User talk:Editor at CP

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Editor at CP! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Hello and welcome.--Bob^{bing up} 13:01, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Thanks Bob, my present obsession is lurking too.

Ah thanks. I needed to change that.--Bob^{bing up} 13:17, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Welcome indeed! We might want to block your IP from logging on anonymously, though: CP has a habit of blocking people just for having an account on RW, and if you accidentally edited with only your IP, they could block ya-αmεσ (tailor) 13:02, 10 November 2007 (EST)

I think my IP is dynamic, but do as you wish. I hope I don't log and edit with my other RW account, because I'd like to be a good editor at CP for a while.

P.S. Is it better to answer on my talk page or your talk page (pingponging)? Editor at CP 13:07, 10 November 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure they (CP) cares whether your IP is staic or dynamic, if they "see" it here they will ban it there, maybe with a /16 so 65,000 of your neighbors (IPwise), wouldn't be able to login there either. TTR 1:24 10 Nov 2007

Don't worry, we like socks here.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 13:12, 10 November 2007 (EST)

We dont ping & as far as I know nobody pongs, so no pingponging, thanks. Susan_{... purrrrrr ...} 13:15, 10 November 2007 (EST)

2b or ~2b

Eh, I don't think there'll be an explosion. Most likely a gradual implosion into more and more obscurity. I know that even if invited back I wouldn't bother, for the oft-cited reason that adding credibility to some non-controversial part of CP adds some sort of credibility to their nutjob stuff. But you do as you see fit and are comfortable with. human 14:16, 14 November 2007 (EST)

A gradual implosion is the most realistic outcome, as soon as RW and all liberals get tired of CP. But it was one of the big guns at CP who brought me back, proposing me a Sysop role, and prospecting quite a big bang. Editor at CP 03:25, 16 November 2007 (EST) (and no, I'm not a Sysop there, just a small fish there and an almost inexistent fish here at RW).

I don't think that there is any risk of adding credibility to CP. Back in March, when it was more open to discussion, and all you RW creators were active contributors, perhaps. But now, with Andy's and his Sysops' paranoia, I don't think anybody will take it seriously, not even poor defenseless homeschooled children. Editor at CP 03:30, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia Talk Reverts

CP sysops come by RationalWiki all the time. They read what you wrote and the fireworks are fail - at the very least, they'll be more on the lookout. The reverts to your edits could've been made more tactfully/politely, perhaps, but please keep plans private! Uchiha^KATON! 11:42, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Ok, sorry. I didn't mention any names though, apart from the one who is no more. Editor at CP 12:35, 29 November 2007 (EST)

I see you are catching on to RW

You have snarkily insulted Lurker! BTW I feel you on the "why edit @ CP" thing. Though I'm not sure why you would choose TK's banning as the reason you decide to leave. I mean, he still hangs around and can "mentor" you, even if he can't make edits to the site. Lurker 03:05, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Insulted, me? I was just trying to find a pacific compromise between you and Mrs Eira. Did I fail? The CP thing is complicated. TK had lured me into a, ahem, project regarding CP - and then decides to get banned, leaving me there alone! Unfair, in my opinion. Thanks for your his "mentoring" offer, but I don't think I'm up to it. Anyway I'm not an ex there yet, contributing from time to time and waiting for things to happen. Editor at CP 03:12, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Nah it was just a joke. Researcher went and fixed it all, as usual :)

I think TK did a similar thing to me, actually (though I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about, so maybe not). Not on purpose, of course; I don't think his block was exactly planned.... Lurker 03:30, 13 December 2007 (EST) PS: No offer implied or intended. You can just go do whatever the hell you feel like, all unmentored and whatnot.

Mine was a joke too, I guess - which I liked more than Researcher's solution, but well... I'm not 100 % sure of anything here or there either, but I guess we received a similar "treatment" by TK. I don't exactly know the behind-the-scene of TK getting blocked, maybe Andy got a word that TK's projects weren't exactly to his liking. The point remains that it's not so fun anymore without him. Editor at CP 03:35, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I didn't much care for the tone of the piece. So, I did what I could. Feel free to revert (and have a revert war, for all I care.) Researcher 04:21, 13 December 2007 (EST)

No need to. It was all in jest. There was a link that Lurker found offensive, and a bit of 'war' on who was to be at the receiving end of the offense. I'll leave it to Lurker and the OP. I wasn't criticizing your edit - it was that you took the "funny" part away. Editor at CP 04:44, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry, that was written too quickly (while playing a video game, no less.) My point is feel free to do whatever to add the funny back. Researcher 04:48, 13 December 2007 (EST)

You are lucky I'm not a Sysop. I'd block anyone so disrespecful to play video games while editing RW. No, really, just testing my new signature: Ed @^{Thanks SusanG for my nick} 04:54, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Interestingly, the Republican link wouldn't have bothered me if the whole thing hadn't been so damn pretentious. I felt like being passive-agressive instead of helpful. But at least I wasn't playing video games ;) Lurker 11:34, 13 December 2007 (EST)

sig

Appreciate the mention but could you please change your sig? Susan^{purrrrr ...} 16:16, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Forgive me. Snif. Ed @^test 16:20, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Why is is bold and black? Ed @^CP 16:21, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Well who cares. Ed @^{CP and RW} 16:22, 28 December 2007 (EST)

On your own talk page it'll show up black as it directs to here. Anywhere else it'll be "normal". CЯacke® 16:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Ed@ - have you heard of cocktail party effect? You're at a cocktail party - noise, chatter, low music; you're talking to someone at one side of the room and your name is mentioned 25 feet away almost inaudibly; over all the intererence- you hear it! Now imagine what it's like if someone is dodging around the room whispering your name repeatedly - drives you banananananas. (specially if youre not supposed to be @ the party) 193.113.235.172 16:41, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Inverse ratio

Well spotted! :-) Susan^Miouw 10:45, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks, I like useless numbers. Editor at CP^{Bring TK back} 13:17, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Not always useless: I used it extensively a few years ago in the construction of pentagons making works of art platonic solids for a trade show thing. Susan^Miouw 13:35, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Block

Hey dude, sorry about failing to unblock you… I have dial-up, and I was physically disconnected at that moment. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 14:58, 18 February 2008 (EST)

No problem. It is working well now :-) I can vandalize again... until my next block. Editor at RW^{was rooting for HD DVD} 14:59, 18 February 2008 (EST)

Come Back Soon

Hope to hear from you in the very near future. Enjoy yourself. Susan^Purrrrr 10:34, 22 February 2008 (EST)

Well, that didn't take you long! Susan^Purrrrr 06:54, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks Susan. Maybe it didn't take long, but it seems that, from WIGO on, I have much to catch! Editor at RW^{Schumi on Ducati?} 08:52, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Castle

Excuse interference, but it seemed like a plea.Susan^purrrrr 03:51, 4 March 2008 (EST)

It was, and I knew who would help me out. Thank you :-) Леушка^{(Editor at CP)} 03:53, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Bored an' playin' is all! :-) Susan^purrrrr 03:55, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Hey!!!!!

Don't go just when I've come back! SusanG 08:12, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, didn't know you were back! I'll postpone my suicide then. Superstitious animist^{Ed at CP} 14:37, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

SusanG 14:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh. Haven't had a hug like that in ages. Thank you.Superstitious animist^{Ed at CP} 14:43, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Wargaming

Traveller was written by Games Designers' Workshop (GDW). The GDW guys were/are wargamers and Traveller has its own set of miniatures wargaming rules - "Striker" and large scale starship fleet combat systems - "High Guard" and "Brilliant Lances". You can use Striker to re-enact a war from any era - the rules cover everything from bows and arrows to fusion guns. And you can get miniatures for both ground and space combat. I used to have miniatures for a whole battalion of Tech Level 15 GravDrop/Lift troops (Imperial Marines) + artillery + ortillery (orbital artillery) - boxes n boxes of 15 mm troops. We once re-enacted D-Day using my battalion vs the Germans on 06 June. No nukes or orbital artillery allowed though. Guess who won... ;) Spica the Hiver^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 10:33, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I didn't know that. GDW are (were?) a very good group: their Frank Chadwick has written some very interesting rulesets. I would have wargamed (part of) D-Day with his Command Decision rules for WWII.

The problem with historical wargaming is that, once you are settled with a time period and a figure scale (15 mm miniatures with 20 or 25 mm ones is a no-no!), you have to decide on the rules. There is no one satisfactory, universal ruleset for any given period. But gamers want the feel of the period in the rules and rulebooks. That's why a one-ruleset-for-all-periods approach doesn't appeal to the die-hards (you may call them... nerds). Editor at CP^{for a change} 10:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah GDW shut up shop in '96. They started off making wargames and developed into mainly RPGs, although they did continue to produce some wargames - they did a desert storm one, just before they closed. The GDW team are all still around but generally not writing games (of any kind) - except Marc Miller (who did some of their Vietnam era games and some WWII stuff); he's writing the fifth edition of Traveller (he originally wrote Traveller). They made a range of wargame-y type games for Traveller too - Snapshot (close combat) and Invasion Earth (board based strategy starship game) spring immediately to mind. Spica the Hiver^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 16:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

hey

Just wanted to say I enjoyed your (and Human's) comments on nuclear power at Human's stomping grounds. Those kinds of discussions are what I really like about RW. I don't know anything about the power industry, or as much as I probably should about energy politics, but some stuff that I work with is distantly related to radiation risks in medical applications, so I'm interested in probabilities involving that kind of thing, as well as the psychology. I've always found it interesting that people (myself included) can tend to be reluctant to undergo a medical procedure involving radiation, but usually have no problems boarding a 6-hour plane flight that will expose them to more radiation. Anyway, thanks to you and to Human for the education.--Bayes_yikes 17:09, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your comment. But I don't know if this kind of discussion really belongs to RW. Maybe. I agree, both the probabilities and the psychology related to radiations are interesting. Editor at CP^{for a change} 17:33, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Alas TK

Please don't even try to bring sociopath TK back. He'll do his best to tie us into knots. Then we'll need M. Spica to untie us. I'll try and help M. Spica if that happens. I'm Proxima Centauri. We stars stick together. And I don't want TK to mess this great Wiki up. Proxima Centauri 05:05, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, but I have only one mission in life: make TK the supreme ruler of RW. Don't mess with us and our evil plans! (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 08:02, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Demotion

Since no one has officially sanctioned your demotion, User:Lyra Belaqua/AK Lyra § talk 20:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, and thank you also for your refreshing Latin signature. I especially like the pecunia one. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 20:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and thanks Susan too:

Hello

Hi. I thought you were feeling lonely.--Bob^{bing up} 15:00, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, now I feel much better! (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 15:23, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm just doing what I can to bring a little pleasure into people's lives.--Bob^{bing up} 15:38, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

And you are doing it for free (right?). Admirable, really. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 15:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, actually I think I may try to start a new trend. Randomly say "Hello" to one person every day. Everybody likes to get that little box and it could do a lot for our sense of community. Makes me feel all warm inside just thinking about it.^{— Unsigned, by: Bob_M / talk / contribs}

(A new milestone in my wiki career: my first unsigned-tag. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT))

I obviously felt embarrassed by my comment and subconsciously forgot to sign.--Bob^{bing up} 16:13, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry for outing you! At least it wasn't a sock I outed. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Have an orange box!

I think Bob beat me to it, but, nonetheless, enjoy some companionship on me! _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 16:10, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, I love oranges and I could eat a box full of them in one go. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:12, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Oranges scare cattens, so we Jellyfish do not eat of them. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 16:14, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I would question whether you eat at all, at least in the technical sense. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 16:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

We sometimes eat for purposes of amusement. It is much funner that way :P _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 16:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I'll still try to avoid sending orange boxes to you then. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:22, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

We love the colour orange, though. Boxes of that would be nice. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 16:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

(EC)As I understand it, you simply put food directly into the stomach and absorb nutrients from there. Can this really properly be called 'eating'? --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 16:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

You suggest they only digest?--Bob^{bing up} 16:27, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Two-leg propaganda. Dismiss it from your mind, Bob. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 16:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

↳↑⇨↕▽←'s attempts at Scyphozoan Denial aside, there is the question of whether the term "eating" also includes digestion. If it does, and I suppose it is vague enough that a case could be made for such an interpretation, I suppose jellyfish could be said to "eat" to a certain extent. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 16:45, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I know you secretly want one too

Absolutely. Thanks. I was really envious when Susan got one. But to be honest I sent you one just because I was thinking of friends. Too long to explain... (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 11:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually I'm still wondering about this cryptic comment.--Bob^{bing up} 15:55, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry Bob, I confused with another wiki. Forget the comment. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations!

You most certainly deserve the title of Honorary Danish! Wear it with pride! I think we even have a flag lying around here somewhere... --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 15:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, thank you. I worked hard to earn that title. Now I need a Honorary Danish userbox for my user page.(Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 15:59, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Discussion of the above section

The heading is a lie. ^{— Unsigned, by: Amaranth / talk / contribs}

I don't know what you're talking about, Amy. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 15:56, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Tarja Turunen is welcome to my talk page, Amaranth is not. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 15:59, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Come and tease AKj with me on his talk page! _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 16:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry I can't. He corrupted me with a honorific title. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:02, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

It's not the text that is important, but those boxes full of oranges. Thank you, Chaos! (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:00, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

No text zone. You are stung. _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 16:03, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I STEAL YOUR COMMENT!

_{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 06:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Scyphozoan Deceit! Caught in flagrante delicto! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 06:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Boycott Length

I wanted to add my name to the list calling for a shorter boycott, with WIGO and other RW participation starting up again Saturday. --SpinyNorman 10:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Please don't bend time

You will create stranglets and destroy us all. tmtoulouse ^heckle 13:51, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Pushing your luck :)

(At least, if that is you...) <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Quite possibly a fruitcake} 20:53, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

what's a block less or a block more? And I'm just inserting factual and not controversial information anyway. Liar at RP^{(Ed at CP)} 20:56, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I do my best work after a few!

Editing drunk is for wimps, try massively overhauling the source code for a website people are using at the time while drunk...thats where the fun lies :). tmtoulouse ^heckle 18:37, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Oh that explains the chronic RW downtimes... Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 18:38, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Bah! We have no downtime, merely fun php errors to keep you on your toes. tmtoulouse ^heckle 18:39, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

You don't look a hundred and eight!

Oh, so you found my pic at last. Did it shock you? Or Andy's pic shocked more? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 17:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Q & A

Sorry for not replying on my talk page. I don't understand what you are talking about and why I should care?The Alien^{Sick Freak!!!} 21:23, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

You there!

Expain yourself. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Quite possibly a fruitcake} 00:57, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

How precisely does one "expain" oneself? Eating a lot of painkillers? I'm intrigued. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 04:41, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservative values

Not jumping at you, just interested: "RW has more conservative values than CP". Why do you think that? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

It depends on what we mean by conservative values. If we stretch a bit the definition of "conservatives for the status quo, progressists for the change", one could argue that often progressists are foolish, young, over-enthusiastic people who want to change usually too much, while the elder and sage conservatives keep their heads cool and resist changes before they are inevitable - which would be more "rational". And no, I'm not conservative according to any definition, not even this. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 11:26, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Let's say it from another point of view too. If we forget the American case and some recent European ones, usually the "loons" tend to partner with the left in political coalitions (as long as nazis can't enter politics): radicals, Marxist-Leninists (there is such a party in this country, which sees all the parties with "communist" in their name as being too right-wing), environmentalists. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 11:26, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

You don't even have to go that far, Ed. We're more conservative by default because CP is far too mindless and manipulative to describe as "conservative". Conservatism itself is a legitimate viewpoint. Conservapedia is a propaganda generator. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 12:30, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Right so. Ask any average conservative person who (s)he has more affinity with, RW users or CP editors, and the answer is clear. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 12:48, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Editor I've read your first response three times, and I still can't understand how it demonstrates that "RW has more conservative values than CP". Whether one agrees with the sentiments or not - I can't see how it makes your case. Could you elaborate for an old man?--Bob^{bing up} 12:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I guess Chaos! said it best. Ask a random conservative to devote a couple of hours reading CP and RW, and ask which one is nearer to his/her views. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 13:03, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes...... I see......Is that what your first comment is meant to say?--Bob^{bing up} 13:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Not really. What I was saying with the first comment is that on average conservatives tend (tended) to be calmer/quieter/think more than their progressist counterparts, as the latter are taken by the enthusiasm of youth, change, utopy, sometimes rage. In doing so, a conservative is the one with the feet on the ground, that is he tends to act more "rationally", regardless of his motives or smartness - just because it is more convenient for him in his position. This said, I have never been a conservative in my life. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 14:15, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

So ... as users of the 50+ club get closer to 60 we will become even more rational? I can hardly wait!! This is fantastic news.--Bob^{bing up} 14:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

It's not physical age. It's when you switch from beer to wine. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 15:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Done that! Done that! (It's hard to get good beer beer in Spain anyway.) I'm working on my article "How flogging can cure homosexuality." at this moment.--Bob^{bing up} 16:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

In Spain? Did you know that Conservative was looking for a translation of his articles into Spanish, why don't you team with him? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 16:09, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, if he can't speak Spanish that would be great.:-) I must admit that I'm not convinced that RW is a conservative publication. I can't speak for the Yanks, but many British Conservatives might not be too irritated by most of it (through the thatcher article wouldn't go down too well). But the Spanish Conservatives I know would most certainly be outraged.--Bob^{bing up} 16:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Wait! I never said RW is conservative - on the contrary! We have some conservative editors here, but most are on the other side, me included. What I'm saying is that CP is even more far from the conservative world. Take a Merkel, a Sarkozy, even a McCain. Would they read CP and not laugh at the parody? No way. Would they read RW? Why not? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 19:51, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, what specifically would the Spanish conservatives object to? Apart from your Gang of Four's writings, that is (kidding). While would they really read CP? Name aside, I suppose there aren't many Joaquin Martinezes in Spain. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 19:54, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

<-- Sure, I get it. RW is trying to conserve sane, rational science, and to an extent, political and religious discourse, in the face of the onslaught from the radical fundamentalist movement. ħuman 20:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

On Spanish Conservatives. The Conservative Party in Spain (the PP) has traditionally been closely associated with the conservative wing of the Catholic Church. Consequently its social policies tend towards it being anti gay marriage, pro the explicit teaching of Catholic religion in schools, anti abortion, anti divorce etc. To be fair, I have never heard any of them profess young earth creationism. Their ideas are promulgated by the wholly owned Catholic station COPE; a radio station so far to the right that I sometimes listen to it just for the laughs it sometimes gives me while I'm driving.--Bob^{bing up} 04:03, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Test

Test, brought to you by: 79.47.120.175 09:45, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 09:45, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

"My feelings"

I made you a . Please look after it. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:38, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you :-) Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 15:41, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, a bit of description. Allegro non troppo is made of this kind of pieces of music with a story wonderfully drawn around them. Between one piece and another sketches of not so funny Italian comicity. Relevant to us, there are evolution or Andy and his acolytes. And love from a more physical point of view. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 15:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Gosh. It's going to take me ages to watch all of those :) Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:51, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow, awesome vids. I'll have to try to check out the whole thing one day... ħuman 18:14, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Not much more in the whole thing. 5-6 of those videos and the rest some b&w "humour" sketches (of which you saw a glimpse at the beginning or end of some of those videos). Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 18:52, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Oops

(Block log); 14:29 . . Karajou (Talk | contribs) (blocked User:79.36.4.0/22 with an expiry time of infinite (anonymous users only, account creation disabled): Abusing multiple accounts: Italian proxy IP/ used by BillA, BillB, BillC, BillE, BillF, EditoratCP) Shouldn't have outed your IP, should you?   ^Contribs_Talk 14:48, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Uh oh, how can I manage now? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 14:50, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Mm. twas silly, all you've got to do to find your IP, which I suppose is what you wanted to do, is log out, it then shows at the top of the screen where your name does now. Better get a proxy, or two.   ^Contribs_Talk 14:58, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Don't worry Susan, everything is under control :-) Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 15:36, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Help!

I guess I have reached the bottom. Conservapedia in these days is absolutely full of interesting opportunities for vandalism/discussion/lulz. Instead, I am too lazy to even unplug and replug my modem! So I'm stuck with this, for some reason blocked, IP address and a new user would be only one unplug/replug and one captcha away. Help me! Am I growing bored of CP? Right now when all our friends came back and the others keep becoming stupider and stupider? Right on the Eve of Conservapedia Day?!? HEEELP! Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 08:16, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Firefox

Yes, I've been having problems with Firefox as well - last night it took me 50 minutes to save one comment (and I got in a strop about it :( ). Maybe I should bump my sock off Chrome and use that here full time. Totnesmartin 06:26, 8 February 2009 (EST)

still here

...but are you still there? Not blocked yet? Totnesmartin 14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh do you mean at CP? I have a couple of unblocked users there but they are not very active (= not active at all). Then I also have a long list of banhammered socks, but they don't count. Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Offensive?

Tut, tut! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 21:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Susan, long time no see. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone to bed. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What the crap?

You're still here? I thought you were gone! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I had problems accessing RW until the server change (?) a month or two ago. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 08:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A likely story. I still blame the Communists. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You and Onkalo

Mark me impressed! What area did you work on the project? I'm fascinated by the entire topic, and am thrilled to have you part of this discussion. I can assure you I'm no anti-nuke hippy, and I freely acknowledge that nuclear offers many tremendous advantages for powergen today. But my concerns are very real, and my ears are open. Enjoy the dialogue. DogP (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I was involved with both the encapsulation plant and the canister transportation and installation to its final destination. It's over three years though since I left that job and the entire field of nuclear energy and probably never going back. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 08:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fabulous. A real pleasure to have someone who actually knows what he's talking about on board. Thanks a million for your comments- this makes me want to go back and digest everything you've said. DogP (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't really said anything... If you want to talk more in detail, let's do it in private. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this XKCD chart of nuclear exposures all look good to you? It seems solid, well researched and fascinating, but I'd appreciate your thoughts as to whether there's anything you'd disagree with. DogP (talk)

(indent) For radiation workers I recall a 20 mSv limit on average with a yearly spike of 50 mSv. Natural background radiation slightly lower worldwide (2,3 mSv/year?), higher in Finland (4 mSv/year). I honestly don't remember the radiation limit outside of nuclear power plants. Anyway it seems quite ok. Regarding radiation rate (µSv/h), here's some data from Finland (from National Radiation Authority, STUK.fi):

0,04 - 0,30 µSv/h natural background (you can check daily values for your locality on internet)

0,4 µSv/h threshold for alarm by automatic radioactivity meters

5 µSv/h flying at a 5 km elevation

5 µSv/h the largest measured rate because of Chernobyl (in Finland)

30 µSv/h threshold for letting a patient in isotope cure leave the hospital

100 µSv/h necessity of safety measures, such as staying home.

You probably know the following by heart, anyway here goes: anything over 0,5 to 1 Sv in one dose is deterministic and will have serious health consequences up to death - a comparison with a fire injury isn't soo off. For lower doses there's a stochastic effect. The currently accepted theory is fully linear up to very low radiations (though I guess Tweenk would consider this too conservative), which makes calculations very easy: for every 1 Sv of total radiation on people, 5 % on average will get a malign cancer. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 08:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm NOT a Witch!

Honestly, I'm not anti-nuclear. As I said during the HCM, I'm generally pro-, but above all else I'm a skeptic, and when the RW articles are hijacked by a single issue editor using only figures from the nuclear industry itself, I get very suspicious. It's clear that a lot of those figures are inflated or made up - even if you look only at the stuff now being released about Fukushima. I never wanted to turn the articles into a mass of hysterical nonsense about how nuclear power is the most evil thing ever, but neither did I was them to stay as Tweenk had edited them, where he was one step short of telling us to eat healthy, nutritious uranium for breakfast each morning. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. The problem is that the nuclear industry isn't completely free to make numbers up - they have to respond to higher authorities (in some countries more than in others), while the other side, starting from Greenpeace, are completely free to distort facts and numbers - and they do it. The other problem is that often the only knowledgeable people come from the nuclear industry, have studied nuclear physics and/or technology or ore otherwise tied to it. Tweenk for example has shown to know his facts, even if his essays were a bit loaded. Finally, I stand by what I have been repeating all this time: the opposition is not nuclear vs. renewables, but nuclear & renewables vs. fossil. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 13:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's my position too. Although I accept Greenpeace have a habit of playing with their numbers, I think the nuclear industry do it too. For instance, despite all that "1 in 100000" (or whatever) chance of a serious accident, it turns out only two nuclear power stations in America are up to the fire code (there's a link somewhere...) And that nice round number is too round, which means they're either doing some rounding or pulling the figure out of their asses. Anyway. I don't want to start ranting again! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not start again! Just a note about those nice round numbers.

Those nice numbers are the maximum acceptable chances per reactor year of 1) core melt; 2) serious contamination, as prescribed by the authorities. That's why they are so nice and round. Each reactor and plant undergo a complete and up-to-date ("living") probabilistic safety assessment (PSA), which takes into account "everything", from a closed door to a loose screw to meteorite impact to Mr. Burns going crazy. The result is given as two changing risk probability numbers, the ones mentioned above, which are then compared to the legal limits. The required probabilities are understandably higher for old plants and more restrictive for new plants. I admit I don't know the situation everywhere in the world, especially in the US, where I know there is a despicable lack of "continuous improvement and development" culture. And obviously the calculated probability, while state-of-the-art and conservative (you don't know if a pump breaks 1 or 10 times a year, or if the fire extinguisher is working? Choose the worst case), can only go as far as human imagination and knowledge. For example in my experience all values went up when new earthquake calculations were done, and I'm sure they went up right after 9/11. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)