribs
Look, WP, if you want to stick your head in the sand and think that white America has overcome its issues with race and that power structures that keep women, non-whites and other underclasses down don't exist, fine. I could probably reason with you. I could also probably reason with a barnyard animal for all the good it would do me. And Afikoman, if you have a better idea to address racialised class barriers, I'm all ears. PFoster 13:30, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Sorry about that comment. It wasn't meant to be interpreted as me doubting affirmative action. I've struck it out because it was kind of irrelevant to the discussion at hand. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 230 edits! 13:52, 22 December 2007 (EST)
And I'm sorry if I went off on you, A. A-holes like this guy always set me off. I'll climb down from my high horse soon...PFoster 13:54, 22 December 2007 (EST)
Yes, this guy is a moron. --Signed by Elassint the Great Hi! 13:32, 22 December 2007 (EST)
The answer is yes. --Linus(plot evil tech) 14:08, 22 December 2007 (EST)
"You tried to edit a section that doesn't exist. Since there is no section 11, there's no place to save your edit." That's what I got clicking the right side edit button for this section.....--TK/MyTalk 00:27, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah, me too... Linus? Tech support? Anyone? UchihaKATON! 01:05, 23 December 2007 (EST)
It works now. 12.75.66.213 01:12, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Yay. :) UchihaKATON! 01:14, 23 December 2007 (EST)

That was because someone removed the transcluded new main page thing above, renumbering the sections. #11 no longer existed. (the transclusion inserted a section edit number) humanUser talk:Human 01:54, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Jesus action figures

I saw this on the fox news website, and after I stopped laughing I decided to share them with everyone in the spirit of the winter solstice. Here is the story that goes with the pictures. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 18:48, 24 December 2007 (EST)

OK, the one with the dove is kinda cool, but the others? Aren't they, well, blasphemy? I see your god is a vector! humanUser talk:Human 19:05, 24 December 2007 (EST)
The one with Jesus holding the dove was disturbing, with the combat gear and all. Are they trying to be ironic? Surfer Jesus, however, I can totally see. --Wandalise me Bohdan! RA talk stalkOver 320 edits! 19:19, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Oh, that was combat gear?! OK, yes, surfer I can see. Also, rock and roll Jesus. humanUser talk:Human 19:21, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Yea he's definitely in combat gear and has what looks like an M-16 hanging on his right leg. I don't know about surfer Jesus, seems too hippie for Christianity. Beggar Jesus seems strange, since he supposedly could turn his cardboard sign into the food that the sign is asking for. It is interesting that he's a two sport athlete though, both football and fútbol. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 22:36, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Maybe they were attempting to be international. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:43, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Maybe it's not your generation (not quite mine either), but Yeshua was the ultimate hippie, and his ideals seem to infuse even atheistic hippie movements. Including my stance on ethics and morality. He was a good person, even if his legacy has been perverted beyond recognition. humanUser talk:Human 23:17, 24 December 2007 (EST)

This, like so many other things, reminds me of a Sinfest... --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 19:41, 24 December 2007 (EST)

RationalWikiWiki

I'm setting up a website called RationalWikiWiki. I'm even making a cool fiction timeline where one day=one year, and January 1st 2008 is 2008 so that means that RW is founded around 1785.

Feel free to join in. --72.232.23.238 00:33, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Erm, looks interesting, but you may want to try that one more time... You misspelled the domain name as "RationalWikiWki"... >_> UchihaKATON! 18:24, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Pakistan!

Merry Christmas, happy Chanukah, happy Kwanzaa, happy Eid al-Adha. Would anybody be interested in perhaps doing a little project that showcased the current situation in Pakistan, talked about the big players (Bhutto, Musharraf, etc.), and maybe ranted about what could happen? I think I might start this soon. --Ζωροάστρης 17:22, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Well, one of those players can now be taken off the list. May she rest in peace. Researcher 17:23, 27 December 2007 (EST)

As ascii mukip failed...

i now present... ascii mandelbrot!

                   ;;;;;;;;;;iiii||||||||||||||||||||||||iii;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
                 ,;;;;;;iii|||||||||||||||||xxIIIiuASAiiIxxx|||ii;;;;;;;;;;;;;
               ,;;;;iii|||||||||||||||||xIIIIIIiXXDIL1rw&eIIIIx||||i;;;;;;;;;;
              ,;;;ii|||||||||||||||||xIIIIIIIiXXAx%wm"`mn&XCiIIIx|||||i;;;;;;;
             ;;ii|||||||||||||||||xIIIIIIiiAAAWWIS\`   ~\$WAAXXiiIx||||||;;;;;
            ;;i||||||||||||||||xIIIIiiiXAIw0mnaf""l   _jSSw1exWxr&eI|||||||;;;
           ;i||||||||||||||xIIiiiXXXXAADIIQ:  "'           `"9'`5XAXI|||||||;;
          ,i||||||||||xxIgcAAAAAAAAAWWWsY"                   \WxWXCI||||||||
          i||||xxIIIIiiXAW4519In/sgIIInf:'                       `5{XII|||||||
         ,||IIIIIIIiXXXAWISAp ``""WW                          `mDXIIx||||||
         iIIIIIIiAAAAWIfw1P        `1                         _Z#<XIII||||||
         `--^^"^^^^^^"""' `                                    _IIDXXIII||||||
         >**!!++MD00IISPw_/           _                         9p&XXIII||||||
         !|IIIIII*SXX|H0I*HbL        Ja                          "w<XIII||||||
          !||TIIIIIT*XXXDIS45_bbljdVVVU..                        `1&XII|||||||
          '!||||||TTTIT*SQ@*0000d000IIIV\'                     _aJ$D*IT|||||||
           ;!||||||||||||TT**SXXXXX|RDD0V]bl                 _ 'S%DXIT||||||!!
           ';!|||||||||||||||TIII***XX|40I#l__HL  .   ____a1ZVtJFV<*T||||||!;;
            ';;!||||||||||||||||TIIIIII**HM000II*St    1Y*I0DRRRM*IT|||||!!;;;
             ';;;!|||||||||||||||||TIIIIIII*S|RR0ILj_  h{$RXX**IIT|||||!!;;;;;
               ;;;;!!|||||||||||||||||TIIIIIII*XX|0IX9/m#<*IIIIT||||!!;;;;;;;;
                ';;;;;!!!|||||||||||||||||TIIIII*X4I\*MM*IIITT|||!!;;;;;;;;;;;
                  ';;;;;;;!!!!|||||||||||||||||TTTTTTTTTT|||!!!;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

--Mudkip.png I CAN HAS MUDKIPS? 23:36, 28 December 2007 (EST)

You absolutely can has mudkips! humanUser talk:Human 01:11, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Eli Manning...

...would throw a damn interception in the last damn quarter. Jeez...-- Offeep 23:28, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Anyone beat the Patriots yet this season? humanUser talk:Human 00:14, 30 December 2007 (EST)
PATRIOTS BEAT GIANTS 38-35, BECOME FIRST UNDEFEATED NFL TEAM IN 35 YEARS. --TK/MyTalk 02:22, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Wow, that's sick.. Thanks for the update! The only sports I watch is the Red Sox winning the North American Series. humanUser talk:Human 02:53, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Woah, that is sick. I don't watch much sports, and i don't like the soxs because they cheated in the games that came just before the world series. --12.75.67.34 02:55, 30 December 2007 (EST)
They did? --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 20:37, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Time Travel

Hope this hasn't already been posted:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Time-Travel-Theory-Project_W0QQitemZ140192550055QQihZ004QQ

I didn't see a page on this but it appears like it might be pseudo-science. BeastmasterGeneral 15:08, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Honestly, I doubt that even qualifies as pseudo-science. ;-) --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)
As in, "not even wrong"? 15:27, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Edit: You know, if the guy selling it registered today but it shows up as them registering LAST January...maybe he's on to something? $10,000,000.00 seems low though. I should file an appeal with ebay telling them, "But I already paid for it...six years from now!"CЯacke®
The seller should go back in time and master capitalization. humanUser talk:Human 16:24, 30 December 2007 (EST)
You know, it's probably a hoax, by some person wanting to see if anyone actually goes for it. Like those people who offer aircraft carriers on ebay. I doubt s/he actually believes it. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:30, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I time travel all the...ah, time. Oops, there goes another second! CЯacke® 20:20, January 3 2005

  • Yes I have a time machine also, but it only goes forward, and only at regular speed. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 20:38, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Mine goes backwards as well, but when I use it forget everything I know now and get younger. humanUser talk:Human 20:44, 30 December 2007 (EST)
My time machine can only go forward as well, but I can slow down the speed. Like when I'm bored. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:14, 31 December 2007 (EST)

very good

Very ingenious website, people. Excellent work. I'm suprised Conservapedia hasn't set up as many articles about you as you have about them!

What I'm really wondering, though, is: do you guys have some kind of a page where you coordinate vandalism against Conservapedia? If not, you should think about it.

Also, what is this site's official stance on Wikipedia? Do you like it? Love it? Hate it?

Keep up the good work. 167.206.204.68 16:25, 31 December 2007 (EST)

This wiki doesn't condone any internet vandalsm. Any such action is taken by individuals without any support or connivance from RatWiki. Glad you like the site: CP sysops use us to monitor their stupidity. RatWiki has no official view on anything - we're a mobocracy. 193.113.235.172 16:43, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Watching IPs talk to each other is kind of like watching sockpuppets converse. Don't ask me what I mean by that, it just feels that way. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:05, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Conservapedia has an unofficial but viciously-enforced policy of deleting ALL mention of RationalWiki, for the protection of their students' delicate minds. The same way the East Germans had to put up the Berlin Wall to stop West Germans from sneaking in. fnord
And I get the impression very few people here bother 'vandalizing' CP--they do more damage to their own credibility than Icewedge could manage if he were insomniac triplets. --Gulik 18:10, 31 December 2007 (EST)
I laughed out loud at that one, Gulik. Twice. humanUser talk:Human 01:47, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Happy New Year, All.

Someone was bound to say it, no?-- Offeep 01:33, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Happy new day! I "celebrated" the new year when the days started getting longer. Near miss, I guess. humanUser talk:Human 01:47, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Yay. 2008. UchihaKATON! 02:27, 1 January 2008 (EST)
2008(Election Year). God (Goat, whatever) help us all. Pinto's5150 Talk 02:50, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Yays! I turned eighteen in 2007, and now it's a Presidential Election year. Both my brothers had to wait three or so years before they got to vote in one. I'm so happy ^_^ --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:47, 1 January 2008 (EST)
Happy New Year to all! May humankind continue its success streak and not kill itself off this year! --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:47, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Anyone here going to watch the New Year's Parade? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:49, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Request for disciplinary action

Please block User:Helios, he is impersonating me and trying to convert my followers. Ra 00:10, 2 January 2008 (EST)

The Great List of Stuff that doesn't work.

The following stuff will not work:

  • SPAM

Yeah... no. It makes the CP admins kinda mad for a bit while we look like jackasses. It won't do anything.

Haven't done.--מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
  • HATEMAIL
Since when? I believe that there's been more (via you-know-who) coming back at us than the other way. Also, see Andy's legal threats. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
  • VANDALISM
Lulzy. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
  • HACKING/DoS/VIRUSES

No. Not only does it do nothing long-term but it makes us look like assholes and could possible get us in legal trouble.

We haven't been doing this, since we are not the HACKERS ON STEROIDS that many assume we are. The DoS/DDos attacks were mounted by others, who we cannot condone. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
  • SENDING DEFAMATORY IMAGES

No, it won't work. Keep it to ourselves if it's funny, or don't even bother.

Such as? The Andy-as-Mudkip one was purely for personal consumption. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
  • TROLLING

Accomplishes nothing.

Wrong; just possibly we made them think. PJR? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
  • MAKING ANOTHER UNOFFICIAL SISTER WEBSITE FOR NO REASON

No. It will never catch on, it'll have a few seconds of glory and it'll fade. The same goes for blogs.

Alexa would disagree. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
  • MURDER

Next person that suggests we really kill Andy... is a retard!

I agree. We haven't. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
  • MARCHES/PROTESTS

Conservapedia is a wiki, not an oppressive government. You can try but little will happen.

Lolwut? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום

If anyone has anything to add, please do. 67.159.44.138 01:51, 2 January 2008 (EST)

  • POSTING WHINY, POINTLESS LISTS

Like this one. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:32, 2 January 2008 (EST)

I thought we where talking about a war with Conservapedia. 67.159.44.138 03:37, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Are you sure? Because it looks to me like someone whining. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:41, 2 January 2008 (EST)
  • IPs

They don't work. They don't do anything at all. They just sit there, looking at you, and when you're done for the day and going to bed, they're still there, looking at you editing. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:45, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Also, who is this 'us' you keep referring to, IP? You're not one of us, I don't think. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום

Here's some more things that don't seem to work.

  • PARODY

Often fails due to Poe's Law.

  • APPEALS TO REASON

You can't reason someone out of a opinion they didn't reason themselves into.

  • FACTS

They're all just Liberal Deceit, and will be censored as such.

  • LAUGHING AT THEM

Actually, this works pretty well for me. It probably doesn't affect Andy & Co. MUCH, but the mere knowledge that someone out there DOESN'T AGREE WITH THEM and DARES TO MOCK THEIR GREAT WORK is probably like a stone in their shoe they just can't remove. And besides, it's FUN, or I'd've given up on this site months ago. --Gulik 04:04, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Presidential election

Can someone explain about things like Registered Democrat/Republican , Caucus, Primaries - oh just how it all works.
Do you have to be a registered (republican/democrat) to vote for a candidate? I'm a puzzled UKer. (If someone could start an article - or point me at an existing one?) Susanpurrrrr ... 03:23, 3 January 2008 (EST)

It can be pretty confusing. In most states you can only vote for a member of your own party. It is basically a way for the parties to vote internally and get down to a single candidate. I'll see if I can find an article. BeastmasterGeneral 10:40, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Here's an article on WP that does a pretty good job explaning. Note the "types of primary" section - each state can be a little different. BeastmasterGeneral 10:44, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks - gone readin' Susanmiaow ... 10:50, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Been there. Read that. Got T shirt. Aren't Americans MAD? How inefficient/expensive/ biased/'mad. Sorry folks but it's mighty strange from over this side of the pond. I'm a bit clearer but it all seems weird. Susanmiaow ... 11:13, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Susan did you get as far as the electoral college bit in the actual election? Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 11:23, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Yup - still weird. (also read wp:caucus)Susanmiaow ... 11:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Primaries are confusing. The rules vary by state. When I lived in WA, you didn't register for a party, and we caucused for whichever party we wanted to the day of the caucus. In most states you do register for a party (especially the ones with primaries) and you just vote. Basically the rules for the primary vary by state. And you're never voting "for" a person, just for someone else to vote for the person later on. Sterileminichatroomthingy 11:27, 3 January 2008 (EST)

So your vote isn't secret? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
Hey! Yeah - I missed that! Your party vote anyhoo. Susanmiaow ... 11:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

For a caucus, no. Primary, yes. Although it might vary by party or state. In Iowa, for example, the R's and the D's have different rules. Sterileminichatroomthingy 11:50, 3 January 2008 (EST)

For me, the more interesting question is how did this system come about? In the UK, leadership elections are generally not poles of the whole of the membership. The Conservative party simply poles members of parliament for first round nominations, and then the membership in general as a kind of "deciding round". As I recall, the Labour party is curiously even less egalitarian, in that the party's leading members simply choose a leader.
Is a serving president seeking re-election immune from the primary process, or do they have to seek their party's nomination all over again? Is this primary process actually enshrined in some law, or are the parties free to ditch it and choose their leaderships by drawing straws or something? --JeɚvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 11:59, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Don't think it'd get past the UN's scrutiny as a free & far election - do you? Susanmiaow ... 12:01, 3 January 2008 (EST)
A sitting President has to run through it too, but usually doesn't draw too many challengers. (It hasn't happened since 1992, I believe.) And the parties are free to do it however they want, but the parties are run by the state parties, so... Researcher 22:44, 3 January 2008 (EST)

How many Britons do we have here? Geez! Remember--back in the 1700s when you guys were oppressing us (hee-hee--joke!), each state was a government unto itself. The states retain some of their rights upon confederating. Hence why each state has its own goverment with not uniform laws. Sterileminichatroomthingy 12:06, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Read the link above, Jeeves, in beastmaster's edit here again . Susanclaw! ... 12:16, 3 January 2008 (EST)

This one might go the distance. The Republicans are in great disarray. Huckabee won't get the usual push from an Iowa win that you might expect in the past. Other candidates will win in other states. Well into this, it is going to seem like the Republicans are all tied. One note is that Mitt Romney is done. He wouldn't admit that, but it's true. --Edgerunner76 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)

The long and the short...

...of it is that the system is tremendously flawed and needs a major overhaul. I vote in the Pennsylvania Primary, but it usually doesn't matter in a Presidential election. Most of the primaries don't. --Edgerunner76 13:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

"In the UK, leadership elections are generally not poles of the whole of the membership." That's because in the UK the Prime Minister, head of the govt., is part of the legislature. Here the Executive branch, headed by the Pres., is a separate branch of govt.

Anyway, workin' backwards. In Nov., every four years, we "elect" a president (using the strange and interesting electoral college system). The major (and minor) parties want to have one candidate each to get behind and work for. In the old days, this candidate was picked by the "smoke filled room" system, by party officials. Reform led to primary elections in most states and caucuses in some, allowing a slightly more transparent way to pick the nominee, with more public participation. These primaries and caucuses pick delegates to the party convention, who are usually pledged to vote for a given candidate in at least the first round of voting. Of course, if no candidate succeeds in getting enough delegates to the convention to win the nomination outright, things tend to fall back on horse-trading and bottled-water filled rooms (no smooking any more!). humanUser talk:Human 19:19, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Huckabee

Fox News hates him since he doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hell in a general election. That sounds like a recipe for RationalWiki's (satirical) endorsement for the Republican nomination. --Edgerunner76 22:31, 3 January 2008 (EST)

He's already becoming CP's tacit choice, thus proving the whole thing about parodies of fundamentalists. --Kels 22:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
This is possibly the only good words I'll write about CP ever, but I have to give them credit. They'd rather stick to their guns and stay with the guy most like them rather than cave in and just go for the guy who might actually have a chance. --Edgerunner76 22:40, 3 January 2008 (EST)
No, Andy has never gone down the popular vote route. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 03:07, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Bourgeois

So what is your prime concern now? Your hit count? --CubaWeis 07:43, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Eh, no? Why do you even think that? Our goat count is much more important! humanUser talk:Human 07:49, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Unless you're selling ad space, does hit count really count for much of anything anyhow? --Kels 14:34, 5 January 2008 (EST)

lolwut, CubaWeis? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום

most viewed pages:

I was looking though your website and these are your most viewed pages:

  1. Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?‎ [107,727] <--Well above main page
  2. Main Page‎ [33,293] <-- 31% of what WIGO gets
  3. Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia‎ [26,222]
  4. Conservapedia‎ [18,793]
  5. User talk:TK‎ [15,884] <--User talk page
  6. Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?‎ [15,811]
  7. User talk:Human‎ [11,355] <--User talk page
  8. Non-materialist neuroscience‎ [10,472]
  9. Category:Conservapedia‎ [10,285] 
 10. User talk:Tmtoulouse‎ [8,522] <--User talk page
It's a shame you didn't read the comments right above yours. We don't give a flying goat long-eared jerboa goat long-eared jerboa goat about page counts. ThunderkatzHo! 13:45, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Actually I know for a factss that Andy has been our bumping page cunt in order to try and discredit us and make Conservapedia look gool. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 14:02, 5 January 2008 (EST)
We have a page cunt? Susanclaw! ... 15:23, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Several. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:36, 5 January 2008 (EST)

I'm confused. What is the issue here? If this is our page count - so what? --Bobbing up 15:44, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Dunno what our visitor is saying but: I suspect that Recent Changes would be @ 106 @ least if it were counted. I look @ Main Page @ most 1ce a week but WIGO about 1ce an hour on average. So, if I'm average for the regulars, I think that shows we get an awful lot of visitors looking @ Main Page to make it up to 1/3 of the count. Susanclaw! ... 16:23, 5 January 2008 (EST)
They undoubtedly don't understand that the page counts here are as manipulated as CP's have been, lol. Too many "in jokes" still! --TK/MyTalk 16:26, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Why would anyone be surprised that WIGO gets a lot of hits? Making fun of idiots and liars never goes out of style. --Kels 16:28, 5 January 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised Conservapedia talk: What is going on at CP? is so low on that list. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 16:32, 5 January 2008 (EST)
What's wrong with WIGO having such high page views? It has the word "Conservapedia", along with several other CP-related terms, plastered all over it - free publicity! --Ζωροάστρης 16:35, 5 January 2008 (EST)
I say we bump TK's talk page a bit more. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
Let's just bump TK. Susanclaw! ... 16:43, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Ahh, there is the precious and sweet English Rose everyone knows here as Susan!! Turn about is fair play as well, Interpreted, including one of your CP pages, lol! --TK/MyTalk 17:17, 5 January 2008 (EST)

WTF? SusanHelp I'm being haunted by TK 17:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)
I sense drama ahead ... all hands to starboard, we've got edit conflicts. What exactly do you mean, TK? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹוםThat's not a good thing!
We've been doing fine so far this year so let's keep this as civil as possible. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 17:51, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Please note, I didn't dramatize, merely made a factual post. I suggest you control your own, GK, or find someone who can. That would be a start in enabling this place to expand. Oh, wait, if it did, some might not have the control they do now! Duh! Sorry, ignore my idea, no way to keep sharks from chum. --TK/MyTalk 18:11, 5 January 2008 (EST)
TK, I was not explicitly singling you out, just reminding everyone not to let things escalate. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 18:29, 5 January 2008 (EST)
What's going on? Is this something only the in-crowd gets to do? And why aren't my articles on that list? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:29, 5 January 2008 (EST)

ROFL! You should never have used that here, but made it somewhere else. That's really good, thanks for the laughter! --TK/MyTalk 00:28, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Me me me! Everyone forgot me!!!! Oh, never mind... humanUser talk:Human 01:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, you old, bitter drunk...denigrate and diminish even nice conversations when they don't go the way you wish (down the toilet). It's apparent to everyone who comes here and has left.....odd you don't notice the RW retention rate, even for far-leftists, is dismal. That's because old, bitter snarks who have been made admins, want it like that. Otherwise your control over the place will go. And control is what you are all about. --TK/MyTalk 02:19, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Ooh, ooh! Me, pick me! I like control! Can I have some?  :) --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:55, 6 January 2008 (EST)
This thread of conversation is now being defused by Joy Division lyrics.

'Confusion in her eyes that says it all -

She's lost control

And she's clinging to the nearest passer-by

She's lost control

And she gave away the secrets of her past

And said "I've lost control again."


And she turned to me

and took me by the hand

and said "I've lost control again"

and how I'll never know just why

or understand

She said "I've lost control again"

And she screamed out, kicking on her side

And seized up on the floor -

I thought she'd died

She said "I've lost control again"

She's lost control again -

she's lost control


Well I had to phone her friend

to state her case and say

she's lost control again

And she showed up all the errors

and mistakes

and said "I've lost control again"

But she expressed herself in many

different ways

until she'd control again

And walked upon the edge of no escape

and laughed "I've lost control again"

She's lost control again,

she's lost control.'

Ed. note - she, in this case, refers to Heidrun.

Hell yeah for google assissted spammery. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום

Your edit seems to use deceit to cast Heidrún in an unfavourable light. This is a tactic often used by jerboabites. Explain yourself immediately. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 11:11, 6 January 2008 (EST)
  • It's a shame when leftists use Andy's words just to hate, eh? LOL. It's just the old guard and the cabal trying to stop an old goat from trying to help. Stop this with your crypto-jerboaite bullshit, AK. LMAO. People are beginning to realise your drunkeness. -תך
It is because Elassint has been going around and deleting then restoring random pages which resets the page veiw counter. 67.42.95.224 11:35, 6 January 2008 (EST)
If it makes him happy, let him. So long as he remembers to restore the pages after. --Kels 11:50, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Ah right. He did that with the main page a few times I think. Seems a strange hobby though.--Bobbing up 11:55, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Dance, dance, dance, dance, dance to the radio!! JD, ya gotta love 'em! XD Spica 14:54, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Template:NextPrim

What do people think of Template:NextPrim for the Main Page? It gives the date of the next primary. It will have the message through the entire date of that primary or caucus. Currently it reads:

The next rigged U.S. election event is the Presidential election on November 4, 2008.

Thoughts? Sterileminichatroomthingy 18:43, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Not sure. I like the template, but it's a bit US-centric for the main page? Maybe replace that silly random "electdays" based thing 'til the primaries are over? Definitely put it at the top of the 2008 US Pres. election article, it would fit in great there. Maybe even on the articles on candidates? humanUser talk:Human 19:39, 7 January 2008 (EST)

According to some people

[1] - Yay or nay? 121.218.63.13 04:50, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Wow, a bit "out there"... but maybe? Better to get CP to add it to their breakin' nooz snooz! humanUser talk:Human 06:15, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Obviously an evil liberal using deceit to make true God-fearing Christian conservatives look bad. He probably went to public school as well. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 08:53, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I was playing...

...Rainbow Six Vegas last night on XBOX Live. I generally don't talk much and just play. Last night I overheard something that really stuck with me. One guy asked where the various people were from. This led to someone saying that they were stationed somewhere with the Air Force. The Air Force part wasn't heard by some people.

This then led to another guy asking the Air Force guy if he was in the Army. AF took offense at this. It was how he took the offense that really stuck. He described joining the Army as becoming a Government bullet catcher. I am sure that there is a RationalWiki article in there somewhere. --Edgerunner76 07:24, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, there's always been some bad feeling among the various branches of the service. Interesting variation on "cannon fodder". The word "grunt" certainly wasn't originally coined as a term of endearment. PoorEd 15:05, 8 January 2008 (EST)

The dude was seriously pissed (which led to the comment) when the guy mentioned Army after AF-guy clearly said Air Force. --Edgerunner76 15:08, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, you wouldn't believe the amount of redundant bureaucracy that results from the branches not wanting to play nice with each other. It even infects the top brass. As I recall, during the Reagan administration the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Army got in a serious pissing contest over which branch got more funding. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:10, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Pretty common fare, in all administrations that we have ever had, actually. Doesn't matter about need, I guess, only that they get the same, which is seriously demented thinking, and a continual screwing of the taxpayers! --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old English Prunes Are Usually Bitter 18:28, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Candidate Calculator...

Who do you support (those of you living in the United States) for President? You might want to check it at the Candidate Calculator: http://vajoe.com

You put in who you support, then take a quiz not unlike the one for the Political Compass. The computer then displays your best match among all contenders based upon your answers. According to news reports, 85% of the time you are matched with someone other than who you entered you supported! All the answers were supposedly verified by checking the candidates own websites for positions. --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 20:45, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Haha, that was cool. I match my pick (Kucinich) 93%. But I knew that already. It's easier for a wingnut like me. It's a shame, they didn't seem to list 3rd party candidates? humanUser talk:Human 21:54, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Interesting. I got a 91% Dennis Kucinich score. I know knew nothing about the man, but I guess he'd be popular in Europe. If many others get him could we make him the official RW candidate?--Bobbing up 12:53, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Hmm, also, for me all the Dems were over 60% and all the GOP under 40%. I also noticed some distinct liberal bias, there was no question asking about teacher-led prayer in public school classrooms! humanUser talk:Human 22:01, 8 January 2008 (EST)
My pick, McCain, it told me I better matched Obama! At least I don't dislike or mistrust Obama, I can console myself with that.......--TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 22:08, 8 January 2008 (EST)
Is that site down for anyone else? Pinto's5150 Talk 22:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

They obviously never counted on exposure on CNN/FoxNews/Washington Post websites! It comes and goes, it seems. --TK/MyTalkRemember: Old Prunes Are Usually Bitter 22:31, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I hope they have the bandwidth to "provide" for the onslaught? humanUser talk:Human 02:34, 9 January 2008 (EST)
My result was former Senator Mike Gravel. o_o --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:10, 9 January 2008 (EST)

I got 87.69% for Kucinich. Yippee! GrandSoviet 15:19, 9 January 2008 (EST)

Names at the top of the page.

Why are we blessed with this random collection of names at the top of the page?--Bobbing up 06:09, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Highlight the blank space with your mousy thing... or, as always, "look at the source (edit)". humanUser talk:Human 07:14, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Ah. I see. Thanks, that's another thing that won't keep me awake then.--Bobbing up 14:49, 10 January 2008 (EST)
This goes back to people playing with page colours and one time the background was set to black. The top edits were then fully visible. A black page is actually quite freaky as you can not see any text but just all the colored signatures. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 15:57, 10 January 2008 (EST)
You mean like this? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Bleh! But the Gold color was really pretty! I think that was GL's work. --TK/MyTalkLowly editor 17:02, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Well, everyone likes different colors. My mother seriously considered painting her sewing room bubblegum pink (universal "Bleh!"). Me? I only like the black because it makes the colors in my signature "pop"  :)
--Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Alternative political compass test

Here
Before I had ever heard of the widely known political Compass test at politicalcompass.org, I found a different one, which I have always preferred. The test is based off the excellent book Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't by Prof. George Lakoff. It's designed to probe the moral reasoning behind your stances on the issues, rather than just asking what your positions are. The book, and hence the test, was written to explain America's peculiar brand of politics, so it may not be as applicable to other countries. Well, anyone up for taking it? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:23, 10 January 2008 (EST)

P.S. When taking the test, make sure to always check "Show Hints". The wording of most of their choices is iffy, but the Hints explain the rationale behind each possible answer. If you don't verify the implications of picking an answer using the hints, you will get a wrong score. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:30, 10 January 2008 (EST)

"Your scored -4.5 on Moral Order and 6.0 on Moral Rules." Who's Dennis Kucinich? SusanPrunes and custard 18:52, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Kucinich is the only real liberal running for a major party nomination in the 2008 primaries. humanUser talk:Human 20:15, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Mm ... I googled him. How do you pronounce him? Kuchinighh? (ch as in Scottish 'loch') or Kukinich? (ch as in charger) or some other way? SusanPrunes and custard 20:32, 10 January 2008 (EST)
It's "Koo sin itch", emphasis on second syllable. humanUser talk:Human 20:33, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Liberals always have an accent on sin. --206.248.174.192 20:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)
To say nothing of an itch to koo... humanUser talk:Human 00:48, 11 January 2008 (EST)
"Your scored -3 on Moral Order and 3.5 on Moral Rules." Awesome...? GrandSoviet
-5/3 without hints, -3/1.5 with. So maybe somewhere in between. Weird DogP 19:32, 10 January 2008 (EST)
-5/3.5 CЯacke®
Interesting symmetry. I got -3.5/3.5. Jimmy Carter? --Kels 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)
-4.5/3.5, and the usual gang of rogues... Carter, Cobb (green party 2004), Kucinich. party: none, system: socialism. But I knew all that already. Schlafly hates me! Someone take it for teh assfly? humanUser talk:Human 20:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Any of you read the explanation behind the grid, or did you just wing it? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:07, 10 January 2008 (EST)
I'm sorry if any of you feel I wasted your time. I just find stuff like this endlessly fascinating. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I'm mildly socialist, and 0% are more authoritarian than me. Hurrah, I'm Joseph Stalin. Forgive me if I don't believe this test captures the essence of people's views very well. --JeɚvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 04:28, 11 January 2008 (EST)
I think the comparison feature of their calculator is broken. It said 0% of people were more liberal than Andrew Schlafly. Do you mind sharing the actual numbers you got? That would make things clear. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:41, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Explanation & Results

MoralMatrix political systems.png

"Moral Order" (horizontal axis) represents the structure of your moral hierarchy. Towards the right, you believe that morality requires many "levels" of moral authority, and that we must respect these many levels, and defer to those higher up than us. For example, one moral hierarchy of this nature could have God at the very top, then powerful men, then weaker men, then women, then children, then animals, etc. (to give one very religious, racist, sexist, and ageist example). Towards the left, you believe in a greater degree of equality, with fewer levels of moral authority. On the most extreme end, you may even believe in only one level, that all beings are morally equal.

"Moral Rules" (vertical axis) represents what behaviors you believe would best benefit society. Towards the bottom, you believe that people benefit the most by prioritizing the actions of individuals. Towards the top, you believe that people benefit the most by prioritizing collective initiatives.

The scale is -8 to 8 for both axis.

Shit Damn

I knew that the test at politicalcompass.org misscored me. On that test, I only managed to get economic left -8.88, social libertarian -1.74. Not quite liberal authoritarian. Well, now we all know where I really stand. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:33, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I tried to briefly channel Ashclafly and got (7,-5). In the process I had a weird urge to vaccinate a dinosaur.--Bayesupdate 23:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)

I tried and hit 8, -7.5 (woo!). However, I think I may have been being overly honest about some things Andy wouldn't admit his real thoughts on (ex. differences between men and women...). UchihaKATON! 00:05, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, that's the real challenge...do you answer for what you think he stands for, or what you think he would say he stands for?--Bayesupdate 00:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Remember to answer question 9 (About business) with "We should reward businesses that put social responsibility ahead of profitability." Why? Because in Andyland, businesses that discriminate against "social undesirables" (i.e. anyone he or his mother doesn't like) and censor everything objectionable would be considered "socially responsible", and be rewarded for it. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:40, 11 January 2008 (EST)

WTF!! I get this analysis: 5% are close to you. (OK) 75% are more conservative.( Maybe in the US.) 7% are more liberal. (Again maybe in the US.) 3% are more socialist. (again ...) 6% are more authoritarian. But what the hell is this? Only 6% more authoritarian than me!? I don't believe it! There should be a law against tests like this !! --Bobbing up 05:17, 11 January 2008 (EST)

I thought I were fairly conservative myself, but I must be wrong. What does (-4; +6) mean anyway? Ed @but not the Poor one! 05:24, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, some numbers on the matrix might be nice. As far as I can tell the first negative puts you on the socialist side and the subsequent plus puts you up towards the authoritarian bit. --Bobbing up 05:57, 11 January 2008 (EST)

When everyone who's going to do it has done it, I'll put a grid with everyone on it here:

Please make my "dot" purple pink the same color as my name!!! humanUser talk:Human 01:11, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Overall combined results of all respondents to the test

These results represent over 406,600 respondents' answers.

The following was taken from Moral Politics, owner and originator of the Moral Politics test.

TEST DISTRIBUTION
Of the 406,619 respondents:

1. 29.17% liked Socialism.
2. 6.56% liked Authoritarianism.
3. 19.74% liked Conservatism.
4. 23.72% liked Liberalism.
5. 20.81% straddled systems.

AVERAGE Average score (red marker):

1. Moral Order: -0.12
2. Moral Rules: -0.07

ANALYSIS
The most popular answer[s] and the average score are centered. This suggests that the test may not [be] biased in any direction. Respondents seem distributed along a diagonal Socialism[-]Conservativism line.










I'm not sure about this. I suspect that the the test is set up to put the average American Joe in the center. As I am told that the average American Joe is a long way to the right of the rest of the world that distorts the rest of the world's answers.--Bobbing up 05:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

*Ahem* Read the Explanation section. And they do break down the responses and display them by country (although that part of the site is down; when I was last at the site it was working). I will break down the number of respondents from each country for you though, Mr. Doubting Thomas:
United States: 241,097; United Kingdom: 23,934; Canada: 23,571; Poland: 15,891; unknown: 15,337; Portugal: 11,898; Sweden: 10,561; Australia: 8,143; European Union: 5,617; Germany: 5,534; Netherlands: 5,193; Denmark: 4,561; Finland: 3,589; France: 2,957; Spain: 2,698; Brazil: 2,347; Norway: 1,677; New Zealand: 1,604; Belgium: 1,392; Italy: 1,232; Ireland: 1,088; Romania: 1,001; Hungary: 969; Slovenia: 656; Israel: 636; Switzerland: 632; Japan: 616; Austria: 609; Greece: 567; Czech Republic: 544; Argentina: 540; Slovakia/Slovak Republic: 501.
This isn't all of them, if you want the full list go here. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:08, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Someone else (not me) should take all this stuff and move it to an article called, oh, how about "Moral Matrix"?

I disagree with the above, Human. We should leave this here until everyone who's going to do it has done it. If moved to its own article, it'll be harder to find and not as many people will do it. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:53, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Well, I didn't say "move it now", did I, spud peeler? Anyway, when it does finally, eventually get moved, there can be a link here to it for teh little stragglers, eh? humanUser talk:Human 00:01, 11 January 2008 (EST)
"Spud peeler"? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:46, 11 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah! Come on, mash some taters up and hike on over to Hoji's talk page for the party! humanUser talk:Human 01:05, 11 January 2008 (EST)

People who simulated teh assflinator put his "scores" in this section so they don't infect ours with his conservative advantages

TEH ASSFLY'S SCORE

Your [sic] scored 7 on Moral Order and -8 on Moral Rules.

The following categories best match your score (multiple responses are possible):

1. System: Conservatism
2. Ideology: Ultra Capitalism
3. Party: Constitution Party
4. Presidents: George W. Bush
5. 04' Election: Michael Peroutka
6. 08' Election: Fred Thompson

Of the 406,604 respondents (913 on Facebook):

1. 1% are close to you.
2. 0% are more conservative.
3. 0% are more liberal. [sic, I think we broke it with him]
4. 97% are more socialist.
5. 1% are more authoritarian.

Comment: running endless assfly bots will slightly alter the "overall" outcome data. Oh well... humanUser talk:Human 00:06, 11 January 2008 (EST)

A "situational" political test?

If you look at the graph of overall results for the test above, you'll see that very few people end up firmly in the cold, unfeeling authoritarian dog-eat-dog column. Yet despite this, lots and lots of governments actually turn out that way.

I reckon this is because it's easy to answer questions of morality in isolation, without reference to consequences. In many ways the questions asked of serving governments are "loaded" in that not choosing a particular answer, even though you think it's probably a bad thing, ends up with you out of office and, in some extreme cases, stone dead.

Do you think it might be possible to devise a sort of situational political test that more realistically models how the beliefs of the test taker would actually play out in a real governmental situation? Would there be any point to it even if you could? --JeɚvsYour signature gave me epilepsy... 04:40, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Whatever happened to taking political quantification tests for the fun of it? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:47, 11 January 2008 (EST)