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

Let's fucking condemn this place!

Or at least use it only for trivial matters. Thanks to Nx the forum looks awesome, and it is probably a much better place for the enormous threads that develop here. Though I love the SB and I look forward to reading more of the miscellaneous discussions that will happen here, I think we should relish in the opportunity to use the new sandbox Nx has made for us. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you "kill the SB" people are ignoring that we never know when a thread will be "big" or trivial. The SB is where this stuff should start, big threads get moved to the forum. What happened to the thread above where I described and argued this case? Tet, many threads here only run for two comments and one day. ħuman 04:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I still think that when starting a serious thread (or at least one that the poster knows will create enormous interest) we should first look to the forum. I don't think we should accelerate the afterlife for kill the SB, just use it a bit less now that we have something better. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"one that the poster knows will create enormous interest" - there is no way of knowing that in advance. I have started threads that I thought would be awesome, only to get no comments. People make offhand comments, and the thread turns into Godzilla. Do you see my point? Start here, cut/paste top forum after some level of interest and editing? ħuman 04:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with starting a thread on the Forum that gets no replies. In fact the advantage of the forum is that threads are easier to resurrect, whereas on the SB if it drops off, you have to copy it back. -- Nx / talk 17:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Tetronian (obviously not your real name), intolerance for the saloon bar is typical of deceitful liberal trolling. Wikipedia doesn't allow articles about the saloon bar because it is run by liberal atheists. I have looked at you recent edits, and it appears that you believe (contrary to evidence) that Gawd did not create the saloon bar when, in fact, Gawd did. Continuing to fill our pages with such lies will earn you a block. Godspeed! Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 04:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

@Huw: I see your point and I suppose that is the best method. Although I think in that case the size of this page will only be slightly lessened. But whatever, you're probably right. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... hopefully people will learn to recognize the Godzillas early on and move them to the forums? Perhaps down the road we will also learn to start "light and trivial" sections here, and "serious for the ages" threads at the fora. During transition is a difficult time to predict the future. ħuman 05:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, it's a judgement call on behalf of the person starting the new topic. I'm happy to leave it up to them to decide. I'll certainly check both, it's not particularly difficult considering I already have 2-3 email accounts, RW, a forum or two, DeviantART and Arsebook to check (and this is a lull in my Internet forum whoring activity). So this isn't a problem to add another half a place to check. ^narchist 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See Forum:Do_you_prefer_this_or_the_Saloon_bar?#Suggestion.2Frequest -- Nx / talk 17:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This place suits me better than that forum place. I think the forums would be a good place for SeriousWiki:SeriousBusiness and this place can be for kicking back and bullshitting. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

EC) Example of something that should be here rather than there. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't encourage Hoover to hang out here. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Forum contents box

I stuck in the DPL Nx wrote to test drive it at the top of the SB, hopefully between the TOC and chalkboard for most screens. It probably needs some tweaking, but what do people think, in general? ħuman 22:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

They don't line up with each other but they look good to me. I think we need to do something with the top of the bar. It's nice and "quirky" and all, but it's very intrusive and looks a bit on the messed up side. ^narchist 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I like. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it's there, and glad you guys approve, and yes, it would be really nice if it were the same distance from the bartop as the chalkboard. A single br/ was too much space. I think the bartop is bit taller than it needs to be. I also considered pasting the DPL list into the chalkboard, but I didn't want to muck it up too much. One last comment, the way I did it was to simply paste in the whole DPL segment, really it should be in a subpage or template and then transcluded. ħuman 23:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed that whitespace, but Pibot added it back. hopefully the way I changed it now won't break after Pibot edits it again. Anyway what are we going to do with the Saloon bar? I have suggested making it a stickied thread in the General discussion forum. This would involve moving the Saloon bar and its archives to the Forum namespace. Forum:Saloon bar test is how it would look with the forum thread header template. In this case we could remove the forum toc. -- Nx / talk 00:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Leave it as it is. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It'll be good to integrate the SB into the forum structure, but I reckon it would be nice at the top of the list practically in its own category, rather than looking like a "sticky". And providing the sidebar link still works and the redirects that are set up to direct to it change accordingly, I don't think people will even notice the difference. ^narchist 00:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Right now the way it is seems to be functional. Let's let some more time pass - especially busy time, the holidaze are slow - and see what tweaks are needed. ħuman 03:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the layout difficulty is that the chalkboard thing is called up by "bartop", making it harder to prettify things. Also, of course, the pibot template eats up some space. Can we perhaps integrate all these things into bartop so it is one simple block at the top? Maybe bartop has too much clutter? ħuman 05:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If we give it some time, a week or so into the new year and review it. Clearing up the bartop would be a good thing to do if we merge it into the forumspace. I'm in favour of doing that; as I noted above, it won't make much practical difference as all the redirects to it will change accordingly and it will look and act the same; it'll just chance namespace and have a link to it on the forum thread list. It would also make it easier (from a "do we want to" angle, rather than a technical angle) to split bits off. ^narchist 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we add the last edit date/time in small font after the thread title? ħuman 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, and I've added a different background for watched threads with new edits. -- Nx / talk 23:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Now to go see if I can figure out how you did that... ħuman 00:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Cloward-Piven strategy"--anyone familiar with this?

OK, I know this op-ed piece is more than a year old, but apparently it has been making the rounds on various right-wing blogs. This, my friends, is the new right-wing narrative of the financial crisis. Hell, even Wikipedia has a page on it (though sanitized of most of the conspiracy stuff).

Enjoy. --Wet Walnuts (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. Artikal we kan haz perhaps maybe? ħuman 08:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see any version of Cloward and Piven's article online. You could check JSTOR or EBSCOhost if you have access to it. (I do, through the Rutgers University Library, so maybe I will look for it later). I don't think there are any free versions of it though. --Wet Walnuts (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I meant can we make an RW article on it? ħuman 23:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

When you say that WP has an article but sanitised the conspiracy aspects, it sounds like a prime candidate for an RW article (although I confess I haven't finished reading it all yet, my instinct says "hell yes"). ^narchist 23:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I started an article on this: Cloward-Piven strategy. It is based on the current text of the Wikipedia article, so feel free to edit it mercilessly. I will add some more material later. --Wet Walnuts (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Positive Woo?

Ok, normally I'd put this on the to do list, but I wanted to get some actual feedback on this. I'm considering a page on "positive woo" (btw, I got distracted by finals and Christmas, I promise to get the David Farrant page done soon). This was kind of inspired by the current page on the Weigh Down Diet, which I think is really overly harsh. First off, based on what the page says, the diet never claims that prayer literally burns calories, but simply that Jesus can motivate you to lose weight, and there's no question that religion can be motivating. Secondly, it annoys me because the page first acknowledges that "Shamblin states that someone should "listen to their bodies" and only eat when hungry, equating excessive eating with the sin of greed." but then goes on to say "While the diet doesn't advocate anything bad, it may lead people to possibly starve themselves unnecessarily. The human body produces hunger and thirst pains for a very good reason and ignoring these can be outright dangerous." ignoring the fact that the article already stated that the diet encourages people to eat when (and only when) they're hungry.

What I'm thinking of with a "positive woo" article is that, when dealing with psychological issues (ie lack of motivation, depression, anger, etc), things that are basically woo can still produce the desired effect, and even if they're not true they thus cease to be scams (hell, this is essentially what Shamans have done throughout human history all over the world, the perform a cultural ritual and fix some variation of depression). Granted, the ethics of using the placebo effect in this way is still questionable, but if the woo provider believed it, and it produced the desired effect, I think it would be hard to say it was truly wrong. Does anyone agree that: a) this would be a suitable argument, and b) the Weigh Down Diet article should be revised?--Mustex (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Weigh down looks fine to me. I think you are looking for the placebo effect? ħuman 04:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

To an extent, yes, but I'm talking more about a specific use of the placebo effect, and the ethical implications thereof, than about the placebo effect itself. And, if you think the Weigh Down Diet page looks ok, would you please explain to me why this diet is any more likely than any other diet to cause people to starve themselves?--Mustex (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was being quite nice with that article, actually. The reason that it says "starve themselves" is based on the criticism by a qualified dietician in the article I was reading on it that brought it to my attention. Diets such as this do advocate eating less, but people can take this too far, in the case of Weigh Down, people are lead to ignore hunger pains which can be dangerous (one of the best parodies of diets I've seen is on The Devil Wear's Prada where one of the girsl mentions she's on a diet where she eats nothing until she's just about to pass out, and then she eats a cube of cheese!). But what you're seeing and noticing is actually very much the textbook case of woo. It's not that it doesn't work, but that the explanation around it is superflous and (by a logical, methodological naturalist and rational view) unnecessary. The Weigh Down Diet simply advocates not eating so much (just as Brain Gym very rightly advocates physical exercise if you cut out the bullshit) which is of course going to work. But the thing is, good advice, particularly good dietry advice, is free, can't be patented and can't be sold. So you take some good advice and mix it with something that sounds awesome, new, special. As Human points out, this can be "positive" because of the placebo effect, but this doesn't stop the mechanism being total and utter bullshit. Homeopathy "works", but only as a placebo, the whole thing about it being better than a placebo, and explanations such as the Prinicpal of Similars and Water Memory are wrong and can only be wrong. That's what woo is all about, it's about misleading people into thinking that they're doing something that they're not, and more often than not, making some cash out of the gullible fools while you're at it. The ethics of the placebo effect are related to this, namely that using a placebo as an intentional treatment (outside a trial) is unethical because of the deciet and breach of trust between patient and doctor (the thought that the placebo won't cure them and you're denying them treatment is actually less of an issue, as you would only want to administer placebos to none-threatening conditions, hypocondria, anxiety and so on, not cancer or anything like that). So too, with woo, you're decieving people by providing - well, selling - a bullshit explanation to go with something simple that would otherwise be free; "be positive", "don't eat so much", "be active" and so on. Mostly, this sort of deciet is considered morally wrong, so by extention placebos and woo explanations are also morally wrong - even if they do "work". ^narchist 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If people are encouraged to ignore hunger pains, why does the article say they're told to eat when they're hungry? If the diet tells them to eat when hungry, and they don't, that's on them. Also, yes the mechanism is woo, but any mechanism for motivating people will, at some level going to be woo. Willpower pills don't exist. But, if it works, is it really bullshit? Particularly if the people selling it actually believe it, and aren't just conning people out of their money? I mean, what separates this diet from any other book about positive thinking and religious devotional? At any point in this diet do the people claim it to be scientific, or anything other than a way to motivate yourself? As for the issue of selling it, I'm pretty sure that outside encouragement can be a big motivator, which I'm sure some people would be willing to pay for in book form. It feels good to have someone tell you you can do it, or that God can help you do it. And if the person is not a doctor, and sincerely believes in the religious system he/she is teaching, then I fail to see what possible problem there could be?--75.107.28.120 (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mustex (I suppose). You say: but any mechanism for motivating people will, at some level going to be woo. I disagree. If somebody tells a smoker "If you don't stop smoking then there is a good chance you will die." That may motivate them and there would be no woo involved.

On the other hand, it is certainly true that getting people to pay money for something makes them more likely to value it and increases the placebo effect. But so what? Imagine that I sell you expensive colored water and tell you that it will make you feel better because the great god RA has blessed it - and this works becasue it gives you a good shot of the placebo effect. I make a nice profit and you are happy. I may even be sincere. (I suspect that most homeopaths are sincere.)

By your argument there is no problem because I'm sincere and the product "worked". But at another level we are both completely deceived - and this would seem to be a problem, especially if we go on from there to make other decisions about the power of RA based on this belief.--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 15:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We can condense the point further: do the ends justify the means? What if the ends of a religious based diet ends up with them becoming a fundamentalist or part of a cult when all they really needed was some encouragement from friends and some advice from a dietician (which, like Bob's smoking analogy, is not woo), is that particularly right? Maybe, maybe not as it's mostly irrelevant - the real point is whether the ends justify deceit, obfuscation, bullshitting, tricking, conning, stealing and the promoting of ideas that could be applied in contexts where they are not only inappropriate but downright dangerous (praying for your nerves or taking a homeopathic remedy for "feeling under the weather" might be relatively harmless but this leads to people starting to believe that the same mechanisms can work for cancer or HIV, and that is the biggest problem).

But not all mechanisms for motiviation or anything that works on a psychological level is woo, if you call it the placebo effect, it's not woo, if Derren Brown openly admits at the start he's going to be a dirty trickster and confuse people for entertainment, it's not (strictly) woo - whereas on the other hand, a homeopathic remedy based on water memory is woo, and someone claiming that they can talk to the dead when they're really just cold reading is woo (and outright sick). The point of woo is that it's superfluous window dressing to what really works. Because a woo explanation is patently false and when you apply it, you're encouraging people to think that it's true - and this leads to, as I said above, the biggest danager; that people will apply it where it is inappropriate. ^narchist 15:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How did we fare out?

Just curious about what some of us got stuffed in our stockings. Right now I am alternating between Assassin's Creed 2 and Koushun Takami's Battle Royale--Thanatos (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, most of the people around me either don't do Xmas or are too poor to do Xmas, so the only physical presents I got were from my mom who insists. The usual mostly, a blouse that doesn't fit, art supplies I don't use, a watch that doesn't go with anything I have, and jewelery that's actually not bad. The watch is sort of a running thing, she always gets a watch, every time, even though I don't actually wear watches. However, she surprised me this year by getting me an iPod Nano. NOT something I expected in the least, although it's appreciated. Certainly more appreciated than the non-intuitive pain in the ass that Apple gave me for a setup of the iPod and iTunes, which I totally don't want but apparently have no choice. Thanks Apple, for making me waste so much time figuring out how to use your crap. --Kels (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A nice dinner with my family--haven't seen them for a year...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a 4-hour discussion with my stepmom's stepdad about Ayn Rand (he's an Objectivist), evolution (he doesn't beleive in macroevolution), and UFOs (he believes in that Zecharia Sitchin crap). So I got to show off everything I learned here on RW in front of my family. That alone was an awesome gift. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It was over freezing, with "weather" promised soon. So I tried to bust up the glacier in my parking lot with my plow a bit. I also watched Total Recall. Is that what Kristmuss is for? ħuman 04:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

At Tet, wow, that sounds like... fun? ħuman 04:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

At Kels, well, at least she cares and tries? Amusing though how the endless useless shit get bought and given. At TOP, good times (I hope). ħuman 04:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Twas much fun. Few things are more fun than talking about teh crazy with family. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

She tries and cares and I love her for it. The watches are like a running joke that we never actually say out loud, it's been going for years, and if I can't use a gift I usually know someone who can so it's all good. Less love for Apple, though. --Kels (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thought of you northerners as I munched on turkey & gammon, sitting next to the pool. Fared pretty well - Father Ted box-set, District 9 DVD, pirate copies of Franklyn and Nine, Donnie Darko, socks (*sigh*) and a Haruhi wall-hanging, of which I'm kinda proud and ashamed at the same time. (PS Battle Royale = very good, avoid the sequel). --PsygremlinHable! 10:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I got the novel. I kinda like to imagine Andy tearing into it, going on about how it is a liberal attempt to use lifeboat ethics. (PS Haruhi Suzumiya? Could it be there is another fan onsite?)--Thanatos (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I got six new white handkerchiefs. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That means you can get married six times! --Kels (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Once is twice too many. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I got a much needed fridge. I also got The Post-American World, and I have to say, receiving a Christmas present is an odd way to find out you're actually a Muslim. DickTurpis (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

God damn (rant below)!

Okay, so as I have no family inside of 1000 miles from me, I have a long standing tradition of buying myself my own presents for Christmas. Among them, I got AC2. I thought it was a pretty cool game, nice graphics, good story (insert obligatory assassin's Creed praise here). Then, after I beat it inside a week, I though, "okay, that's cool", put it on a shelf, and will maybe play it one or two more times before I forget about it, and move on. After I beat an amazingly gorgeous game, I then proceeded to whip out my cell phone and begin gaming away on another game, nameley Sonic the Hedgehog 2, a game from what, 1990? Then, it hit me. New games just aren't fun anymore. I derived many times more enjoyment from failing at a crappy port of a platformer older than 20% of the population that I did from totally owning at a hot, cool new game that was 10 times the price. What the hell is wrong with me!??!?! My "best games" list are all either over a decade old, or insane obscure indie games. All of these new games I find either boring, repetitive, or unengaging. I suppose this is just because games nowadays are just too damn easy. The single greatest game I have ever played was Rogue (keep in mind, the graphics looked like what you would get if you held the shift key and mashed your keyboard a few times). I have never beaten it, after nearly two decades concerted effort (Not quite true. I have beaten Rogue Touch once, but that is not a faithful port). It's the same with movies. Avatar was gorgeous, but my favorite movie is still Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal, which is black and white. Is this just a symptom of me getting old, or has everyone experienced this at some time before? --User:Theautocrat/Sig 03:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? In my opinion the two best games ever are Starfox and Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 64. And most of my favorite movies are pretty old too. And I'm still in public high school. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I still play Doom, and have played no games that have come out since then...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Asteroids. Only game I ever cared for. Can still play it in my dreams. ħuman 04:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you like Asteroids, have you ever tried Echoes? It's a bit on the shiny side, but it's really fun. Personally, I play WoW (yeah, yeah) and a variety of DS games and that's really about it. Liked the original Doom and Doom II a lot, though, and I'm fond of point & click games like Machinarium. --Kels (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, "Yeah, it's a bit like Asteroids hyperactive, drug crazed brother displayed in blur-o-vision© and viewed through psychedelic sunglasses in a cheap nightclub." I just liked the game. Four buttons (go, left, right, shoot) and four "enemies" - big rocks, small rocks, big slow spaceship, small fast spaceship. Twas fun, it was. Many decades and quarters ago. ħuman 05:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Best games: Starfox 64 (1997), Baldur's Gate II (2000), and Max Payne (2001). I've played all kinds of newer games and older games, but I always return to these exemplars of the flight, RPG, and shooter genres. There's nothing wrong with being able to appreciate something done right.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 07:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, on the movie side of things, while I like a good spectacle now and again, I must say the movies I really respect are stuff like old Kurosawa, Citizen Kane and that ilk, and European art house stuff. But I've always loved that sort of thing, even when I was in my teens. So I dunno if it's getting old as being able to recognize good shit when you see it. --Kels (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have fond memories of a bunch of Acorn Electron games from my childhood in the 80s (Chuckie Egg, Gisburn's Castle, Droid, Repton 3). Last year I found some Electron emulator software & some of these games online, & got addicted to them again for a while, but for some reason it made my laptop overheat, drove the fan really hard & knackered the battery, & neither have been the same since. :-( Regarding films, there are some I really love from the 50s/60s/70s (Kurosawa samurai films, Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns, Werner Herzog art house stuff) but I don't really watch many films much older than that, & a lot of my favourite movies are from the 90s & 00s. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There is only one game I ever found interesting. But I'm a seriously oldpharrt. Once invited a guy to go sightseeing in a Skyhawk, some RL flying that is, and he said, sounding like Dracula (couldn't help it, he was Rumanian) "OK, I trust you. I've watched you play Tetris." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That's only because Sonic 2 is a very good, classic platformer (Although irritatingly difficult in the later levels, reason why I find Sonic 3 & Knuckles the best game in the series.) that has therefore stood the test of time remarkably well.Even in the 90s, there were a lot of crappy games made and I swear the good/bad rate was about the same as today, not to mention that the games with pretty graphics were very shallow in gameplay even back then (Donkey Kong Country). Additionally I don't understand why the fact that Sonic 2 costs considerably less today than when it was just released should have anything to do with its quality. Liking obscure indie games though is just called being pretentious. Vulpius (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Starfox 64 (old), God Hand (obscure) and Persona 4 (obscure at least around here) are my favorite games of all time. I actually would prefer playing them to alot of the new games (if only I still had my N64)--Thanatos (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The N64 is undoubtedly the best game system ever devised. And it has the most unique (and ergonomic) controller of all time. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been playing GTA:4 (San Andreas is still king) and AC2 (just can't get the hang of it). Still, Half Life 2 and Doom 3 are my tops. Ace^{of Spades} 23:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Starfox and Goldeneye on the N64 - Best games ever. I agree that most games these days just have a kind of linear path through them and then you're done. Older games had something about them that made you want to go back again and again. I suspect it's the fact that you could just start from somewhere that you liked before (e.g. like on the Donkey Kong Country games) whereas the games these days are story based and so you'd have to go through all the dull shit and videos to get anywhere interesting. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What, nobody plays Portal any more? --Kels (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Pussy power

#2 cat has just come in rather the worse for war: clawed face & shoulder. t'other ½ is tending to him: most amusing: he's wrapped, nay tied, in a towel (which will never again be usable) while she trims and mops his fur. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Gawd, I had a cat who went through everything - skunks, porcupines, and his own endless murder spree. And a $350 or so dental appointment. He disappeared, as most of them do, probably trying to kill a badger or something. I hope yours is well soon enough. ħuman 05:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Skunk I have seen & cetera, possums and coons been seen marching around, even thought I saw porcupine tooth marks (seen AFOAL of beaver tooth spoor) but badgers? Не знаю. If the cat hasn't withdrawn from human ken, it most likely means to keep on being part of the scene, so worry is useless. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Skunk I have washed off the cat; never seen a possum, have seen 'coons climb walls. I fight an annual battle with the porkies, since they love to devour spring tree bark, especially my willow. Have seen a badger walk past my kitchen door (a young one) and there's a den out in the woods. Badgers are fucking mean, and a cat, no matter how tough, is no match for an adult badger. Not sure how they'd do against the local foxes, but squirrels are pretty much cat toys. And then there's the deer... a different game all together. ħuman 07:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If you've not seen a possum then you've been looking elsewhere at exactly the right time. Country breezeways or town streets are equally welcoming. Just like rats only bigger and with sweet gnarly faces. If they can't run away they really do go catatonic, and none of your persuasions will avail. My mom used to hang soap and human hair clippings in the veggie garden to try and keep the deer away. Just you try and keep them away. Hah. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

For deer I have considered purchasing some largely defensive weapons of food-shootin'. I've come face to face with a big doe outside my kitchen door, bucky and three chillun-deer were busy chewing the scenery. Pow, pow, powpowpow and I could have had 400 pounds of freezer fodder. ħuman 07:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Me and my brothers had hamsters growing up at various points in our childhoods. The last one I had died in 2003 (I think it was then) from wet tail disease which is kinda like the hamster equivalent of bowel cancer. That same year I got two goldfish and kept them in the same bowl. After five days one of them died. Nearly SEVEN YEARS LATER the other one is STILL ALIVE. Now as a uni student and grown man I'm pretty fucking sick of being welcomed home by a stinky goldfish bowl. I might get a dog when I get my own place. SJ ^Debaser 13:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Get a cheap ten-gallon aquarium and a cheap air-driven filter that allows you to use carbon and some foam. Don't worry about gravel and shit like that yet. Pour entire contents of smelly goldfish bowl into aquarium, add a little more water that has been "aged" each day. Buy nice cheap aquarium light, add bubbling diver and a pretty piece of rock. Watch goldfish double in size in three weeks. PS, don't overfeed. A tiny pinch a day is enough. ħuman 04:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone read/heard of this dreadful sounding thing?

Sounds pretty much like the linguistic version of creationism. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 11:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

More like a hardcover version of Conservapedia. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 20:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear fuck that first page that you can preview is not even wrong... ^narchist 23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's scary shit. I can't believe no one called him out on his bullshit in the reviews section. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

'Tis the season....

Thanks to this lovely strain of winter weather in the midwest, my flight back to Minneapolis arrived at 11:00 CDT this morning; 14 hours after scheduled arrival!!! Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 20:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you hear about the Eurostar shizzle over here in the week before Christmas? People were stranded on both sides of the channel cos the trains got cancelled due to the weather conditions, which were largely snow-related. SJ ^Debaser 22:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly, it's been raining for the past 3 days here in New Jersey, but today was a beautiful day and it was warm out. I just don't get it. I pity you people who get more than 10 inches of snow each year. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am currently back home in Soviet Canuckistan and am reading with dismay news reports about 3-4 hour and longer delays b/c of post-last-bit-of-badness-enhanced-security-measure. I have a flight home in a few days with a connection in Chicago that I have a half-hour to make. No way am I making it. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All the global warming shit IMHO. We've fucked up the planet enough and now we have to clean up the mistakes our ancestors made. Of course, some people can't be asked with this. SJ ^Debaser 01:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Asked"? Did you mean 'arsed'? Or is this a young persons' neologism that I am unfamiliar with? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm never sure if people are saying 'arsed' or 'asked.' I typed 'asked' in this scenario, though 'arsed' was probably more sensible. However, it was 12.40AM and I was exhausting because I'd been drinking all evening. SJ ^Debaser 12:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck happened?

(Sorry for the long post. This is all hitting me just now.)

May parents are getting divorced.

There has been no screaming, no threats, no fighting, no lawyers—no indication of anything. Mom and Dad are handling it the same way they've always handled everything—quietly and austerely (maybe that's why everything went wrong in the first place?).

What am I supposed to say? What am I supposed to feel? Am I supposed to feel angry? Guilty? Because I don't. I don't know what normal people are supposed to say. I want to say to Mom and Dad that they will always be my Mom and Dad, even if Dad lives in the next town over, and that I will always be their son. Can I tell Dad that I'm impressed with how mature he's been about it—admitting it's entirely his fault, and promising that he'll still support all of us even when he's no longer living with us? Can I tell Mom to please stop apologizing—that I trust her to know what's best for them, so she can stop second guessing herself?

Check that—I guess I do feel something; I feel unhappy (for lack of a better word). See, over the past thirteen years, Mom and Dad have worked their way up from being part of the "working poor" into solidly middle class territory. They progressed from having one crappy, dying car, living in the cheapest house available for rent (no one would loan them money to buy one) in the dumpiest part of a small town in the poorest region of Oregon, with no money and working several jobs at a time, to having two new cars, owning (!) a nice, new house, and each having relatively flexible, well-paying jobs. And their children are growing up. Their oldest child may not be financially comfortable, but he is independent, and clearly has big things ahead of him. Their middle child is finally wising up and has made his first major steps toward getting out of the unending shitstorm rat race that was his life. I'm preparing to go to college, and to live on my own. Everything was getting better. In a decade or so, they could even retire, and maybe even live comfortably for the rest of their lives, and be loved by their three wonderful, grown kids, and maybe even grandkids. We were living the American Dream—that with hard work and discipline, you can make a better life for yourself. Now what—does the American Dream include your marriage going down the shitter, too?

It was supposed to be perfect, it was going to be perfect, and now it's not.

What the fuck happened? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

They outgrew each other? They spent 20-odd years kicking ass and taking names, and giving you kids a better life than they had, and doing that job leaves precious little time for "staying in love" or whatever that is. Oh shit, that sounds like I'm blaming you kids. I'm not. It was what they wanted to do, that their intimacy or closeness got lost along the way... was sadly typical. I hope that in the long, and even short, term, they will be best friends, after all, they shared so much. It's still "perfect" - you have two parents who love you and care for you and want the best for you, and can even probably help you get to where you want to be in life. They just aren't husband and wife any more? Maybe I'm not the best "counsellor" here because 1) my parents are still together (although I'm sure they've been through plenty of shit) and 2) I never parented, just, well, dated a lot of divorced women... Anyway, Jacob, while RW might not be the best place to ask your question, you're doing the right thing by asking it. Do you have friends with divorced parents, etc.? Reach out to them as well. Everything will be ok. Nothing is ever "perfect". ħuman 04:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw, man, RA, that well and truly sucks. It's probably your fault for being such a rotten kid. Sorry to hear the bad news--but hell, you may be in the minority among people your age (...and BTW, I thought you were well into your twenties for some reason) in having your folks together at this point in your life. It strikes me that as much as this does suck, we as a society have gotten better at making the process easier for everyone involved--much more so than when Huw or I were your age, anyways. Anyway, as the old man above said, it'll be okay in the long run for everybody. My divorce damn near killed me, but it wasn't too too long before I got over stuff and really turned my life around. You're young and resiliant--you'll bounce back. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Right now you don't need to be told that life goes on, so I won't. You will find that others who have been through it understand a bit better than the ones who have not. Divorce is well known to be a crazy time, and I hope you can make it through with a level head. One breath out, another one in; sometimes that's all you need. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all nobody knows what really happens in someone else's relationship, particularly if the couple have any sense of privacy. Most of the disagreement is either unspoken or goes on behind closed doors. I don't know what age all your siblings are but couples often stay together for the kids and if the kids are grown up enough then maybe they can finally get the divorce that they have probably wanted for a long time. Romantic love can overcome differences for a certain amount of time but relationships change as the individuals change (or conversely, they do not change). I have known many people who lived together for years then decided to get married and find their relationship break down in a very short period; the dynamics of the relationship changed. It is hard to place blame on any individual because even if they say it's all their fault they may only be doing that to smooth the process. Getting divorced isn't any fun, especially after many years together. So if they can do it in an amicable way and remain friends afterwards then treat that as a consolation. What we may think of as an ideal situation is often only transitory. At least you are still going to have relationships with both of them. It may happen that those relationships lead to something else as yet unknown for your parents and even members of your family. Hopefully your parents can find new happiness and fulfillment which had been missing. It is better that they separate amicably rather than grow old together living with resentment and bitterness. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... were both of your parents conservative? Sorry to hear that RA, I know it's not easy. While I myself can't relate, a lot - and I truly mean A LOT - of my friends have divorced parents, so you're not alone. My best mate's parents got separated when we were about 13 totally out of the blue - my friend dealt with it fairly OK, his whole family still gets along, and he still sees his dad a fair old bit. Another person I know had her parents divorce just this summer - they, like your parents, waited 'til she was going to university, as they told her a couple of weeks before she left. As someone in your age group, and someone that started university this year, let me tell you from first hand experience that it's a great way to escape problems in the outside world. SJ ^Debaser 12:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I was reading an article about how adults are affected when their parents divorce. You have plenty of help for young kids and plenty of sympathy but when you're a bit older or possibly left home, everyone just expects you to man-up and deal with it and see it for what it is, a separation that doesn't negate what your parent's feel about you or destroy the past completely (which is probably what Human is getting at above; please don't join the Samaritans, it'll be Lemming Tuesday all over again...). So when your're over 18 (hell, over 15 half the time) and it happens few people seem to sympathise as few people experience it at that age and just expect you to roll with it the same way as if you heard they were buying a new car - and that's just unfair really. So be angry, shocked, annoyed or whatever, you have a right to do that whether you're 13 or 30 when your parents split, but you have to reach the same conclusion regardless of your age; accept it as their decision, for the best, and that it's no reflection on you. And I doubt you're letting the American Dream down the shitter, you're just experiencing part of what modern culture has, get them a divorce cake or something if they're in the spirits to handle it. You're lucky it seems mutual and fairly peaceful, though; I got woken up at 3AM by the shouting match that split my parents up permanently (I was just on the verge of being old enough to "deal with it"), which wasn't particularly fun. ^narchist 15:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is ever perfect. When things are going smoothly and all is looking good , something nasty is about to happen, thats just the way things work. Its possible that with a seperation your parents will establish a new relationship and decide to stay together. Its also possible that the split will let them stay on friendly terms and get on with the rest of their lives. The important thing is for you to realize that in any relationship BOTH people bear some responsibility for what happens. Try to stay out of arguments and focus on getting your life going in a good direction. You may need to try for more financial aid, scholarships or part time work to make it all work. Good luck Hamster (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

NephilimFree

Hey, currently in a debate with NephilimFree in the comments section of one of my youtube videos, and he's trying to Gish Gallop on me. He made one claim, and I'm not sure where to look to find refuting evidence. He says that 80% of human proteins don't exist in apes (debate here: http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=eiTGxTl3dAk ).--Mustex (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not even wrong. Humans would have that many proteins in common with plants I would suspect. - π 10:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the metric you use. If you're talking about exact structural match-ups then I'd say he might be right. There's slight differences between dehydrogenase in slugs and dehydrogenase in humans, for example, this is just what evolution does and citing it as evidence against evolution is outright stupid. However, if you use types of protein, or a less rigorous match up process looking only at tertiary strucutre and ignoring the odd amino acid out of place outside the core centre of the protein, then they're practically identical in most animal species - we'll all have particular enzymes to do particular functions. In wildly different species, they could be wildly different (haemocyanin, haemerythrin, haemoglobin), in very similar species, they may have very similar structures. But the best thing to do is to ask for the reference for "80% of human proteins don't exist in apes" - because the mornon is either talking out of his arse or using evidence for evolution against it. ^narchist 15:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I once spent 2 weeks trying to get NF to admit that different breeds of dogs had different shapes, and therefore different morphologies. In my most recent encounter, I challenged his claim that American Indian tribes across the continent had a universal greeting gesture. This time, he readily admitted that he had pulled the claim out of his ass...in his own creepy, condescending way. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He's also trying to claim that EQs prove that humans and apes can't be related (he cited an article on that, which I need to get off my ass and look up later today, but I find it hard to believe that anyone could suggest that the ratio of brain size to body size could disprove the relatedness of two species).--Mustex (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you can't particularly do that with brain sizes. One of the things that sets humans apart from others is the extended brain power. That'd be like saying that a golden labrador and a chocolate labrador can't both be dogs because they have different colour coats; that's the major difference that differentiates them. Indeed, brain size and power can evolve at such a pace that of course they're going to be vastly different. ^narchist 18:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Found on FoxNews.com comment section.

Regarding sanctions on Iran someone posted this nugget....

“”OBAMA ..... OH SO FEMININE...... C...U...N...T

Charming. Ace^{of Spades} 08:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Back

What did I miss? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing really, not a lot goes on over Christmas. SJ ^Debaser 12:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Brown like that

Thought you'd like this little rap. "I do that thingy with my mouth and then I frown like that". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an SPOV, too!

If this is too serious for the Saloon bar, just tell me where to go so I don't make an ass of myself. I admit I'm new and I'm already getting my feet wet.

So I just got done reading the "Community Standards" article, and I took note of this. I think Wikipedia also has a de facto policy similar to SPOV (in the second sense) on here.

I know how to test this out, too. At the risk of getting blocked on Wikipedia (again, lol), I might make edits on there that fly right in the face of the scientific consensus on... anything. Preferably something that has a lot of political or religious contention (like global warming or evolution respectively), so I can find some fairly mainstream sources that I can cite to make the edits seem somewhat legit.

From there, I'll wait to see how long it takes before the edit gets reverted. I bet it will. No, seriously, I really think it will happen.

So what do you think? Sound fun? Macai (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It will certainly get reverted; it's happened to people like Andy and Ed already. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that someone agrees with me, but... may I ask who Andy and Ed are? Did someone else make this observation already, or something? Macai (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound particularly like fun. And I don't think we'd want to give the impression that we were in favour of people making frivolous - or borderline vandal - edits at WP.--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

@Macai: I mean Andrew Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia, and Ed Poor. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This plan sounds even worse than one of Mustex's and he has some terrible plans. - π 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me what's so terrible about it? And please try to refrain from "it's common sense and you're an idiot, so in conclusion your idea is terrible" type comments. Macai (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

it's common sense and you're an idiot, so in conclusion your idea is terrible ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 05:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

@Τe†rоиіαn: I figured that out a few minutes after you mentioned "Ed". I'm not really into Conservapedia, but after reading a few articles on here, it seems that it's a major topic. Macai (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is a major topic here. But my point is that they have tried to insert "unscientific" information into Wikipedia, and they failed miserably. That's why I think your experiment is useless - we already know that the Wikipedian community in general is pro-science, or at least regards scientific knowledge as trustworthy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Macai: basically it's a stupid idea. There's a zillion nutters already sticking non-scientific crap in all sorts of articles & getting stamped on. Unless you really believe something and have a lot of whacky "facts" at your fingertips, you're gonna get stomped straight away - why would you want that? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 06:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the point would be to demonstrate that Wikipedia has the same "SPOV", in the second sense, as this site does. I mean, I don't even have to say anything that is untrue, just something that could possibly be interpreted to mean that the scientific consensus is wrong by some people. An example would be that global warming, so far, has peaked in 1998. This doesn't mean that there weren't mitigating factors causing 1998 to be the hottest recorded year so far, nor does it necessarily imply that 1998 will never be topped. However, I bet you anything matter-of-factly stating that 1998 is the warmest recorded year in "global warming"'s lead will be reverted, and fast. Why? Because there are people out there who will read it and think, "Ah hah! I knew global warming was horse shit, and now I have the proof!" Whether this is proof or not is irrelevant; Wikipedians don't want that idea getting into their heads thanks to their articles, and if that means omitting information, then so be it. For this reason, it's reasonable to believe that they are pushing a perspective. That perspective being the scientific consensus. Just like RationalWiki. Macai (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1998 might be the hottest year on record but the overall trend is up, even from there. All you would be proving with that edit is you don't understand statistics. - π 07:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Request - Acrobat

Does anyone here have a full copy of acrobat (as in not reader)? If so then could you convert a table in a PDF document to an excel spreadsheet for me? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've got Acrobat Professional 8.0. Think that will work? Macai (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tea partiers

Who here has gone to a "Tea Party" or done any "Tea-Bagging" lately? I know I went to a local Tea Party here in the Twin Cities to protest big government taking all my hard earned money (from playing the stock market), and there were literally tens of people there, all ready to go teabagging all over the Minneapolis area! I must say, it was a gay old time, indeed! Conservative Punk (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you go to the liberal media tea-bag protests to protest that the media ignores the tea-baggers? I heard one got over 100 protesters. How much longer is the mainstream media going to ignore this growing movement? - π 06:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikileaks down

"To concentrate on raising the funds necessary to keep us alive into 2010, we have very reluctantly suspended all other operations, until Jan 6" ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 04:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bummer, I hope they make it back. ħuman 06:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Roman Tax Collection

Could someone please explain this system to me, because the way they always explained it to me in Sunday School seems highly implausible. Basically they claimed that people made bids for positions as tax collectors in Rome, at which point they were given a license to extort money from people, and anything they could take above their bid was their payment. The problem I have believing this is that apparently they were ranked (since Zacchius was the chief tax collector for the region), in which case what motivation does anyone have to bid for the highest ranking tax collector position, instead of going for the lowest ranking tax collector position, and thus being able to bid lower, and keep more? Someone, please explain.--Mustex (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a MLM scheme to me - you want to have lots of people in your "downline" to get a little bit of cash from. ħuman 06:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this only happened under Caligula or one of the real nutters like that. The Roman treasury would only give licences to the highest bidders, say their were 10 licences and 50 bidders. So you had to bid high enough to get a licence, but not too high as you would not be able to cover your bid. I think the Romans got the money up front and you spent the year making it back. Public buses are often run under a similar system these days. - π 06:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tax farming. - π 06:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)