RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive53

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, (new)(back)

Contents

Why the dinosaurs died[edit]

Apparently, "an extensive investigation by 41 leading experts from around the world" identified what really made the dinosaurs extinct: An asteroid strike, 65 million years ago, causing an extended global flood winter. We can only presume that PJR was left off the panel of experts, and so the YEC view has not been properly represented. Bondurant (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was generally accepted PNAS 1998 (although that doesn't mean it's right of course, it could be argumentum ad populum.) There's no way we can be certain & there might have been other factors in the extinction. SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I am somewhat annoyed. This is what I was taught in high school in about 1970. " a meteor hit , probably near mexico about 65 million years ago. Was the teacher Prophetic or making stuff up ? Hamster (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The asteroid impact was theorised first, and then entered popular consciousness as "the" explanation even though actual evidence was a bit hazy - there's just something nice and dramatic about a meteor impact that resonates much better than rapid climate change caused by sudden methane release from the oceans, or whatever. Since then, evidence has been building that a meteor hit is what actually happened (new craters, dating of these craters, computer simulations of impact effects etc.). Hence, kids would have been taught it in the 1970s as a "fact" but larger scientific panels have been holding off saying that it is the "official" explanation for some time. Scarlet A.pngbomination 21:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I remember being taught that climate change probably(weasel word, now that I think about it) reduced their numbers and then the meteor finished them off. But as far as I can remember there was always skepticism about how exactly it happened. Tetronian you're clueless 20:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
A supervolcano was another theory. CS Miller (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Yup! and the US is sitting on top of one. Would it be Armageddon? Be afraid, be very afraid. SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Issue for the Loya Jirga?[edit]

The recent back-and-forth hiding and showing of revisions looks like it might be an issue for the Lowing Jerboas. Or is it a case of who-can-piss-highest-up-the-wall between Mei II and ListenerX? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a case of Trollius successfully getting us to talk about him and argue over him AGAIN. -- Nx / talk 00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
We were having a yak about it here, come add your 2 cents if you want. - π 00:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I prefer to use a wiki properly, and that doesn't include "forums". It doesn't include this ridiculous "Loya Jirga" either, but that's another matter. It seems that using talk pages to discuss page content is frowned upon too. I really begin to despair about this place. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
orly? -- Nx / talk 00:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I think his problem is we have moved away from the strict user→autoconfirmed→sysop→bureaucrat→owner structure, to everyone→Loya Jirga → where is Trent anyway? structurish. - π 00:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
(EC)What because your talk comments got moved? Seriously, if that is enough to upset you, maybe this is not the place for you. - π 00:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
NX, I dunno what that's supposed to prove. Pi, no - it's because that's how wikis are supposed to work. If this site wants to act like it's "special" then fine. Use talk pages for what they're supposed to be used for. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
That non-talkpages are used as talk pages on other wikis? I could've brought up WP:AN, WP:VP, etc. Anyway, I assumed you meant to put it here but accidentally put it in the wrong place. I'm overeager to correct other people's mistakes and generally impatient. -- Nx / talk 00:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
He was discussing the Saloon bar at a meta level, so the talkpage does make sense. - π 00:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I failed to realize that. -- Nx / talk 00:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)Talk pages are used to discuss the content of the main page. Given that there were several back-and-forth edits happening HERE and I know that subsequent edits make it more difficult to hide content that NEEDS to be hidden, I used the talk page. What is wrong with that? Why did an entirely separate structure need to be created? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, you're right, I apologize. Anyway, hiding isn't a problem since it has been reverted. -- Nx / talk 00:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Because ListenerX wanted to discuss policy clarification. - π 00:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Might I suggest that a link be provided in future for people not typically inclined to felch the Recent Changes page? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
(post-e/c) Sorry if I came on too strong - I'm used to other wikis so using the talk page made sense to me. I know RW likes to be a bit different, but it would be useful if differences could be pointed out where they become acute. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The bar is like our AN, CN and VP combined. I thought you were trying to raise the issue with the admins/community/whatever (which you would do by posting to AN on other wikis) -- Nx / talk 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is on the Littlest Janitors, anyway? Did we ever get an intercom channel? And where are our badges? And our special shoes? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am in the Longish Jessica. What's is the issue here? Acei9 01:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The issue is that MC made some undue edits & Mei vanished them. SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Loya Jirga as of February 2010

(Took me 10 minutes to find!) SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't think edits like that should be vanished to be frank. Acei9 01:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
No more do I. SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Tritto. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Qlitto. The only stuff that needs to vanish is legally dubious material, and personal info that shouldn't have been posted. ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 01:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(u/d)So it was an issue for the Lurgy Jockey... but where should I have asked to avoid a mini HCM? (mini-HCM - Crew cut chicken mode?) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If anyone cared, we'd have an LJ intercom, that anyone can "send" to, or "receive", but LJ muffins are "required" to subscribe to. We'd also make an "LJ issues" forum, but again, no one takes this seriously, and I think that is good. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait a second...
Susan, when did you come back?! SJ Debaser 03:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please pay attention Josh, also [resigned from the LJ].  Lily Inspirate me. 08:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
And we co-opted Bob M to replace Genghis. Did anybody tell him? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
@H: "If anyone cared, we'd have an LJ intercom," err, where?
List of intercoms:
Site wide (urgent)
Testing
Random
General site news
Article of the Weak
Conservapedia
New essay alerts
New debate alerts
New article alerts
Foobar
SusanG  ContribsTalk 03:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I'm gonna have to replenish our supply of colons at wikipedia! Anyway, my point is, there's no means to clearly "summon" the LJ. No intercom, no magic "leave talk page comments on all of The Seven's talk pages", etc. What I meant was that if we cared, we would have created such an intercom channel (or some such sufficiently advanced technology). ħumanUser talk:Human 03:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Also also, if three weird sisters were enough for Billy, why do we need seven? What are we, the fucking Pleiades? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Humble apologies, I misread your comment (and compounded the fault by copy/pasting it and still not reading it correctly!) I thought you'd said that there was an intercom for the LJ. Sorry (what a waste of colons, eh?) SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, the protocol for summoning the Joyful Lurkers is by posting a comment on their collective user talk page, which all members should have on their watch list (they probably don't, but they should). Either that, or we set up a LJ project page for the purpose. Intercomming might be a good idea too, but there needs to be a discussion space anyway, that being the whole point of the LJ. Either way, things should only be referred to LJ if community discussion & consensus-building breaks down into HCM. A couple of deletions & reversions does not a crisis make. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Naked Snowwoman inspires a police visit[edit]

No, I'm fucking serious. In case I needed reminding why I left puritanical America. Junggai (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. Judging by the pictures, it's actually more sexual with the bra on. Tetronian you're clueless 22:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
That's what the creator reckoned too. --Seantalk 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a trend. Here's a picture. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Good catch, TOP. I loved the woman's comment in this article, who was *blush* embarassed to have to explain to kids what it was. Junggai (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
If I ever become a father (God forbid) and I'm in that situation I'll just say, "It's a massive snow cock, SuperJosh Jr." If they enquire further I'll just tell them to google the words "Snow" and "Cock." SJ Debaser 22:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Oddly enough someone built a similar naked snow woman outside my apartment block. People took photos and admired it, and somehow managed to avoid calling the police. A six foot wang is pretty good though. Wish I'd thought of that. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 22:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Trust me, SuperJosh, kids know what a cock is; they're just testing you, the parent, to see if you'll get flustered. Being cool is the best way. Junggai (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
A cock? Isn't that what you Americans call a rooster? Jack Hughes (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
These snow-penis-makers are lucky to get away with a warning, & not a fine. If you do make a giant penis out of snow, don't be tempted to lick it - your tongue might get frozen on to it. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

u/d Artier in Oxford http://www.dailyinfo.co.uk/images/oxford/pornosnow.jpg 82.23.208.15 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, BON. Also Slightly related. Hat tip SusanG  ContribsTalk 23:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
A little girl went to the zoo with her dad and as they were looking at the elephants she noticed the enormous cock on on of the bulls. "Daddy", she asked, "what's that hanging down under that big elephant?" Embarassed, her father blushed and replied "Oh, er, that's nothing". She could see that he was embarasses so she didn't ask any more question but was still curious. Several weeks later, as a special treat her mother took her to the zoo and when they passed the elephant enclosure the little girl asked her mother what the thing was under the big elephant. "Well dear, that's his penis which he puts inside the lady elephant so that they can make baby elephants together" said her mom. "Daddy said that it was nothing" replied the liitle girl. "Typical. Your father's always boasting"  Lily Inspirate me. 09:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Genetic engineering[edit]

Religious nut on Genetic engineering Hat tip (you should probably read the hat tip first.) SusanG  ContribsTalk 02:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

so your new hobby is liveblogging Pharyngula on the SB? Interesting. I hope all is well. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Not just Pharyngula, all Science blogs. I is OK, how's you? SusanG  ContribsTalk 02:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I is fine thanks, glad you are too. Right now I'm watching some lame History Channel "alien astronauts theory" show. So far I have namechecked at least 17 RW articles. To me this says we are doing our job - many of these topics I first heard of on our pages. Maybe you start a scienceblogs guide and review page or something since the SB gets archived so fast? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
A start? SusanG  ContribsTalk 03:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks good! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Add to chalkboard? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
? SusanG  ContribsTalk 04:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
[1] ħumanUser talk:Human 04:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If you think so. SusanG  ContribsTalk 04:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I do. Darling. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, sweety, I'm not gonna do it - never been one to blow my own trumpet. SusanG  ContribsTalk 05:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
But honey, if you can get someone else to do it... ħumanUser talk:Human 05:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh get a room... Scarlet A.pngbomination 14:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hee! SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
'He who blows not his own trumpet may never be heard' old proverb

Fix-even[edit]

Does anybody know why break-even is called break-even? I mean, I understand "even", but why "break"? Maybe it's obvious to a native speaker.... -- (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's "break" in the sense of passing a marker, like breaking the speed limit, a world record or the sound barrier - metaphorically, these are all barriers & passing them is to "break" them. Breaking even is passing the even point on a monetary venture - passing from net loss into net profit. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense... I've been wondering about this before, but I had never looked at it this way. Thanks a lot. -- (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I've always imagined a stick being broken at dead centre. One resulting part being win, the other lose, hence "even". SusanG  ContribsTalk 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
But wouldn't you call that an "even breaking point" or something like that? Just trying to understand how the language works, as I said, I'm not a native speaker. -- (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
What's your native tongue? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess you could call me bilingual in German and Italian. And your signature is a weird mixture of Ukrainian and Greek :D (I speak neither of these). -- (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
... one of your signatures, that is. -- (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Neither do I. :D It's just characters or symbols from various languages that look like the letters in Weaseloid. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Effin' Mouse[edit]

I've just got this mouse (wireless) & the scroll wheel seems to act as "paste" for some reason: most annoying! SusanG  ContribsTalk 18:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not your mouse; the middle button is automatically paste in X11, AFAIK. Cubic drug Hoover! 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Before Karmic I could tap the top of the scroll part of the touchpad to middle-click, but that seems to have gone. Cubic drug Hoover! 18:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
There's an option in about:config to disable this on Firefox in linux, it's called middlemouse.paste (and you need to set middlemouse.contentLoadURL to false too). Don't know if it's possible to disable it globally. -- Nx / talk 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I always get annoyed on those rare occasions where I have to use Windows and the middle button/wheel doesn't paste. So much quicker than silly Ctrl+C Ctrl+V... -- (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
EC)EC)It's bloody sensitive then. I'll look at my settings. Cheers PH. Nx: Chrome! SusanG  ContribsTalk 18:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you can disable it in some distribution preference file, but if not I think xmodmap -e \"pointer = 1 1 3\" should turn it into another left click for all of X. Probably there's a better way to do it. --MarkGall (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant disable paste without throwing out your middle button. -- Nx / talk 18:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there a way of restoring my touchpad middle click? Cubic drug Hoover! 18:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if X could ignore a centre-click for 1 sec after the scroll wheel was scrolled, to stop you from accidentally pasting during a fast scroll. CS Miller (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I've looked all over Chrome Help forums & it's not mentioned. SusanG  ContribsTalk 18:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, I'm pretty sure it's a feature of X, not Chrome, so you might want to Google that. Cubic drug Hoover! 19:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If I disable it (convert to left button click) I also disable "open in new tab" which I cannot do without. So I'll just have to learn to be more light fingered. SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ctrl+leftclick is OpenInNewTab on most browsers. CS Miller (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, disabling "open in new tab" isn't such a bad idea. I did that once, and it increased my productivity by 1000%. Tetronian you're clueless 19:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You might Google "X disable middle mouse click paste" or somesuch and see what that throws up. Cubic drug Hoover! 19:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
That's (almost) exactly what I did. Nods.gif SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Except I it's not an X thing at all. X only tells the application that you middle clicked. What the app does is its own business, so you can't disable it globally. -- Nx / talk 01:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Joke[edit]

beermagnet’s “Did you know” section: The volume of a pizza of thickness ‘a’ and radius ‘z’ is given by pi*z*z*a [2] ħumanUser talk:Human 21:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

TRUE!! 21:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Is it sad that I want to repeat that at the first opportunity? Tetronian you're clueless 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope not, since that's what I did... glad somebipples enjoyed it here. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It's my current FB status. Thanks, Huw! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Awesome! Thank beer magnet at fifteensquared! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Life, liberty, and Internet access[edit]

An interesting piece. (Ed: I feel like Susan, liveblogging the news!) Tetronian you're clueless 02:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Copernicium[edit]

The symbol for the newly named element copernicum is Cn, not Cp. [3] Who's on IUPAC here? Šţěŗĭļė rope 02:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My favorite comment from the comments section: "Well, I’ll sleep easier tonight…" Tetronian you're clueless 02:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
IUPAC has officially approved the name copernicium, with symbol Cn, for the element of atomic number 112. Hey they found new stuff and got the periodic table all messey. 06:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, that saves some confusion with the cyclopentadienyl ligand. Scarlet A.pngbomination 07:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Need a New Tag[edit]

(before I start, I'd like to say something before accusations start flying: I will make my $50 donation to Haiti, as promised, as soon as I get my check book balanced, and deposit my latest paycheck) I've been thinking, we need a new tag. We have one to indicate that Conservapedia has an article on a topic ("for those living in an alternate universe"), but we need one to indicate the very telling times when Conservapedia DOES NOT have an article on a topic (for instance "Boom and Bust," and "Masturbation").--Mustex (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No CP.svg
Don't bother checking Conservapedia, because its "article" about Saloon bar/Archive53 has been deleted and locked.

We do. - π 03:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No one cares. We should get rid of the "CP has an article" template eventually. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It is being phased out, it is used occasional if appropriate. I tend to move it down to the external links section when I see one. Nx was playing around with a fold-up template box with something like, see other wikis' articles and putting a whole heap on them in there. - π 03:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that {{No Cp}} implies that a CP article was created and that's not always the case, I don't have much to add. However, I agree on phasing it out. We did try to do the more general thing that included AiG and CreationWiki, but I think that ended up looking very, very cluttered. It might be worth revisiting and trying to roll out a bit more thoroughly. Scarlet A.pngbomination 06:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It appears on a bunch of pages which actually do now have a counterpart at CP. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it's been removed from those, & now only appears on things like cunt and faggot. Not really that telling: CP is (ostensibly) a family-friendly site after all. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Especially the Ed Poor articles. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No TV and no beer make Ace something, something......[edit]

Well I lied about the beer, Ace always has plenty, but I have been living without TV for 2.5 weeks and I am fucking digging it. Where I moved, while in the central city, curiously has no TV reception. Although I could get cable I haven't got around to it and now the idea of having a glowing cude in the corner of the lounge which saps my wavering attention makes me groan in inward retching. I peer cautiously over the TV listings and twitch with pleasure at the knowledge that I no longer have the option to while away my intelligence over the fodder and filth that spew forward from the beast with a cacophony of aural violation. Oh yes. Acei9 07:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of going over to a friend's place /the pub to watch the occasional sporting match and to see my girlfriend Tina Fey on 30 Rock on Hulu, I have not really watched TV since 2001. It's great. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
No-one wants to be second best, but for Tina Fey I'll make an exception. 15:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
TV - in Britain at any rate - is shit nowadays. DVDs are way better. The only good thing about telly is watching football, and it's nicer to do that in the pub with a load of pissed off drunkards. SJ Debaser 12:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I went four years of my teens (14-18) without telly - got into radio and music making instead. best thing that could have happened to me. But it did take me another twenty years to find ut who shot JR. Also, I concur with Superjosh - TV nowadays is shite, especially Channel 4, which used to be brilliant but should now be taken round the back and shot. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It used to be that the Brits made good TV (Clavdivs, anyone) and the yanks made crap game shows. Now it's reversed. The Yanks have all the good dramas - and there are some great one's out there - whilst the Brits make, and export, crap shows. Net result - most of my TV is imported from the states on DVD format with the occasional exception - I watch The League Show on Sunday afternoons, for example. Whichever, I haven't seen a TV add except at 30x speed for ages. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I stopped watching tv from the day i discovered bittorrent. Mr.Orange (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Article explaining CP politics[edit]

It contains valuable insights. --Ireon (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't know -- it starts off as a typical "whatever's good must be conservative" litany. He's pretty correct about the conspiratorial thinking dominating the right, but that's pretty self-evident. EVDebs (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The guy who wrote it pretends to be ultra-liberal, so I don't think he necessarily associates anything good with conservatism. He rather makes the point that conservative politics are a legitimate option, but Republicans are way off the mark nowadays. I particularly like the part where he explains that
      We see this in the political climate today: the election of a single pro-choice, pro-state-based-universal—health-care senator, socially moderate and amenable to some gun control, is heralded as a bellwether of total liberal collapse.
      It is very, very much what we can see in the "in the news" section of Conservapedia! --Ireon (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

They deleted my article at CP[edit]

I wrote an article about Andyland and it took them four minutes to delete it and block me. They're slow today. Mr.Orange (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. Dagless (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Usually it takes them less time. Mr.Orange (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back[edit]

I'm back.

Sorry for the moment of bitchiness. I'd appreciate it if we could just leave it in the past.

MDB (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Leave what where? Sorry, it's all in the past. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 23:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back. The toilet is still bust, so best you bring a bucket or bottle. ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 23:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
PJR told me that if something happened in the past, it's impossible to know anything about it. --Kels (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Really? He also told me that it is possible to see the future if Gawd tells you what the future is. But, then again, being told the future would've happened in the past. Therefore, it's impossible to know anything about being told the future by Gawd. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
What Gawd tells you doesn't count, and eyewitnesses who are Gawd Approvedtm are reliable, whereas those nasty Egyptians, Chinese and Sumerians, well, that's just stories. --Kels (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for what it's worth... I may not be as active as I was in the past. I'm going to be a a good deal busier at work than I have been in the past. I've been assinged to a high priority project that I'm getting the impression is something of a cluster-fuck already. MDB (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Minister Father of ACORN Pro: Jesus says it's ok to lie for a good cause.[edit]

Is this guy related to Andy? "Yep, good old Jesus said it’s okay to imitate the serpent in regard to cleverness; just be righteous in spirit and desired goals."--Thanatos (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Adding this for the pwnage--Thanatos (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

victory is yours[edit]

You win, I give up. My attempts to understand people have run dry.

It was stupid, but I somehow believed it would work this time.

I guess I can't live with normal people after all. — Unsigned, by: - / talk / contribs

Please do not go, Mei. You are one of my favorite users here. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
normal people - here ? where ? I rarely understand people , I have just learned enough so they dont drive me off with burning torches :) Please reconsider, you have friends here , and of course are very useful. Hamster (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
What a silly thing to say, Mei. I trust you'll come to your senses and get back here pretty soon. You'll be eagerly welcome, and you should know that.--ADtalkModerator 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
'kinell, I'm 65 & I don't understand people. They get up my nose and often disgust me. 00:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
This is why I love you, Susan. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I love everyone here. Third family like. Second's my real family, and first is my collection of stamps. SJ Debaser 11:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

xkcdsucks[edit]

Is xkcdsucks a Poe? I mean, really, it all just seems to be so angry and serious over a stickman webcomic. One post reads "oh god. I don't think this comic deserves very much of my time. It's just so stupid..." but then goes on and devotes a couple of paragraphs to it anyway. And there's at least two massive posts dedicated to the most throw-away on-line gag ever - overkill on par with a 200,000 strong Facebook group protesting against a layout change that involved merely moving the logo two pixels to the left. And then reading the list of responses to FAQs... man, really, is it actually possible to take something this seriously? It can't be real, can it? Scarlet A.pngbomination 13:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by that site as well. However sometimes he ís spot-on, which makes it all the more confusing because the author has obviously put some thought into this and isn't just saying "XKCD Sucks!" in every post. Internetmoniker (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I find it odd that everyone in every IT class I ever have reads the comic, but a lot of others seem similarly based on communal in-jokes anyway; it's no worse. That blog seems amusingly picky, but hard to consider parody.
'Course, I only managed to read two of the rants, so maybe it has a point/more insanity somewhere? ~ Kupochama[1][2] 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
If you don't like that blog, then maybe you should set up an xkcdsuckssucks blog to analyse and comment upon it. (Following on from the success of rationalwikiwiki and of course rationalwikiwikiwiki) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Baseball[edit]

RW much American orientated.

RW has article on cricket, but none on baseball.

Holding entry for latter created.

Promptly deleted.

What would Conservapedia think?

(St Trinian's would de CP much good.)— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs

"RW much American orientated." - not really. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
"What would Conservapedia think?" Probably that we were too lib-burr-rul; that we should have permabanned you ("Please create your an account with your real first name and last initial") and then deleted the article without prior notice. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
He doesn't have an account. Cubic drug Hoover! 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hence the use of the word "create" as opposed to "recreate." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I love the way you use the 40-times-longer CSS to do the underline but just use the s tag for the strikethrough. Cubic drug Hoover! 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
That's always bugged me about CSS. I understand why they introduced it, because before it was there it started getting silly, but the depreciation of certain features goes a little too far. <center> is a remarkably useful tag, whereas with CSS it takes a couple of lines of dicking about with margins (unless I've seriously missed something while trawling through W3Schools). Scarlet A.pngbomination 12:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Juice Woo?[edit]

Mrs. Practice wants to get a juicer. Apparently it will allow her somewhat overweight, high-cholesterol, poor-diet husband to get more of the "goodness" of fruits and veggies into him at a single go. My woo sirens have gone off. Thoughts from the mob? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Forget the fancy machinery and stay away from anything with more than about ten ingredients to it, for starters. Then you can worry about which of those ingredients are plumping you up. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
If you're not getting enough (?) then it can be a good & tasty way of supplementing your diet without using artificial stuff. But why not just eat the ingredients & get the roughage along with it. SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey man, I feel your pain. Mrs. McWicked has got me eating "Lo-Salt" which has 60% less sodium than table salt and she is watching my drinking like a hawk. Acei9 19:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
She doesn't work then? (must be a full time job) 19:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
there is some truth to the claims. You do avoid the preservatives in commercial juices and you keep all the nutrients in the juice itself. It cam also be way cheaper if you grow veggies yourself , and dont buy a very expensive juicer. The good ones remove almost all of the pulp, which is good fibre. It can be a bit time consuming to cut up a lot of stuff to get it in the juicer. Hamster (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The real benefit you'll get from having a juicer is the additional exercise you get from cleaning the fucker every time you create half a glass of orange juice. Sure, the juice tastes great, but you'll be surprised just how little you get for each piece of fruit you use. That is, until the thing gets left and forgotten in a cupboard. Bondurant (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I have one just like Bondurant's. It takes 5 minutes to set up, 30 seconds to drink the juice, 10 minutes to clean up afterwards and you still have a huge pile a fruit pulp (which is surprisingly dry) but that is at least good for compost. Mine has sat unused for 3 years and I think I have lost a crucial part. - π 23:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Also it give you diarrhea, because you are not use to eating that much fruit. - π 23:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I just buy generic brands of unconcentrated orange and apple juices. I look for ones high in calcium and vitamin c. Tastes better than soda and helps me build up my immunity to the Canadian winter...which never came this year--~~
Honestly speaking, I generally just take blueberries and sugar, crush them into a juice, add some water, and drink that. I don't really call it woo because I just like the way it tastes. As for weight loss, you would want to screw fruit drinks all together and just go for water and milk. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ Reticulating splines 05:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Not so much woo but certainly a lot of misunderstanding. Fruit is good for you but we are omnivores and it should only play a part of a balanced diet. The best way is to eat a couple of portions of whole fruit (including skin where appropriate). Once you start to juice fruit then you change its character. Whole fruit is usually comprised of large amounts of fructose and acids enclosed in packets of fibre. Eating raw fruit means that the packets are often passed through the gut without being fully processed. When the fruit is juiced you are mechanically breaking down the fibre casing and releasing the sugars and acids which are then available for immediate access by the digestive process - resulting in an acid and sugar bath for your teeth, a rapid increase in blood sugar and the intake of more calories from the food than you would get from raw fruit. Another consequence is an increase in blood triglycerides which may be linked to increased risk of heart disease. Many juicers (rather than liquidisers) also remove the fibre which is a double whammy. Fructose does not satiate the appetite like fibre or protein so it is quite easy to overconsume fruit drinks. Of course people like to add many different types of fruit to the juice to make it "more healthy" but what happens is that you tend to just drink bigger portions. You can add vegetables of course and while they might have less sugar you are still mechanically breaking the fibre. Cucumber and celery are high in fibre and actually use more energy to digest than you get from them so are good for aiding weight loss (if a little bland) but this no longer applies once they are juiced. Dried fruits can also be a problem as they are often higher in sugar and stick to the teeth. Fruit acids soften the enamel and premature brushing can actually do mor damage. Eat a piece of hard cheese after eating fruit.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Crazy Conservapedia Dream (TK was in it)[edit]

So I had a pretty wacky dream about conservapedia saturday night. I had an axe and my mission was to find the "main brain" of conservapedia and destroy it. I found myself in a semi-finished basement in the early morning. I don't know whose basement. The staircase was behind me, the walls were white, and random objects created clutter. Everything has a blueish tinge to it, like in suspenseful creepy movies. In front of me was a well (the thin kind that stick up out of the ground, if you know what a monitoring well is than thats what I saw. I do water testing for my day job). I approached the well and opened it. It was stuffed with papers. This was the Conservapedia Main Brain, and the papers were my target. I began to whack the papers with all my might to destroy Conservapedia, but then a voice behind me called out "NO, STOP!". I turned around and saw a bald, fattish, short, man with glasses. I knew this was TK. He was armed with a fat syringe (probably inspired by the interrogation droid from Star Wars) and had it pointed straight at me. I told him I had to do this, but he again said no. He walked toward me with the syringe and began laughing, then I began laughing. Then I woke up. The end. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Freaky. Sounds like a rough night. Tetronian you're clueless 01:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes you need to keep things to yourself, dude. That, and stay off CP for a while! Šţěŗĭļė rope 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I tramuatise you? My nightmare. As for yourself... you might want to block CP from your browser for a bit. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ no fate but what we make 05:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't had a CP/RW dream for a while... Time to get some blue cheese in. Scarlet A.pngbomination 12:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You spend waaay to much time on CP Mr.Orange (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Goonie's shrine[edit]

Who wants to move this to the RW space, and can we come up with a better title or not? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be in project space. For a title, I of course must suggest "Valhalla." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be, too. NO idea on what to name it, though. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 06:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. How about "Missing in inaction"? I've an idea for an image. I'll knock up draft this week. ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 09:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I dunno. I like both ListenerX's and Concernedresident's ideas. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 19:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I've moved it over to the RationalWiki space at RationalWiki:RationalWiki shrine, so we can move rrenaming ideas over to the talkpage there. The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 00:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Redemption without Religion[edit]

Ok, this is another case of me wondering how non-religious people look at an issue. I’ve heard a lot of people criticize Christianity on the basis that it takes away accountability. This kind of got me wondering: In your view, could a serial killer ever attain redemption. I choose to not say “forgiveness” because that implies a forgiver, and whether or not the victim’s families could forgive the person would vary heavily based on the family. Instead, by “redemption” I mean “could they ever, in your eyes, cease to be a bad person, and if so what would it require?” (this does not mean, however, that you would support their release) Personally, if I set my own beliefs aside for a moment, I’d have to say it varies heavily from person to person, but is built largely on two things: remorse and compulsion (I’m definitely more inclined to believe someone is redeemed if they show remorse when its clearly not convenient for their defense). For that reason, I feel no sympathy for Richard Kuklinski, who’s a pure, cold-blooded killer. I feel a bit more for Aileen Wournos, who at least acknowledged that she was a monster who needed to be dealt with (she asked that the state stop her appeals and execute her, because she felt it was a waste of tax-payer money, and felt she was so full of anger that if she was ever released she’d killer again). I feel a great deal for the Son of Sam and Jeffrey Dahmer, both of whom clearly had compulsions involved (and, in the case of the Son of Sam, he’s accepted his life sentence, stopped his appeals, and done everything within his power to scrape together money for the families of his victims), and I feel that both of them are (or were) good, or at least not horrible people. In the case of Ted Bundy my opinion is kind of weird. Based on everything I’ve ever read or heard about him, I have trouble seeing him as human. I see him more like a thing that passes flawlessly for humans, and causes death. I can’t hate or pity him, he’s just a thing to me. That’s the only understanding I can have of a person who can fall into any role so easily. But, anyway, that’s my view, what do you guys think?--Mustex (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Those critics are misunderstanding most Christian views of atonement, etc., which mostly hold that you at least have to be sorry first.
In my religion, the general rule is one of accountability, that if you do a wrong to somebody, you must take responsibility for it and make it up to the victim in the best way you can. This can also be a secular principle. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say "yes", I don't see why not. Not that it's gonna get them out of jail, of course, but if they truly go through a process of remorse/repentance/etc., there's no reason they couldn't then become a "good" person - by being a model prisoner, working in any way they can to directly or indirectly "make up for" the wrongs they committed, working in prison, say, teaching literacy and stuff to people who are gonna get out someday, etc. etc. I think it's "possible". I don't know how "probable", though. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that "redemption" is almost invariably a religious concept. As you say that "forgiveness" implies a "forgiver" and then go on to say "redemption... in your eyes" which, to me, also implies a forgiver. So redemption therefore is outside of what individuals think, and who thinks outside individuals; God. So only God is capable of granting redemption. So, without God, there is forgiveness, and there's acceptance and many other things but I don't think what you'd call redemption exists - as the entity that grants it is moved outside the realms of the real (being released from prison after serving a term, it is the State that is the entity that grants the forgiveness, even if the victims or those who compose the state don't grant it). As for "ceasing to be a bad person", that's slightly more tangible, but for me, there are no good or bad people - only people who do good things and people who do bad things and most people, if not all people, tend to do both (although we have to concede that "good" and "bad" here are relative to everyone else, some see a political leader starting a war as a good thing, others see it as bad, so are they a good person? They're both, and neither). So really, you can only judge a person to be a "good person" if they - at least more often than not - do things you approve of. As people are variable, and to a degree unpredictable - I imagine they indeed can change from a "bad person" into a "good person" and vice versa. Scarlet A.pngbomination 19:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
There is such a thing as one's own conscience, however. If redemption is set relative to that, no supernatural God is needed. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck on Social Justice[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mzzLLxe87M&feature=sub See if you follow Beck's train of thought(and I use that term as loose as humanly possible.)Ryantherebel (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

People who think Mammon worship is the official religion of the GOP, raise your hands please--Thanatos (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Glenn Beck belongs on the streets, holding up a sign that says "The End is Nigh!"--76.18.115.64 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Often, it happens that when one speaks of "social justice," it would be more adequately rendered if the "justice" were replaced with "ism." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Fascist swine Kiss.gif 23:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

Hah![edit]

This has been on WIGOworld but I thought I might bump it here: BBC PZ Hat tip. An anti-gay-rights (REPUBLICAN) Senator has outed himself as gay after being caught (allegedly) driving under the influence. Surprise, surprise. Two faced much? SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, I read that and I couldn't help but think of  K e n  D o l l . --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I try not to think of Ken, ever. 18:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
I saw that too. Still, it's not as bad as that Senator who was caught in the airport. Tetronian you're clueless 21:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins tonight[edit]

Tonight I am going to go see Richard Dawkins speak at the Wellington Town Hall. Outside the event Comfort drones will be handing out his character assasination version of On Origin of Species. Looking forward to getting my copy and apologising to Dawkins, in person, on behalf of all NZers for Ray Confort. Acei9 18:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, tell us how it goes! Tetronian you're clueless 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Isnt he the guy that hangs out with Kirk Cameron ? take Dawkins a bannana if it is Hamster (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sick[edit]

Yet another PaedoPriest 22:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

That's pretty horrible. Tetronian you're clueless 22:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Terrible but not surprising. Just seen that fucker on newsnight, he tried to act like he was a victim in all of this, choking back the tears as he told how he was trying to "get his life back together one day at a time". Paxman gave some archbishop a good grilling too. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it was newsnight that brought it up. Bloody Church!. 23:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

I'd be obliged[edit]

If people wouldn't assume that my edits are anything but comments. They're not necessarily trying to make a point. Sometimes they're just observations. AGF fafuxake 01:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

Mathematics[edit]

Maths types might be interested in this. I can hardly follow past the first paragraph. Is he (J. A. Perez) on Andy's anti-proof-by-contradiction wavelength or what? SusanG  ContribsTalk 02:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We so need an article on this to complete our mess infinity and who could forget Diagonalization. - π 02:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thesis[edit]

Anyone wanna watch a live biology thesis defence Hat tip on line. The public defense begins promptly at 10 am CST (whatever that is) Wednesday 10th.
(Warning: the blog ends: "thank God for his Grace.") 04:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

Hologram bracelets[edit]

These are all the rage here. They cost about 30 euros and are a cheap plastic bracelet. People are convinced they give them extra powers. All about them here. How do they work:

  • What is Power Balance?
  • Power Balance is performance technology that uses holograms embedded with frequencies that react positively with your body’s natural energy field to improve balance, strength, and flexibility.
  • How does it work?
  • Most everything has a frequency inherent to it. Some frequencies react positively with your body and others negatively. When the hologram comes in contact with your body’s energy field, it allows your body to interact with the natural, beneficial frequency stored within the hologram. This results in improved energy flow throughout your body.

Obvious really. The video is also good for a laugh.--BobIt's windy! 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Too bad we're not talking about the bracelets from Legend of Zelda. Now those would be a great investment.--Thanatos (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Aww, yeah! I'd slap one of those babies on and go around lifting Buicks off of the road looking for gems! And when there aren't any to be found, I'd hurl them at nearby chickens. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
And when the chickens attacked you could ride away on your horse, on which you are invulnerable! Cubic drug Hoover! 20:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit can be very dangerous[edit]

Anyone following the recent news coverage regarding John Venables might be interested in this one. Apparently, someone (as a sick joke, I hope, rather than something malicious) has decided to circulate a rumour via text/email that Venables's new name is David Calvert. If you punch that name into Google, guess what you get? Aye, a baby photographer. Nice sick joke there, someone who killed a toddler as a 10 year old and has been rearrested (according to shitty Tabloid rambling at least) over child-pornogaphy charges. So well fucking done to A) the person who thought this one up and B) the sick gullible cunts who decided to fall for it and pass it on. Well fucking done you fucking morons. Do these idiots really believe the police and government (who are tracking this guy under a protected identity and very strict terms of release) would let him get that job? Dear fuck no.

Actually, mid rant, I came across this. Apparently not only what I said above could happen, but it actually did. Anyway, I wish Calvert the best, his art is pretty good, while I hope the thick (or twisted) twats who circulate this shit burn in the hell that I don't believe in. Scarlet A.pngbomination 19:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about the sort of people who vandalise a paediatrician's office because their job title has the "paed" prefix. The Paedofinder General is real, and he's living large. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
That sky news link is scary as the comments in the article show just how thick the viewers of Sky News are. The god-awful English and the clearly neanderthal levels of intelligence are a sight to behold. And the comment by "Angry Woman" at 9:47: "If we had the death penalty (which some people want) or life imprisonment. Would we be having these discussions!!!!!!! " Quite apart from the abhorrent nature of the death penalty, Mrs Woman is suggesting we should have executed a child. Bondurant (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Bondurant, on behalf of English people everywhere, I'd like to say that some of us aren't like that, just most of us. SJ Debaser 10:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Angry Woman's comment ends with "These people are just a drain of taxpayers money." Yup, she's barking bloody bonkers if she's justifying the death penalty as a way of saving money. Sky News is there for Sun readers who struggle with complicated words. I wonder if the police would consider prosecuting people found to have passed the messages around? Ignorance should not be a defence when making such a serious allegation, and I don't really care if they did it in good faith. They formed a digital lynch mob to wreck the life of some poor sod. This isn't an issue of free speech, more the modern equivalent of spreading rumours about the village midwife being a witch. Dumb apes.--ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 15:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Going through the comments is quite saddening. Just the sheer quantity of "removed by moderators" is really disturbing... But one or two seriously seem to think that the Calvert rumour is true, saying "oh, so where is he then? Surely since we know Venables is in prison he should be photographed to prove his innocence". So, guilty until proven innocent, and even then it's not enough for the brainless twats that we have to deal with. Murderers, dangerous paedophiles and violent rapists probably only exist in the dozens, these idiots probably exist in the hundreds of thousands - therefore I reckon, that on average, the UK would be best off without them. Scarlet A.pngbomination 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The man was hounded out of his house twice by the baying mob. He was interviewed on BBC R4's 6pm news, for those with access to iPlayer. CS Miller (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're in the New Jersey area right now...[edit]

.... that moaning sound you're hearing may be Andy Schlafly experiencing the most massive (only?) orgasm of his life.

As per Newsweek, a new academic paper says that people who buy "green" products are more likely to steal afterwards (warning -- link is to a PDF).

MDB (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering what that noise was. Tetronian you're clueless 15:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The Newsweek article doesn't seem to say that...? (Didn't read pdf, haven't installed arcobat on this machine yet) ħumanUser talk:Human 19:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The sub-headline says "A new study shows that people are more likely to cheat and steal after buying green products." The actual article, summarizing the paper, says that doing something altruistic, like buying green products, gives people a feeling they have a bit of "moral currency" (my phrasing) to do something non-altruistic later. It's a massive stretch to lead to claiming "people who buy green are more likely to steal", but its something Andy would love. MDB (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see, yes. Andy would read the sub header and trumpet the news. I'll read the pdf later. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I "read" (Schlafly skimmed) the pdf. While the compensatory ethics thing is what it's all about, there's nothing in there even slightly resembling the experiment Newsweek describes. Oh, I see, the pdf is just to explain what CE means in general and the NW article is about a later-linked or at least mentioned study. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Curse you, xkcd[edit]

It's been four hours since I read today's cartoon, and I still have Beyonce's Single Ladies stuck in my head!

"If you liked it than you should have put a ring on it..."

MDB (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Eggselent! (Nice vid too) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
(EC) I saw that this morning and groaned for a good five minutes. Worst joke I've heard all day. Tetronian you're clueless 15:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I've seen a worse LotR joke in a comic strip... a drawing of Angela Lansbury, with the text:
"Jessica Fletcher! Have you solved the case yet?"
"Yes. Sauron, the Dark Lord, did it."
With the caption...
wait for it...
"Mordor she wrote."
MDB (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
MDB, that actually made me physically facepalm. Bondurant (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Samuel Johnson disparagingly referred to punning as "the lowest form of humour" 16:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
MDB wins "worst joke of the day." Tetronian you're clueless 16:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! As I like to say, I am an incorrigible punster, so you should never ever incorrige me. MDB (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I. Don't. Get it. (Oh, hang on, LotR = Lord of the Rings? Right? Ah, that's why I don't get it) I normally do 'get' xkcd, honestly! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Jesus only every made one joke, and it was a pun. When he told Peter that he was the rock upon which Jesus would build his church, it was a pun on Peter's name. Punning is one of the oldest and most-respected forms of humor. Woe to him who slanders punning!--ADtalkModerator 23:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

British Libel laws (bump)[edit]

For information:

Email Mar 5:

THE BIG LIBEL WEEK: HOW YOU CAN GET INVOLVED (AND A FREE EVENT)

Dear friends,

Next week is the ‘Big Libel Week’ with events, more media coverage of our campaign and a big push to get politicians to sign up for libel reform. We had great news this week when Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, announced he’d changed the law to slash the ‘success fees’ lawyers can charge in libel cases (http://tinyurl.com/yg2tcq7). We asked Jack Straw to do this in October – and now it has been done – it’s a great success! But this is just the start of the reforms we need.

You can help by writing to an unconvinced MP, getting your friends to sign up and by attending an event.

PERSUADE YOUR MP TO BACK OUR CAMPAIGN

214 MPs have backed our campaign by singing EDM 423, but many haven’t. Check if your MP has signed up here: http://www.libelreform.org/news/443-edm-423

And if they haven’t please send them the letter on that page. We need every MP to sign up.

GET YOUR FRIENDS TO JOIN US

We have to secure 100,000 signatures so that MPs know how important this issue is to you. In less than 100 days, the political parties will fight a general election. We want reform of our libel laws to be one of their priorities. So tell your friends, family and colleagues - there's a long way to go!

COME TO OUR EVENT: “The impact of our libel laws on documentary film makers: what you don’t get to see”

Thursday 11th March, 6:30pm at Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Road, London, EC1R 3GA

As part of the Big Libel Week, the Libel Reform Campaign will be hosting a free event on the effect of our libel laws on documentary film makers. Speakers include:

Tracy Worcester is a documentary film maker who directed and produced the film ‘Pig Business’ (there will be a screening of an extract from this); Christopher Hird is a leading figure in UK independent documentary making and runs Dartmouth Films; Duncan Campbell is an investigative journalist and filmmaker who specialises in privacy, civil liberties and secrecy issues. He has faced successive libel actions for twenty years.

[4]

This is a FREE event. Email: bookings@freewordonline.com to book a place.

THE BIG LIBEL GIG: a tiny number of tickets left!

If you haven’t got tickets for the event of the year so far at the Palace Theatre in London on 14th March you may still have a chance: [5]

We hope to see you at one of the events, and do keep an eye out for coverage of the campaign in the press during Big Libel Week.

Best,

Mike and Síle

18:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

Link[edit]

Just for interest, as the Shrine mentions both, here's a link between Ames & Pal. SusanG  ContribsTalk 23:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is link? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry. It's there now. Brain work faster than rest of body! 03:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

Best. Smiley. Ever.[edit]

I'm not really in to all this 'smiley' malarkey, but I found this beauty on a (ahem) 'specialist interest literature' forum. Wank.gif Oooh-yeah! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Something (even some 50+ years after puberty) I've never witnessed. About as stimulating as watching my cat copulate, I should think. 23:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
That would prolly depend on who you were watching--and if they could put on a good show...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Do we want to allow new users to upload files? -- Nx / talk 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I say no. Limit it to sysops and higher, since good people get sysopped pretty quickly anyway. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It's on autoconfirmed now (though sysops get the right too, so if someone is sysopped before they get autoconfirmed, they can upload too). The sysop everyone on sight policy is something I no longer agree with. -- Nx / talk 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. If someone wants to upload an image immediately I'd say that was suspicious. Scarlet A.pngbomination 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say make it pretty easy. Not necessarily "immediate" but pretty soon. Autoconfirmed means they replied to an email, right? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
No, autoconfirmed means 20 edits and 2 days old. -- Nx / talk 20:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Which often happens after some gets sysopped. But it's a good barrier for upload rights. That said, however, if we want to tighten up and keep everything above board regarding images, would it be worth restricting it further? Someone who has just 20 edits and 2 days of RW experience may not know the ins and outs of Creative Commons and may not even think to read the warnings on the upload screen, or may just think "ah, it's just a cover for them, I can upload this fine." Scarlet A.pngbomination 21:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Aren't we supposed to not care about image licensing? -- Nx / talk 21:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I would oppose restricting it to sysops only, but restricting it to autoconfirmed users is all right. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Some people probably done. Many people think that needs to change. We've taken the first steps but there really isn't a system in place where we can properly enforce it (such as stripping upload rights of people who break copyright law). Scarlet A.pngbomination 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
But that'll never happen when certain people think the whole licensing tag business is just bureaucratic redtape and a waste of time. -- Nx / talk 21:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
There is, of course, a way to deal with it without stripping anyone's upload rights: delete images without a tag. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Many images have a clear copyright status indicated but no "tag". ħumanUser talk:Human 01:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I think "autoconfirmed" is a fair "hurdle" to uploading files. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
We have many tagged as "no licence" and a date, with the plan being to inform the uploader and give them a certain time frame to find the licence or have it deleted. However, the issue there is the backlog of older stuff that we have. We could just clean sweep it, of course. Scarlet A.pngbomination 18:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins - recap[edit]

So saw Dawkins last night and came away....less than impressed. He made a nice lecture but it was a little heavy on the chemistry of evolution and the technical details whereas I think most of the (sold out) crowd would have liked to hear more philosophy and religion. But he was touring on the strength of the new book and not the God Delusion so not too surprising. The question time was only 10 minutes long so I didn't get a chance to ask anything (or pimp RW). All in all, kinda disappointing. So I went home and drank whisky while watching Dawkins vs. Wendy Wright on youtube. I don't know how Dawkins holds his temper.....Acei9 19:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, he often mentions specifically when pimping The Greatest Show on Earth that he's done the religion thing, this is about evolution. That's his job and his actual career, I assume it must be quite refreshing for him to actually talk about his passion for biology rather than having to repeatedly reiterate his points from TGD. Scarlet A.pngbomination 19:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
In the book itself he says "been there, done that" (with regard to religion) ad nauseam. And naturally he conveniently includes the name of the books in which he discusses religion so that he can plug his own stuff. Tetronian you're clueless 01:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
He obviously has never prayed to Super Mecha Death Christ 2000 B.C 4.0 Beta--Thanatos (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I've only seen Dawkins on t'telly & he's never "personally" impressed me. His Charisma level is near - if not below - zero. He should really stick to writing: at that he's a star! 02:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
I agree toast, I've watched some of his lectures and talks on t'internet, and he's not much of a showman. However I think he performs very well in interviews/debates as he doesn't pull any punches when arguing with religionists. (Did you see him on question time when he kept asking some bearded bloke in a dress what the punishment for apostacy was?) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I daren't watch him: it's like seeing your idols smashed. I'd rather keep my image of him from the books. Laughing.gif 02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Nah, trust me, in a interview/'informal' debate (as opposed to where it's half-hour droning then the other person drone's for half an hour) such as a discussion show or interview with a religionist, he's excellent - not charismatic, just extremely brutal and direct. I like that approach anyway! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Vote[edit]

You might like to vote here soonish 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

Since I started watching: it's gone from about 48:52 to 25:75 (figures approx). 21:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Heh! 10:90 now. SusanG  ContribsTalk 22:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
at(less than)6: (greater than)94, a comment from a "Guardian of the poll":
Oh, I see that PZ Myers is not the only person who encourages the fornication of polls. I have contacted One News Now and have linked this pathetic post to the unusual results of the poll. They now know that the poll hase been fornicated by left wing hate groups.
Yes people can change. No one is born gay just like no one is born a serial killer. One's personality and lifestyle choices has much to do with the way they were raised, their surroundings, their parents's faith/non-faith, whether they were abused as a child, etc. many things playa role into how people behave as adults, but things can change.
Apparently things like the urges of poll fornication and socialism is not one of the evils that is not easily changed without a little push from the hand of God Himself. Were you born a poll fornicator? Were you born a science teacher? Were you born a math teacher? What makes you think someone was born gay?
Is is nice, though, to see the nastiness of PZ MYers rubbing off on his axis comrades.
—Posted by: Guardian of the Poll March 10, 2010 7:00 PM (Fair Use)
0:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Hilarious. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
That is pretty hilarious. I've always thought that the polls they show on cable news channels were biased; now I know just how biased. Tetronian you're clueless 01:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
They're fighting back: now under 94% on the side of wronglyness. 01:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Down to 92% or so. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
'tain't goin' down half as fast as it went upShakinghead.gif. 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
They've managed 9:90. At this rate it'll be easter before they get to equality. 09:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Well, they did ask. I think we should bork with polls more often. If only serve to highlight the numerous fallacies of polls, particularly online ones with a very targeted audience. Scarlet A.pngbomination 18:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks as if they've locked it; at 10.7/0.69/88.61. 'Twas fun while it lasted. 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

We don't need America, we can grow our own nutters.[edit]

Woman refused The Pill on religious grounds 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

Fucking ridiculous. I've seen similar stories before, particularly for the morning after pill. It kind of pales in to insignificance compared to the muslim shop workers who can refuse handle booze (there was even a case when a muslim was allowed to refuse to move pallets of beer on his forklift truck FFS) In all cases like this, I just want to scream "Yes, you are entitled to believe in whatever stupid superstition you want, but don't expect everyone else to have to put up with it" Pricks. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Effing idiots, if they can't do what teh job requires, don't do it, get another one. Like sewing burkas in a sweatshop. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
That is ridiculous. If your religion prevents you from doing a job fully, then why the hell would you apply for it in the first place?
A GP friend of mine - who is a catholic - has made it her mission to inject the contraceptive implant in the girls in her sleepy, Derbyshire village practise. Better that than having to deal with unwanted pregnancies. Despite contraception being against her religion, it's better that than having to carry out an abortion. Bondurant (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It brings us back to an earlier story about the Christian Police Association. They're an evangelical nutjob association for British police, and they don't even pretend to keep their religion out of their work. I don't know if their members actually proselytise and discriminate, but their website certainly makes it clear that their intention is to share good old Jesus with colleagues and the public. I sent a complaint to the Home Office, and I'll await their response. I imagine it will be the usual diversity and inclusive arguments. Those two words are like mantras for the current government, yet I think they do not understand what those words actually mean. I hope the pharmacist in that case gets fucking fired so she can devote her life to more spiritual matters. That kind of shit doesn't help theists. Doesn't it seem risky to hire them for certain types of jobs? --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 11:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, she should be fired. What if the woman had been after the morning after pill and didn't have an alternative pharmacy to go to? Bondurant (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
She makes the best point when she says "I said it was not against my religion" (emphasis added). People shouldn't have their choices held hostage to other people's beliefs, that's pretty much what the whole "freedom" thing means. The thing is, the employee didn't do their job, and that's grounds for either disciplinary action or dismissal. It doesn't matter what the reason is, it "being their religion" isn't really any different from pure laziness or incompetence. Scarlet A.pngbomination 18:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

I only just noticed the little troll hiding behind the brain logo on Don't feed the Troll. Nice idea whoever did that. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha! That's clever. Tetronian you're clueless 23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
That was me. I thought about also making it a template to use on talk/debate pages which had become trolling zones, but I think we probably have enough troll-related templates already. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It is quite excellent! Congrats, Stoateloid 23:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Indeed. Nicely done. I like those subtle touches. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 23:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Square.gif ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wants one!!![edit]

Flas Gordon here we come! Hat tip Ace, you've gotta get one. 00:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

I'd be afraid that Ace would crash the thing. Flying under the influence and all that. Tetronian you're clueless 00:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
With one of those I'd be unstoppable! Acei9 02:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
And it's homegrown! You could chase Orcs all over South Island!! 02:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

PZ strikes agin![edit]

Holy Vegemite, Batman 00:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

Catholic child abuse in Germany[edit]

Google: "Catholic Church" Germany "Child abuse"; 160,000 sites on Google UK! 05:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

Oh god, please no...don't do it....[edit]

Wellington, New Zealand. My home town. Well known now due to successes in the film industry. Home of Weta Workshop who are getting truck loads of Oscars for Lord of the Rings and Avatar. Also home of Peter Jackson and the NZ film industry. But please, for fucks sake, don't do this! I used to joke about it but now....ARGH! You filthy mongrels. I'll burn it down. Acei9 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

They should come up with something original rather than just ripping the U.S. off. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
They should just not do anything at all. I'll burn it down - I swear. Acei9 21:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Ahahahah!! That's hilarious. I feel bad for you Ace, I'd hate to live within 20 miles of that hideous thing. Tetronian you're clueless 21:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It'll be a fucking embarrasment. Every time I drive out to the airport I'll have to see that horrible fucking sign. Acei9 21:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
A giant snow wang would be less tacky, and would perhaps keep the missionaries away. I'll chip in to the "Free Ace" fund if you end-up burning the thing down. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 21:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Heck, I'd fly over there and help him burn it down. One hideous sign is bad enough. Thankfully, most Hollywood residents can't see the sign because of the smog. Tetronian you're clueless 21:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't feel too bad Ace. Whenever I drive to the airport here in Denver, I have to pass the Denver Demon Horse. SirChuckBCall the FBI 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me while I point and laugh. Scarlet A.pngbomination 12:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I haven't heard one positive remark from ANYONE in Denver. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 07:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, now that Hollywood has decided to try and sue if it goes ahead, wouldn't you want to do it? I'm pretty sure you can't sue for infringement on satire... Scarlet A.pngbomination 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Nope. Its fucking embarassing. Acei9 20:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ependymin antioxidant up-regulation claims[edit]

I just added http://www.circuitblue.com/biogerontology/ependymin.html to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ependymin because I can't make heads or tails of the current validity of the claims. I started to read Suárez-Castillo and García-Arrarás (2007) "Molecular evolution of the ependymin protein family: a necessary update" BMC Evolutionary Biology 7:23 PMID 17302986 but I can't figure out whether being a "suitable target to experimentally test subfunctionalization in gene copies that originated after gene or genome duplication events" is useful for figuring out whether the stated life-extension/antioxidant-up-regulation claims make any sense. Please, fellow skeptics, help me. 99.191.72.188 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's words in there that I understand but, taken together, I'm afraid it's gibberish to me. I must get out more. 10:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
I;m replying here right now so that I can look it up in the morning easily and get back to you. --Opcn (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Easy work for a lazy 'crat[edit]

Blank MediaWiki:Longpagewarning. Its very outdated, the browsers it applies too are all like 0% percent of market share. Do we really want people using IE 4 to browser our website anyways?? lol. Icewedge (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Making it difficult to use IE 4 is doing those users a favour. It'll help encourage them to use a browser that isn't comparable to having random unprotected sex with third world hookers. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 18:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried using IE 4 with RationalWiki once. I think it worked better than IE5 (it supports less things, but that means there are less things that can go horribly wrong). But anyway, the warning is useful because large pages are slow to load and some modern browsers (I'm looking at you, Firefox) still slow down noticeably when they have to handle a lot of text. -- Nx / talk 18:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
But its more annoying than useful IMHO, it starts popping up at 32 kb, which is a perfectly reasonable size. Icewedge (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Why are you trying to destroy Nx's wiki? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It's Human's wiki. -- Nx / talk 18:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. You are correct. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
If you're using anything that might be affected by editing 32K plus (like a 'phone?) then you'll be aware of it all the time anyway. 18:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Are there any issues with the server if you edit and then save large chunks? Yes, in a modern context 32kb isn't much (it's the RAM that they used to go to the Moon) but it's still far bulkier than the average amount of data it has to deal with in an average section edit. Scarlet A.pngbomination 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Not really, though it may cause the difference engine to time out if you have two large revisions which differ in a lot of places. The real problem with large pages is all the fancy stuff that has to be parsed. (also with each edit the entire revision is saved into the database, so Kenning is expensive) -- Nx / talk 18:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Aside (feel free to ignore), why is the entire revision saved? Just so that other revisions can be deleted? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe because it's a lot faster than having to apply a hundred diffs. -- Nx / talk 19:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not true, Armondikov! The Apollo computers had 40k of 14bit words = 70kB. So there. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm taking the figure from Every OS Sucks song, where Wes Borg has a thing about emphasising "THIRTY. TWO. KILOBYTES. OF. RAM! If it was good enough to go to the moon, it's good enough for you." 70 kb just doesn't read as well in the song. Scarlet A.pngbomination 19:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Tell that to Blender, Gimp and Inkscape. Especially fucking Inkscape. -- Nx / talk 19:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, doesn't the server not need to parse everything everytime you hit "preview" too? So while you don't clog up RC, if you hit preview it's just as troublesome. Scarlet A.pngbomination 19:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
True, but it's not stored in the database. -- Nx / talk 19:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We never did decide whether to get rid of the silly 32k warning. Or did we? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh my Crispy Lord![edit]

Another "miraculous" appearance of JC. This time in burned bacon! 06:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

There is the joke that one could probably shove a cowpat in such people's faces and they would see Jesus's visage in it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
What gets me about them is the image they're seeing is the renaissance ideal of JC. 06:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
That at least makes sense; if Jesus wanted to leave a calling-card, he would probably take care to leave one that the person could perceive as a calling-card. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
and what, one may ask, is the king of the Jews doing in bacon? Totnesmartin (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
That was exactly my thought, followed by "how insulting must that be to Jews?" followed by, "Oh, it's the Daily Mail. Go figure." Bondurant (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Is that site like a British version of the Onion? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it's the official site of the "Daily Mail", probably the right-wingiest UK paper. 21:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
As far as "Face of Jesbus found in....." stories go, that's not a bad photo. Although to me it looks more like a Van Gough painting of Noel Edmonds. StarDelta (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Blogs[edit]

Just out of curiosity, why do most blogs have fixed widths rather than using the whole screen? Seems a waste of space to me: those blank areas down each side. 07:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk

Bad page design? - π 08:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The assumption that text any wider than that is difficult to read, and the assumption that the user is a moron who can't resize their window and will complain that the page is difficult to read (which is probably correct most of the time). Also fixed layout is much easier to do, they usually don't even bother with max-width to allow it to wrap on smaller screens. -- Nx / talk 08:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
And when they fail to realize that not everyone has the exact same fonts and the exact same font settings, it leads to breakage like this. -- Nx / talk 08:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of us who use a particular website (like blogspot) can't find any way to change it. I've tried hard, but mine is stuck at a size too small even for a youtube video. Researcher (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Any other libertarian skeptics want to provide backup?[edit]

Over at libertarianwiki creationist asshat keeps piling in creationist garbage and I'd really like some other libertarian skeptics to sign up and put the pwn on. He seems immune to logic so some public shaming might be in order. --Opcn (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I wouldn't want to intrude. Do you think the pair of you can shut out recent changes before the day is out? Bondurant (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is a creationist on a libertarian-minded wiki anyway? Doesn't he know Ayn Rand was a staunch atheist? ONE / TALK 09:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I know! If you aren't into rescuing libertarianism from that brand of crazy I am not going to hold it against you. --Opcn (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
So close to the shut-out, and then Nathan Larson has to go and stick is oar in. Who does he think he is? Good work on the little dig in Oxymoron by the way. Bondurant (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that libertarianism seems to correlate with the anti-science movement so much. I see no logical or ideological reason for that, but it seems to me to be true. DickTurpis (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is particularly antiscience, not compared to the religious right of the republicans and the anti-vax CAM crap of the democrats. Additionally a good chunk of skeptics are libertarians, Shermer and Dunning and Penn & Teller are all libertarians. Skeptics fall into two broad politicalcamps, libertarians and socialists ... that seems odd to me. Did you see what Nathan Larson said? I almost shit myself I was so happy. --Opcn (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Libertarians might be anti-science because not just any fool can verify what the scientists are saying; the laypeople just have to trust the scientists, which makes the scientists an authority, which makes them anathema. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
That sounds pretty plausible too, the whole idea of science is based on firmly elitism - it has to be, if all scientific research was done by jack-of-alls that everyone could understand, we'd never get anywhere. But my idea is that libertarian politics tend to be economically conservative - it's social conservatism that is heavily influenced by the Religious Right. So one assumes that a little bit of the Religious Right bleeds over from social conservatism, through to the conservative economical ideal and into libertarianism. Scarlet A.pngbomination 19:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it elitism to say that only people who are able to do a certain job should be allowed to do it? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, libertarians tend to really support Adam smith and the invisible hand, and one of Adam smiths issues was specialization. Libertrians are against authority having force, not necessarily against an individual aspiring to greatness or flexing a bit of intellectual muscle. --Opcn (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Top 100 sites on the internet[edit]

World shocked to learn that Conservapedia isn't one of them (although check out the bottom-right quadrant for Search / portal) Bondurant (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not all that different from the Alexa rankings, but interesting. What I do find shocking is the complete absence of Myspace. Even if you look specifically at the social networking sites it's not there (though Orkut and Meebo(???) are). I know its popularity has certainly waned, but I find it very surprising that a site that was in the top 10 about a year ago isn't in the top 100 today, and not even in the top 6 social networking sites. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, I checked my myspace account twice this year (once just now to make sure the site still existed after looking at this chart), and it looked pretty dead. DickTurpis (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact, something seems wrong. Alexa has them at #6 in the US, and Apple, the Neilsen #10 is at #32 on Alexa. I know Neilsen covers more than the US, but it still seems US dominated, and the ranking shouldn't be this far off in these areas. DickTurpis (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I would guess that Apple is higher up here because it will be visited by a lot of people who use Safari. Unless I'm mistaken, Alexa is IE only. If I am mistaken, then I would guess that no Apple owner in their right mind would install Alexa in any case. Bondurant (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. I hadn't thought of that. It's been so long since I used Safari, but I seem to recall apple.com being its default homepage. I wasn't aware that Alexa is IE only though. Still, none of this explains the myspace gap. DickTurpis (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm more surprised that porn was not a larger share- I thought I read somewhere that porn websites were more popular than social networking websites, or something to that effect. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 01:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexa mines their data via people who install a toolbar (and it's IE only), right? Neilsen is more scientific in their sampling methods. I was too lazy/secretive to get $50 once upon a time for loading their logging program for a period of time. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Energy remaining[edit]

I've been trying to find this sort of data for ages. It's the number of years we have left of certain fuel sources. It claims fusion should go on for millions - although I'm not convinced, I've certainly read other stuff that says thousands. I just don't know what article to shove it into so I'm putting it here for now as a memo. Scarlet A.pngbomination 13:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

a hydrogen fusion reactor would be powered by either natural gas or seawater. You would then have to determine an efficiency to scale the lifetime. If they could get a fusion/fission cycle going it would be virtually limitless. Hamster (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
You couldn't cycle it as that would break the laws of conservation of energy. Besides, fission only happen withs large atoms (Uranium, Plutonium, Thorium...) fusion occurs best with the smaller ones, hydrogen and deuterium. You power a (Earth based) reactor with deuterium, not hydrogen as is done in stars, as it's a more viable reaction to do in a controlled, energy producing manner. The issue with the amount of energy you get from the process then rests with the fuel quantities that we have on the planet. If deuterium-deuterium is viable, then we're fine - the paper cites 150 billion years (albeit at 1995 levels of global energy consumption) which is 100 times longer than the sun will even last. However, the most likely result is that deuterium-tritium fusion will be the one that works best, leading us to the problem that tritium becomes the limiting factor. You get tritium from decaying lithium, so taken by the known and confirmed stocks of lithium we have (over half of which is in Boliva, IIRC) it only lasts a few thousand years. If we can pull it out of the oceans, then we extend it considerably. The main take-home point regarding lifetime of the power, however, is not the fuel or efficiency, but how much we consume. It's currently 15 terawatts global (the sun throws in 8000x that much) but it rises with both population and quality of life. If we want 10 billion people each with fast cars, adequate heating, computers and internet, it's going to be considerably higher. Scarlet A.pngbomination 19:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
But surely if you want to postulate such vast periods of time, you might just as well postulate that we (or whatever we evolve into) will find a way to make fusion work here on Earth with common or garden hydrogen without bothering with the fancy stuff with extra neutrons.--BobIt's windy! 21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
All this does is confirm what we already knew- nuclear power is the way of the future (if we can get out act in order, first). --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Massive abuse of power by LJ Admin[edit]

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcus_%22the_vandal%22_Cicero&action=history

I suppose this kind of crap is tolerated in this new fascist order. — Unsigned, by: 86.40.215.72 / talk / contribs 14:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just shut up, Marcus. Your incessant whining is simply pathetic. DickTurpis (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think of Marcus, that is a massive abuse of power. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
So I'm pretty new here. What's this Marcus Cicero person all about? From the looks of it it's rampant homophobia with a pinch of random capital letters. Does that sum him up or is there another side to the gimmick? ONE / TALK 19:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
He's a sock of Neveruse - or the other way around.--False Flag (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Also it should be noted that an LJ admin can only abuse the LJ power when acting as LJ. Otherwise - its just another editor. Acei9 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The rampant homophobia was just a troll tool to wheel in the typical self righteous dullards like Weasleoid and Tetronian. In reality I'm extremely liberal on practically every personal issue, which is why I occupy such a moral high ground here when compared to the authoritarian impulses of this site.
What, calling people child abusers? Fuck off, pot noodle boy. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Binned. Acei9 23:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mexicans[edit]

The World's richest man is Mexican Carlos Slim ($53.5bn). Bill Gates is reduced to #2 with a paltry $53bn. 02:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

I just read that article. It's funny, when you start liveblogging the news I sometimes know what you are going to post next. (I'm not complaining, just noting...) :-) Tetronian you're clueless 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It was on BBC World News. 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
I know, that's how I knew! (Funnily enough, my friends can't understand why I read the BBC News even though they acknowledge that US news networks are heavily biased.) Tetronian you're clueless 02:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean the U.S. can please have single payer health care now? Thanks in advance. 99.191.72.188 (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:BBC News- my brother went travelling for a year around South America and Asia and found that a lot of people out there actually tend to use BBC as a primary news source. Some people (not just Andy Schlafly) say it has a liberal bias, but I haven't noticed it. SJ Debaser 14:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It has liberas bias because it doesn't say America is the best country in the world and homosexuality, abortion and gun control are the work of Satan. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, what Martin said. Schlafly could see liberal bias in his morning cup of coffee; he's not exactly an authority on the subject. Tetronian you're clueless 14:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
BBC's condemned by many far-right commentators (inc. BNP) as being too liberal. But then according to them, what isn't? SJ Debaser 20:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The BBC tends to be in favour of factual, inquisitive reporting. These tends not be in the favour of extreme groups (ultra-left/ultra-right). Ultra-left is essentially dead (although becoming less dead unfortunately as Die Wende lies farther away in the past), so only the ultra-right is offended. Therefore, the BBC appears left-wing. — Pietrow 19:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a random thought[edit]

If some religions teach that all life is suffering, couldn't inflicting suffering on others be considered giving life?--Thanatos (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me of the phrase "near-life experience." Tetronian you're clueless 05:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
No. You fail at formal logic. Tomatoes are red, but being red doesn't make a thing a tomato. -- (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Another random thought from a different user[edit]

I'm eating oreos. But more to the point, why isn't the plural of "Walrus" 'Walri?" Seems to make a lot more sense than "Walruses." SJ Debaser 00:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we've got "forums" instead of "fora". It's a funny old language. 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
Walrus was never a Latin word in the first place. According to the OED it's from Danish. --MarkGall (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah well. I think it should be Walri. Also, Susan, I must say I love the new signature. The timestamp before the page link?! Very postmodern! SJ Debaser 00:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
(EC) It's several funny old languages. The us ---> i thing goes for Latin words & is applied rather arbitrarily in English, including to some words it shouldn't be. E.g. octopus comes from Greek, but the plural octopi is pretty common, although strictly speaking incorrect. Apparently walrus comes from Dutch (WP:Walrus#Etymology). ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I've always wondered if it's Jesuses or Jesi or what. I think the Latin plural is Jesus with a long u. Unfortunatly the Christian authors seem to be silent on this important issue. --MarkGall (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
According to Wiktionary, it's actually Jesuses... -- (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Christians urged not to watch Glenn Beck[edit]

Wow. How long till all those Christian values republicans do the same?--Thanatos (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How long before people stop lumping "Christians" together in an undifferentiated political category? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The one prominent Christian I've heard criticize Beck is Jim Wallis, who was already pretty far removed from Glenn Beck on a wide range of issues. MDB (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What would happen if...[edit]

A liberal commentator, let's say Rachel Maddow for purpose of example only, had openly said "leave your churches if they don't support insert your favorite pet liberal cause here". Would they have been fired by their network? MDB (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd expect a lynching--Thanatos (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Statistics and damned lies[edit]

Or something like that. Sterile posted this on Trent's talk page. I think more people might find it interesting. So I stoled it and posted it here with my magic typing machine. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That is very interesting. Thanks Huw! Tetronian you're clueless 05:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad someone enjoyed it. You're welcome, and thanks to Sterile as well! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

fun space box needs counterpoint[edit]

You know we have that "RW also has a "fun" article about "x"" box? Surely the funspace articles should have a complementary box pointing out the quasi-serious article in the mainspace? After we build it, can someone as smaht as Ed Spoor write a bot to add them all? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need a 'fun' article about a games console? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I made template:notfun (all the good titles were taken, Smiley.gif). Haven't added it to the template list or any snartikles in the funspace yet though. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Another type of denialist?[edit]

Ok, had a run-in with a guy on the IMDB boards. He was definately a denialist, but not sure if he falls under any categories we currently have. Essentially, he seemed to deny that there are things that happened in the past that we aren't sure about, and anyone who claims otherwise is peddling "conspiracy theories." More specifically, he went to the IMDB board on the movie Zodiac and posted a long rant about how Arthur Leigh Allen was clearly the Zodiac killer, and all the people who thought otherwise just couldn't bear for the case to be closed. He even suggested that Arthur Leigh Allen, with his amazing IQ, was somehow (not explained) able to predict the invention of dna testing, and take steps to avoid it, in the 1970s.--Mustex (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the term for that would be. But, like most denialists, he is just claiming that he is the only person in possession of objective truth. Nothing new there. Tetronian you're clueless 16:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Does this call for a new category?--Mustex (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we have "morons" already. I don't think it even calls for a new article, to tell the truth. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What's that quote[edit]

I've read a quote at RW some time ago that goes something like this: "When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours". I can't find the original quote, could someone point me to it? Mr.Orange (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Found via a google search. Tetronian you're clueless 17:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Mr.Orange (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

side-by-side[edit]

This is probably too long/technical, but worth keeping in mid, for a sbs. Šţěŗĭļė rope 12:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks worthwhile so I stickied it. ħumanUser talk:Human 12:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I can set up just the "Truth or Dare" sections.... Šţěŗĭļė rope 18:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm... it's hard to figure out how to do this. It's the usual garbage: playing around in the gaps, claiming that irreducible complexity is evidence of something, saying there is a positive case for design, etc., but it's not clear what sections to include in a SBS. Šţěŗĭļė rope 02:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This should be "un-stickied"; If it's worth an article there's a place for that. It won't get done any quicker here. 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
Un-stickied by 21:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk

BNP members ok to be teachers...[edit]

...according to a report commissioned by the government. Ban them from the police and prison services, but not from teaching children??? Anyone who is a member of a racist organisation should not be able to work for a government agency of any kind, where they have a duty to be totally impartial with everyone they deal with. Bondurant (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We allow many people with bigoted beliefs to teach and work in the ploce force. In all cases, except bigots that aren't fortunate enough to be be religions, we assume that they can compartmentalise. We have succeeded in convincing most people to see the problem with racism, but somehow other forms of bigotry continue to be acceptable. ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 09:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is a problem. Anyone who's beliefs are in conflict with their public duty shouldn't be in the job in the first place.
Someone who is a member of the BNP is a member of a party that is against inter-racial marriage and for "repatriating" non-whites back to their supposed country of origin. When my wife and I decide to have children, they will be mixed race. The people who would allow BNP members to be teachers are saying I should just be ok with sending them to a state school where a BNP member, with views like that, might teach them, because they've made some half-assed promise to "compartmentalise" their repugnent views.
I'm glad, at least, that we have non-denominational schools in the UK, where they won't be subjected to the good-old classroom prayer so beloved of Schlafly and co., so I can at least keep them largely protected from the worst religious bigots. Bondurant (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Given that it's impossible and undesirable to ban people from jobs just because of affiliations, perhaps there's a case for having all civil servants agree to a set of principles - something akin to theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights? Realistically, not all Catholics pay a blind bit of notice to what the Pope says. The BNP is a reprehensible organisation, but I'm not sure it's fair to exclude them while still allowing people from various whacky religions to work. Perhaps it's a slippery slope argument, but we should be very cautious when it comes to banning people for belonging to undesirable organisations. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 10:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree it's a difficult decision to make. It's an emotive subject, and I'm sure you can appreciate my concern as an (eventual) parent to a mixed race child, someone who will no doubt have to deal with racism at some point in their future no matter what happens.
A balance needs to be struck between prinicples of freedom and those of responsibility to the vulnerable. Rightfully, we don't let sex offenders into schools as teachers, but in our clamour for safetly, we've taken things too far. In my personal opinion, it's not going too far to ban someone who is an active member of a racist organisation, but I'd never advocate snooping on someone's voting record at a general election, for example. Bondurant (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a valid concern. I think we both know that having rules is one thing, but getting someone to respect the spirit behind them is quite another. Perhaps civil servants, teachers included, should be held to a higher standard in private life than we'd impose on people working in the private sector. The situation is comparable to that of cannabis versus alcohol. Using the former could get me sacked from my job, but I can booze as much as I want so long as it doesn't affect my ability to do my job. Membership of the BNP sends a pretty strong message, but then I'd say the same of anyone who'd strongly identify with the Catholic Church. Yup, snooping in to voting records would be a step too far. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 10:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
We can't have it both ways. The BNP has (unfortunately) been legitimised as a political entity, and in my opinion we can no more ban people from certain careers for being a member of the BNP than we can for being a member of the Tufty Club. However, that brings it back to the argument of whether they should be a legitimate political party. That is a much tougher question. Personally, I think they're racist, bigoted assholes that deserve all the criticism that can be brought their way - but I'm not sure that supressing them as an organisation is the way to go. Worm(t | c) 10:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Its amazing the level of passive fascism that comes out of people on this issue. If someone is a member of the BNP and teaches a class, how on earth can you expect to bar a legal political entity from doing their profession on the grounds of their politics? That's an interesting precedent. — Unsigned, by: 86.40.215.72 / talk / contribs 14:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
And in other BNP related news, the BNP's membership policy is still racist. Bondurant (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
you cant control what someone thinks, you can only control to a degree how they act. If someone hold racist views but can do the job they are being paid for then they should be allowed to, at least until they show a pattern of unacceptable behavior. Police might be a problem , acting under stress might be a problem. Hamster (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There are a large number of people whose views might be unacceptable to some. YEC's, theists in general, athiests, socialists, communists, fascists, scientologists, homoeopaths, rationalists - one could make an endless list of people whose ideologies are anathema to somebody. But, as has been pointed out by others, the question is how well they do their jobs - not what their personal views are. If their personal views make them unable to do their jobs properly - for instance a member of the BMP whose views made him incapable of teaching mathematics - then they should be dismissed. But they should be dismissed because they can't do their jobs - not because of their private opinions.--BobIt's windy! 17:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bob. One should not ban people from jobs, especially State jobs, simply because they are members of a certain political party. If they do something racist on the job or otherwise prove themselves unable to discharge the duties of the position, then they should be fired — not before. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Don't ask don't tell is the best approach to this. If a teacher is open about being a BNP member, that's something that will cause major problems in the classroom & be offensive to a lot of students & parents, so that situation should be regarded as expressing racist views & treated as such. In most cases, though, I think BNP-members in teaching jobs would keep quiet about it, & I don't think they should be obliged to declare membership. This only came up because of the Wikileaks naming & shaming list outing a lot of teachers, public servants, etc. as members. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I am also remembering the case of the clergyman who joined the party but then quit when he found out what they were really about. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Sooo... if a bunch of folks started a political party called the British Man-Boy Love Party, and as long as they weren't caught doing anything illegal, then you'd be fine for them to teach in a school? Just askin'. Bondurant (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for introducing reductio et paedo. Displays a lot about your ability to think critically and rationally when it comes to setting precedents. 86.40.215.72 (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Most of those people would probably not be good for teaching, but their membership in the hypothetical party should not be the grounds for exclusion. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
And if someone is a previous sex offender, but has since served their time at Her Majesty's Pleasure, they'd be ok to go back into a school and start or resume a teaching career? Bondurant (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
What has that to do with the political party question? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm just trying to understand where you'd draw the line for who should and shouldn't work with children, that's all. So, leaving politics aside, someone who had committed a serious crime, but had paid their debt to society as defined by the law. Bondurant (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that child molesters have definitely demonstrated their inability to discharge a teacher's duties. Other sorts of convicted felons probably fall in the same category as well. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(UI) Ok, I'm at least glad to know that you have a line. I think what is being missed here is that it is fine to have ideals and principles and to be an idealist, but that a certain amount of pragmatism is required in an area as sensitive as this. Back to the original point about the BNP: when I send my child to school, I want to be sure that they are treated fairly by their teacher in every circumstance. If they get in a fight with a white kid, I want both to be punished fairly and equally. When they are marked in a test, I want them to be marked impartially. An adult can stand up to someone if they feel they are being treated unfairly, but a child cannot. If a teacher subscribes to a world view that a brown skinned child cannot - ever - be an equal member of British society, then they are unfit to be in that role, at least in a state school. (If they want to set up an run a private KKK school, then that's a different matter - to a certain extent). If a christian teacher needs to discipline my child for fighting, then I have more confidence that they will be fair. Bondurant (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Then drum them out for racism-motivated incompetence, not for being a member of the wrong political party. (What do you mean about "Christian teachers"?)Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you can only judge people on their actions - not on their thoughts. Or on what you think their thoughts are.--BobIt's windy! 21:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
@ListenerX, when I mentioned Christian Teachers, I was picking up on Bob's comment above that "There are a large number of people whose views might be unacceptable to some. YEC's, theists in general, athiests, socialists, communists, fascists, scientologists, homoeopaths, rationalists." As an atheist, I wouldn't be comfortable in sending my kids to a CofE school, but then that's my choice not to. I wouldn't have a problem with my kid being taught by someone who identifies them-self as a Christian as much as I would someone who identifies them-self - quite openly - as a racist.
ListenerX and Bob, without intending any insult, I can only assume that you are both white. I am also assuming that if you have partners, they are also white. If I am wrong, then I apologise. Until you have to deal with racism (which can come from both sides) first hand, then you probably can't understand why this might be an emotive issue for some people. Factor in the fact that your own child may one day also become a victim of racism, then double that emotion. Bondurant (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, you say "Then drum them out for racism-motivated incompetence..." How do you suppose it would get to this? A child's word against a teacher? Assuming the child understands what is going on or is brave enough to raise it with someone in authority? Bondurant (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Bob has it right. Once it becomes acceptable to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their political affiliation, we are on a very steep and slippery slope. StarDelta (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Bondurant, you are dodging the question. One can settle the question of racist teachers without barring people of the wrong political party from the schools under the principle of guilt by assocation. Remember, again, the clergyman who joined the BNP under a misapprehension.
"How do you suppose it would get to this?" Molestation ends up being reported, most of the time, and that is something that is much harder to bring up than racist happenings. Beyond that, one cannot go on witch-hunts. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 00:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
How about banning members of the BNP from being politicians? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't help but think there is an element of moral panic here. But leaving that to one side let's think how this would work. Let's imagine that being a member of the BNP legally excludes you from being a teacher. Now let us assume that somebody is a fascist racist who wants to become a teacher in order to indoctrinate children with his/her views and give them difficulty in the playground. Something which should get them out on their ear pretty quickly, but we've been through that. Am I going to join the BNP which would automatically mean that I can't carry out my evil plan? It seems unlikely.--BobIt's windy! 07:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
There are at any rate very few teachers who are in the schools to push politics, or who make a big deal out of it like Jane Elliott. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said, you can't possibly understand unless you are of colour yourself or are with someone of colour. Whether the BNP are a legitimate political organisation aside, as mentioned below by SusanG, they are a hate group, no better than the Klan. The police force in the UK have barred members of the force from being in the BNP. It may be a token gesture - as Bob_M pointed out, it doesn't stop them going under the radar - but for an organistation that is countering the perception that it is institutionally racist, it was a necessary step. It is certainly inconsistent that teachers in state schools should also be allowed to be in the BNP. My personal opinion is that no member of any hate organisation should work for any government agency.
Not that it would ever happen, but if they did ever get into power, they would forcibly "repatriate" my wife and my children. Nothing anyone can say would make me support a BNP member teaching my child. Bondurant (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Saying "you don't understand!" is not going to bring anyone over to your side of the argument. Cubic drug Hoover! 18:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Bondurant, you are entitled to oppose anything you want, but your use of the ad hominem to discredit those taking other views is not so defensible. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
There was no insult intended, but my apologies all the same Bondurant (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Related?[edit]

The British National Party has been forced to rewrite its rules again after a court said they were discriminatory. 22:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk

I'd mentioned it at about 14:56 above, but yes, I think it's pertinent to the discussion. Bondurant (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Convening the LJ[edit]

Can somebody who knows how create a page visible to all in a namespace that can only be edited by the Lusty Jalopies--NX, PI, I'm looking at you...Thanks... TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There was discussion about this somewhere. (after I'd set up a blog for the purpose which was poo pood) 22:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
That's because we want it on-wiki. I think it's funny how we indulged in that huge orgy of creativity and discussion, only to not do a single thing to follow through. We never even got our stinkin' badges! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to get a few badge image ideas knocked up. Yup, it would make sense that the Lusty Jalopies have some discussion going on, if only to be certain that every still knows what it is that they're supposed to be doing. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 19:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Un-sysop[edit]

Someone un-sysop me please. We've had this conversation a few times before. --CPAdmin1 (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your wish is my command, dear CPAdmin1. (Also, just FYI, if you're the CPAdmin1 I hate your website. But you probably knew that.) SJ Debaser 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a CP fan either if you are unfamiliar with my history. If you are then you are probably talking about aSK which would also not surprise me. --CPAdmin1 (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
(damn noobs) No, CPadmin1 is not the admin of Conservapedia, he's a user who was banned by Tk who now edits aSK under the name TimS. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 00:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
HA! Foot + mouth = silly SuperJosh! SJ Debaser 00:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
If someone wants to change my name to avoid confusion they can. If whoever else was using TimS is done with it I'll take it. If not, then you can make it T1mS over that other one I created --CPAdmin1 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Nope. The current user of TimS is a cabalist (I think) and if not, he's been around for a long enough time and established a legitimate enough presence that he won't be shunted over to a new account just so you can have your preferred monkier. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 01:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to take anyone's username. I just thought the user might be dead. Anyway. If someone want's to move me to T1mS that would work. --CPAdmin1 (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
How about "TimS at aSK"? (or "from") ħumanUser talk:Human 02:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I like that. How about User:Tim@aSK --CPAdmin1 (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently that's an invalid username. Second choice? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I have renamed you, per your second choice, user:Tim at aSK. I also emailed you to keep the channels clear. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Aww NO![edit]

Since when do we care whether or not a person WANTS to be a sysop here!!!?? Give 'im back his bucket and MOP! 02:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

We have had this discussion before. I am not one of you. If you insist on my being a sysop for the times I drop by, then I just won't drop by. --CPAdmin1 (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Um, isn't Pi "not a sysop"? I think we eventually decided that sysoprics are not mandatory? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Help on a story's politics[edit]

Ok, I'm working on a story, but don't want to give away too many details, so I'm just going to say enough to ask this question: If you wanted to overthrow dictatorships, and had enough power to do so at any time, but also wanted to make sure that every time you did the nation would merge with a neighboring nation (not like "becomes dependent on," the goal is to actually make them the same country), how would you create the proper pressure? I assume this wouldn't be too hard in the case of North Korea, and possibly China if you could get the international community to support Taiwan "stepping in" to stop the chaos, but what about other countries where the people are clearly antagonistic towards each other?--Mustex (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I could see that working with the Koreas - similar sized countries that once were one, sorta like DDR and West Germany. But Taiwan's 20 million people dealing with PRC's 1.3 billion? With whose army? Other than those minor comments I have no idea what you are getting at. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
"Not too hard" in the case of North Korea? An army of a million soldiers and nuclear weapons? Taiwan "stepping in" to take over China which has even more men and weapons? So the idea is that China merges with Taiwan? And you think these are the easy ones? Fantasy.--BobIt's windy! 07:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Um, maybe I was a bit unclear. I didn't mean Taiwan and South Korea just magically took over China and North Korea. I meant more along the lines of the entire command structure is instantly killed, so there's no one left in charge, thus the international community steps in and (with lots of American and European military power) puts Taiwan and South Korea in charge, rather than building a whole new government from scratch like we did in Iraq. The issue is: how to make this happen in cases of other countries, instead of just making the international community try to setup new governments like in Iraq.--76.18.115.64 (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
So you are playing an mmporg? ħumanUser talk:Human 09:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
No, just working on a story. Kinda don't want to give away the plot on the internet (although if you're interested, I'd talk to you about it over e-mail), but suffice it to say that the people involved in this story are extremely power, and want to reduce the total number of nations on Earth, but at the same time don't want to make the international community hate them (hence, they start by going after dictatorships, North Korea being the obvious one, although I'll have to think of a reason for them to justify China).--Mustex (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not too implausible that South Korea and its allies manage to take North Korea with a quick strike before North Korea gets to use its WMDs too much. Nobody but Kim Jong Il would mind. With Korea unified, everyone that fled to China from North Korea should be allowed to return and the new Korea announces anyone from China will get citizenship. China falls into minor chaos and the powerful people poke things so that eventually a proper nationalist ROC-sympathizing movement overthrows the communists and creates Greater Taiwan. --Swedmann (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised rationalwikians are even tolerating Mustex's delusions here. As they say, you can't bullshit a bullshitter and I smell bullshit here. — Unsigned, by: 86.45.197.50 / talk / contribs MC?
I'm talking about a FICTIONAL story that I'm trying to write. I made that pretty clear. It isn't bullshit if I admit it's for entertainment purposes. I posted this because I wanted advice on making it SEEM plausible (and the scenario is that Kim Jong Il, his whole famly, and any obvious successors he may have in the government of North Korea, are all killed within a matter of moments. Clearly, something that couldn't happen in the real world, but that's why its fiction).--Mustex (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Ignore the Troll, Mustex. It's MC. 21:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
Ah, sry. To be clear on the scenario, though: Kim Jong Il, his whole famly, and any obvious successors he may have in the government of North Korea, are all killed within a matter of moments. This is clearly, something that couldn't happen in the real world, but that's why its fiction. What I'm asking is, if some power was capable of completely toppling any government in the world in such a way at any time they wanted, but wanted to make sure the countries were annexed by other countries, instead of the international community just making a new government (as in Iraq), how would they go about it? Especially if they didn't want to cause human civilization to collapse (meaning the majority of governments, especially powerful ones, have to be intact at any given time, this is a long-term plan).--Mustex (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem with just removing a few top people is this. In totalitarian states power comes from the top down. In democratic states (in theory) power comes from the bottom up. But if you remove the top in a top-down society it doesn't simply switch to "power to the people" mode - the next people in line simply step up. All the next tier owe their power not to the people, but to the power structure. Frequently they will have committed acts when they worked for the previous management which the people might want to hold the accountable for. Part of the problem in Iraq stemmed from issues of this nature.
So you either try to get rid of the entire government structure - and suffer a long period of chaos. Or you accept that it's business as usual - and not a lot changes.--BobIt's windy! 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I never said a word about "Power to the People." The people in the story don't care about democracy, their goal is literally just to reduce the number of nations on Earth. So, by removing a clear line of succession (presumably resulting in a Civil War), their goal is to get either a neighboring country to invade and take over, or the Interational community to invade, and declare it part of a neighboring country. The question is: how do you make sure that the international community don't try to force a new government into power, in which case you still have the same number of countries?--Mustex (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Look at what's happened in the old Soviet bloc since it broke up; Even big Russia couldn't do anything about (for instance) little Georgia. You're talking about a revolution from the outside. As far as I know this has not (within recent history) happened (pace Iraq). There'd have to be agreement before the event, I think, which'd make it invasion and annexation or e.g. Austrian Anschluss? 22:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
What would be necessary for such an arrangement to be made?--76.18.115.64 (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So it's like a sci-fi political thriller/dystopia maybe? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mustex. In your first post you said ... "If you wanted to overthrow dictatorships ...". Now you say, "I never said a word about "Power to the People."" which rather leaves me a little confused. The objective is to "overthrow dictatorships" and replace them with what? You also say that "their goal is just to reduce the number of countries on the earth". I assume this goal is secret - because otherwise the last people who will help you with this goal are the international community or the members of the UN. Indeed, they would actively and violently oppose such a threat to their independent existence.
Also, if you want to reduce the number of states then dictatorship would seem to be the way to go - as many people would object to being included in a foreign/larger state (think IRA/ETA). But as you want to "overthrow dictatorships" rather than (presumably) create them then I think you may have some plot problems.--BobIt's windy! 10:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, reading your post again, I see that your hypothetical cabal only want to destabilise dictatorships so as to gain the support of democracies. But this assumes that (a) democracies are the most likely to agree with each other and act together and (b) they will approve of such activities. Otherwise you might just as well target democracies and try to get dictatorships to agree to act. See also WP:Democracy Index. Only some 18% of countries are full democracies.--BobIt's windy! 10:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense, although they're intentionally courting the US because of their control of world media because they want good press (btw, going on a trip, and by the next time I log onto this site, there's a good chance this thread will have been archived. Anyone still interested in discussing, e-mail me at dewboy30816@yahoo.com)--76.18.115.64 (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Another poll[edit]

Do you think references to God on U.S. currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the constitutional separation of church and state? Hat tip 19:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk

Who cares, just dump the old dollars and use Euros instead. :P -- (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Dude, that's the national fucking motto. That's like bitching that "God save the Queen" violates separation of church and state. It may, but it's so deeply ingrained in the national conscience that it would be literally impossible to remove. The Pledge of Allegiance is fine to go, though. I always failed to see it's purpose. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the national fucking motto is E Pluribus Unum. DickTurpis (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but the UK doesn't have the "separation of Church & State" (damnit!). In fact the Monarch is de facto head of the Church of England. 20:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
That motto was only introduced in the 19th century. Like so many myths, these things take on a life of their own above and beyond the facts. The problem is that introducing it was controversy-free, but revoking it will send 30 million idiots onto the street demaning their socialist fascist community Nazi president gets impeached for respecting the constitution. Thats the reality. — Unsigned, by: 86.45.197.50 / talk / contribs MC?
I thought it was as late as the 50s that it actually started being used? Anyway, I don't think there's too much need for there to be official separation of church and state in the UK; the actual practical running of the country is very, very secular - and that's what matters more than putting it down in any official way. After all, the US has it "officially" and it just doesn't happen. Scarlet A.pngbomination 01:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Both were products of the Cold War with the godless atheist commies. Yes, 1950s. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
According to wikipedia, "In God We Trust" first appeared on coins in the 1860s (not consistently until 1938. After 1938, all coins had it), but it wasn't put into the pledge and made into the national motto until 1956. Kinda weird. X Stickman (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You've seen these "Colleges", PFI financed or whatever that are run by gODbothering Creationists? (googlin') 01:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
(delete "colleges" replace with "Academies" above.
[6] [7] [8] Prime Minister Tony Blair has declared himself to be 'very happy' with the teaching of creationism alongside Darwinsm (Prime Minister's Questions Commons Hansard 13/3/02: column 886-7, Source). There is growing opposition to the Vardy Academies; there have very recently been objections raised in Conisborough, where another is planned. There's more, a lot more (google Creationism UK School). We cannot be complacent in the UK - the idiots can't get anywhere in their own country, so they're infecting ours. 02:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
The academies seem to be part of what was either a very sinister plan, or something conceived through idiocy of the highest calibre. Being charitable, I assume that Blair honestly believes that a multicultural society benefits from its children being segregated. If creationists and similar whack-jobs get their way, what we're left with in the future is a country that's poorly equipped to compete in a world where knowledge is becoming increasingly important. There's just no way to interest children in science if schools are allowed to undermine it at such a fundamental level. It's like trying to teach them not to smoke while having the Marlboro Man doing doing rodeo tricks and handing out smokes. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 11:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

MY gOD[edit]

Most Americans believe God is involved in their everyday lives and concerned with their personal well-being, though the well-educated and higher earners are less likely than their counterparts to believe in such divine intervention, a new study suggests. Hat tip 22:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk

God made my parents choose Betamax. Got to love the meek and humble aspect of this. If the meek shall inherit the Earth, do these people get Mars or something? --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Wonder if it was gOD who made me buy an Amstrad computer? Bastard! 22:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
but Spiritual women have more sex and Religeous teenages have more kids Hamster (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I drive with confidence in deep fog, driving rain , thick snow or at night with my bobble-head baby jesus on my dashboard guiding me and keeping me from harm. kinda makes you never want to drive again knowing I am on the road doesnt it :) Hamster (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Way to meet your gOD sooner. Hampster. 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
A few flaws though, this article fails to describe at which point a person is more "educated" and doesn't break down income levels. It doesn't explain in any measure the amount of people tested, and it does not say what the margin of error is. For all we know, they could have called (more likely to be rich and own a phone!) 100 people and punched those numbers out. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ aRPb RUrOQpPqJQmUqS 23:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Are we supposed to be surprised? Those of us that live here have known this for a while. Tetronian you're clueless 01:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, I've had friends work in Saudi and one of the scariest things there, what the concept of "Insha'Allah", or "God willing" basically. It almost takes the concept of cause and effect out of their lives. "If I dive across town with my eyes closed, then insha'Allah I'll make it home" sort of thing. Whatever happens, it's insha'Allah. Scary that people in the States might be succumbing to the same mindset... whatever happens it's because God wills it. Excuse me if I opt out of that lifestyle choice. --PsygremlinParlez! 09:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe God is punishing Toyota owners by providing a floor mat. Šţěŗĭļė rope 13:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)