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

Oh youtube, now I hate you.

I'm not a big time youtube user, but a little while ago I did make a short crappy video of some software I wrote and stuck it up on youtube to show a couple of people. I didn't realise before, but youtube's related videos section doesn't have a whole lot to do with the video itself, but rather what viewers of the videos that the people who watch the video also watched. The prime viewer of my video being me, that includes some Mitchell and Webb sketches and some stuff from icanhascheezburger, but also that horrible Kendoll-promoted video about how great Conservapedia is. Worse, that video is the top result. I hate you, YouTube. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the remedy would be an RW video/ad, then we all go watch it and the CP one? ħuman 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't we have a proper RW video yet? Surely there's an opportunity for some creative spark to cobble something together that isn't too embarassing. Alternatively we could pump goat videos. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We should get Trent to make one, parodying Schlafly's earnest promotions of CP... ħuman 18:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we're winning the youtube. A search for 'conservapedia' returns a video from this guy as the top hit (for me at least), plus another five of his vids on the first page. Internet creationists beware, Operation God's Nipples is underway! Ole! Ole! Ole! 83.170.97.191 18:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's some great stuff. Too bad there's no sound... is that one of us? They seem to honor our articles very much. ħuman 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Shameless plug time again. My ConservaHitler video is still going strong at 4.5 stars. I don't know how to pimp it other than here. You can take a gander at my Anonymous070777 channel, as the sidebar reciprocates with a link to our Evolution article. I REALLY want to find out what Ken's take on it is, since it's mostly about him. (I'll put the link in when I get home since YT is filtered from my office.) The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's one of my favorite youtube videos. So much that I think I'll favorite it. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for that great video, Foxhole. Oh, and you should put that picture of you molesting a goat up on RW. Jamie (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I almost forgot that pic was in the other video! I Haz Gaot! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction. Iraqi sheep is sheep, not goat. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I found the OIF video quite moving. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much, Ghengis. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Tobacco companies and creationists

I'm reading The Cigarette Century about the rise and fall of cigarettes in the 20th century. It's amazing how many parallels there are between how the cigarette companies attempted to discredit the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer and how creationist organizations attempt to discredit evolution. Doing their own "research", creating research societies, creating a "controversy," questioning valid statistical evidence, etc. It's a little disturbing actually. Sterile wigwam 00:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't be true, big tobacco is one of Schlafly's favorite analogies when talking about global warming or anything. ħuman 01:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)"

And there it is:

“”[PR fitm] Hill & Knowlton had served its tobacco clients with commitment and fidelity, and with great success. But the firm had also taken its clients across a critical moral boundary that would have two important impacts on American society. Trust in science, confidence in the media, and the responsibility of the corporate enterprise were all substantially harmed by Hill & Knowlton's efforts on behalf of the tabacco industry. By making science fair game in the battle of public relations, the tobacco industry set a destructive precedent that would affect future debate on subjects ranging from global warming and intelligent design. [Emphasis added.]

—Brandt, Allan M. The Cigarette Century Basic Books: New York, 2007; p 204.

Too bad he didn't develop that more, although it is a book about cigarettes. Sterile wigwam 01:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I need to see a copy of that book. Sounds interesting--Tabris (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, not a new thesis:

(Sorry for hogging up a thread for my own self-exploration of this idea.)Sterile wigwam 01:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is this by?--Tabris (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the cigarette companies and their enablers mainly on the Conservative side of things? --Kels (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember seeing a "educational" film staring Reagan saying there was no health risks with cigs. Granted, it was from the 50s, but they haven't changed much since then. No to mention Meathead does anti-tobacco work--Tabris (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting topic. Can we gather evidence that all these anti-science movements are the work of a cabal of advertising executives? Генгис^unbelieving 10:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading a New Scientist article a while back which - if I remember correctly - drew parallels between the use of science, and scientists to show: that smoking was not harmful, that lead in petrol was not harmful, and that global warming was not going on. I think their point was about scientists' ethics, but it was an interesting comparison. Just tried to find the article but couldn't. --Bob^{Not Jim} 17:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It may just be human nature that people will often compromise their principles if the reward is sufficiently great. I certainly did when I fell for a Colombian girl who smoked (in several senses of the word). Генгис^marauding 10:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair's Law strikes again.

I really do think scientists and politicians should be required by law to wear sponsorship stickers, the way NASCAR racers do. --Gulik (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki: I need your help!

I haz your credentials right here

I have mentioned a few times that I have a relative that has drank the kool-aid rather deeply. She actively promotes and works for a major homeopathic company (Heel) which manages to even deny the germ theory of disease (homotoxicology). She has recently jumped on the anti-vax band wagon. All of this matter because she was a 2 year old son who is starting to get lax medical care because her "cleansers" can handle it, or the doctors don't kowtow to her quack ideology.

She sent out an e-mail invite to a seminar of an anti-vax guy to another relative of mine who has a son who will just start getting the vaccine regiment. What I would love to do is find out more about this guy, but particularly I want to "capture" the web seminar for later rebuttal and analysis. Who better to ask for help than you guys?

Here is the info:

• Vaccines Cause Autism link to the "webinar." It is on Monday, July 13th at 8pm CT.
• The "doctor" is Andrew Moulden, I can't find that much info on him, there is some videos on youtube and this.

tmtoulouse 19:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh goat he got his MD from McMaster. There goes the value of my degree. tmtoulouse 19:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC) "BA, MA, MD, PhD" And do people with MA's usually list their BA as well? Or is he just being pretentious? ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I it is credential stacking, I am finding more on him now, and he has a tendency to emphasize superficial achievements like low level scholarships and GPA. Probably to try and cover up for his total lack of success elsewhere. So he is "selling' his snake oil, that much is obvious. And apparently he is a total germ theory denialist, it is only a theory. tmtoulouse 19:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"the Germ Theory was just that – a theory, which has turned out to be wrong, in very fundamental ways." Fuck me, I thought you were kidding. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[The face of credibility, is he stoned? tmtoulouse 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the front page of his site says that ALL vaccines cause autism and other disorders. That should be easy to test, at least. Z3ro^talk 19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Rumors abound that he never got his MD from McMaster. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, according to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (with which all physicians practicing in Ontario must register), Dr. Moulden is not a practicing physician in Ontario (where by all indications he is based out of). ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a University of Ottawa logo behind him, does that mean he's actually spent significant time here? I'll have to sanitize the whole city now! --Kels (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"ALL vaccinations cause immediate and delayed, acute and chronic, permanent and transient, disease and disorders that cut across all organ systems." Might as well quote the entire claim... as far as the alphabet soup, sure, there are instances when a person would list all their degrees - like maybe on a resume. Otherwise he's just doing it to fool the gullible into thinking he's smert. We need article on him... ħuman 19:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This guy is evil, he links vaccines with everything, including shaken baby syndrome. He is pushing a "neuroimaging technique" that only he can do, that magically allows him to diagnosis all emergency medical situations, including "SIDS" before it happens. What you do is take pictures or videos of the subject, and send them to him electronically. He applies his "magic" to it and makes a diagnosis. In the case of a medical emergency you can purchase a one-on-one internet video consultation! He has gone from insane, to a fraud now. tmtoulouse 20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe this sort of thing is your forte TMT. Just as well you appear to have a lot more free time at the moment. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The fraud's resume is here, if that's any help. --Kels (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bit more here, and apparently even John Best doesn't think much of him. Man, what a spiderweb of quack vs. quack they have in the anti-vax community. There also seems to be something about an anti-vax lady trying to sue a vaccine manufacturer and Moulden left her hanging when he refused to sign an expert witness agreement, but I can't find anything solid on that. --Kels (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe we still don't have an article started on this cretin. ħuman 03:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Turns out there's a wide-ranging conspiracy against this fella, too, with government facilities putting up razor wire and going on high alert whenever he shows up at their door: Eight minutes and twelve seconds of meth-fueled crazy.

Any actual biology students out there?

What the hell does this even mean?

“” There is a lot to know regarding biology. If you're not a biology major, you're not going to get it just by reading a Wiki page and watching a YouTube video. There's just too much to know. Not to even mention the fact that you haven't even understood my argument. Regulation of the proteins of a static genome is the norm. Small mutations can produce large changes, but this is because it is more often than not BREAKING a protein to produce that change. Research is showing that mutations do not produce a great deal of change, but regulation does. What is the best explanation for variation? Regulation! Where does universal descent from a common ancestor fit in? Hard to say.

I think the guy is basically trying to say - in the part I've emphasised - is that evolution happens, but not in a way that he accepts as evolution therefore I don't come from no monkey (the guy is taking great pains to stay away from Goddidit). It's certainly true that a lot of mutations will break proteins, but that usually just produces non-viable embryos (or non-viable gametes so you don't even get that far) so anyone who is actually born will probably have a beneficial one or something. I'm not too concerned about my own mental superiority (though I do say so myself) has here's a previous quote regarding the fossil record:

“”What we see is basically today's animals, just buried and only minor variations on the same basic design

So, if anyone knows what this "regulation" stuff is without using Wikipedia or YouTube (which, IMHO tend to be fantastic resources because they're contributed to by geeks who aren't afraid of dumbing stuff down like news reports or "learning" websites) then please let me know, this is genuinely interesting stuff. ^pathetic 09:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did this stuff you're quoting come from? ħuman 22:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it is what this person means exactly, but changes in "regulation" of genes could most certainly be a major player in variation. Check out this paper I published a few years ago Noise in a Small Genetic Circuit that Undergoes Bifurcation it is available online with out the need for university access. The basic idea is to suppose that genes can be either turned on or off, and that certain "on" states of genes always lead to other "on" sets of genes. So if you describe the total state of genes being on or off as a binary variable for a 4 gene system it might look like: 0101. This says gene 1 is off, gene 2 is on, gene 3 is off, gene 4 is on. The system then moves on time step forward, obeying "rules" that say if "x gene is off and y gene is on then turn z gene on" as an example so the next time step might look like: 1001. You keep moving through time and eventually you might come back to the original state of: 0101. At which point the system is "closed" off and loops with the same genes on and off forever.

This is a stable state, but slight perturbations can push the sequences out of the stable state, at which point they start "moving" rapidly through state space. The system can either settle back down on the original state once again, or it can move to a new stable state. The paper above explored the conditions under which a new state is formed.

This approach assumes that the network is completely random, but in its rule sets and initial conditions. It also assumes that all genes can interact with all other genes. It is a nice simplification for to work out properties of the model. However, the next step in this is a "medusa" network. In this case there is a small subset of genes at the "head" that regulate all the rules for switching genes on or off. Under a medusa network perturbation of non-regulatory genes requires substantially more changes to bump from one stead state to another, compared to perturbations in the regulatory genes.

This is all part of the idea behind self-organizing-systems. If you are really interested in SOS then check out some of the books by the co-author of my paper, Stuart Kauffman, they can be some dense reading but he the "father" of a lot of those ideas.

Now outside mere modeling, there has been a lot of work in what are known as HOX genes. HOX genes are regulatory genes that are phylogeneticaly conserved over many many species. For example, most of our HOX genes have almost identical counter-parts in fruit flies. Work has been shown that these HOX genes tell other genes what to do, particularly during development. If you take hox genes that normally form a wing or an eyestock, and move them to a new part of the fly embryo a wing or eye stock will form from that part. There are many fascinating elements to HOX genes and if you are interested in a more hands on biological approach rather than theory building check out Sean Carroll's book Endless Forms Most Beautiful it is very good.

So as for evolution, many people hypothesize that things like self-organization, compartmentalized development signals like in HOX genes, and other form of regulation are the greatest source for variation. Vast sweeping morphological changes can take place in a very small amount of time with very little variation of these genes. So in this view the biochemistry of the cell stays constant, but the pieces are moved around to paint a different picture. Now which forms of variation survive to pass on to the next generation is still decided by inclusive fitness. So selection is still the mechanism for filtering variation, just that the sources of variation maybe greater than merely changes in protein structure. tmtoulouse 16:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Crescent of Betrayal

Has this been covered anywhere here? Has anyone heard about it before? Does it need debunking? Генгис^mutating 10:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

PS I stumbled upon it at Caos blog where there is a You-Tube prsentation.

First I've heard of it. Looks like it'd be worth looking into as either Article of the Weak (it's certainly formatted like a contender) or as one hell of a case of pareidolia. ^pathetic 10:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the video, that's the most hideous music I've ever heard. ^pathetic 11:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is simple rebuttal about the design at the National Parks Service. Генгис^marauding 11:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tha National Parks Service is part of the federal government, so they're obviously part of the conspiracy. Obviously. 86.167.86.226 12:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I heard of it a year or two ago. Probably on RW, but maybe not. ħuman 03:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

@Armondikov - the music is part of Enrico Morricone's score for C'era Una Volta Il West (Once Upon a Time in the West). Maybe out of context it loses something but musical taste is a personal thing and, for some of us, Enrico Morricone is some sort of god. 08:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. ħuman 09:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As the book is due to published soon I expect it to get a lot more attention and it's already being pushed by the loony Chright. Генгис^marauding 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit detectors needed

Hey, folks, I need to borrow everyone's bullshit detectors. Here's the deal: myspace group I moderate has recently come under assault by trolls saying Harry Potter is Satanic and that goths are demon worshipers. They then leave their website URL at the bottom of their post.

What I need to know is: Do people here think their website is legitimate batshit craziness, or do people think it's deep cover parody? Let me know.The Goonie 1 (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Parody, under not-so-deep cover. Specifically, a parody of the old frontpage at Fred Phelps's website, godhatesf**s.com. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

See, and that's what we were thinking, but the person spewing it (claiming to be a Baptist minister) was so goddamn serious sounding/acting, that I almost believe he buys that crap. And the best part: he's spewing it on an anti-Phelps forum.The Goonie 1 (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

When people play "internet characters" they try to play them as best as possible - ie, to the hilt. Essentially, net 2.0 has become the largest MMPORG - think of the efforts people go to create believable "sockpuppets" on conservapedia - backstories, websties, myspaces perhaps, even, say ballsing up and emailing or IMing creeps like TK "in character". Also, think of the people who come here, even, trying on new "personas" in hopes of shedding their previous history. Some do well, others are embarrassing. The ones who do well are our new "storytellers" - our playwrights and actors of the roles they create. It's a great new art form. ħuman 09:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

We should not forget the Poe's Law aspect of this. Somebody may be doing it as a spoof but the shitferbrainz may latch onto it as something real. Let's not forget how stupid most people are (Barnum's Law). Генгис^marauding 10:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why Poe's Law was originally formulated. It's really hard to tell, but most of the "God hates..." stuff is parody, based on Westboro. (My favourite being God Hates Musicals as that does some interviews with real fundamentalists who don't quite notice that the "Pastor Phelps" is abolutely raving gay). ^pathetic 12:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"JESUS CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE HE IS THE TRUE SON OF GOD. ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE AND ACCEPT HIM AS THE TRUE MESSIAH (IE. GOTHS, JEWS, WICCANS, BUDDHISTS, HINDUS, SATANISTS, CHILDREN TOO YOUNG TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE, PEOPLE BORN WITH MENTAL RETARDATIONS, ABORTED FETUSES) WILL BURN IN HELL."

Does that fall under the "winking smiley or other blatant display of humor" clause of Poe's law? Flare^Talk 13:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not even that is too outlandish to be 100% sure to come across as parody. ^pathetic 15:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know that Muslims will go to heaven, though. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for your rational input guys. My BS detecor isn't as good as it used to be these days.The Goonie 1 (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Breakfast

Hot buttered crumpets with damson jam. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fucking crumpets are so hard to get here in the colonies. I was thinking of having some breakfast before going to bed, though. Yours sounds yummy. Mademoiselle Jam, though? They don't sell that "over the counter" here. I need to move to Totnes! ħuman 09:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Soft scrambled free-range eggs on wholemeal toast & Fair-Trade 100% arabica dark-roast coffee (although my cardiologist says I should be sticking to decaf). Генгис^marauding 10:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bowl of Lucky Charms, with whole milk.--WJThomas (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Breakfast... what's that? Anyway, thanks for reminding me that I haven't eaten today... Coffee is food right? ^pathetic 12:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Weetbix for me (same thing different name) and thanks to the fact our Woolies didn't go belly-up, crumpets are plentiful here... although strangely most outdoor eateries here confuse crumpets with drop scones, so be careful. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I made onion pan bread, with lots of melted butter. I am going to die at 40. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds tasty. Can you email that stuff? ^pathetic 13:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but it's really trivial to make. Fry some finely diced onion until it's more or less translucent, make up some dough from plain flour (or half plain, half wholemeal), a little salt, some decent olive oil and water. Fold the onions in to the dough and smoosh it out flat in a dry frying pan, and cook until nicely browned on both sides. Eat hot. Takes about 15 minutes. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bowl of healthy bran-y grain-y flake thingies with soy milk, toast with fake butter and Marmite, and two triple espressos. KAPOW! --DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Back in the day: Any good single malt. Now: Coffee, black, the first cup w/ sugar. BITD:Misty120 Menthol. Now:Skoal Apple blend (pouch) Food must not be consumed afore dinner time....8-10pm then a "snack" @3am or so. 17:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC) CЯacke®

18 stone? That's more than two slices of toast and a case of Marmite! Генгис^marauding 18:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A pretty large waffle, a bowl of grits with a little bit of cheese, a few links of sausage, and a tall cool glass of OJ. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Souls. Clepper ^{is fallible} 20:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Clepper FTW! ħuman 03:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

3 Lucky Strikes, bourbon with a Bud back, and a piece of dry toast. 23:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ew, toast? That make your tummy feel ill later, ya know. ħuman 23:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hypnosis

So, I noticed our hypnosis article is essentially content free. Does anyone know anything about the subject? I've always considered it to be one kind of woo or another. I mean, there are obviously ways to influence people, in terms one might almost call suggestion. These are tricks that advertisers know and utilise, and they're pretty obviously effective. However, I get the impression that hypnotism is simply the same tricks repackaged with a bunch of stage showmanship. Is that accurate, or is there actually some physiological basis to hypnotism? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a definite psychologocal/physiological effect going on, hypnosis has been used as an alternative to anaesthetics for many years, especially in dentistry. try these links, they look legit:[1][2][3] (sorry about the last one, one of those "pay to read science articles" ripoffs - no wonder the public is ignorant about science). Totnesmartin (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it kinda depends on what form of hypnosis you're talking about...... Hypnosis does have vaild scientific applications, the bigger question is exactly how it does it. Most would agree that hypnosis simply opens the mind to things we may be blocking with our rational thinking. SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 20:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

See, none of those links screams "we've tested this, and it works" to me. It looks just the same as homoeopathy to my eye, anecdotal evidence only. Are there actual controlled studies? (Plus, Chuck, please tell me you were being ironic there...) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, my skeptic gland is tingling, I would like a better of idea of what exactly is being meant by "hypnosis" and what the specific claims are for what it can do. Operational definitions are extremely important in assessing claims. Hmm, I will take a look at the research I can dig up on it and then reevaluate my feelings on the topic. But at first pass I am very skeptical that it does anything beyond helping people relax, just like any form of relaxation therapy. tmtoulouse 20:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a subject I am quite interested in though can't claim to be any sort of expert. I was hypnotised at school by one of our physics lab technicians who used to be a stage hypnotist it was a strange feeling, but something that I was quite comfortable with and the only suggestion was that I would "enjoy the maths lesson" later that afternoon. Can't say I noticed much difference. I'm a great fan of Derren Brown and in his book Trick of the Mind he discusses the hypnotic trance. (He also talks about belief - he used to be a Pentecostalist - so it's a relevant book for RWians.) He doesn't believe that hypnosis send people into a "trance" but rather a heightened state of suggestibility. Now I've read many pop-science and magic books where the issues of suggestibility and misdirection are discussed. It would appear that the human mind is quite maleable and we are often tricked into ignoring something or perceiving something that isn't there. This is what religion and other woos exploit, although after extended debates with AKjeldsen I concede that it maybe not always a deliberately false deception. So we can be manipulated in ways that we don't always realise and this is all done by "hypnosis" some of it is with your eyes wide open and other times it is with your eyes wide shut. (See DB's "instant conversion" video on YouTube.) Some of the allegations made against Obama were that he used mass hypnosis but these were mainly just techniques used by most successful orators, advertisers and religious preachers, especially on the evangelical circuit. One thing that hypnosis and suggestion is good at is pain suppression. I knew a girl whose father was a dentist and he routinely used hypnosis instead of anaesthesia on his patients and there have been operations performed under hypnosis. This is one reason why religious people have been able to withstand torture, it often is their "faith" that is acting to suppress the pain. Although the subjects weren't hypnotised, in DB's show The Heist people were programmed to commit a bank robbery. It's incredible stuff. Генгис^marauding 20:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Heist, watching it now, segment 3 includes a "rerun" of the Milgram experiment as part of the process of conditioning the participants. ħuman 23:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There is research out there into it, I have been reviewing some meta studies, here is one that I think is available to anyone. The general consensus is that the dominate form of research into hypnosis is of mediocre quality, but that there is a subset of research that meets quality standards. This research has, overall, shown a slight efficacy for hypnosis for pain management, not huge, but not non-significant. Other areas of application have been far less favorable. A handful of studies have shown some efficacy in weight loss, and phobias.

If you then compare this against research looking at meditation, or any other relaxation program it is pretty comparable. To me the story seems to be that hypnosis is good at getting people to feel "relaxed" and being relaxed helps people deal with certain issues, such as pain. There is nothing special about hypnosis, that some basic deep breathing exercises couldn't also fulfill. As far as increased "susceptibility" I haven't found much research into it. I will focus more on that specific claim next. tmtoulouse 20:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to split "hypnosis" into at least two separate sections for analysis - one, the relaxation/trance/pain avoidance thing, and two, the whole "post-hypnotic suggestion" arena. ħuman 20:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re the "susceptibility", I think it is a heightened state of relaxation when the mind lowers its defences. This can be a semi-conscious thing such as when a therapist encourages you to relax and think of something pleasant or it can even be while asleep. When my wife snores (which she denies) I often just say in an audible whisper, "roll over, you're snoring", she does it but has no recollection of it. If someone doesn't want to be hypnotised then they will not be. Most stage magicians actually screen their subjects to find which ones are more suggestible (not susceptible). When I was hypnotised the technique was to close ones eyes and then fall backwards, a bit further each time until you are almost on your back. You have to trust the other person and in doing so you lower your guard. There is a well known response in rescue victims where say two people are injured and one is unconscious. The conscious one may be badly injured themselves but as an act of survival they stay conscious and protect their partner. When they are both rescued the medics focus their attention on the unconscious rescuee; having been rescued the conscious one then stops fighting to stay alive and dies while the rescuers are occupied with the other one. Does this sound wooish? That's what I was taught at my marine survival course. To back this up (I must find the ref) many people who are dying manage to stay alive until after a special event, such as a birthday, anniversary or the birth of grandchild etc. Генгис^marauding 21:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Too bad Obama's grandmother (or was it mother?) couldn't hang on the last few days to see him win the election... ħuman 23:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My recollection on the death point is the exact opposite, again, I will have to find the source. But several large scale studies looking at death rates found them to be randomly distributed over the course of a year, so holidays like Christmas, or New Years, Thanksgiving didn't have an effect. I don't know if they checked birthdays. Worth finding the research on this. tmtoulouse 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the research abstract they did include birthdays. It was cancer patients. tmtoulouse 21:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The refs I have (from a book) are:

D.P. Phillips, C.A. Van Voorhees,& T.E. Ruth -'The birthday: Lifeline or deadline?' Psychosomatic Medicine #54, pages 532-43, 1992

D.P. Phillips & D.G. Smith - 'Postponement of death until symbolically meaningful occasions', Journal of the American Medical Association #263, pages 1947-51, 1990.

W. Kopczuk& J. Slemrod - 'Dying to save taxes: Evidence from estate-tax returns on the death elasticity', Review of Economics and Statistics #85(2), pages 256-65, 2003.

S.A. Everson, D.E. Goldberg et al. (too many to type)- 'Hopelessness and risk of mortality and incidence of myocardial infarction and cancer', Psychosomatic Medicine #66, pages 382-6, 2004

Unfortunately I don't have access to these journals. Генгис^marauding 22:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall take a look. tmtoulouse 22:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I looks like Phillips has been the primary supporter of the hypothesis since the 70s. His work has met with a lot of criticism for its statistical approaches, several researchers claiming that reanalysis fails to show the same effect. Overall it appears that the research is at best mixed. Here is a nice meta study that I think is free to access that summarizes much of the research. Their conclusion is that the data to date have failed to show a significant effect. tmtoulouse 22:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd like to analyse some of this stuff for myself. Maybe when I retire (if I don't die the day after, that is). Генгис^marauding 22:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Human is spot on. When most people think Hypnosis, they picture bad movies and crappy pron, but hypnosis does have some valid use. As Genghis mentioned, it;s used a lot in place of anaesthesia, and it has been used to great effect on burn victims. The problem is, it's difficult to do any real reasearch as it's nearly impossible to isolate one variable to test. SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 21:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, if there is a specific claim made that "X treatment helps with Y" that is easily testable in a controlled double-blind study. Now if the claim is made that "X treatment" has some special property that makes it resistant to controlled study, then we are clearly headed in the pseudoscience direction. tmtoulouse 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

But it's not.... Any reputable hypnotherapist will tell you that hypnosis is not magic. It doesn't work for everybody, most I've spoken have told me straight up that Hypnosis is almost an elaborate placebo test. But the problem is, Hypnosis works best on things like phobias, pain, addictions and other mental issues. How do you test that and ensure that you're only testing the hypnosis variable? SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 21:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not sure that's actually true for hypnosis. I'm having troubling thinking of how to effectively blind a hypnosis trial. Since I don't think anyone actually knows the mechanism behind hypnosis, how do you guarantee that you're not accidentally hypnotising your control group with whatever handwavey placebo you come up with? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How would I design an experiment? Probably through the use of deception. I would tell the subject that we are testing the role of hypnosis in a given therapy, and that they will receive the latest in hypnotic techniques. To one group they would receive a standard hypnotic technique, and the control subject would receive a technique that did not induce relaxation in the subject, perhaps white noise interspersed with random toneals that active a low level "startle" response. Or you could do tasks that generate low level "frustration" or other forms of mild arousal. Might even toss in a third group that gets a relaxation therapy that is not considered hypnosis. You could even do all the techniques "blind" so that the experimenter didn't know what was used. I am just thinking off the top of my head, but there are many ways to do these experiments. tmtoulouse 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd have trouble finding something that simultaneously fulfilled every patient's expectations of what "hypnotism" was going to be, while at the same time satisfying every hypnotist that what you're doing did not in fact produce a suggestible state in the patient. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well again we are dealing with operational definitions here, what the patient thinks doesn't matter if the treatment is "real" it should work regardless. You could test out any number of "techniques" you wanted, but there seems to be a bunch of standard approaches that are all ready used. If you found a null effect and someone came in and said "well that's not real hypnosis you should try my technique" you could do so just as easily. If they kept up the same "well that's not real hypnosis" then we are smack dab in the middle of pseudoscience. Traits that would make it impossible to study are when the subject/therapy have to have some kind of "special" interaction that can not be controlled for. Under those conditions (such as often claimed by homeopathy) then we are once again smack dab into pseudoscience. tmtoulouse 22:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

But what the patient thinks is all important in establishing whether the treatment is indeed efficacious or just a very effective placebo. A placebo must actually fool the patient in to thinking they have received the treatment, or your experimental design is flawed. The question is, can you design your experiment in such a way as to avoid the possibility that if your placebo group preforms in line with the group actually receiving the treatment that the advocates of the treatment can't turn around and say your placebo group actually also received the treatment? Until the hypnosis camp actually gets together and decides how they think hypnosis works, I don't think you can. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I would focus on inducing mild arousal through startle response, or frustration. You could also play up a new hypnotic treatment that relied upon the subject performing some sort of active mental proccess. Like presenting them an audio or visual stimulus that "induces hypnosis" and to tell the subject that their focus is paramount, and to test their focus when the experiment is over you will administer a test asking what was in the hypnotic stimulus. If subjects are engaged in active rehearsal and memorization they are not "hypnotized." I do not see how it could be argued that subject that is mentally aroused through whatever mechanism is "hypnotized." Hell, stick an EEG on the scalp and show that beta waves are dominant during the control task. tmtoulouse 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely then you have the opposite problem. The placebo is now so substantially different from the treatment, that you have too many uncontrolled variables. Again, patient expectation management comes in to play. If the treatment satisfies the patient's expectations of what hypnosis is and the placebo doesn't you may have the problem that the treatment is simply a more effective placebo than the administered placebo, and mistake that for a significant result. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think you have to go to far on this, and people are inclined to believe a lot if you tell it to them in the right way. I gave one example, tell people you are testing "audio hypnosis effects on x" then give them the "latest technique." They put on headphones and listen. You could then start up some sort of white noise, interspersed with a startle signal. Or have some kind of "hypnotic mantra" and tell people that you will test them on the mantra afterward just be sure they were focused on it. Doesn't sound that far off from many hypnosis techniques to me. tmtoulouse 23:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Would that be LIBERAL deception, Trent? Typical public-school Canadian practice, I imagine...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Deception is actually a really fun debate in social sciences. In some fields, such as psychology, it is widely accepted as perfectly fine. In other fields like behavioral economics it is considered a high crime. The same study that sails through ethics approval in a psych department, would likely get a student kicked out of an economics department. tmtoulouse 22:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I love all those psychology and economics books. Psychology is so entwined with economics, game theory is really the acknowlegment of that. I've just finished The Logic of Life by Tim Harford. Some great insights that Andy probably wouldn't like, nor some liberals. Генгис^marauding 22:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Paul Glimcher's book on Neuroeconomics? tmtoulouse 22:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No. How can I save that for offline reading or do I need to buy the whole thing? Генгис^marauding

Not sure, google books also hides the majority of the content, it is basically a nice "sample", as always I would encourage checking with your local library...but to get the whole thing you will need to get the book. tmtoulouse 22:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging photos on Facebook...

...is one of the most sinfully boring things ever invented. Unless anyone can think of anything else apart from this. SJ ^Debaser 22:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How about listening to your sister ramble on about the greatness of the Twilight books until you want to impale yourself on a Spaghetti Fork? SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 22:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean something like this?--WJThomas (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That is so not cool... As for Facebook, don't tag them. Let some other tagging pedants do the work for you!! ^pathetic 09:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thomas... what the fuck? SJ ^Debaser 13:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fear not--Smokey is recovering nicely.--WJThomas (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

American English

Could some kind person tell me what a "condo" (housing) is. Here in t'UK we have three basic house types:

1. detatched; where the house is on its own and unconnected to any other house:
2. semi-detatched; where two hoses share a common wall:
3. terraced; where three or more, often whole streets, are built as a solid row, often with tunnel like "ginnels" or "entries" every so often allow access to the rear.

Does a condo fit any of these or is it something completly different? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A condominium is property you own that shares some common property with others. Most are like apartments (multi-dwelling building), but some are stand-alone housing. The common space and facilities are managed by the condo association, and often there are rules and restrictions on the "private" part of the properties as well. ħuman 00:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, H. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 00:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To simplify: An apartment that you own. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, except they don't have to be "apartment" - they can be row housing, ala "town houses", or freestanding buildings (rare). Oh, and they can also be office or industrial space. I suspect WP has a good article on condominium. ħuman 01:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To make it more abstract, a "condominium" is a form of legal device to allow for shared ownership while retaining private control over specific portions of the property. And then there's timesharing... ħuman 01:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The UK (and Europe) has time-share as well. Генгис^marauding 05:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

While we are talking about the States could someone also answer this. Is it true that a lot of the elderly move to Florida or is it just a joke I picked up while watching Sienfeld? Rad McCool (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

When I was in Florida I saw loads of weirdos and vietnam vets but that was about it. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, the past few decades have seen a migration pattern from the wintry north to the sunny south. This migration is more prominent among the elderly for two reasons - one, the cold really starts to bug them (and cleaning snow sucks worse), and two, they are often retired and no longer tied to their jobs. The rest of my nucular family all moved south (well, my brother via LA, same deal) over a decade ago, for example. ħuman 01:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Human, you are a wealth of information. Rad McCool (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lotsa elderly folk move to the warm weather as Human noted, and it's speculated this is why my state of Arizona has the worst public education system in the country, with Florida also doing poorly. Too many selfish old people that would rather have less taxes than educated youth, as their grandchildren are still up north with the rest of their family. In case you missed it, our senator (not McCain, the other one) recently stated the Earth was 6000 years old. Twice. As if it were common knowledge. The video was posted in a lot of blogs, Pharyngula and TED being some. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtzJhTfQiMA Clepper ^{is fallible} 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Clepper FTW. Those old people in AZ or FL don't want to pay for schools, since they don't have kids in them. ħuman 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

She says the earth's been here 6000 years, but we should mine the uranium and use it, sell it, even though "THE BIBLE DOESN'T TELL ME SO" Sorry, read too much CREATARD crap tonight to absorb any more... ħuman 06:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate Proof of Creation

PZ Myers has been blogging about AiG's newest book with the bold title The Ultimate Proof of Creation. The first chapter is online, usual we look at the same evidence and interpret it differently crap we have been getting for a while form these people. But given the boldness of the title a new book review after we finish Ray Comfort's book? - π 02:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Gee, their bias isn't obvious from the picture on page 26. Sterile wigwam 02:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This thing looks like my homeschool "science" text. Preach to the choir, let them feel smart, even smarter than those silly evolutionists ASPLODE ħuman 07:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

At leas they are some what truthful at the top of 27, although the creationist having anything in his wheelbarrow is a bit of a stretch. - π 03:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"The powerful techniques detailed in this book will revolutionize your witnessing. Share these important faith-defending methods with your family, friends, and church … and save more than 55%!" Uh, I'm embarrassed to even think I have to argue with these IDiots. ħuman 06:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Indeed, there are many evidences that confirm that God did create the heavens and earth supernaturally several thousand years ago, just as the Bible teaches in Genesis." Brain asplode... Fucking yikes, let's rip this IDiot a fifth hole? ħuman 06:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ASPLODE!!!! An I'm only on the third paragraph:

"Information Science

One of the most compelling, commonly used scientific arguments for creation involves the field of information science. In this technological age, we are inundated with all sorts of information every day, but few people stop to consider what information really is, and where it comes from. Scientifically, we can define information as a coded message containing an expected action and intended purpose. Under this definition, the words of this book qualify as information. They are encoded — the words represent ideas. The expected action is that the reader will read and act upon the words, and the intended purpose is that the reader will become better at defending the Christian faith.2"

Footnote "2" says: "Whether or not the recipient of the information does these things is not relevant to the definition. Only an expected action and intended purpose are required."

I am fucking IDioted and blinded by science. Oh, yeah, except I think they are IDiots and just churning out crap using words that "look like" science. Aaaarrrrggghhh! ħuman 06:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Would be rude of me to say: "Author is a GodTard"? Seriously. This crap is worse than preaching to the choir: It's a further attempt to dumb down the hymn by pretending to be smart. Seriously I am pissed and angry and this site if fucking warped and sorry for my outburst but, cap.n, the engines, they cannae take it nae more!!!! ħuman 06:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"One of the most compelling, commonly used scientific arguments for creation involves the field of information science. In this technological age, we are inundated with all sorts of information every day, but few people stop to consider what information really is, and where it comes from." SSSCCCCCREAMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, what is it? Why is there so much these days, IF YOU CAN'T CREATE IT? ħuman 06:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Engaging an unbeliever, even a staunch atheist, is not difficult when you use the proven techniques described here." AAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! ħuman 06:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my asploding all over this page, but the stupid, it ruptures my appendix.

"Whenever we find any sort of information, certain rules or “theorems” apply. Here are two such theorems: 1. There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter. 2. When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."

Wow to warp the minds of the tiny minded FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKing IDiots. I have to walk away now! Before I puke more crap on your screens.... ħuman 06:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, mate, I admire your fortitude in even ploughing through what you did. Don't apologise. RagTop^{Gone sailing} 11:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I flicked through it over breakfast this morning and haven't gone back because I've got real-life stuff to attend to. Otherwise I would be echoing Human. The wheelbarrow thing caught my attention though, it's pushing the old trick of pretending the eveidence is equally weighted and therefore there is a controversy. As for using the rocks to prove a young age for the Earth, well musing about it on my bike to work I think a geological map of the UK is enough to discredit that. Creatards seem to use just the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens. Aaargh, must stay away I've got too much work. Генгис^marauding 11:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, this type of gray argument, the whole "we have the same evidence, just different views!" is actually pretty persuasive to people who don't care. My MIL, for example, is religious, but not overly so, and a creationist. Not a diehard, evolution is a lie creationist, but a god made the Earth and I don't care how kind. And this is the kind of thing she loves, and if needed, would trot out to justify her position. Oh, and I loved the part that carbon dating proves evolution wrong. Way to fail, guys! Z3ro^talk 15:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The info stuff is Gitt all over again, and certainly not science. Sterile wigwam 18:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Creationist dice

SMBC is always a bit hit and miss for me, but the creationist stuff never fails to amuse. ^pathetic 12:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Brian Kilmeade, "Fox and Friends"

A little rant here from Brian Kilmeade discussing genetics in a rather appalling manner, not only expressing his prejudices but his complete lack of understanding of the topic (note his use of the word "species"). And just look at his co-hosts squirm as they try in vain to stop him. Jammy (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus fuck, I cringed like hell watching that.

Relevant link http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm ENorman (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to make a conspiracy theory

I have been mulling this over for a while now, and have come to the conclusion that there is something malevolent going in the "new thought" circles in the US. Take a close look at Hay House, every major quack, kook, crank, woo pusher seems to come out of this firm. We are talking Deepak Chopra, Sylvia Browne, Esther Hicks, Wayne Dyer and many more. I would be hard pressed to find any major new thought woo that hasn't passed through the hands of Hay House at some level.

Got me started thinking about manufactured celebrity. Whenever a new pop singer or actress or actor pops up 10:1 odd say they were milled out of Disney. Disney is a manufacturing firm for producing pop singers. I don't own a TV and never watch it, but when I was back home a few months ago I was hanging out with a younger cousin and she was watching the Disney channel. You could see the proccess in action, Disney has multiple thematic programs that fit a particular "age" for the main actress or actor. So you start them in one theme when they are young, then just move them to the next theme when they reach a threshold age, and the next, until the "last" threshold is reached. It is at this point you move them into musical themed programs and start having them sing during "commercials" on the channel. And then before you know it you have the next pop idol, good for 3-4 years, and when they are washed up you have another to take their place.

I have combined these two ideas and now decided that Hay House is a milling ground for New Thought icons. They manufacturing these people based off of templates and cycling through them as popularity wanes. A lot of the old school woo cranks are getting on in years, it is time for a new generation to emerge. I make a prediction that the next generation woo is going to emerge out of Hay House, just like the next pop singer is going to be a Disney starlet. tmtoulouse 16:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting theory. Though I don't know much about the New Age movement, your analysis of Disney as a Pop Star Plant is fairly spot on, though they've been doing it for quite some time if you want to do some past digging. -- CodyH (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That thing about Disney is actual reality described better than I've ever seen before. I suppose your extrapolation ot the bullshit industry is reasonable considering that. It might also be a bit like a selection process, if they're suitable for the next level up, they stay, if not, they get booted out and only the best and most able get to that top level and get circulated around before outspending their usefulness and being replaced from the next round of selections. ^pathetic 17:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well my conspiracy theory makes a specific falsifiable prediction, that is testable. Unfortunately, it might take a little time for the next data set to emerge. But it can't take too long Sylvia Browne is looking old.

Insane or a Fraud?

So I have put started condensing my research into Andrew Moulden into an article. I keep oscillating on this guy, is he crazy like Gene Ray or a fraud like Esther Hicks? What do you guys think? tmtoulouse 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Does it really matter? I've always treated quacks and hucksters the same way regardless of their motives. No matter how crazy the stuff will sell, so does it make a difference if they're delusional or just evil? Z3ro^talk 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done tmtoulouse! I'm sure whatever you decide, it'll be the correct decision! MarcusCicero (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were taking a break? tmtoulouse 18:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read, I think it's safe to conclude fraud. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I wondered whether I should take a break, or make an effort to right my wrongs. I'll be honest, my heart and my faith in Jesus Christ compells me to right the mistakes of my past. MarcusCicero (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)