Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki:Saloon bar"

Revision as of 20:59, 7 November 2009

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

What is going on?

World	Blogs	Clogs	Elections	The Bar
(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(hic)

Pointless poll

Favorite vampire?

Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla (1872)	13	Vote
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897)	18	Vote
F. W. Murnau's Nosferatu (1922)	7	Vote
Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan's The Tomb of Dracula (1972-1979)	4	Vote
The legendary Chupacabra vampire goat sucker	18	Vote

To do list

Beer.

The Physics. My favourite new brew. Anyone else a fan? RaoulDuke 04:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Love the flowery blurb. Has Jilly Goolden switched from wine to beer? Totnesmartin 10:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember her doing beer as well as wine on the old Food and Drink programme.

Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll have to try that (if I can find it). Otherwise, I'll just stick to Old Speckled Hen. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 01:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Maine and 0-31.

This discussion was moved to Debate:Democracy and Civil Rights. 02:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

1 year on

Wow! Hard to believe it's been a year since Obama became the ~~first Muslim~~ President elect. Time's fun when you're having flies. --PsygremlinHable! 17:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow it has been. I remember going to bed the night of the election (time difference in Britain and all...) and thinking "CHANGE! CHANGE!" As for me, time's fun when I'm doing the filing. SJ ^Debaser 17:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Were you here for our election party, Superjosh? Totnesmartin 18:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't join RW until April this year. It seems like I've been here for much longer though. SJ ^Debaser 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I went to a party on IRC. I booked the next day off work because I knew I'd be staying up late, and indeed I was. It was a fantastic night of drinking wine, flicking between BBC and CNN on TV and about 5 different websites. I think I eventually went to bed at about 5am (when I usually get up). The other people in the room were really fun, except right at the end when some idiotic, GOP-worshiping twit came in and started telling everybody how the world was about to end (not quite, but pretty close). How did it work on the wiki? I'm imagining edit conflict hell. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 18:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I cleared off my talk page and we had at it. Then I archived it separately for easy access: [1]. ħuman 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow we had so much hope back then. What happened to it all? - π 23:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost 10% unemployment. Sterile lockpick 01:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lack of leadership. Let's face it, he's no LBJ - no real legislative experience. (Doesn't know whose arms to twist, or how). End the fucking war, demand UHC, demand what you ran on, you bastard. Because we really don't you to be a one-termer followed by a Palinist. Most of us have to live in whatever country you manage it to be. ħuman

05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he's mostly been fucked over by the recession and the fact that pulling out of the war was never going to be even remotely easy. Which is why I definitely think the GOP basically threw the election away (how else do you explain Palin?) so they wouldn't have to deal with it, Obama would look like an ass because basically no politician is going to come out of this situation smelling of roses, and they'd get it the next term for at least 8 years where they can turn the US into a super-capitalist theocracy. Well, at least that's the conspiracy I like to get taken in by.

^{d hominem} 15:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel

I'm kind of surprised no one made an article about her yet. This article she made regarding Watchmen is positively stupefying. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4896/the-watchmen-lie-hollywood-sends-more-depravity-your-kids-way-costumed-as-superhero-flick/^{— Unsigned, by: Ryantherebel / talk / contribs}

Why don't you? Ace ^McWicked 04:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the break Ace. I would thank you on your talk page, but I am at uni and I know the kind of pictures I find on your talkpage. - π 04:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Break? What the fuck are you talking about you fool? Ace ^McWicked 04:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The vandal break or what ever it is called. - π 04:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Brake, you fool! I fucking knew it, you Aussies are all the same. Ace ^McWicked 04:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never done one before.^{— Unsigned, by: Ryantherebel / talk / contribs}

Check out RationalWiki:To do list. There are all sorts of writing material stuff there. - π 04:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that article though. I haven't been so pissed off in a long time. <rant>That woman is a stupid, uninformed twat who doesn't understand Watchmen at all. Her inexcusably obnoxious attitude is outdone only by her deplorable ignorance and bigotry. </rant> Phew! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If parents disregard parental ratings, its their own fault. This woman knows nothing.--Thanatos 04:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My favorite Schlussel moment was her rousing condemnation of Sex and the City's Kim Cattrall for giving up her snooch to Alexander Siddig (Deep Space 9's Dr. Bashir), because Siddig is (gasp! horror!) an A-rab.... [2] - Poor Excuse 04:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

After perusing her website, it is pretty clear that she is a huge racist. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything I've ever seen from that bizarre woman screams "I want to be the next Ann Coulter." MDB 13:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Though Schlussel appears to have been born a woman. - Poor Excuse 15:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

She keeps going on about how the bad comments mention artistic value. I'm sure her idea of art is a painting of flowers. I think she wasn't really paying attention.--Thanatos 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, she probably appreciates a good Elvis or clown or crying child painted on black velvet. - Poor Excuse 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A poor name choice

I have been mulling this over for a while and I have come to the conclusion that RationalWiki was a poor choice of name. Look at Conservapedia. You go there expecting to find conservative things, if you are not conservative you know in advance you will find things you disagree with. Sometime you learn you are not that conservative, but at least you got what you expected. Same for CreationWiki, you get creation as you expected in advance, if you are a creationist you go there expecting to see what you like and if you are not you will see things you dislike.

Here is the problem - an irrational person will always believe themselves to be rational. It is part of the very nature of the beast. So they come here thinking they will find stuff that agrees with them, because they believe themselves to be rational. They see thinks they don't like, because they are irrational and so they act out irrationally, because they are.

This is really not going any where, but I have noticed we get a very special kind of vandal around here, the sort that thinks blanking our pages is going to make us to agree with them and I think I have found a possible cause of the problem. - π 05:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageblankers are the kind of vandal every wiki gets, Pi. And can I point to your user name as to how tolerant we are? Here you expect ratios of integers. Nothing more. ħuman

05:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But they rarely expect it to make a difference. Have you read some of their edit summaries as the do it? They are usually scream crap about us being politically correct, or pseudoskeptics, or liars, or what ever triggered them off. Who was the guy that go drowned for proving the existence of irrational numbers? - π 05:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hippasus. - π 05:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, what's your point? ħuman

05:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not much really, I just think we attract a "special" kind of person, more so than other sites. - π 05:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This website would have vandals no matter what we do. Heck, another site I contribute to that is a forum dedicated to punk gets vandalized all the time by people calling us "Nazis" or "Communists" or whatever. The thing is, shit talkers will talk shit no matter what you do. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 05:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is strange the way certain words trigger strange reactions in people. I really thought you would get accused of being anarchist more. Actually I was thinking more of the person who starts of as a genuine user, or leaving a comment before they suddenly get triggered off, mostly through miss understanding the site. - π 05:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Anarchists, posers, elitists, whatever, the list goes on and on on that site. Thing is, we just don't care anymore because we realize that you'll always have someone to shout you down and, I think, that also applies here. I mean, the forum is for a group called the Twin Cities Skins and Punks, and people see "skins" and assume that means Noe-Nazi skinheads and then run their mouth, etc. But that's getting a little off track here. Like I said, shit talkers will always talk shit.The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 06:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the thing though. The site will be vandalised and trolled by people who oppose the sites aims. Unfortunately because we are RationalWiki we have to put up with irrational people. - π 06:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No way dude, that happens to every site regardless of name. Ace ^McWicked 06:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I grant you my hypothesis is a little shaky, but I am sure people go "look a rational wiki, surly they believe me about the reptilian aliens unlike those cool-aid drinkers at Wikipedia" and come here expecting us to agree. - π 06:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have always favoured www.lickingtheoilymonspubis.com Ace ^McWicked 06:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that your suggestion for the the new name of this site? Because I think it might have a few takers... ħuman

06:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Its a good name. Ace ^McWicked 06:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I lick it merself. Let's alert Timmytoulouse. ħuman

06:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If Pi is correct and our name causes people who disagree with us to come here and read our articles - isn't that a good thing?--Bob ^{Not Jim} 07:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We are an opinionated and argumentative site which deliberately sets out to debunk bad thinking - of course some people on the other side of the argument will not like us for it. The question is, do we let them irritate us, or do we treat the whole intrusion as a joke? A couple of years ago we beat off the white nationalists by laughing at them. Why not now? Totnesmartin 09:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a bad thing, if anything it gives us an endless supply of stupid. When the aforementioned reptilian alien guy shows up, he will expect us to embrace it because it "makes so much sense", which he (always he) mistakes for actual logic and thinking. The only drawback is we have to put up with the inevitable tantrum and being told we are irrational because we did not see the light, with the usual claim that we should not have the name RationalWiki. I just like the paradox in that an irrational person will always believe themselves to be rational. Or maybe we are wrong about the reptilian aliens, I don't know? - π 10:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

While not wanting to quibble (well perhaps I do) you said at first it was a "poor name choice" ... ummmm ... isn't that sort of similar to saying "it's a bad thing"?--Bob ^{Not Jim} 11:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The title grabbed your attention though, didn't it? - π 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that rationality is subjective. For example, this questions our "rationality". Hence "rational" is really just our own interpretation, no one thinks that they're being irrational (although when you talk about rationalists and rationalism there's this accepted definition that you're talking about Logical positivism or PEARL etc.). But I don't think that totally explains the "vandals", it may explain some of the questioning looks we get and perhaps some of the content that isn't just totally dicking about, but it's not all that bad.

^{d hominem} 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see a problem here. Regarding vandals, nobody really believes that blanking a page will make anyone agree with them. That's just vandalism for the sake of it, & happens to all active wikis. Some of those vandals might be reacting against our description as a "Rational"Wiki (it seemed to be an issue for FD), but those people would probably still object to or vandalise the site whatever name we chose. As for people with fringe beliefs expecting to find support here, & then throwing tanthrums when they don't get it, I kindof like it that way. Every so often, somebody will come along pushing a moonbat/wingnut agenda (new world order conspiracies, therianthropy, human extinction, whatever) - it usually provokes some lively debates & does the site no harm as long as it doesn't get out of hand. Engaging with readers of differing viewpoints is supposed to be one of the site aims. Wëäŝëïöïď

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Yeah, like Tom Butler thinks he being completely rational over at WS when he says that the blurs he sees that "look like" people are people. Also, PEARL? The Paranoramal Excellence Award for Romantic Literature? ħuman 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

PEARL. But yeah, people will always think that they're rational. But I don't think it would mean we need to think "gosh, we shoulda choosed a betterer name"

^{d hominem} 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't find the name ironic: why do you have to be serious to show that others are nutty? Can't you be rational and not serious? Of course you can! Sterile lockpick 04:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Laptop Steering Wheel Desk

Another silly review fest over at Amazon. Some of these are funny. And for those who missed it before, don't forget the Three Wolves T-Shirt reviews. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 07:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe: "Not enough color choices. So the color match with my black thinkpad is really off, people constantly stare at me when I'm driving and I think that's the reason." Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I want this version of the three wolves. --Kels 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy quizzes

I just stumbled across this and thought it was pretty interesting. I like the questions, but I'm not sure if I agree with the way the result is formulated. I also found this pretty good one too, which is probably better suited to RW. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I come out as a Scientific Atheist (96%) and Materialist (100%). ^{— Unsigned, by: SuspectedReplicant / talk / contribs}

I think we've been through the second one before. As I thought: I's a bastard!

_& marmite^chat 15:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it might have been old news. Anyways, my scores: tie between Materialist and Existentialist on the first one, Scientific Atheist (76%) on the second one. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I found about a quarter of the questions to be poorly scoped and deeply ambiguous. For instance, what the hell does this mean: Everything is rational if given the right amount of effort. Does this mean everything in the universe has a "rational" explanation, e.g. can be explained from basic principles of cause and effect beginning, if one had the insight and patience, with the big bang or that every human action and process is based on rationality e.g. the principal assumption of classic economics. Me: Materialist(76%), Postmodernist(69%), Existentialist(50%). My university indoctrination has not worn off. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 17:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a three-way tie between modernist, postmodernist and cultural creative. I ended up being the cultural creative with the tie-breaker. "Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational." Kinda helps that I'm Anglican, the vanilla of Christianity--Thanatos 19:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Here in America Methodists are the Vanilla. Anglicans are like French Vanilla, familiar with a slightly exotic, though thoroughly safe, bent.^Me!Sheesh!_Mine!

Multiclass cultural creative/idealist. But damn, that's some badly written philosophical questioning. Is it wrong that I want to write an essay unpicking each question? --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

Hell no. I was tempted to do it, but I'm way to ~~lazy~~ busy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Atheist 96%! Yay! I am pushing you into the future! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a modernist. which is strange as I don't have at Italian scooter, or a parka with a target on it. Totnesmartin 12:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

94% Existentialist. Weird. - π 12:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was like a 7% theist, likely because I allowed that religion can have some valuable social function (I can't remember what the questions were) and that if God appeared before me in all her glory I'd worship her. That to my mind was a stupid question because if you really buy into it the appearance of God would confirm everything in the bible and thus any rationalist worth their salt would immediately become a theist. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine!

Ah yes one of those quizzes. 69% existentialist, 69% modernist, 56% cultural creative, 56% romanticist, 50% fundamentalist, 38% materialist, 25% postmodernist, 13% idealist. Good to see postmodernist and idealist down there at the bottom where they belong. F***ing moonbats. But fundamentalist should have come out lower, and existentialist and romanticist both higher. Secret Squirrel 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Carl Sagan Day

Do we have an article on this? I know the man was essential in making Science popular. But he has a day? I thought Auto-tune was enough. -- CodyH 18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Add it to Carl Sagan? ħuman

19:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Carl's a saint. Sterile lockpick 04:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

oh dear

another badger-related attack. SJ ^Debaser 19:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You have to hate those damn badgers. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ lUBddbMdPWfofopItFFg 19:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A Solution to the Gay Adoption Issue

(the following is a joke. I am not serious. However, I would love to get the Republican's reaction to his.) Something occurred to me today. On the one hand, we have the gays who want to adopt, on the other hand we have the Christians afraid this will cause gender confusion and allow the gays the opportunity to recruit. Clearly, the solution to this is simple: Only let gay men adopt girls, and only let lesbians adopt boys. That way girls can learn to be appropriately feminine from gay role models, and boys can learn masculinity from butch dykes (because, of course, that's the only kind of lesbian that exists).--Mustex 21:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned, if that is even your real name, were I a fundamental Christian I'd tell you that gayness is a perversion caused by gay demons. Thus, your suggestion would result in perverted possessed children or something. The gayness would just jump off of them. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 20:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me. And, honestly, I WISH they'd try to make that argument. Most of the time they try to at least make their anti-gay rhetoric SOUND secular. The instant you mention "demons," you've forfeited the debate from a legal standpoint.--Mustex 21:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure if you looked hard enough you'd find someone who suggested something like that.

^{d hominem} 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this made me think of a serious question: Has anyone done a study to see the frequency of gays adopting their own gender vs. adopting across-gender. Since the conservatives always try to make gays out to be pedophiles, if gay men adopt girls and lesbians adopt boys as often as not, then it would really throw a monkey-wrench into their claims that gays are pedophiles (and weakens their argument that they try to "recruit," although that argument woudldn't completely collapse if you assume they're working for the good of the entire "gay agenda").--76.18.115.64 01:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't from a study, but considering the difficulty gay people have in adopting, its often "whatever kid is available". That's one of the reasons gay adoptive parents often end up with "special needs" children. MDB 14:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy November 5th.

That is all -- 20:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... yeah, we should blow some shit up. Or fail trying... ħuman

21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Last night I watched $100K explode over my city over 19 minutes. Tonight I might make a pipe bomb. Ace ^McWicked 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Can it be Project Mayhem time? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is, the first rule of Project Mayhem would be you have to trust Ace. SJ ^Debaser 00:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least we wouldn't have to worry about Ace trying to stop himself from blowing shit up. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You can trust Ace, Ace is a man of the people. Though above the people at the same time. Ace ^McWicked 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember, we are all pieces of compost in the same pile. Now let's go bomb some credit card companies! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, here's a better idea: let's blow up the Creation Museum using some goat stock! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ace may be an ineberiated insane Kiwi, but he is our ineberated insane kiwi. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ I know Anonymous user liberates by bamboos. 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The first rule of project mayhem is you do not ask questions about the likelihood of off-site backups. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Election Spin

So I was doing my weekly reading of the conservative opinion pieces, and trying not to hurl, when I noticed something..... The same conservatives who were, a few days before the elections, talking about how Republicans do not represent them, and they shouldn't be voting for them, are cheering loudest over the Republican victories, while at the same time ignoring the (no pun intended) Elephant in the room that is the New York 23rd. Do these people have no memory? Like a goldfish? SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like a goldfish, please. ħuman

21:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The 23rd was a special case of the Republicans abandoning their candidate for a complete nut, handing over a safe Republican district to the Democrats. The election spin that I have noticed the most here in Australia is the media has been reporting this a rebuke to Obama. Despite the fact that his popularity according to my link way above is 59% and 51% in New Jersey and Virginia respectively. Exit polls showed that 60% said their vote had nothing to do with Obama. - π 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the Australian media you're referring to usually pro-Obama or anti-Obama? MDB 13:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Very, very pro-Obama. It might seem weird, but he is almost universally loved outside the US. - π 13:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It does take some getting used to, the idea that the rest of the world actually likes our President. Nice to be on the same side as you in that regard. MDB 15:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Very cute little quiz game

Questionaut, by the same guys responsible for Machinarium and the Samorost games. --Kels 22:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Π becomes one of the cool kids

This is my first edit free of the Microsoft shackles. I just wanted to share that with you all. - π 12:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's very liberating, isn't it? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

DON'T DO IT PI!!!! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 12:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Way to appropriate for you. - π 13:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) @Tetronian It looks kind of like a fancy new version of windows. It is nice to see that GIMP, Firefox and a lot of other things I use came preinstalled. GIMP especially without the annoying long load time. I am contemplating whether to wipe my uni computer and install Ubuntu on that. Upside, I will have a computer that works. Downside, ITS will lose their shit if they find it, not because it is wrong, just because it wouldn't fit into their Mac/Windows world. - π 12:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah another Firefox fan? Good, good. Strangely mine didn't come with the GIMP though, I had to download it. Personally I have to wonder how many more years Microsoft can stay afloat, particularly if Windows 7 isn't as good as they say. I just don't see how they can compete with Mac/Linux. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much because the only way you can buy a complete computer is with Windows installed and you have unwittingly paid out a couple of hundred for a licence. I built this box myself, but I still installed XP on it. I think the next box I build I will go straight to Linux. I tried Vista once and I am unwilling to ever try another new Windows again. I was told that Vista is quite good if you set it to Windows classic so that it looks like 2000. - π 13:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never used a Windows computer significantly; I used a Mac until recently, then Ubuntu. Stupid evil Hoover! 13:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm very happy with Ultimate 7. (Especially as I got it for free.) I was tempted to go for Ubuntu while I still had Vista, which drove me crazy, and probably would have if I'd have had to pay for 7. It was being too lazy to figure out compatibility that always held me back. Fox 13:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

windows is the superior operating system *runs for the hills ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ I know Anonymous user bastes next to pumpkins. 14:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WHAT?? *spasms wildly* (But seriously, what makes you say that?) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I used Linux from the time RedHat 5.2 was out to about four years ago, and while I liked it and all I found it much tougher to use than Windows. I've tried RedHat (up to the point they got seriously proprietary), Mandrake, Slackware and OpenSUSE, and they all required a rather daunting learning curve for someone like me who's not very technically minded. When I moved and no longer had someone I could call at short notice for technical help in figuring this stuff out, I quickly foundered. If you're into the tech and have a head for that sort of problem solving, I'll easily say Linux of whatever variety is superior, but if you're not, then it's not. --Kels 15:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu is totally load & run. You don't need any know-how (I can use it for Drake's sake). I think it was the users who complained along those lines that made someone do it. The sheer amount of free software and the ease of installing it is enuff reason to use it

_& marmite^chat 15:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was told about RedHat, Mandrake and OpenSUSE, so forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical. The time I tried to install a webcam still haunts me. --Kels 16:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

<Thinks back> Yes, it did take me some time to get this mobile broadband dingus working, But that's the only trouble I've had.

_& marmite^chat 16:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A note to PI. You can buy a complete custom computer from any number of vendors without an operating system installed, including these guys (http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/) from whence I got my last gaming machine. NOTE: This is not an endorsement, I wouldn't recommend them over any other gaming machine vendor. I've had the typical number of problems from them, but they re an example of a vendor with the option of buying their machines sans Windows. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Π the n00b asks stupid questions

What is a good Latex editor for Ubuntu and do I need a compiler or does one come preinstalled? - π 23:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you've got Karmic Koala. Take your pick.

_& marmite^chat 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)]

I'm a big fan of emacs+AUCTex+xdvi. I've also heard good things about Kile -- it's a KDE app but I think it'll run under gnome. I assume ubuntu has it in their repos. --Pyfgcr 23:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor fans are worse than OS or browser fans.

_& marmite^chat 23:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Toast. I just got my new editor installed, works great. No lengthy install, everything I needed was there. - π 23:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fun to wander round the "Software centre" (& note the spellinge)

_& marmite^chat 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the spelling might be 'cause I've specified Brit English on my install. Is it "center" on US install?

_& marmite^chat 00:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The executable is software-center. Stupid evil Hoover! 08:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Know what's a really good editor? WinEdt. (Joking aside, Kile is good.)-- Antifly^{Merged with Infinity} 02:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't use vi you're a pansy. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 08:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bacon or Magic Underwear

This link has a funny flow chart that helps you decide which relegion you should belong too. I did not get very far down the tree at all and was thus not required to weigh in on my feelings about magic underwear (something I really want to believe in) It isn't particularly work friendly as it has ads with pictures of wimmin in their underwear. Note, I fit two fully contextual but unrelated underwear references in one post (three if you count the meta reference to underwear and four if you count the meta-meta reference to underwear . . . ad nauseam). What do I win? ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Poe or not?

Does anyone know about this? Bob Soles 15:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if I had to guess I would say Poe, for reasons which should be obvious. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not even a Poe, come on, it's just a joke... ħuman

17:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It could qualify as a Poe. I mean, what wingnut wouldn't want to invent that? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You can also get it in chewing gum form. I wonder if it works just as well with women? Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And air freshener?? Fox 20:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Time Warp vs Will It Blend

What happens when you take the two most superfluous concepts ever invented and combine them? Lighter vs blender in super slow motion. ^{d hominem} 17:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Look Everybody, I'm infamous

So a while back I contacted this blogger about my story. We met, he recorded and took notes, and the final product is now available right here. Gotta say, I wish he hadn't used quite so many quotes... It comes off pretty harsh, I sound like a Black Panther.... Either way, I can't help but smile. I figured I'd give him the old RW Bump, so I hope you guys check it out. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Way to go Chuck! Although the blogger does come to the conclusion that you are exaggerating... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR. Who's the guy with the chip on his shoulder in the video at the bottom, btw? Fox 20:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, right? ;) ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fox you should definitely read it, it was very interesting. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I did! I did! j/k! I liked the routine, btw, and hat off - stand up must be one of the hardest circuits imaginable. Fox 20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and as I think about it, I'm pretty sure that I'm letting my anger at the way I was treated affect the way I'm remembering a lot of my time there.... But I still stand by my statment. The counselor is a liability and should be fired... But oh well... and the bottom is my stand up... Don't take that as anything but pure comedy... Pretty much everything in that clip is made up. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; on an unrelated note, you look exactly how I pictured you would look IRL. Z3ro^talk 20:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I like you better in Harold and Kumar Go to Whitecastle. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Zero, I don't know if that's complimentary or creepy, but I'm gonna air on the side of caution and say thank you for the nice compliment. :) and I wasn't in Harold and Kumar, Neveruse, I was in American Pie. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It was mostly meant to be sarcastic. I totally don't have a shrine built to you in my bedroom, complete with artists conceptions of what you look like. Cause that would be weird. Z3ro^talk 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have such a shrine. ChuckB is my hero. ħuman

03:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Zero, I had guessed as much, I was just trying to keep the joke going... and Human, that's SIR ChuckB to you. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 08:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Internet sarcasm fail :( Z3ro^talk 15:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you're wearing clothes. I mean, the rest of us are naked, right? If you needed pockets to hold your chapstick you could have just gone with a man purse. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 13:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good post. I really like the conclusion that we're moving away from blatant displays of racism and into something a lot more subtle (and just as, if not more problematic) and almost unconscious. It's these small left overs of a much less subtle time, but it's going to take a while yet for it to fizzle out to nothing.

^{d hominem} 19:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree Armond, it was great... I think I got some rough treament... I lot of my qualifiers and track back statements got erased and I sound really awful I think, but oh well..... I guess Jim got a few nasty emails from the counselor involved. He won't show them to me, but he said they were full of personal invective against me and ended with (of course) a request to take the whole post down. Jim said it was funny because he didn't answer hardly any of the points I made. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was well-written and interesting, and I don't think he was as hard on you as you think - presenting the counselor as a threatening, lawyering-up anger head was a pretty subtle way of showing who he really believed without giving up his pretense to neutrality. ħuman

20:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he definitely wasn't too harsh on Messr Charles B. Saying that he can only really tell "his side of the story" is a little chiché and a cop-out, but it's the only decent appraisal of a situation you can give without blatantly taking sides and dropping into some very black and white (no pun intended, srsly) thinking - which wouldn't help in this situation. If "Casey" did ask for a take-down of the post, and the only email worth putting up mostly concentrated on threatening legal action, that's quite suspect I think.

^{d hominem} 20:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Never really thought of it like that... But I certainly see what you mean... I'm really pushing Jim to show the emails, but he won't do it.... I really wanna see them. I guess Casey sent a really long response, but then ended with "please don't post this." Jim wants to run it, but won't do it without permission..... Maybe it's time to bring back Boom Goes the Dynamite. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC) PS: Now that I ponder a little more, I think Casey made things worse with his response.... I mean, if someone sends a message asking for comment and you reply with "I have no comment, but I'm calling my lawyer" it doesn't exactly warm up their opinion.... and after hearing all I had to say...

BlightyNet

BlightyNet is now fully up and running; you can find it here. Articles. Let us make them. Stupid evil Hoover! 21:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does "belaiti" make me think of yoghurt? Sprocket J Cogswell 16:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Goat 1 RWian 0

Here's a picture I found while looking for something else. Can you guess what happened next? Totnesmartin 18:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, my guess is that the guy gets head-butted by the goat. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 18:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Head-butted? From that angle? That's me by the way. The one on the right. Totnesmartin 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin shoots the goat from a passing helicopter.-- Antifly^{Merged with Infinity} 19:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You and the goat went out for drinks and dancing, but the goat never called the next day? --Kels 19:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, I know! Dick Cheney tries to shoot the goat, but shoots you instead. From point-blank range. And then Totnesmartin apologizes for being in the way of the shot. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 19:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The goat charges, gets pulled up short by its tether & dies of strangulation?

_& marmite^chat 19:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it have anything to do with the weasel you have wrapped around your neck? It really looks like a weasel. Perhaps it's a stoat? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

<groan>No: they're weasily distinguishable & stotally different </groan!> It's a ~~Ferret~~ Polecat

_& marmite^chat

Har har. Meanwhile Wolves have miraculously scored from out of nowhere. Anyway, that looks like a nice shed your neighbour has. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The goat is eaten by wolves? I see no wolf. What is this thing which you introduce without any reason?

_& marmite^chat 19:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Was there a gun on the wall in Act One? ħuman

20:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Keptin! Totnesmartin 20:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fire works

There are many BANGs outside: our pussies are hiding. _& marmite^chat 19:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of bangs here too, but I'm going out drinking tonight with old friends - I'm back home for the weekend. SJ ^Debaser 19:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

{{retire}} my user page please, you intolerant cunts. Would do it myself but my opinions have been made non-existent on your hate site. Fox 19:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wife and kids away for the weekend again Fox? I'm curious as to whether this is due to some annual occasion - must research your last implosion... ħuman

20:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What I want to know is how this military man would fare under fire if a few internet bodies can get him so worked up. I suppose we'd all be dead at the bottom of a shell hole by now.

_& marmite^chat 20:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So failure to condone kiddy fucking = wife and kids away for the weekend? Strange household YOU must live in to reach that conclusion. And why is it that you are all allowed to edit my user space, as well as this main space, while I am barred to prevent the right to reply? Don't like the truth, hm?

Blocked for reason...? Didn't support your world view? Fucking nazi. ^{— Unsigned, by: Fox / talk / contribs}

Godwin's law. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ don't cast the first stone, and I won't throw it back 20:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny how only atheists quote their self-affirming Godwins Law. Its like an internet masturbation thing for the MTV generation, right? Fucking knob. Fox 20:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's more like a "bring up a Nazis and you look like a fucking idiot thing." But take it however you want Fox, and I'm sure you take it in a lot of different ways. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Who rattled your cage? Whitey looked at you the wrong way today or something? Fox 20:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

{variable i=hitler}
while i=1
do
set headless chicken mode=1
begin headless chicken mode
end
DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fox: You've retired, why don't you fuck off?

_& marmite^chat 20:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are so concerned about my retirement, leave my user space alone, you bitter, sexless, shrivelled old hag. Fox 20:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 323: / Line 323: @@
 :::::::::Funny how only atheists quote their self-affirming Godwins Law. Its like an internet masturbation thing for the MTV generation, right? Fucking knob. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 20:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 :::::::::: Actually it's more like a "bring up a Nazis and you look like a fucking idiot thing."  But take it however you want Fox, and I'm sure you take it in a lot of different ways. {{User:SirChuckB/sig}} 20:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
+:::::::::::Who rattled your cage? Whitey looked at you the wrong way today or something? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 20:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 {variable i=hitler}<br>  while i=1<br>      do<br>         set headless chicken mode=1<br>         begin headless chicken mode<br>     end<br>    [[User:Doggedpersistence|'''<font color="#00F0A20">DogP</font>''']][[User_Talk:Doggedpersistence|<sup><font color="#993300">''Marmite Patrol''</font></sup>]] 20:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 :::::::::::Fox: You've retired, why don't you fuck off? {{User:Toast/Zag}} 20:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::If you are so concerned about my retirement, leave my user space alone, you bitter, sexless, shrivelled old hag. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 20:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)