Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is underway and will end on November 16.

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Poe's Law"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Vote?: spele checker)
(Is it really all that notable...)
Line 26: Line 26:
 
:::::Are you sure it is an anonymous fundamentalist troll? Or is it just a parody of one? Is this an instance of Poe's Law? [[User:Editor_at_CP|(Editor at) CP:]][[User_Talk:Editor_at_CP|<sup>no intelligence allowed</sup>]] 16:59, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:::::Are you sure it is an anonymous fundamentalist troll? Or is it just a parody of one? Is this an instance of Poe's Law? [[User:Editor_at_CP|(Editor at) CP:]][[User_Talk:Editor_at_CP|<sup>no intelligence allowed</sup>]] 16:59, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::::::Invoking Poe's Law in a discussion about Poe's Law? Meta! --[[User:AKjeldsen|'''<font color="navy">AKjeldsen</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:AKjeldsen |<font color="aqua">''Potential fundamentalist!''</font>]]</sup> 17:27, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::::::Invoking Poe's Law in a discussion about Poe's Law? Meta! --[[User:AKjeldsen|'''<font color="navy">AKjeldsen</font>''']]<sup>[[User_talk:AKjeldsen |<font color="aqua">''Potential fundamentalist!''</font>]]</sup> 17:27, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Bunchanumbers: see our articles on MexMax and Samwell. There clearly ''are'' parodists (or agents provocateur, rather) amongst the CP camp, and, what's more, they are mostly undetectable. Sorry. {{User:Chaos!/sig12}} 17:47, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::::Bunchanumbers: see our articles on MexMax and :::::::::well. There clearly ''are'' parodists (or agents provocateur, rather) amongst the CP camp, and, what's more, they are mostly undetectable. Sorry. {{User:Chaos!/sig12}} 17:47, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 
::::::::Anyone more recent?  No?  Didn't think so.  Claim without evidence = false claim = rational thinking. [[User:67.135.49.116|67.135.49.116]] 00:36, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
::::::::Anyone more recent?  No?  Didn't think so.  Claim without evidence = false claim = rational thinking. [[User:67.135.49.116|67.135.49.116]] 00:36, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
:::::::::So your theory is that a magical barrier now prevents those things from happening in the future despite the fact that CP hasn't changed a bit since then? I'm impressed. {{User:Chaos!/sig12}} 00:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
:::::::::So your theory is that a magical barrier now prevents those things from happening in the future despite the fact that CP hasn't changed a bit since then? I'm impressed. {{User:Chaos!/sig12}} 00:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::What the hell are you babbling about? You haven't backed up the claims made here with any evidence. All you are going is talking out of your ass in a lame attempt to appear intellectually superior. The fact that all your claimed past parodies and parodists are gone proves that CP has, in fact, changed. [[User:67.135.49.116|67.135.49.116]] 01:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
Actually I've got a question for our unsigned editor. Could you tell me what is the the difference between the parody and the non-parody sites?  It may be easier for you because you are "In the loop" so-to-speak. I know you say they "try too hard", but could you expand on this?  Perhaps give a few concrete examples of both "legitimate fundamentalist" and and "parody fundamentalist".  I don't mean the sites but actual statements. I mean this question in all seriousness and I'm interested in the answer.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>bing up</sup>]] 18:09, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 
Actually I've got a question for our unsigned editor. Could you tell me what is the the difference between the parody and the non-parody sites?  It may be easier for you because you are "In the loop" so-to-speak. I know you say they "try too hard", but could you expand on this?  Perhaps give a few concrete examples of both "legitimate fundamentalist" and and "parody fundamentalist".  I don't mean the sites but actual statements. I mean this question in all seriousness and I'm interested in the answer.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>bing up</sup>]] 18:09, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:Ps.  Could you also tell us if  [http://yerranos.wiki-site.com/index.php/Citizens_for_the_Ten_Commandments  this one] is a parody, 'cause we don't know.  Thanks.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>bing up</sup>]] 08:07, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
 
:Ps.  Could you also tell us if  [http://yerranos.wiki-site.com/index.php/Citizens_for_the_Ten_Commandments  this one] is a parody, 'cause we don't know.  Thanks.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>bing up</sup>]] 08:07, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Line 37: Line 38:
 
::::::I didn't redefine anything.  Put it in my own words, yes, but it's exactly the same as what is claimed above.  See especially the third post. And of course you won't provide any evidence to back up your claims because there is none and you know it. All you can provide is long ago corrected material, which proves nothing except that you're a bunch of a-holes. It's no different from the oh-so-trusted Wikipedia, which other a-holes add false material to all the time which often doesn't get caught for months or even years. [[User:67.135.49.116|67.135.49.116]] 00:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
::::::I didn't redefine anything.  Put it in my own words, yes, but it's exactly the same as what is claimed above.  See especially the third post. And of course you won't provide any evidence to back up your claims because there is none and you know it. All you can provide is long ago corrected material, which proves nothing except that you're a bunch of a-holes. It's no different from the oh-so-trusted Wikipedia, which other a-holes add false material to all the time which often doesn't get caught for months or even years. [[User:67.135.49.116|67.135.49.116]] 00:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
:::::::You redefined the inspecific claim that parodists find easy acceptance at CP to "parodists are ''currently'' accepted at CP". Evidence for this new claim will never be given to you, Jinx, because your approval just isn't important enough to sacrifice valuable misinformation for -- you would only purge CP of the parody we love and mysteriously disappear from RW. As ever, the truth is whatever ''you'' want it to be -- even if I were to furnish you with the examples you so crave, I very much doubt it would sway your opinion, as it just isn't in you to admit you're mistaken. {{User:Chaos!/sig12}} 00:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
:::::::You redefined the inspecific claim that parodists find easy acceptance at CP to "parodists are ''currently'' accepted at CP". Evidence for this new claim will never be given to you, Jinx, because your approval just isn't important enough to sacrifice valuable misinformation for -- you would only purge CP of the parody we love and mysteriously disappear from RW. As ever, the truth is whatever ''you'' want it to be -- even if I were to furnish you with the examples you so crave, I very much doubt it would sway your opinion, as it just isn't in you to admit you're mistaken. {{User:Chaos!/sig12}} 00:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 +
::::::::Of course.  I never expected anything more.  If any of the claims made here by you clowns were true, you'd proudly sacrifice even just one of them to prove your claims are true.  But you do not do so because we all know you cannot do so since your claims are false.  And Sidhartha H. Buddha, how pathetic it is that you place so much value on alleged misinformation on a website!  Get a frickin' life already, for Muhammed's sake! [[User:67.135.49.116|67.135.49.116]] 01:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
  
 
== Article Prominence ==
 
== Article Prominence ==

Revision as of 05:13, 2 July 2008

Time Cube

Time cube is pretty weird, but is it fundamentalism?--Bobbing up 15:59, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Within his own belief in ONENESS EVIL, he is. Much more than Liberal Reform Time Cubists. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
Obviously I have not studied it sufficiently. I rather think that I might need a bit of consciousness adjustment before tackling it though.--Bobbing up 17:17, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Never fear. Open your mind to the 4 corner simultaneous 24 hour Days that occur within a single 4 quadrant rotation of Earth. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
I was thinking more of some chemical adjustment.--Bobbing up 17:28, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
Word bastard wise man!

Seems to me the reverse is also true - it's easy sometimes to mistake genuine fundamentalism for parody 70.43.43.38 15:02, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree, and thought it said that, but I was remembering a Clarke quote on a different topic ("...indistinguishable from magic"). I'll try to figure out a way to add that in after the quote of the Law as Written, "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing", which could read "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, a parody of Fundamentalism is often indistinguishable from the real thing". Hmmm. humanUser talk:Human 15:14, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Shlafly

I think the same is true of Andy. (Poe's Law, I mean). Seriously. I tried, and someone did mistake it for the real thing. Lyra (semper) 15:20, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it's usually an early comment when CP gets blogged about. humanUser talk:Human 15:44, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Is it really all that notable...

...that self-proclaimed "rational free-thinkers" are too stupid to tell parody from the real thing? I'm an "irrational" fundamentalist and I had no problem discerning which of the listed websites were parodies. They are so poorly done that they are obvious to anyone with a functional brain. People who try to parody fundamentalism try too hard and end up failing miserably at their task. They don't even succeed at being funny. — Unsigned, by: 67.135.49.116 / talk / contribs

I doubt your true faith if you say that the Word is irrational. Lyra § talk 23:59, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, the success of the proof of the Law is that parodists are easily capable of getting their work accepted by the fundies as "real" - how many editors on CP, for example, right now, are sneak-vandals, accepted as true believers, who are adding random small errors to articles the CP sysops don't understand? Probably more than there are sysops. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:05, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, that's the biggest load of b.s. I've ever heard. Prove it. Or don't. I'm sure you expect me to believe it without proof. 67.135.49.116 14:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
That's what I thought. 67.135.49.116 16:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
...what, that we don't care what an anonymous fundamentalist troll has to say about an article illustrating the inherent humour of their position? I guess you thought correctly. UchihaKATON! 16:57, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
That you can't back up your b.s. claims of "sneak-vandalizing" "fundies'" websites. This is supposedly "RationalWiki." Rational people don't believe anything without evidence. Your claims are without evidence, yet you expect people to believe them. How unsurprisingly irrational and typically hypocritical. 67.135.49.116 15:03, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Ah great. You're back. Could you have a go at my couple of questions below? Thanks a lot.--Bobbing up 15:07, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Are you sure it is an anonymous fundamentalist troll? Or is it just a parody of one? Is this an instance of Poe's Law? (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 16:59, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Invoking Poe's Law in a discussion about Poe's Law? Meta! --AKjeldsenPotential fundamentalist! 17:27, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Bunchanumbers: see our articles on MexMax and :::::::::well. There clearly are parodists (or agents provocateur, rather) amongst the CP camp, and, what's more, they are mostly undetectable. Sorry. 17:47, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Anyone more recent? No? Didn't think so. Claim without evidence = false claim = rational thinking. 67.135.49.116 00:36, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
So your theory is that a magical barrier now prevents those things from happening in the future despite the fact that CP hasn't changed a bit since then? I'm impressed. 00:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
What the hell are you babbling about? You haven't backed up the claims made here with any evidence. All you are going is talking out of your ass in a lame attempt to appear intellectually superior. The fact that all your claimed past parodies and parodists are gone proves that CP has, in fact, changed. 67.135.49.116 01:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually I've got a question for our unsigned editor. Could you tell me what is the the difference between the parody and the non-parody sites? It may be easier for you because you are "In the loop" so-to-speak. I know you say they "try too hard", but could you expand on this? Perhaps give a few concrete examples of both "legitimate fundamentalist" and and "parody fundamentalist". I don't mean the sites but actual statements. I mean this question in all seriousness and I'm interested in the answer.--Bobbing up 18:09, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Ps. Could you also tell us if this one is a parody, 'cause we don't know. Thanks.--Bobbing up 08:07, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Why don't you know? Shouldn't it be obvious for supposedly rational, intelligent people to tell what it is? Aren't only we drooling "fundie" morons supposed to not be able to tell? 67.135.49.116 00:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Ahem. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 15:17, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes, and? Past examples are not proof of the claim of current "sneak-vandals" currently inserting false information on CP which will never be discovered by us ignorant "fundies." Hrm... One of those says it was there for three months. A phony quote by one of you rational evolutionists was added to at least three articles on Wikipedia and remained there for over three years until I got it fixed recently. 67.135.49.116 00:15, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Way to redefine the claim, Jinxy. Strangely enough, I don't feel inclined to reveal what parody-inspired material might currently be present on CP. If we did that, soon enough human beings might think your little wiki was a reliable source of information! No, that won't do at all. 00:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I didn't redefine anything. Put it in my own words, yes, but it's exactly the same as what is claimed above. See especially the third post. And of course you won't provide any evidence to back up your claims because there is none and you know it. All you can provide is long ago corrected material, which proves nothing except that you're a bunch of a-holes. It's no different from the oh-so-trusted Wikipedia, which other a-holes add false material to all the time which often doesn't get caught for months or even years. 67.135.49.116 00:29, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
You redefined the inspecific claim that parodists find easy acceptance at CP to "parodists are currently accepted at CP". Evidence for this new claim will never be given to you, Jinx, because your approval just isn't important enough to sacrifice valuable misinformation for -- you would only purge CP of the parody we love and mysteriously disappear from RW. As ever, the truth is whatever you want it to be -- even if I were to furnish you with the examples you so crave, I very much doubt it would sway your opinion, as it just isn't in you to admit you're mistaken. 00:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Of course. I never expected anything more. If any of the claims made here by you clowns were true, you'd proudly sacrifice even just one of them to prove your claims are true. But you do not do so because we all know you cannot do so since your claims are false. And Sidhartha H. Buddha, how pathetic it is that you place so much value on alleged misinformation on a website! Get a frickin' life already, for Muhammed's sake! 67.135.49.116 01:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Article Prominence

Not to pull a Ken here, but - #2 on Google for "Poe's Law" I believe. That is not bad at all, especially considering that there are people unfamiliar with the term, and they are likely to either come to Urban Dictionary or to here. Is there anything we can do to this article to make it more "newcomer friendly"? (Or should we, for that matter?) I don't think it's bad, I just think it's surprisingly prominant and we could take advantage of that, plus I know RW is capable of some very professional articles so this could likely be improved. Anyway, just a thought; either way, I'm happy for our success. UchihaKATON! 02:03, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh - I just saw the recent "entry point" category added, that was a good idea as well. UchihaKATON! 02:05, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Bias in the article

The entry "Meanwhile, Answers in Genesis [5] is, as far as is presently known, serious business." is rife with the writer's bias.

The entry should be changed to read "Meanwhile, Answers in Genesis [5] is serious." — Unsigned, by: Cybrsage / talk / contribs

No!!! I don't believe it! SusanG  ContribsTalk 08:47, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Funny how no-one spotted that before. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Ain't it just! SusanG  ContribsTalk 08:51, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, it's an interesting question. Could somebody be adding parody in AIG? Poe's law says we could never tell.--Bobbing up 17:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)


Yerranos

I am pretty sure this is a parody but I'm not sure. What do you guys think? Damo2353 20:47, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Don't think so, actually. He's too over the top to be trying to spoof anyone. SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Maybe out IP who was so active above could tell us? He says it's easy to tell.--Bobbing up 02:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Vote?

Should we add this one? It dares to ask the question "Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Vote?" I think its straight, but it could be a parody.--Bobbing up 07:07, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure its straight, amazingly and scaringly. Hard to describe why. It lacks the vitriole and ranting of parody websites. Plus if you look at the books for sale, they all seem reasonable (and reasonable is a very relative word here) and genine. Nope, I'm pretty sure its real.Damo2353 07:22, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I guess so, but the conclusion:
  • The facts warrent [sic] the violent expulsion of all evolutionists from civilized society. I am quite serious that their danger to society is so great that, in a sane society, they would be, at a minimum, denied a vote in the administration of the society, as well as any job where they might influence immature humans, e.g., scout, or youth, leader, teacher and, obviously,professor.
Well, words fail me.--Bobbing up 07:29, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, a while ago I did put forward the idea that godbotherers shouldn't be allowed to vote and was promptly stamped on. (not surprisingly!) So I suppose I'm only getting my own back, LOL. SusanG  ContribsTalk 07:48, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Hard to believe that you said something quite that radical Susan.--Bobbing up 16:21, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Common ground

I love this part near the end: "Oh, by the way... What is the chance evolutionists will vote or teach in the Kingdom of God?" The implied answer is that there is no chance. On this I agree 100%. However, I doubt that the reason I believe that there is no chance is far different from why the author believes that there is not chance. We have found common ground. --Edgerunner76Save me Tsisnaajini! 08:09, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Common ground between you and the fundamentalists Edge. Impressive indeed.--Bobbing up 16:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)


I kinda like the ad further down the newsletter questioning why the minerals we obtain by mining are "so conveniently located." Uhm, yeah. I'm sure mineworkers would agree that their jobs are convenient and effort-free. --Phentari 16:15, 30 June 2008 (EDT)