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

National Geographic

PalMD might get into print now that ScienceBlogs & NG have teamed up. just the one link: it's all over, over there ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat

The big times at last! CЯacke®

We have another Republican to hit golf balls at

I just created Carly Fiorina. Feel free to add crazy things she's said, some classic fuckups she did at HP, or anything else of interest.

Cheers, The Wine of Tyrants^{Drunk with power again!}

Rage Against the Cowell

UKians, don't forget to buy a couple of copies of 'Killing in the Name Of" this week. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever for? This is just "don't buy what they tell you to, buy what we tell you to" - it's just commercialism pretending to be subversion. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but I like the idea of wiping the smirk of Cowell's face far more than having an internally consistent philosophy on the nature of consumerism. ^theist 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiping the smirk off Simon Cowell's face will be slightly harder than that. Whatever you think of his lack of integrity he knows the market and how to play it. Bob Soles (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the xfactor single will be number one, whatever happens. The record label will buy millions and millions of copies to make sure of it, and they have inside info to the chart situation (and let's face it, this is all just a big dick competition in the end). The whole point is not to get to number one, but to make them work (and pay) for the right to get to the top. Also, am I the only one who thinks they're not even trying this year? OK so they always find a lame single from the past to cover to pull in the votes, but come on, the shit they're picking this year isn't even a year old yet. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, they can't really buy a no.1 because it would flag as suspicious and not count if they tried doing that. Anyway, it'd be fun just to see RATM chart (which it will). Though I can't wait for the irony meter's reading when thousands of teenagers scream "FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME!!" just as they realise, "shit, we actually did do what you told us... damn". ^theist 11:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We're in the lead! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least the thirty grand for charity is better than anything the X-Factor has ever done. ^theist 15:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Epic win. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

heh... Well, Tom Morello has endorsed it. But Cowell is still talking out of his arse when he says "Shows like Britain's Got Talent and The X Factor have actually got people more interested in music again, and are sending more people into record stores". That's BS, it may have made Cowell a lot of money but it's done nothing positive, it's just made music into a disposable commodity. ^theist 15:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, and the poor sod who's getting his moment threatened has absolutely no idea what he's in for. A million pound record contract? How many exclusive albums does that include? 5? What happens when Cowell dumps you after your first album flops and you can never work with another label again because you are tied into their contract? How long is that million going to last you in this climate? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

But it's not quite that black and white. As a long haired hippie in the 60's I despised the manufactured Monkees with their blatant cash in on Beatlemania. But now, forty years on, I actually own - and listen to - a Monkees CD because it's fun bubblegum and pop music shouldn't be taken that seriously. Furthermore several careers have been launched by Pop Idol and/or X Factor - Will Young springs to mind. He's not my cup of tea but my missus loves him and who am I to say that my old Grateful Dead CDs have any greater merit? Bob Soles (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Monkees have quite a few well-done bits of nice bubblegum, but also, on the later albums, they came up with some good work of their own. Also, there are very few pure dreck songs on their records (that is, as long as you are into the style, their stuff is almost all listenable). ħuman 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never had an issue with the "manufactured" thing. All of it is somehow manufactured and marketed, it's just when it's manufactured and marketed for you, you don't really notice it. So people go around trying to be "alternative" and "underground" and "hardcore" or what-the-fuck-ever without realising that some producer, somewhere, found this band, and knew you'd buy it hence you're listening to it. It's probably doubly ironic and stupid for people who love their "underground" and "alternative" music, because at least Will Young fans (probably) don't deny that he's a product of a reality TV show and just a half decent singer who got a bit luckier than most. ^theist 09:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rage won. This makes me happy. I don't care if some more cyncial people try to do a "don't care" or "this is pointless" thing or try to point out how ironic or silly it is, that's not the point. It's quite unifying for people who, frankly, aren't represented by pop culture as a whole and get brushed aside almost constantly. ^theist 19:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly, Lawyer / Author...

So I took a look at the latest edition of the Journal of the AAPS, and there's an article by Andy on why health care reform would be bad for physicians. So many apparent uses of the quote-generator ("Nothing new or innovative comes out of the government") So many factoids pulled from his rear (Lasik apparently only costs $99 now). The use of random quotes from unrelated sources to back his argument (The use of a Bishop's opinion on the health care situation to make a point about economics and markets). It's pretty fun stuff, and probably has a few good nuggets to add to the quote generator. --SpinyNorman (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F ^theist 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this going on at CP? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I laughed in less than 10 seconds. Would you leave $100,000 laying out for someone to steal? Of course not, because you're smart. And that's why you will oppose health care reform. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"The power of our government increases or decreases depending on how much control it has over the practice of medicine." Ronald Reagan was saying much the same thing back in 1961. Then they brought in Medicare and proved him wrong. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I posted this here because it was Andy's work and laughable as one would expect, but done outside of CP. --SpinyNorman (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought that Andy was CP? Is "outside of CP" another way of saying "out of his mind"? --⁠ (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Touche. -SpinyNorman (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That article is just genius. "The Post Office won't deliver to some shithole in West Virginia I want to mail something to, but FedEx will. Therefore Medicare and Medicaid are insolvent, and Teflon wasn't invented by NASA." Brilliant logic, Andrew, just brilliant. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 03:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole FedEx vs USPS is utterly barmy. I wonder if Andy has sent all of his Christmas cards by FedEx? Someone ought to ask him.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Should we at some point have an Andy: namespace for all his outside-CP extreme wingnuttery brilliant opinions? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Game's been called on account of rain snow

There we sat in the snow...

I can't remember it snowing before Christmas in the Southeast for years. Usually it's just shitty, miserable, freezing rain until a bit of snow in January, then it starts warming up again in February. SJ ^Debaser 11:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

meh. We got sod all down here. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Southern softies - a couple of flakes and the whole south east falls apart. Now, oop north we just put on our flat caps and take the whippets out for a stroll Bob Soles (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Back doon pit wit you, lad. --^{Ask me about your mother} 11:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We had 2mm of rain overnight - that makes about 30mm since April. A decent shower would be so nice. RagTop^{Gone sailing} 12:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We had snow. I was relentlessly snowballed on the way home. I am not in a good mood. Professor Moriarty 13:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

During the first DC snowfall after Obama took office, the private school he sends his daughters to closed due the snow. Obama remarked, "schools are closing? We'd consider this a flurry back in Chicago!" A few days later, the Washington Post had a letter from a student at said school, which basically said, "Gee, thanks, President Obama. We'll never get another snow day again!" MDB (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's going to snow here in NJ tomorrow. I looked at the weather channel this morning and they said "anywhere from 1 inch to 2 feet." <extreme sercasm> Wow, I learned so much from watching that. </extreme sarcasm> Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I live in a place where it is a light winter if we get 90 inches of snow in one season, and it is not uncommon to go an entire month without the sun shining through. Last winter, we had blizzard conditions for 4 days nonstop and the high school did not close once during that blizzard. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ In Soviet Russia, the joyful arthropod tears YOU! 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of my peripatetic childhood was spent in northern Virginia, within spitting distance of DC. Me and my fellow nomads were little hypocrites, laughing at the first flake policy of the local school system while enjoying the few snow days we got off from school. Here in the US northeast the recent "blizzard" didn't leave any drifts higher than about ankle deep. This morning I sauntered up to the store on the corner for a sextet of faux microbrew from Sam Adams, passing cheery greetings along the way to folks out shoveling their walks. Fifty bucks a pop is what the local city fathers charge for failure to keep a clear sidewalk, trottoir, pavement, whatever. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor headfuck

Just came across WIGO, a radio station that runs...Gospel music. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Jesus did invent comedy after all... -SpinyNorman (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's in Atlanta, Georgia. Why are we surprised? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

π:And at some point between light and getting around to the sources of light, the LORD doth invent irony, and it was good. The Wine of Tyrants^{Drunk with power again!} 09:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As Spider Robinson put it, if a glutton engages in gluttony, and a felon engages in felony, then God is an iron. --Kels (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

An iron, you say? Totnesmartin (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw a sign

I had to take a leak at the grocery today and they had a hilarious (though unintentionally so) sign in the bathroom. It said, "Please flush only toilet paper down the toilet". I ended up wondering what to do with my shit.--Thanatos (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Roll it up into little balls... ħuman 04:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Bible offers a tip. Ezekiel 4:12 "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." Yum! --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Had it been me, I've just left it sitting in the toilet, but that' not a funny solution, is it? The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 13:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There's always the upper deck... Corry (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In a grocery store? Shit, man, I already worry about what's on their employees' hands. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO

"user talk:" should be changed to "user stalk:", for the lulz! Icewedge (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In this day and age of Web 2.0, I think that's just assumed. The Wine of Tyrants^{Drunk with power again!} 09:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Iceman. That would be killer. ħuman 05:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it wou;d be funny, but it should be an option. That way, if somebody gotm sick of the joke, they wouldn't be forced t live with it. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 13:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe it will give someone mental problems. Perhaps change it back when someone complains? And can "talk" be replaced with "fight" or something? Pietrow (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am drunk...

The beverage of truth

... and just found this page. I'm just back from the pub there and am a tinsy bit drunk... What is the purpose of this page? Do I have to be drunk to use it? EdmundBurke (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for fun chatting about off-mission things, like it says at the top of the page.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 01:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would you ask? Being drunk makes everything better and make more sense. It's just the right thing to do. Jerry 01:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ideally this page is edited and read when one is in one's cups. ħuman 02:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman, after I came in last night a number of ruffians wandered into my talk page and accused me of any number of things. What is the traditional manner of dealing with these bullies? EdmundBurke (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of the banhammer, which I shall be bequeathed upon you soon. Professor Moriarty 12:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Except nobody actually accused the stupid Burke of anything. BTW you seem much more pleasant like this. Keep it up and people might even start to like you.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Any more of these accusations and I will make an official complaint. Who am I supposed to be exactly? EdmundBurke (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Twilight

I just read this series. Absolutely terrible in every way: technically, dramatically, and ethically. I cannot believe parents let their kids read these, much less encourage it.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 01:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ethically"? ListenerX^TalkerX 02:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I quote myself when I say that "Bella needs a man in her life or else she can't function. She may have inherited this from her mother, who on the first page of the novel is depicted as being completely incapable, but who will be okay now that she is remarried to her second husband. In the same way, Bella's life completely revolves around having a man in her life, and she can't exist otherwise." You can read the linked post for a bit more discussion.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 02:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The books flout the party line about women being "independent," celibate, etc. As to your criticism of the writing, channel Harold Bloom on Harry Potter much? ListenerX^TalkerX 02:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you forgot to blame the reds! Or is "party line" code for "commies"? ħuman 03:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I ever read a Bloom critique of Rowling. I actually thought that Rowling was fairly technically adept. I do think she overuses modifiers; no one can ever gaze, they're always calmly gazing or feverishly gazing. But she in any case Rowling is head and shoulders above Meyers.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia}

Here is the article in question. And her name is rendered Stephenie Meyer, not Stephanie Meyers; I might write articles in tiresome narrative form, but at least I know how to spell. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, Bloom, he's such a pedantic troll. I bought one of his books once because I needed a doorstop. Yes, he's a well-read, intelligent man. He's also an asshole and a sexist. ħuman 03:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right Listener, I misspelled her name above, although I don't know why you have to be a jackass to me about it. I didn't say anything about things you've written. I think you're confused, by the way: that article is not a critique of Rowling.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 03:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think much of Prof. Bloom either. The Boston Globe article was not focused on Ms. Rowling, but insofar as it did mention her it contained complaints about her writing in the same vein as above.

TomMoore, if you are going to beat Ms. Meyer over the head for poor writing skills, I put that you have lost all license to ask that you not be criticized for any shortcomings in that area. And note also that in my remarks about my own writing skills, or lack thereof, I am quoting you directly. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask you not criticize me. I just think you're being a jackass about a single error. I did not consistently call her by the wrong name. And even if I had, such jackassery is uncalled for.

It seems, though, that I hurt your feelings in the past. I'm sorry for that. I was probably too harsh; I get carried away easily. Please accept my apology.

So you think Meyer is a good writer and the series is well-done?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 04:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not read it and cannot comment, but the phrase "one-dimensional characters" is used so often with regard to fantasy (including classics in the field) that it has almost become a cliche.

As a grammar-Nazi I welcome all sorts of criticism of my writing, and do not get hurt feelings about it, so there is no need to apologize. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is he was talking about Meyers' ability to write effective fiction, and you reply by attacking a spelling mistake. Hardly one-for-one. --Kels (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The other part of the problem is the fact that it's not really even a spelling error; "Meyer" and "Meyers" are both surnames, and it's very easy to confuse them. Professor Moriarty 10:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, where have I seen that tactic before?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You dawg, I heard you like Bloom so I put Bloom in your Twilight so you could read while you read. Bitches. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 04:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never read it, but from what I can gather, it's pretty much on par (or below) Ann Rice's trick of "oh, it's so lonely being a vampire. I'm so lonely. Woe. Woe... WWWWWWOE, I tell you!!!!!!!", which I'm sure appeals to some people, particularly those fond of teenage wangst. ^theist 09:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Twilight sucks, and so do Twilight fans. Need I say more? Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 13:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My Life Is Twilight.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 14:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

*shudder* Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lots of things suck to those who do not like them. Although we may disagree, people have a right to their own preferences no matter how banal or repulsive we may find them. I can't say that I ever cared for punk. It's when people become so obsessive about a book, film or band so that it takes over their life that I find it odd.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Smith knows where it's at. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 08:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki Awards

RWW is considering closing the voting soon, so get your votes in while you still care can. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

These awards you speak of - where are they again? Lost the link. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 14:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

yer 'tiz, buyh. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to start being more of an asshat so I stand a chance of winning one next year. ^theist 19:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not winning the Most authoritarian category? What's wrong with you people? -- Nx / talk 19:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But you are winning "technobrat", which I'd take as an "honourable mention" in the authroitarian category. ^theist 19:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It would seem, Nx, that while a few outspoken people accuse you of this, the vast (nearly silent) majority do not see you in this light. Rejoice! (And can you put the hat back.)--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been toying with the idea of adapting the assfly thing in to an angry feedback generator. It might you help you next year Nx. In the meantime, I suggest you slam your nuts in a drawer before replying to anything. Works wonders for authority, but If I were you I'd have a some kids before you try that. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Rooftop nativity

wtf

Totnesmartin (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I can understand Joseph and Mary being pretty bad at parking, what with cars being uncommon in those days, but two steering wheels? That's just mad. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cut them some slack, they had nothing else to go by, I'm sure the fact that a car was amazing in their time, let alone whether or not it had two steering wheels. And unless there was a ramp, it seems that they managed to fly the car to the roof, which in itself is incredible. SJ ^Debaser 12:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone should forward this to Ray Comfort. The miracle of the flying car is irrefutable evidence of God's existence. --^{Ask me about your mother} 13:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

CR how naive you are. If you are flying a car then you need a co-pilot - hence two steering wheels.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cars aren't all that amazing really. Once you have a cart its pretty obvious. Put an engine on that fucker. Boom. Done. I'm surprised it took so long. People were stupid in the olden days. Don't get me started on forks or electricity.^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Forks are quite interesting - a European invention which bypassed the Americans until relatively recently. This is why most Americans lack the wherewithal to eat with a knife and fork at the same time. :)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not so much lacking in wherewithal, as risk-averse. US'ns recognize that ambidextrous knifing and forkage can lead to tonsil-stabbing, with blood everywhere and other unappetizing sequelae. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

^{Citation needed} ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ Moms of a certain vintage in the USA, seeing a toddler at table with a fork, universally, without exception, declare that the poor child is about to stab his tonsils. [1] _{Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)}

Cars aren't all that amazing really. Once you have a cart its pretty obvious. Put an engine on that fucker. Boom. Done.

Outstanding comment! I like it a lot! In reality, the fact that they had a car i just another example of the amazing advanced science found in the bible DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Festive logo

С Рождеством Христовым!

So whose horrible idea was that? I don't see it discussed anywhere. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it popped up this morning. Personally I quite like it. There's something sinister about disembodied brains wearing hats. --^{Ask me about your mother} 15:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there some sort of holiday that people are celebrating? 'Cause I don't really celebrate holidays, and I find it odd that a community as diverse in its outlooks as this one would all celebrate--or acknowledge in such an obvious way--the same holiday. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Mine, but if you are going to bitch and moan about it, then it's not worth the trouble. Merry Christmas -- Nx / talk 15:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't wish me a Merry Christmas. I'm not a Christian. It's bad enough that the streets of town are littered with this kind of nonsense (at taxpayer expense, to boot...) as well as every storefront I walk past. Let's have one fucking place in the world that isn't part of the borg. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ec Thank you, NX. Hats like that make me think of leggy Russian girls wearing nothing else, and posing provocatively. So many reasons to avoid that line of thought. Must. Focus. Work. To be Done. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a nice thought, Nx. Happy holidays to you.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 15:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, was a nice little touch. I suppose we could also remove references to Friday. I don't worship any of the Norse gods, so I'm pretty sick of seeing Friday happening most weeks.--^{Ask me about your mother} 15:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I never got an opportunity to see the festive logo before Theory of Practice apparently got his way by being a whiny bitch. Where is it? And TOP, really? Diverse? There's some atheists, a few Jews, a Muslim, and a bunch of Christians of all stripes. Please remind me to take a shit on your birthday, your anniversary, and any other date that's important to you. Dick. Jerry 15:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC) TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh my fucking goat! Can't you people debate a simple site-look issue for a few minutes without resorting to fuck-yous all round? Personally, I don't particularly like the hat, & I think it's a few days too early. If we're gonna use it at all, I reckon it should be something like 24th-26th December only. My main concern is that (as far as I can tell) there was no discussion first, before putting up something that has a fairly major impact on how the site is presented to any visitor. It seems like there's a double standard & some editors (I assumed that this was the work of Nx) seem to think they have carte blanche to make site changes without consensus. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The impact is debatable, but I kind of see it as one of those little ideas that don't cause harm and can be reverted if people don't like it. Nx seems to do a lot of hacking around with the plumbing of the site. He's normally good with consulting over changes to the functionality, but for the work he does I'm pretty happy to trust him to hack around a bit at his own will, so long as it's not something that'll cause serious appearance or functionality issues. I think as well it's worth us remembering that there are nice civil ways to ask for something to be changed. It's kind of frustrating when you come up with something that seems nice, but the responses are carved on a figurative brick and hurled at you.--^{Ask me about your mother} 16:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. (ec) I would sure like to see the hat and the snowy RationalWiki again come Christmas day. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ yes, JAVASCAP 16:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ToP, you seem to have potential, so I'll put this as kindly as I can. (Thanks to Weaseloid for EC'ing my earlier, less charitable effort.) You come in all "WTF fucking decorations can't stand 'em WTF who crapped all over the logo with that cheerful shit" and when Cpdrst responds in kind, you label him a troll. I'll share a lesson I learned long ago from my chief pizza driver at Little Caesar's on West Stadium: every time you point a finger, three more are pointing back at you. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

SProcket, show me where it was in this in this thread that I was abusive as our local sex criminal before he went off on me. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If that was a question, it was, aah, interestingly framed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, that was a lazy response, and you deserve better. You weren't all shouting and swearing, but your words did get characterized as bitching and moaning before Jerry let off his own flashfart. Wordsmithing is work, which you seem to do your share of around here, so no blame if you thought it was easier to just troll-template, and move on. Still I think "troll" is a mis-characterization of Jerry's edit. What exactly had you been angling for with your earlier outburst? That's just a glimpse of where I'm coming from here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe dropping the troll-bomb on the paedo-man was uncalled for, but he really pissed me off, given that what I was "angling" for was a bit of discussion on the question of whether or not a place that is dedicated to questioning religion and other group-think should embrace a religious holiday/pagan festival/secular-commercial take on a religious-pagan holiday. I HATE Christmas/The Holidays. Ficking hate everything about them--commercialization, pressures to be sociable/with family/phony, bullshit, shallow nods to "peace" and "the spirit of the holidays." HATE it. And would be glad to discuss why I thonk it would be cool to just let them slip by unacknowledged as a way of getting at how problematic I find the whole exercise to be. Instead, that a-hole made it personal and nasty, What to do? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your story has touched my heart. Each one of us comes to this RW place from a different ambience. I've had, and recovered from, a hypersensitivity to Christmas commercial BS. Hardly any involuntary exposure to it here any more. Most recent relief comes from my no longer working in a for an outfit that pipes music into its public spaces. Last year the drones in charge of changing channels left the holiday crap going til mid January, and a cabal of workers finally took matters into our own hands when no one was watching. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a great idea. I laughed when I logged in this morning. Bring it back. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Cripes, it's a bit of fun, not a statement of faith. Putting it up a few days early isn't cause for freakouts. --Kels (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I really liked the hat. Very festive. Very cheerful and a nice surprise. I see no reason not to have up all week.--Bob^{Not Jim} 16:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Children! Stop this madness! This is the season of joy and goodwill! Christian or not, let us remember the festive occassion for all its capacities for the best in all men; though let us shudder at the remembrance of a host of cringeworthy christmas films. Bring back the festive hat! Let peace and joy reign! EdmundBurke (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Exhibit A

For those who didn't see the Christmas logo, here's a copy. The final version had a nice snow effect on the lettering. Also, the favicon received a little hat. --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, let's do this the right way, then:

Looking at the voting below, I rather feel that the phrase "overwhelming support" springs to mind. --Bob^{Not Jim} 12:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we're done here, too. Nx! Put it back! --User:Theautocrat/Sig 18:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think if Nx chooses to walk away from this kerfuffle, no blame should be attached. RW seems to have an interesting tension between graffiti and consensus, between pillocks and hillocks. (A hillock is an overrated molehill, and a pillock is a dick.) Anyone not yet offended, please take a number Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Put it back up now (22 "yeas")

• Kels (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• EdmundBurke (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC) And good riddance to all grinches too!
• Totnesmartin (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Concernedresident Give me Christmas, or give death to those who disagree. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• --Bob^{Not Jim} 16:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Jerry 17:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Why would a tolerant person object to any other's expression of faith or celebration of an important feast day?
• SJ ^Debaser 17:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC) - why's everyone pissing themselves over a fucking hat?
• Professor Moriarty 17:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?}
• --User:Theautocrat/Sig 20:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ watches sacrificed irony meters derail 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• --Proxima Centauri (talk)Let's have the hat back, it encouraged me to improve the Santa Claus article and others might improve Santa stuff further. 21:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Fedhaji (Talk) 22:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Breaking "Bah Humbug" --^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• I thinks it cute. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• I was disappointed when it disappeared. Pietrow (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Psygremlin講話 17:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (You know - it's just a fucking Santa hat. Some people need to get off their high horses and learn to fucking relax.)
• Jesus I love me some fucking Christmas. Great time of year. Gimme all the fol-de-rol AND the Santa hats if you don't want them. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 18:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hellyeah! I grew up with this stuff, and religion has never played a big part of it. Fortunately, I've also managed to avoid the worst of the commercialism and eventually learned to ignore it. So bring on the happy Christmas-type logos and Santa hats an the actual fun part of this whole season, and screw da haters! --Kels (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. And what the fuck is happening with this discussion even existing in the first place you humourless twats!! ^theist 19:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• I hate Christmas but I love the holidays so put it up. Ace^{of Spades} 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• All of the above. - π 22:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Fuck Christianity, but Christmas is hardly Christian any more and the hat was cute. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Put it Friday only (4 conditional "yeas")

• Not particularly bothered if people do want to keep it up, but I'll stick by what I suggested earlier. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• I have no problem with it appearing in the holydaze/1225 template, or even, of course, in any specific locations (Santa Claus, user pages, etc.). But replacing the main logo with it, while "fun", is also ridiculous. Can't one tiny corner of my life not be intruded upon by Xmas imagery all over the place? ħuman 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If it was just in the Saloon Bar, I'd have no problem. All over the site is a bit much. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was cute, but let's just do it for Christmas if possible. Actually, it's too bad we don't have multiple holiday ones with the fancy new logo. Halloween, Rosh Hashanah, Eid al-Adha, and so on. I'm an atheist, but these are important cultural events and holidays, and are very meaningful to some people with some interesting stories.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 00:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There's got to be at least one occasion when we can have a knife stuck into bleeding brains... or something like that. Look, I think it would be funny and cool if our logo was customized for various times, but a fucking Santa hat a week before Xmas just gets on my tits. We mock this supernatural crap, not endorse and institutionalize it! ħuman 01:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There's Santa woo now, with people actually promoting his literal existence? And here I thought it was a fun seasonal thing aimed at kids and people who remember being kids. Better get right on the Santa debunking articles, then. --Kels (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap no! I never realised it! I suppose for National Homeopathy Week we can dilute the logo or make it appear only 1 in a 10^60 times. The whole season is harmless, fun and festive. If we put a picture of "Baby Jesus" there, your argument may have merit. As it is, it's a santa hat, it's a fun and fairly inoffensive (or maybe not) symbol in the spirit of being happy, joyous, nice and good to everyone regardless - and while I'd like to say that should be all the time, restricting it to being explicit at one time of year makes it a bit more special and intensifies the feeling. Dear fuck, it's not like Santa is specifically religious in nature or the entire season is explicitly and uniquely Chistian. Or would you like it replaced with Mr Gruff from Objective4Kidz? ^theist 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I could go with Mr Gruff. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 02:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't put it up at all (1 "nay")

TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sick of these militant atheists and their war on Christmas. You truly deserve that black lump of coal in your chest you call a heart. Merry Christmas and fuck you. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Goat

• Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• If there's red hats to be worn trimmed with fur, I want to see more of the leggy Russian models alongwith. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason we can't do both. Here, have one on me. --Kels (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ever so, but get thee to a life class and study your anatomy better. Those were mostly abs and pecs showing, not legs. I want legs! Legs up to here! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I was mostly working with "Russian model", honestly. --Kels (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Next time you're working with a Russian model, try telling them... naah, I just thought better of it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Some of us never saw it so don't know what we're voting on. But if it's a Xmas decoration, let's just stick to the holydaze 1225 template? ħuman 20:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a look for the file earlier & couldn't find it. It seems to be well hidden (or deleted?) & not in obvious places like the RW logos category. If somebody knows where the image is, please post a thumbnail at the top of this thread so we can at least see what we're talking about. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Can someone do the same for the funspace logo, the one for RWW and/or RWWW? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Sterile dishwasher 01:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Sorta indifferent, although I will say I rolled my eyes when I say it. Must we vote on everything? Sterile dishwasher 01:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• ListenerX^TalkerX The Scrooges and the "Christmas-decorations-everywhere" crowd should get away from each other's throats. 02:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Moar power to the mob

As of right now the logo used on the site is this file: File:Rw_logo.png. Anyone can easily change it to whatever they want, and you get the added benefit of being able to hurl insults at editors and accuse them of destroying the wiki while reverting their changes. -- Nx / talk 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh. Touché. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So? When is the nice Santa Hat going back?

Given that it's been overwhelmingly voted back? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I'm wondering where the hat logo is. I've travelled home for the "holiday season" (as the cool kids call it) so don't have the fancy graphicsy stuff to make my own one up to replace it. ^theist 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Garrison Keillor Takes the Culture Wars up a Notch, Screams at the Jews.

Quote:"...all those lousy holiday songs by Jewish guys that trash up the malls every year, Rudolph and the chestnuts and the rest of that dreck. Did one of our guys write "Grab your loafers, come along if you wanna, and we'll blow that shofar for Rosh Hashanah"? No, we didn't." TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll go along with Christmas being Christian if Christians all agree to spend the entire Christmas period in church or at home quietly contemplating their personal relationship with their invisible demi-god. My local gets far too busy at Christmas. I'd be happy to rename it Beerturkeyjamesbondmovie day. Pretty much sums up how I spend mine --^{Ask me about your mother} 15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

the Bond movie is normally on Boxing day isn't it? when it's not filling in for the "champions"' league. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

True. I can cheat though with a DVD or two. My Christmas is all confused anyway, since most years I have Christmas dinner on the 24th, due to the odd Nordic customs. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a great supporter of the original Christmas spirit. Drink, reduced sexual restrictions in some cases, gluttony. What's not to like? Long live Saturnalia!--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Do I need to get a lawyer?

Do I need to start sequestering my assets? I find meine reizende Frau reading Francis Fukuyama and liking it. I am but a simple minded artisan, knowing little of such things. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Leave a copy of Hardt and Negri's Empire on her pillow. There's still time. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the pointer. I see myself having a casual fling with an Amazon in the near future. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian babes

So as I was doing one of my periodic trawls of the Russian dating sites I discovered Tanya (40 y/o female, Chernovtsy, Ukraine) who says:

I'm serious and family oriented woman. I'm loyal, faithful, kind, calm, balanced and gay.

I think she needs advice on her tag line. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I really need to start boning up on my Russian... SJ ^Debaser 22:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you really mean to use the word "boning"? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you even have to ask that question? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Bone" was the right verb to use in that sentence. The fact that it works perfectly in that context is just a wonderful coincidence. SJ ^Debaser 23:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I find 'Dream butterfly' who's looking for a man aged 24-70. Heck, I'm an ideal match! Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What I find interesting about these sites is that pretty much all of the women claim to be Christian. My departmental secretary who's Ukrainian is a complete atheist who knows vitually nothing of Christianity and reckons it's just a ruse to land a 'foreing' [sic] husband. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Natali

I am Height 5'6" - 5'7" (166-170cm)

I look for a male

Looking for a height 4'7" (140cm) or below

WTF! (That's enough for today.) Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that the formula for desirability is (Net worth in $)/(Age²), yes? --User:Theautocrat/Sig 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Theautomat pretty much mailed the formula for lunch, there. ħuman 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That formula is ridiculous. - π 23:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

undent for Josh: as good a phrase as any to start your boning is Не постовчй хуй в чай! Loudly in a public place is best. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of disinterested search for truth I've had a look at the Russian dating site. Don't you think that all the girls are suspiciously good looking? I mean there must be some plain Russian girls looking for love and romance.--Bob^{Not Jim} 13:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WARNING: Dangerous Reptiles!

So, I have owned a pet red-eared slider turtle for about 15 years now, and have never been quite positive of the gender. Therefore, i named it Shelly, so that the name could be somewhat gender-neutral and turtle related. 6 years ago, I met a a lady at the local herptological society that has been taking care of reptiles for 30 years who told me that, because of my turtle's long claws, she was "99 percent certain" that my turtle was a male. Therefore, i changed my turtle's name to Sheldon instead. Well, I had put my turtle in its feeding tank last night and, 6 hours later, came back to find that my turtle, who I thought was a male, had laid eggs in its feeding tank. Ergo, I re-named it Shelly again, and now have a funny reptile story to tell people. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 02:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, and some breakfast for you too. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A few years ago I had a turtle calamity where the turtles that live in the lake in my backyard apparently went wild and decided to plant their eggs in various parts of my freshly tilled garden. Turtles, when provoked, can cause a surprisingly amount of damage,albeit in a very limited vertical swath. Ever since that day I've sworn a vendetta against turtles. It's a low key vendetta and I've haven't really done anything about it yet, but it is a vendetta none the less. One day, some how I'll extract my revenge on turtle kind, Sheldon or Shelly or whatever be damned! ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My grandmother's "boyfriend" (I dunno, live-in partner?) had three tortoises, 2 male one female. The female was more than 100 years old, and suddenly one year she laid eggs (after getting raped by the other two for years, after all, they can't run that fast) which hatched, and then laid more eggs the next year which also hatched. Made the local papers (something about a 100-year old giving birth, with a pic of my, erm, Step-grandad?). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hols

I'm away for a week (cat-sitting in Cardiff) and offline, so you'll have to feed MarcusCicero yourselves, but here's a little topical something I cooked up in the teflpedia days:

Godspeed trusworthy gentlemen, let nothing you dismay

Foe Aschlafly our saviour has many things to say

How vaccinated liberals destroy the USA

Oh, insights of comfort and joy, comfort and joy

Our Andy's a chivalrous boy.

Happy Divalia everyone! Totnesmartin (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the cats. --^{Ask me about your mother} 09:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Tool using octopus

For those who are into such things, this is a video of an octopus apparently using a tool.--Bob^{Not Jim} 13:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Beats the hell out of cow tools, don't it? --Kels (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think dolphins also use shells and coral as digging tools IIRC. ^theist 19:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like just yesterday that I saw some dolphins on TV, using a piece of seaweed as a toy. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My cats use my wife and I as tools for opening cans. 20:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "my wife and me"? Professor Moriarty 21:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Seagulls use gravity and big rocks to smash open crabs. Messy but effective. ħuman 21:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kels, nothing beats cow tools. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 07:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Must we vote on everything?

Sterile asked a good question. Must we vote on everything?

Yes

• But only I get to vote. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe

• --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Undecided: ^theist 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment This sort of thing where you can declare your position in a category and then explain it is useful, but voting is time consuming and useless. Otherwise the site would require switching officially to democracy and a system of figuring out how to impliment it. Voting as it is now basically produces consensus quite quickly, but the whole "mobocracy" thing seems to imply that when people are in the minority, they have a gods given right to bitch and moan about it constantly rather than rolling over and just accepting it. And woe betide the individual who declares a conensus reached before everyone has had their say. So we either ditch voting entirely and just proceed kind of as is but without everyone being asked to formally pick something, or we ditch the whole hapazard approach set up a proper governing system. ^theist 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have far too many people to vote fairly and conclusively on anything but the most major of changes to the wiki or its policy. ^theist 21:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you repeat the question?

• What was the middle one again? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but first we need to vote on the list of possible answers

• DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No. We only need to vote on things where we need to establish a consensus

• --Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 21:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• ListenerX^TalkerX Our traditional approach to these controversies, I believe, has been that we need a vote only if something is generating enough controversy to cause a wheel-war. 21:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Voting sometimes helps get the discussion going, such as on the discussion page where we talked about vandal bin policy. It wasn't decided by vote, but voting helped us organize the debate and kept it civil.

No, just on this

• DickTurpis (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Well, some things perhaps not however you need to remember that some (all) of us get a little worked up by unilateral moves. Ace^{of Spades} 20:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably comes down to how we respond. I miss the old Eudora feature that delayed sending mail if it detected a bit of anger in it. --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That is getting into creepy Orwell territory. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But more often than not, unilateral moves tend to get things done. Can you imagine what it would be like if Nx got everyone to OK each and every little change that he makes? Seriously. In fact, Nx, I suggest you do this for a month and see how long it takes for people to get annoyed and for the Wiki's development to grind to a complete halt. ^theist 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That is why town hall style direct democracy has always failed. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It works at small scales at least, but now we're getting too big. So have we reached the point where we need to either switch to dictatorship with accountability or proportional representation? ^theist 21:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a thorny issue we face with this. Ace^{of Spades} 21:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If the current system proves untenable with the expanded membership, we can probably resolve at least some conflicts by installing a formal framework for voluntary ad hoc arbitration. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I like idea that people can get an idea and run with it. We just need to differentiate between "This looks a bit odd" and "omg this stops me from using the site" situations, and respond accordingly. --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Exactly. We covered this very slightly with Debate:Dealing_with_community_growth_at_RationalWiki, does this need to be ressurected before it takes over the Saloon Bar? Or can we cover it in the new forums? I'd like to see them get some traffic to test out how good they are for dealing with larger discussions. ^theist 21:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. Can we shift this to the forum, I'm on a less that dapper connection and the SB is taking ages to load up. ^theist 21:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I started a thread: Forum:This_site_is_growing_fat --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To "shift this to the forum" means cutting and pasting all the stuff above, which saves SB BW and lets the conversation continue over there. Just leave a brief note that it was moved. Starting another separate discussion just makes a bigger mess. Although, I guess that forum thread isn't really this topic, it's something else. ħuman 02:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Words

Repetition of a word can make it totally nonsense: I now can't believe that "collapse" is a real word after following Nx round his edits. (Just sayin') ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, I was thinking the same thing except for the word "Forum". Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So it's not just me that gets into an existential crisis by repeating a word enough times so that it loses all meaning. Read through some of the stuff on Arsebook and it happens with the word "friend" very quickly. Does anyone know why this happens?!? ^theist 15:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I will look at a commonplace word and think how weird it is; so I do get where you're coming from, Toast. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why. Maybe Trent knows....? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm relieved that it's not just me doing this. I go through phases where the spelling of a word seems totally odd, and I find it difficult to believe that the spelling is correct, even though I know it is. --^{Ask me about your mother} 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

May the gods bless the almighty Google and Wikipedia. The phenomenon is called Semantic satiation. Not a brilliant WP article, but at least we now know what it's called. ^theist 23:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What did you google to find that for drake's sake? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"repeating words loses meaning" or something like that. I find that, with the Internet, the question you ask has probably been asked before. So even if you don't know the specific words or wording, just stick in what you know and have a quick look. 95% of the time it works fine like that. ^theist 00:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Brief rant

So I had a patient today who was told by her school nurse that diet soft drinks have more sugar than regular soft drinks, and that the manufacturers lie on the nutrition label. I told her that her school nurse is wrong and that she should tell her as much. It amazes me how people that are supposed to be medical professionals can be so ignorant. With so many people being obese, anybody in preventative medicine should be knowledgeable about diet and nutrition and not spread around stupid bullshit like this. Idiot. (the school nurse, not my patient) Corry (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

While I'm skeptical of the claim, I have heard from more than one person that diet sodas are counterproductive in achieving weight-loss; as much or more so than regular sodas. This is of course not the same as having more sugar (which my diabetic friend, if nothing else, could quite easily contradict in his insulin measurements), but that might perhaps be what your patient was referring to, mixing up what the nurse actually said. (On a side note, the fattest guy I know drinks diet soda by the truckload, but that's easily one of those chicken/egg things.) I'll see what I can find about that claim, at least. DickTurpis (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, and we talked about the fact that some studies show that. But she had the notion that the manufacturers publish false info on the nutrition labels. This was a pretty smart girl. Corry (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If the soda companies were printing false information on their nutrition labels, that would be a crime, and it could be proven, I'd suspect, with just a few minutes in a chemistry lab. It is not something that could be easily concealed, and with the number of food watchdog groups out there, they couldn't keep it up for long. Not to mention the numerous lawsuits from diabetics if they were caught lying about sugar content.

But then, as for medical professionals giving bad information, my partner was told by the surgeon who removed his gall bladder that broccoli was loaded with cholesterol, when, in fact, broccoli can help reduce cholesterol. (The surgeon was an asshole, too, but that has nothing to do with the bad information.)

As for overweight people drinking diet soda, I think part of it is a syndrome that could best be summed up by example: "I'll have a Big Mac, a double Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a super-size fries, a twenty piece Chicken McNuggets... and a Diet Coke." People manage to convince themselves that being "good" for one part of the meal makes up for all the "bad" parts. And while I was never a soda drinker, as someone who lost a helluva lot of weight, I know that thought process in general. MDB (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it'd be a major crime to outright lie on labels. Being slightly "flexible" with the truth and how you present it, however, isn't so much a crime and is usually judged on a case-by-case basis by Advertising Standards or whatever (the US, if I remember rightly, has far more relaxed laws on this; in Europe they will take your balls for lying to customers, in America it's considered just playing the game). Whether "diet" drinks are actually better for you is a bit of an issue, of course. High sugar content isn't good for you, but the synthetic substitutes designed to have a lower calorific value may also do other harm. "Diet soft drinks have more sugar than regular soft drinks" and "manufacturers lie on the nutrition label" is outright wrong, however. Did the same nurse then try to sell them some vitamin pills or "natural" remedies to go with that advice? ^theist 15:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm appalled by the slanderous statements about broccoli. But seriously, how could a doctor think that? It just doesn't make sense: cholesterol isn't found at high levels in anything but animals. And even if this guy has avoided any courses on nutrition or plant biology, why would anyone think that green vegetables, of all things, were high in cholesterol? Broccoli (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone got good OCR software?

I was thinking maybe we should OCR the scanned version of Hovind's Dissertation to have an annotated side by side (by chapters/paragraphs, of course; it's 100+ page of stuff I can't expect anyone would have the time to type it all up) somewhere. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Public Image Ltd

I saw 'em last night at Brixton Academy. A mighty good gig I might add. I took a few phone pics of John Lydon - they came out shit but I will upload them when I get bluetooth working again. SJ ^Debaser 16:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You really don't need to go to so much trouble. Honestly, we'll take your word for it. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Diplomatically put, Genghis. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)