RationalWiki:Saloon bar

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.

edit

Yeesh, creepy.

This is by far the creepiest photo I have ever seen. Random walks through WP can produce disturbing results. Quadrupeds/bipeds good, octopeds/hexapeds bad. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Creepiest picture ever? ORLY? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

See, no, that's inspires hilarity/pity in me. Not "What the fuck is that? KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FiRE!" xenophobia. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the fuck are fake guitars in that picture? Did he think the guns and clips weren't quite awesome enough and a video game guitar would just push it over the top?--EcheNegraMente ^{Please don't spoil my day, I'm miles away} 17:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't fake guitars. They're real Guitar Hero guitars. The guy obviously knows how to have a good time. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I humbly submit my nominee: [1] DickTurpis 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Coconut crabs are also cute. --127․0․0․1 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Has the clawed snake showed up anywhere else yet? That's pretty cool. --Gulik 00:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

you bunch of amateurs... Totnesmartin 19:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We should make a creepiness competition, with votes and everything. The winner then wins a... well, wins. --127․0․0․1 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

GENTLEMEN!!! Corry 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Gentlewomen? Dendlai 06:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

'nuff said. PS If I ever unexpectedly encounter a Coconut Crab, I think the men in white coats will have to cart my gibbering self off to the farm. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 10:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus camp

Holy shit. I'm watching it now. I'm scared. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 19:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

After Eraserhead, Jesus Camp is the most disturbing film ever made. JS Leitch 23:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess you haven't seen Irreversible... ħuman 23:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is there so much "Army of God" crap with fundies? They would lose. They do not have access to nukes. Anything they could do would be a terrorist action.--Thanatos 23:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but sadly they could still do plenty of damage. My personal hope is that Texas decides to leave the Union and become a "Christian nation." Then we can offer refuge to all the blacks, gays, and immigrants, while all the fundies flock there. Once everyone I actually give a damn about is safely out of Texas, let the carpet bombing begin!--Mustex 23:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Camp scares the Galactic Emperor and Lord of the Sith. You heard it here first.ENorman 01:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say stop watching because it's not worth it, but you need to see these people and how serious they are. ^postate 11:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit JC is one of the better horror movies. 2 questions - who's the talk show host guy - he sounds fairly decent. And second, does anybody know who the lardass is leading the kids when they do the cup smashing thing. Because he sure as hell sounds Sauff Effricen to my ear. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 12:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the many funny things I've heard about Jesus Camp is that when the people in it got to see it, they were very happy with it. "It's about time someone gave us a fair shake!" They don't (didn't?) have the faintest idea how SCARY they are to Non-Believers.... --Gulik 01:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the parade of nine year olds repeating almost verbatim that they came to their faith as a personal choice and no one goaded them into it. Hello. They're in Jesus Camp! ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 13:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Meatloaf on TMF

Anyone who hasn't made love had sex to the sound of Bat Out of Hell hasn't lived. Discuss. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand the Bat Out of Hell album is all about risky, one night stands and the like. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 23:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup! But then that was pre-AIDS (my age is showing) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

At one time I dated a deaf guy who did drag shows.

(For those so sheltered as to not know what goes on at these events...a bunch of performers get dressed up [usually as a disco diva but it's not necessary] and lip-sync [or, god forbid actually try to sing] standards from oh, say, 1966 to present day pop songs.)

For Chris, who was completely deaf from birth, he had to ask the proprietors of the shows to crank up the bass ALL THE WAY passed 11, so that he could feel the beat and do his dances, which were fetching.

He made squeeky sounds during sex that I'm not sure he knew about. 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC) CЯacke®

I wondered where that was going, crackhead. Now I wish I hadn't... ħuman 00:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

During sex I make honking sounds and caw like a seagull during the apex. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 00:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Once left a tape recorder recording. The squelchy noises are quite off-putting. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ye gods. Now you've got me thinking about what prompted you to post this thread. And I thought Ed liveblogging teen comedies was bad. Still, I have to say bat out of hell sounds like a risky sex CD to me, since paradise by the dashboard light is ideally positioned, post-coitally speaking, to kill the mood. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume a very good night prompted this thread. You can either annoy the neighbours with the sound of Meat Loaf, or you can annoy them with the sound of squeaky mattresses and handcuffs rattling against bed posts... I may have said too much. ^postate 16:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It was that Meat was on t'telly & I was taken back to a particular night in 1980(ish). Bat always reminds me! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to pretend that none of you, my internet friends, have ever had sex, you're always fully dress, none of you live in the same state as I do and that there is absolutely no way you'd ever recognize me in public. I love you all virtually and would prefer to keep it that way (unless you are 25-45 female, human and passably hot, in that case shoot me a line, baybee . . . ) ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ageist! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just btw - I'd been on the merlot last night: the mind works in strange ways at times: sorry ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not embarrassing. **** * **** ** ***** *** **** ****** and then she ** ** **** ***** ***** ***** **** *** * ***** **** while *** **** **** **** ** ***** **** and the hangover was legendary, is embarrassing. ^postate 07:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone else seen the commercial with Meatloaf on the stepladder with a giant bottle of A1 singing "I Would Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)" to a huge slice of meatloaf or was I momentarily delusional? The Foxhole Atheist 22:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Smoking

While we were on holiday at Teflpedia I went to the hairdressers - first time for about ten years (various reasons) 'cause my other half wanted to treat me. Both the shampoo girl & the stylist had apparently just been "out the back" for a ciggy. They'd subsequently sucked on some sort of mint but it was really noticeable. Their breath quite turned my stomach. No tip! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Shit, you'd hate for me to cut your hair. Not just because of the smoking either, because I would be more than likely drunk and make a real hash of it. Also I wouldn't stop talking and I'd forget what I was doing halfway through. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 03:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If the hair came out well, please to tip them, even retroactively. Also, feel free to exercise your speech and say why (next time) you were disgusted (last time). At least they minted up, it just wasn't enough? ħuman 04:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pliz not to use "hair" & "came out" in same sentence. I complained three times & was taken to be old cow who' doesn't like young people. This I know 'cause an aquaintance entered just as I was leaving & was privy to subsequent conversations. Re tipping: it's not so much part of the culture here as in the US although hairdressers are commonly tipped. It was OK, but the treat was spoiled for me & my other half. No tip! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm stopping smoking now/drastically cutting down. Now I'm out of a job and a uni student I can't facilitate both smoking and drinking. Gotta prioritise. SJ ^Debaser 12:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As a smoker I find myself increasingly agreeing that it's a disgusting and unjustifiable habit. When I smoked unfiltered cigs my fingers were stained yellow. I have to bleach my teeth. My clothes, skin, and hair smells like smoke. I just washed the walls in my living room with soapy water and had to change the wash water several times. My mirrors and tv get a haze on them. The final straw ought to have been when I unpacked my suitcase at my mom's place to notice that clothes I had washed mere hours earlier smelled like smoke. Not to mention the fact that I can't run 5 miles anymore and that no non-smoker wants to date or marry a smoker. Cigs cost $8 or more a pack here in Chicago. They're $4.50 in NW Indiana, but since I despise myself for smoking I never think to reward myself by being frugal. I'll quit soon. Human and Ace will quit soon too, they just don't know it. 15:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that cigs here are up to £6.00/pack - about $9:00? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: nice to know that you wash your clothes before going to mother's, Nutty. (rather than going to mother's for her to do it. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

$9 a pack?! I'd pretty much have to quit if they got up that high here. Either that or cut out a meal. --PitchBlackMind ^{Been landlocked too long} 17:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget: they don't go from $4.50 to $9.00 in one go; they sneak up by 5% -10% /year & you don't notice. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's slowly moved up every year for the past five or so. When I first started college they were $25 a carton, now they're around $45. $9 a pack is still unthinkable though, I don't know how anyone smokes at that price. --EcheNegraMente ^{There's no love in fear} 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh! I don't know how anyone smokes. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got to put it into the perspective of other indulgences. You'd probably have a hard time getting a beer for less than $4 in Chicago. Two beers = 20 cigarettes. Think about how long they last and how much satisfaction you get out of each. It's not that bad. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cigarettes in NZ a really expensive also. I mitigate the cost by rolling my own and rolling small ones. I never smoke inside and have cut down drastically a lot a little but still, I have a nicotine patch, chew the gum and have a cigarette. Sometimes all at once. My doctor says I am about this --> <-- close to having a coronary. Doctors don't know shit. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 19:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think smoking is great. Smokers pay more taxes than me and later claim less pension from the government because they die younger. As long as they don't smoke near me what's not to like? (Government warning - There may be an elements of irony or sarcasm in this post.) --Bob^{Not Jim} 19:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

However, if a smoker buys an annuity they are likely to receive a higher income because they don't think they'll last as long, even though some smokers make it to well in their 90s. Silly twit 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll bet that the insurance companies are quite happy to take the the hit from the small minority who make it compared the the vast majority who don't.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I quit smoking 38 days ago and have been off of nicotine replacement (gum) for 25 now. I was a pack-a-day smoker for 15 years and what kept me from quitting before was a fear of withdrawals. Once I realized that and compared it to other things I had been through that legitimately warranted fear it became a no-brainer and I had all the motivation I needed. The gum, medications (Chantix worked for me) and the like helped, but it was the behavior modification that was key. </soapbox> The Foxhole Atheist 18:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is good news. Congratulations TFA. If you put the money you've saved every day into a savings account for your kid, thanks to compound interest it'll probably pay for her college bills, or something.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I want my fucking coffee back.

So I am sitting at my desk, abusing Nutty Roux via email and drinking a strong black coffee. The cup I am using is just one I found in the ktichen and it has some pithy remarks stamped on the side of it about "John". You know the ones - It says JOHN vertically down the side with "J is for your jubilance" etc. The sort of crap you expect to find in a standard, run of the mill, government building. So I'm drinking away and accusing Nutty of all types of heinous crimes against humanity when this large angry looking woman who I have never seen before appears at my desk and proclaims in a loud, pissed off voice "That's my cup!". She stabs the air with her ham-fist and extends her greasy sausage finger at the JOHN mug sitting on my coaster.
I looked up her with my standard grimace of contempt and said "What? Your name is John?"
"No" she cried as she desperatly tried pushing the words between the flaps surrounding her gaping maw that some might refer to as 'lips', "It's my husbands name!"
Before I could react she swooped down, grabbed the cup with my coffee in it, and fled to the sanctuary of her own department which I believe is some sub-level I wasn't aware of where they keep the rest of the Gammas.
I am still to shocked by this incident to get another cup of coffee for myself. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 23:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You were mugged! ħuman 00:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel raped. She'll be downstairs now cooing over the mug and wrapping it up in the thin, sticky film that she produces from pores lining the inside of her fingers while others scuttle around dragging egg sacks from the malformed thoraxes. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 00:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just don't let them lay their eggs in your flesh when you aren't paying attention. They'll hatch and crawl under your skin up to your brains and eat them and then escape to pupate in your ear canals. ħuman 04:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just made me think of Dr Statham: "Decant it! Decant it into an alternate recepticle!" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the phrase `gaping maw`. Thank you Ace. Steve Kay 10:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the bigger problem here is your coffee mug kleptomania. For all you knew, she kept the mug poisoned, just waited for someone like you to come along and drink out of it. Maybe it's time to bring your own mug into work. Z3ro^talk 13:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Like when you steal purified capsaicin from the chemistry teaching labs and take it back to the halls-of-residence and smear it all over the food you own so you can catch people out... ^postate 14:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I kinda see her point (although taking the cup back was a bit extreme) - back when I worked in an office I hated walking past somebody's desk and seeing them slobbering all over my 'never mind the bollocks' cup. That's why I always used to spit in it before putting it back in the cupboard. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 18:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tsunami

So I left work sick almost as soon as arrived, just got home and switched on the news to see that a Tsunami is expected to hit my city around 10:45am. Which is in 1 hour 45 minutes. Exciting. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll be safe at the nearest church. These natural disaster things never hit the faithful. --Concernedresident 20:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Exciting indeed. Any latest news?--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

heres the latest. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like American Samoa suffered some loss of life. A bit too exciting for them I fear.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pst, what happened? Did it hit? How bad was it? Did any of your booze get destroyed? ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ would rather be hated for who he is than loved for who he is not 17:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruh Roh

Having this come from Faux News made the gears in my irony meter grind, but it's not really surprising news. --SpinyNorman 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So the number without religious affiliation has doubled to 15%! Time to panic, religion is obviously on the way out. For some people I guess only total control is what matters.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"The number of Christians has declined 12% since 1990, and is now 76%, the lowest percentage in American history." - Wow, were all those Injuns mainly Christian as well? I never knew that.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What's your problem with Fox News? Everyone knows they're the only fair and balanced news company that reports and lets you decide!Conservative Punk 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

They report, and I decide - to change the channel. Paddy Chayefsky must have had a crystal ball when he wrote Network. --SpinyNorman 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I got a bit of a kick earlier this year out of Glenn Beck actively playing up the comparison... Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no, the Injuns were all Jewish. Don't you read your Book of Mormon? --Gulik 02:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

less than 1% atheist and less than 1% agnostic? I hope that's a little off... I can see the questions they asked now... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 12:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Home sick

Being home sick is a real eye opener. I have discovered several things I wasn't aware of previously, some good, such as college football. However, the amount of woo they sell on morning tv is astonishing. My personal favourite though is the 48hrs rapid detox program, which you can trial free for 21 days. How the hell does that work? - π 00:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha I am home sick also. I nearly bought a magna-sleep magnetic mattress and some bee pollen pills! Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 00:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The are lots of Kiwis, who are not convincing actors, trying to give me free skin bronzer for some reason on tv. - π 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Something must be going 'round. I was home sick last week, blowing through paper tissues like they were made of grade-A cocaine. I ignored TV, and watched WWII movies, like A Bridge To Far. "It's a big bridge Sah, and it's too fah!" "Never mind, Cap'n, let's die for England, shall we?". "Certainly Sah! More tea?" DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I just took a quick drive and picked up some beers and codeine based pain-killers. Should be feeling great in about 30 mins. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 00:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that you know what you're doing Ace, but some codeine based pain-killers contain paracetamol and that rather limits the number of beers you should take.--Bob^{Not Jim} 07:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Codeine is the single greatest discovery of man. - π 00:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

LSD was pretty good discovery. Though not so good as a pain reliever. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 00:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The big problem with those bee pollen pills is I kind of secretly hope they will make me better and so contemplate buying them. - π 00:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think those day-time TV ads target us credulous and weak-willed women while the hubby is out of the house. Of course if I actually believed that any of the woo worked then I'd buy it like a shot as it all seems so appealing. Until then I'm detoxing on cranberry juice and Smirnoff Crystal.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See, this is how you know there is no god. If there were, then his chosen people would have been instructed that home exercise equipment will not make you thinner, nor shall pills make thy penis bigger. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're talking crazy Ace. LSD totally cleared up my chest infection. I completely forgot I was sick for hours. Rad McCool 10:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My fascist government

I am finally sick of being sick so I went to see the doctor, who I got to choose, cost me nothing. He gave me a script for antibiotics. They cost me $7, from the pharmacy I picked, as I forgot my Medicare card and they couldn't check what reduction I might be able to get. Gave it to me without asking for any ID to show that I was the person the medication is for. Typical socialist Nazi fascist government trying to control me. - π 03:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're lucky the libruls decided to let you live. You must have voted correctly. Corry 04:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Blasphemy Day

Apparently it's International Blasphemy Day today. Happy Holidays!! ^postate 10:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The holy spirit licks balls, Allah was raped by a donkey, Muhammad was a gay pedophille, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him, and Yahweh/Jehovah licks his son. (did I get all of the major ones?) ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ Give a man a face, and he will say what you want to hear. Give him a mask, and he will say what he wants 12:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. ^postate 12:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to anally rape Krishna with his own flute, and to wish Ganesha to choke on a peanut. And possibly to tell Ahura Mazda a paradoxical statement to make his head explode. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the FSM tentacle raping the IPU? Wait... that's probably the actual theology of FSM so you can't really blaspheme against it that way. ^postate 13:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins is a paedo who wars a paedo hat.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I can't be bothered to watch The Wire but I saw a bit of one episode and it looked dull.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Was that blasphemy? I don't even know what that show is about, so I couldn't comment. On the other hand, I'm sure if I said that Kirk was an oversexed showoff and Picard a wigless baldy slaphead, that'd royally offend some true believers. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that wouldn't be blasphemy as we all know that Janeway was the man. (but yes, I've seen the "true believers" in this sense, the "10 reasons why Star Trek (2009) sucked were priceless). ^postate 13:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Earth is not flat, and it is not the center of the Universe! Oh, wait. That is just heresy. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 14:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Apple products are a pile of badly designed donkey dung bought by narcissistic poseurs.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Windows is better than Linux. Bastard harmonic Hoover! 15:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have crossed a line there. Z3ro^talk 15:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I predated the great amoeba and the great nachos. Yorick 17:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Both the Harry Potter Series and The Twilight Series are poorly written pop culture shit. (that may not seem like much, but I have students and co-workers who would kill me if they knew I typed that). SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(I have a wife and her friends who would be willing to publicly execute me for simply reading what you just wrote. Fortunately, this is my refuge from them. Mwah Ha Ha Ha Ha!) The Foxhole Atheist 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it count as blasphemy if it's true? Z3ro^talk 17:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Blasphemy isn't necessarily falsehoods from an objective point of view. Just offensive to people who consider the subject matter sacred. But it is very clear that both Twilight and Harry Potter are shit and just masterpieces of marketing (Twilight being for angst-ridden teenage girls with a fetish for "dishy" boys, and Harry Potter for everyone who wants to discover that they're a special person in a world just outside our own) rather than awesome writing. And to be honest, that's true of Lord of the Rings too; you have to be special to put up with reading that. ^postate 11:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that is blasphemy. Bastard harmonic Hoover! 11:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but have you read it? The first 200 pages or so are like a gay musical and the rest is just a load of just Tolkein going "ooh, look how nerdy I am making up my own languages!" It's just fundamentally boring. The only duller book (and this is blasphemy) is Terry Pratchett's Nation, I just can't get into it because the style of his writing in that book annoys the hell out of me, the only writing style I find more nauseous is, as pointed out above, J.K. Rowling's. ^postate 12:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not help out amateur blasphemers and add to our new Beginner's guide to blasphemy? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

How does one blaspheme Buddhism? No gods, no souls, no dogma... even the 'if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him' is originally Buddhist (Zen, I think). SOMEBODY OFFEND ME PLEASE! Clepper ^{is fallible} 13:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're a cock-muncher. ^postate 13:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Back online

My router blew up on Saturday and I've been having 'net withdrawal symptoms ever since. Thankfully the replacement arrived this morning and I'm reconnected to unreality once more. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Creationist called on quote-mining

Sorry to waste your time if you've already seen this, but I think its pretty funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF31ypJhf7E What amazes me is that he's actually reading from the book, and not from something he printed out off Answers in Genesis. I'm not sure if that gets him more points for not being completely willfully ignorant, or less points for being outright dishonest.--Mustex 22:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen that video before but they kicked serious ass. Next time I am arguing with Ken I am giving him that video seeing as that is how he communicates. - π 22:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of FFreethinker's subscribers, so I saw that back at the beginning of the year. I'm willing to throw a 10 internets wager down that that is in fact our beloved retard Ken, due solely to the similarities in argument. The Foxhole Atheist 23:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to dig up the links, but he doesn't use that quote as Answers in Genesis told him to to. He is always completely in awe of authority. - π 23:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Here. Didn't take long he has so few talkpage comments. - π 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I guess you're right. Here are your internets. And my dashed hopes of that actually being him. Have a nice day. The Foxhole Atheist 23:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What I loved was that not only did the cretardist have the actual book - or at least more than the simple quotemine - but that he could not understand the sentences that followed the quote he was using. Nice post... ħuman 23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is how willing creationist are to be dishonest that surprises me the most. Well maybe not, they know they are right it's not their fault the evidence points the other way. - π 23:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What's so interesting about the whole concept of quote-mining is that people are expected by the miner to be infallible. It's like someone giving you directions, and when it becomes obvious that the directions were inaccurate, you just conclude the place must not exist. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 23:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A Question on that Roman Guy

I've been taking in a lot of opinion on both sides on this whole Roman Polanski situation... Just wanted one or two from someone with a brain stem. What do you guys (and gals) think of this whole thing? SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 02:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tough one--from what I understand, there are some legal issues that would make it seem as though he's getting a raw deal, in that someone somewhere is going against the terms of the plea bargain he made. On the other hand, dude had forcible anal sex with a minor, so I'm not too inclined to get on my high horse about this one. RaoulDuke 02:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't have anything but contempt for someone who raped a 13 year old. He should've been in prison for the last 30 years as far as I'm concerned.--الملعب الاسود العقل ^{We don't need the key we'll break in} 03:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I came across a post called "All The Opinions On Roman Polanski’s Rape". That is all I have to add. Actually, I also have an opinion: For me, that he effectively raped a child (she said no to numerous different things and he did them anyway, according to the victim's testimony) does not take away from the fact that he was a gifted director (just as if Michael Jackson was found guilty it wouldn't have changed the fact that he was a gifted singer). However, the fact that he's a gifted director does not take away from the fact that he effectively raped a child. Obviously the rape thing massively unbalances the overall opinion of him, but I'm unable to completely demonise him, you know? That said, I don't think the mere fact that he's a celebrity should get him preferential treatment. I'm also opposed to plea bargains as a whole (the extent to which they are legal in England is a bit of a compromise, really), so if he had a plea bargain where they wouldn't pursue the rape claim, and he's angry that they're going back on that (that's how I remember it, anyway. Might be wrong), then I have little sympathy for him, as he's basically admitting guilt in my eyes. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not even that Walrus. The bigger issue is that Polanski agreed to plead guilty to the charge of rape with the terms that he wasn't going to face jail time (there is some sketchy evidence from the prosecution, which is why he got the deal). At the last minute, he learned that despite the plea deal, and the fact that his plea had been entered, the judge could change the terms at trial and pretty much do whatever he wanted. At that point, Polanski's choices were to attempt to withdraw his plea, with no guarantee that it would happen and try to fight it at trial or he could get, as we say in the hood, the fuck out. He took the latter, and I can't say I blame him. Please note that this in no way implies a strong opinion one way or the other on my part. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 04:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it's not germaine, but I think having his wife chopped up to bits by Manson's crew ought to earn him some leniency somehow. Also, the ex-13 year old in question has expressed that she doesn't want him chucked in the slammer. He should cut a deal where he not only coughs up some serious coin (like a $million or so) for child abuse/women's causes, but also spends like a year doing "community service" of some sort. It's a been a long time, but he still owes "something" for his past stupidity. Disclaimer: I do suffer from thinking that he is a genius. Anyone else here see The Tenant? ħuman 04:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We actually are convinced he's guilty then? I mean he's not had trial has he? Shouldn't these comments have "alleged" in these somewhere?--Bob^{Not Jim} 06:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He did, I believe, plead guilty to the crime itself, but fled during the sentencing portion of the trial. Regardless, though, of whether or not he's guilty of the rape, he did commit the federal offense, in my opinion, of "unlawful flight to avoid prosecution," which holds just as much weight as the rape charge. Of course, I don't care enough to do anymore research into this topic.AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 06:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He pled guilty, then fled before sentencing when it appeared that they weren't going to abide by the plea agreement. It should be noted that courts don't have to abide by agreements they don't think are right, and he was getting an insanely good deal. He admitted to the account of the victim; he gave her drugs and alcohol, then had sex with her orally, vaginally, and anally. She said it was rape, he said it was "consensual" (even though as a minor she couldn't have given consent even if this were true). Authorities had been approaching him about coming back in recently, promising him the original reduced sentence, and he replied with scorn - so they arranged for him to be picked up. I am really mystified why anyone thinks that he deserves any leniency at all.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 06:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, a bunch of maniacal Americans chopped his wife up into little bits and wrote words on the walls with her blood. Granted, that does not have anything to do with his crime, and the wife-choppers' leader is never getting the fuck out of jail. ħuman 07:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Ok, I thought the trial was interrupted. I stand corrected.--Bob^{Not Jim} 06:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer Tom's point. I think the issue is really that the DA made a deal with him, assuring him he'd get the lenient punishment if he pled guilty (again, there was questionable evidence and a really poor case). After they had a confession and enough solid evidence to score a conviction at trial, they changed the rules of the game.... I don't agree with his actions, but which of us, honestly wouldn't do the exact same thing in his situation.... Now, I personally think that hunting down an old man against the wishes of his victim on something like this just screams "DA looking towards a reelection," but that's me.... I think there are other open cases to be focusing on. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 07:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Have none of you seen Wanted and Desired, the feature documentary about his case? Fantastic film. In it we learn that a) the incident happened 9 months after his wife (with whom he was completely in love)and on-the-way baby were hacked to bits; b) Roman did 42 days time in a psychiatric prison for evaluation; c) the judge was a small-time shyster looking for fame, and reneged on a plea deal; d) in news footage shot at the time, and in contemporary footage, the Assistant DA who worked on the prosecution agreed that Polanski had no choice but to run given the judges bizarre behaviour; e) the then filed a joint complaint with the defender against the judges behaviour, and finally f) the girl in question forgives him, on camera, with her attorney beside her, and while she agrees he shouldn't have done what he did, that she wasn't exactly innocent herself. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and now this - the prosecutor now says he lied in that documentary! More and more byzantine the case becomes in its complexity. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Chuck, they didn't hunt him down. Over recent years, they reached out to him and requested he come back in and deal with this. It had been sitting open for a long time, and considering how they knew where he was and how easy it was going to be to pick him up, it makes sense to me that they did so when he scorned them. He broke the law in a massive terrible way, fled justice after pleading guilty, and to wrap that up just doesn't seem like a bad thing when it's done with so little expense and danger. They literally just heard he was getting an award and asked the Swiss to pick him up at the airport. They'd been waiting for an opportunity to do so in such a safe way for five years, so I don't really see how this can be chalked up to a DA somewhere looking for re-election.

Doggedpersistence, I haven't seen it. But I will say that (a) doesn't matter very much except perhaps in reducing his sentence - if my wife got murdered, I have a hard time seeing how my trauma might drive me legitimately to rape a young girl in my grief; (b) yes, he was hoping to get out of regular prison altogether, in fact, with his plea; (c) the judge didn't renege on any agreement, and even if he did this past year Judge Espinoza in LA essentially promised extraordinary leniency if he came in voluntarily out of consideration of the history of problems in the case; (d) the prosecutor has admitted he lied about such things to make himself look better; (e) yeah, that sucks and might have been grounds for a great appeal if he hadn't fled justice; (f) a victim trying to end years of focus on such pain is entirely understandable, and if he hadn't evaded the law then it probably would have been much easier for her. I am going to ignore the "wasn't exactly innocent herself" bit, since I think it's probably not blaming the victim but rather poor phrasing.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 07:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I think you're viewing this through much too narrow of a lens Tom, he was promised one deal, then the judge and DA decided that they might just do whatever they wanted anyway. I totally agree with his choice to flee the country and would have done exactly the same in his situation. They may not have hunted him down via an Elliot Ness style manhunt, but our tax dollars and public servant time was spent coordinating this. When they find half the missing people or solve 1/3 of the unsolved murders, by all means, go after the old man. Till then, I'd prefer they go after the important stuff. Also, why do they suddenly have renewed interest in this? Why is it soooooo important now? There's some underlying motive here, I still stick by my first choice, but it may be something else. To also point out some problems with your response to DogP, you're only taking one side of the story, Polanski has a completely different version, outside of the confession, which is pretty much worthless consider the circumstances it was obtained (morally, not legally that is). Plus, why should he come back? Not only would he be taking another judge and DAs word on a easy sentence (look where that got him last time) but they would have him in custody and easily be able to tack on additional charges for running in the first place. I also doubt that him running has had any real effect on the victim. Despite what people think, Psychological studies have shown over and over than prison and execution do not really help the victims. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 08:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski does not in fact dispute (to my knowledge) that he gave alcohol and qualuudes to a 13-year-old girl, then had oral, vaginal, and anal sex with her. I think these things are very, very wrong. That might be a narrow lens, I'm not sure. If he was traumatized from his wife's death - so much so that during a photo shoot he was driven to these actions (somehow?), then a duly-authorized and trained professional would be responsible for determining that. He doesn't get to decide that for himself and get away. If the judge or prosecutor acted unfairly, then the extensive appeals process would be the way to get that revealed and get his sentence reduced later or get early parole. He doesn't get to decide that for himself and get away.

It's not really a momentary thing as you imply... they have been seeking to scoop him up for years, but only recently did they hear he was going to be getting another Swiss award ahead of time. This gave them time enough to arrange to have him picked up and extradited. It would appear that there have been very few resources spent on this, and I think them well worth it to pick up someone for such an egregious set of felonies. It would send the wrong message, also, for a famous and very talented artist to flee justice and just be permitted to get away with it.

He does have a different version, claiming she consented and that the circumstances were different. That would have been something he could have brought up when Judge Espinoza reached out to him this past year with such sympathy.

In the end, he decided that he shouldn't have to face justice. But we can't accord him that right, or else we are giving him rights no one else gets. He was wealthy and famous enough to flee the law successfully, and to allow him to do so would be tantamount to saying that rich and famous people get to decide whether or not they should go to jail. That is not just.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 08:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's something I don't understand here. If he drugged and then raped a 13 year old girl by having oral, vaginal, and anal sex with her - how come they were talking about no jail time anyway? It seems incredible.--Bob^{Not Jim} 08:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why the judge threw out the plea. He considered it ludicrous, and probably was right in that judgment (even if he was scummy otherwise). Judges have every right to throw out unreasonable pleas, incidentally; it's well-established in law that the prosecutor doesn't get to unilaterally decide pleas.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 08:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Perfect Place for Advice

Seeing as how well received my last post was, I thought I would pose this one to the mob, trust me, it's much less controversial. Lately, I have found myself turning away from a career in Psychology and consider Law School more and more... I just wanted to know what you guys think about a distinguished career before the Bar? SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 08:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, certainly you will make a lot more. Starting salary for psychology ranges from 30k to 35k usd (tending towards the higher if you concentrated in statistics or media) while for law they are 45k to 55k. Further, 3-year job attainment is about ten times higher for lawyers - meaning that not only will it pay a lot more (and that pay scale goes up a lot), you also have a lot easier time finding that job. But of course you have to go to more school, and it will take you a few years to pay off that additional debt.

If practical concerns like that are of less importance, then think about what you want to do. Do you wake up in the morning, excited about the prospect of law and justice? Or does the workings of people's minds fascinate you more? You will be doing this for the rest of your life, so remember that.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 08:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't do law. The world has too many lawyers, and unless you're hoping to become a public defendant or human rights lawyer, you will simply be like any other degenerate, amoral practitioner of the dark arts.

Pyschology is an infinitely more deserving career. Fuck salary. Do whatever feels right. Money is a means of survival, thats all. (P.S- Pyschology by itself will quality you for very little. You'll beed a medicine degree if you want to become a clinical pyschiatrist. If you want to give angry couples counselling you might be able to become a clinical pyschologist, but to me personally that seems a tad boring. I'd much rather help people with real problems, like Bipolar disorder or schizophrenia than help people whose spouse eats too much of the white bread!) Lunacy 09:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. Do what you feel is right - I'm certainly not doing what I'm doing for the money. If it interests you more, do it. The money's better in law, but really, it's only if you get good, work your arse off and give up the rest of your life. ^postate 12:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

MarcusCicero

Am I still banned and in the vandal bin? Because thats a bit pointless if I just continue to post under Lunacy... Lunacy 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I paroled you. Be nice to people.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 09:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still under TOP's block, I think. And I am nice to people. But when I try to reason and all I get are internet meme's then a vitriolic outpouring is what should be expected. Take the Nuclear thread for example. Jeeves quietly ducked out so as to work on his pathetic internet meme signature. Lunacy 09:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Human removed your block on the 20th, so you're good there. Yorick^Crass. 09:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not nice to people. Right after you started posting, I noticed this and told you to stop being a dick. And you're a jerk a lot. Maybe you don't think so, but just about everyone else does. I do, and we've never even had any conflicts so I don't really have any personal stake in it at all - take that how you will.

Maybe people are unfair to you, and me too. That's always possible. But if that's the case, it can easily be remedied by starting over with a new username. If it's just prejudice and not your attitude, that will solve the matter. But I don't think that will work; people would recognize you because of the way you act.

So anyway, you should probably change something about the way you behave or else just stop coming here. What you've been doing isn't going to work, for whatever reason.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 09:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your reply in the section above this one is pertinent and interesting and nice. Sorry if that seems condescending, I just wanted to also say something good. :) --Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 09:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously why did you bring this up? Most people probably wouldn't have noticed that you are the reincarnation of MarcusCicero. You haven't been flaming any one and most people would have a neutral to very slightly positive view of Lunacy. The moment certain people see MarcusCicero in the Recent Changes log they are going to be all over the talk page stirring up past conflicts and troll baiting by saying not to troll bait. If there was no problem why not continue to post as Lunacy? - π 09:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we all knew Lunacy was MC. Nevermind though, MC may be a dick but it takes all sorts to make a world. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 11:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, MC may be a dick but he's our dick. Without his Tourette's this place just wouldn't be the same. Bob Soles 11:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd swear that I was trying to hide the fact that I was MC when posting with Lunacy. Honestly, I don't care what you think of me. I don't aim to be a constructive member of this community - whatever the hell that means to a web community who spend 50% of their time making terrible internet based jokes - Take me or leave me, I like this place for my own reasons, just like a junkie likes his daily fix of heroin. All this shite about me 'reforming' - go fuck off. MarcusCicero 13:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)