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

Tobacco companies and creationists

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

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

And there it is:

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

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

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

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

Ah, not a new thesis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upton Sinclair's Law strikes again.

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

Breakfast

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

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

Soft scrambled free-range eggs on wholemeal toast & Fair-Trade 100% arabica dark-roast coffee (although my cardiologist says I should be sticking to decaf). Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 stone? That's more than two slices of toast and a case of Marmite! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Tagging photos on Facebook...

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

How about listening to your sister ramble on about the greatness of the Twilight books until you want to impale yourself on a Spaghetti Fork? SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 22:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

American English

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The UK (and Europe) has time-share as well. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimate Proof of Creation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Information Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find it particularly distressing because the author is "Dr. Jason Lisle", with a foreword by Ken Ham, but the ENTIRE THING reads almost like a verbatim transcript of Ken's "seminars", right down to the rehashing of the "same evidence different conclusions" and (this one is an actual Hamquote) "Once we put on our Biblical glasses, we can see the truth..." (The creatard then goes on to claim that before the fall from grace there was no death, so therefore the dinosaur bones were buried in the flood.)

Anyway, back to the point. This is obviously ghostwritten by Ham using the "Dr." title of the other guy for an appeal to authority / argument from authority stance. Ham should just shut his two cock garage, for fuck's sake. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be the case but here's his bio. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Creationist dice

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

It's obvious that they need more faces to the dice. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Brian Kilmeade, "Fox and Friends"

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

Jesus fuck, I cringed like hell watching that.

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

I want to make a conspiracy theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't know about Disney (plus film/tv production and book publishing are completely different processes), but I guess Hay must have a really good commissioning editor who understands the new age market and knows which writers to call on to write for that market. Many new age writers start off on small, specialist magazines, and maybe Hay subscribe to these to cream off the writing talent. Not so much a conspiracy as good organisation. Darn, I've just debunked a conspiracy theory whose feathers hadn't even dried yet. Sorry.Totnesmartin (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember Kirk Cameron, back when you was a young actor, went through pretty much the same process. Not particularly good-looking, terribly average acting talents, nothing really inspiring there. But the teen magazines like Seventeen and Tiger Beat and so forth pushed the hell out of him, every single cover of a half-dozen mags, and oh my! He's suddenly a heartthrob. Based not so much on anything about him, but the fact that he was pushed relentlessly by these media sources. Pity he became such a fruitcake when he grew up, though. --Kels (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe.....but it is mere hand waving! Where is the evidence, huh? huh? I haven't even begun to spin the whole thing. See there is a patient zero here. Hay House was started by Louise Hay who was a follower of Florence Scovel Shinn, Shinn pops up again and again as a major seed sower in the modern New Age movement. Shin was a product of the influences of Charles and Myrtle Fillmore who started the Unity Church. We are talking Priory of Sion for the Unity Church here. So really the Law of Attraction and The Secret are mass control mechanisms for the secret knights of the Unity Church......hey this is fun. tmtoulouse 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just like the Jonas Brothers/the Britney Spears episodes of South Park. These actors are going to have it hard after their shelf-life is over. Hilary Duff is trying to prove herself as a serious actress and Frankie Muniz left showbiz for professional racing. I'm sure Miley Cyrus will jump over to country music once she loses power over 14 year old girls and Zac Effron will get less important parts till he is just an supporting cast member. And, my sister will kill me for saying this, no one will remember any songs by the Jonas Bros in 10 yrs because they will be another forgotten pop-band--Tabris (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know any songs from the Jonas Brothers now. - π 02:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I was talking fans, but then again, how often do you hear them on your local rock station?--Tabris (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of seminal local rock stations, WBCN will be leaving the rock world forever in mid August. WBCN! a total flagship DJ-controlled AOR station from so long ago. Shows named "Nocturnal Emissions" and some other funny one I forget. I have tape of a DJ clumsily yanking the needle off the "short" version of "Twilight Zone", saying this is WBCN, we play the album version. ħuman 05:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But will they go out Airheads style? ^gnostic 12:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Insane or a Fraud?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for finally getting that started (and finished??). I vote fraud. ħuman 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

AHHHHH HULK SMASH!!!!!

I feel the time for physical assault has come.... Rise my brothers, help me locate anyone involved with this disgusting, racist schlock and beat them till they stop kicking. Thank you SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 22:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I watched the trailer and it wasn't quite clear to me--is the movie revealing the links between eugenics and American racism in order to counter racism, or--as I get the feeling from your post--do you think it is somehowpromoting those ideas? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically it's throwing out a bunch a provocative language the ultimate point of which will be to say that abortion = eugenics = racism!!!!OMGELEVENTY!!!! Stile4aly (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Right. Of course. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that they are beating the dead horse of "OMG, those pro-choice people are really racists in diguise who want to destroy black america." SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 04:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not an argument that I'm familiar with, so forgive my ignorance. How much quote-mining is there involved with people like Margaret Sanger--people who seem to have said some pretty reprehensible things re: not only race, but such things as poverty, which they seem to blame on the reproductive habits of certain "types" of people? It strikes me that at least at some point, there were important links between the misude of science, racial ideas and reproductive policy, and that those links bear looking into--even if that coincides with some people trying to make ugly contemporary politics with those ideas. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but if one, nowadays, is in favor of "planned parenthood" etc., is Sanger one's "god"? Does she speak for one? Or is she just an historical figure? This is what the Bible thumpers do by their very nature - assume that others revere old books and ancient leaders without critique. Hence the quote-mining of 100-200 year old crap as if it applies today. ħuman 05:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what Human said... This is like calling everyone who drives a Ford out because Henry Ford was Anti-Semetic (He like Hitler Too... Maybe Ken should get on that). Or saying anyone who admires Washington, Jefferson or any of the other founding fathers is racist because those men owned slaves. This is an age old argument and a really really really stupid one. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 05:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

J.C. Fact or legend?

Has anyone read 'Misquoting Jesus' by Bart Ehrman? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 03:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't, but I want to.... I have read Jesus Interpreted though and it was an excellent book. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 04:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that I have a pdf version of it. I also have some of Bart's audio lectures. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I read this book back when it came out, but I can't recall a whole lot about it. I do recall it being very interesting, though.--WJThomas (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just got finished watching Ehrman's talk on the subject for the Heyns Lecture series. Quite good, and the question period is very entertaining. Worth a watch if you have an hour and 2/3 to kill. --Kels (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Traffic bump

We are getting smacked with a nasty bump in traffic, hopefully not enough to cause us any problems. Thing is i am not sure where it is coming from. I think it might be from stumble upon. If anyone has noticed any pages getting 6-8k views today let me know. tmtoulouse 05:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Found it....of all things its our deism article. tmtoulouse 05:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not what you'd call a masterpiece. Is someone bumping our page views? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, they are independent IP addresses, it got linked to on stumble upon and apparently people are following it. tmtoulouse 05:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So why is it nasty? Do they have cooties? ħuman 06:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cause it eats up my internet connection and slows down my pron? tmtoulouse 06:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, we donated pi dollarfish to help you with your pron habit? Can't you rely on your hard drive stash during peak load times? ħuman 06:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Of all the RW articles, that one was put up on Stumble Upon? I suppose my friend's graph of "how much effort I put it to how successful it'll be" is right afterall. ^gnostic 08:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not the only RW page on SU. I rediscovered this place after stumbling on the Lenski Affair page, and I the main page is on there as well. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

HELP ME!!!

I need cheap alcohol in Europe. Ireland has bankrupted me. Where are the women loose and the alcohol flows from a marble fountain adorned with some kind of muse? Yorick (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Dave Allen joke: "A friend o' mine (a fabulous drunk) saw an advertisment..."Drink Canada Dry!" so he emigrated!" 20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC) CЯacke®

Yorick's name reminds me of a place in Might and Magic IX. Man, what a let down of a game.WilhelmJunker (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Might and Magic was always a let down. I remember playing IV for the first time after Age of Kings and being entirely let down. Thankfully I had stolen the game from someone else. Secondly, I need cheap alcohol. I'm off to France tomorrow, so I'll be drinking wine for a while. But gODdamn alcohol is expensive in Ireland and England. The other night I drank two pints of Bulmer's, a pint of Guinness, a shot of vodka, a shot of rum, a shot of Jegermeister, and 3/4 of a bottle of wine. That was about €60, that doesn't work when I'm on a budget. Yorick (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Innumeracy....

Okay, it IS Fox News, but still: This story starts out by saying that the amount of 24 quadrillion dollars "rivals the national debt." No it doesn't--it's about 24 000 times the amount of the national debt, not anywhere close. Douglas Hofstader used to go on and on about innumeracy being as serious a problem as illiteracy, and he was right. When people are blinded by a bunch of zeros, as in this case, how are they able to engage meaningfully with the politics represented by that sea of zeros, especially in the wake of huge public bailouts of private interests and mounting war debt? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What they are really saying is that by the end of Obama admninistration the national debt will approach 24 quadrillion. deny that and lose all your credibility. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That guy has a sense of humor; "I saw the charge and thought someone bought Europe with my card" awesome. Z3ro^talk 17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

More like 2000 times the ND, which is around 11 trillion now. Anyway you look at it, that's one hell of a sin tax. It's also about 2000 times the US GNP... making it about 600 times the entire planet's annual economic output. Which would make it easily more wealth than the human race has generated since Creation! ħuman 20:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

didn't the deficit just top one trillion? Where does the 11 come from? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The national debt is about 11 trillion now. The deficit is the annual shortfall. By the way, I wonder if the number (23,148,855,308,184,500) has a hidden meaning? Like maybe it's 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in base 2 or 16? Or the largest number Cobol can handle? I remember from my Basic days that there was an upper limit on numerical magnitude, anything larger was cut down to it. ħuman 20:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Invading the Vintage

I think the assembled mob might get a kick out of this Flickr set. I emailed the link to "Teach me how to fight" to PZ Myers, we'll see if he posts it. --Kels (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Billy Meier is still churning out his fakes? Totnesmartin (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dunbar's number

According to our statistics page we have now passed the commonly cited wp:Dunbar's number in terms of active users. Just thought I would point it out. tmtoulouse 17:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the statistic's page definition of an active user? Z3ro^talk 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Activity in the previous seven days. ħuman 20:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think Dunbar's number would be relevant to online communities, as you don't really need to be aware of everyone's existence in the same way as in "real life". ^gnostic 18:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is arguable, the issue with Dunbar's number is the idea of a sense of community and goal-directed behavior. When a community reaches a certain size you loose out on "community memory" as a mechanism for establishing action, goals, and behavior. Instead you have to start establishing a much more rigid system of rules and bureaucracy. Also people who seek out the sense of community will no longer find that in the site as a whole, and rather you start developing splinter communities with smaller numbers of people with in the sub-groups. It is just an interesting observation to keep in mind, that if we continue to grow as a site we are likely to run into conflicts where community memory can no longer solve the problem. Keep an eye out for sub-groups as well, which I think can all ready be identified. tmtoulouse 18:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. just a plug again for one of my favorite wiki's MeatBall Wiki Community may not scale has some good discussion of this issue as it applies to online communities. tmtoulouse 19:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No wonder we are becoming so cliché. 192.43.227.18 01:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean cliquey? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dunbar's number is also referenced in The Tipping Point, I believe. Sterile sheep 01:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My Dunbar's number is about three. :( Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit nuts. You don't even know who each other are - the next poster could be serving 3 consecutive life sentances for axe murdering. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It' only two consecutive life sentences you insensitive clod! Silver Sloth (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Trent, but I think we're already going off into sort of sub-groups now, although they're not exclusive and there is a lot of flexibility. For instance, if I wander over to Talk_WIGO:CP for a bit, I see names pop up that I've never seen before so I think we already have the group that is interested in the wiki as a whole, and the group that focuses on Conservapedia almost exclusively. But I think with Dunbar's Number it sort of assumes that everyone is equally present in the community. Even among the wiki's active users (are you defining this via the statistics page that says an active user is one that has made an edit in the last 7 days?) there will be a massive variation in posting/editing rate. The ones that edit very infrequently - at least as far as the much more regular contirbuters are concerned - may as well count as just one person. I think online communities do suffer those problems when you get above a certain threshold, but I think (unless we find a way of redefining "active" so that it matches) that threshold is much higher. ^gnostic 12:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Weird shit in the sky

When I got up this morning I popped into my back yard for a smoke and above me, in the lightening sky, was a bright light moving from west to east. Looked like venus but much brighter and much bigger. I thought it strange but rationally I figured its a plane. Nope not a plane as there were no other lights on it and it was heading in the wrong direction (planes over my place in the city always head north/south). OK, perhaps its a satellite, though its waaaaaay too bright the sun is about to rise so its catching the sun beyong the horizon. Ahhhh yes, thats it - a satellite. Now imagine my surprise when this bright light suddenly stops, moves back the way it came, then reverses direction again and continues. It was below the highest clouds though moved through the lower ones.
'twas rather weird. Necron99 20:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

They're here, aren't they? --127․0․0․1 (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Helicopter? You would be amazed the number of the damn things that are about at night. 192.43.227.18 00:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there a Tsunami warning active last night? 192.43.227.18 00:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

way to high for a helicopter, far to high. And Tsumami are generally not found in the sky. Ace McWicked^Necron99 01:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How high do helicopters go? The point I was making about the Tsunami warning is they ready emergency services when an alert is active, they start flying things around in the hope that it will do something when it happens. You will get unusual flight activity. 192.43.227.18 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

well the tsunami warning was hours earlier and over 1000km from where I live so it weren't that. Just some weird light in the sky moving in a strange fashion. Chalk it up to just one of those strange occurences. Ace McWicked^Necron99 01:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I was barbecuing with a couple friends and we noticed this odd bright cluster of lights in the sky, it was completely motionless. A few hours later they had changed their position in the sky, but not with the earth's rotation. It was right below the dipper before and had moved pretty far above it, but still parallel. It freaked me out a bit, but I chalked it up to illusion or wishful thinking. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Back in the mid 70s I was out in the desert in the middle of Syria about 11 o'clock at night, and saw lights which moved from left to right or up and down at great speed and then disappeared. It wouldn't even make sense if it was aliens. The only plausible suggest that someone came up with was that it was the afterburner of jets doing night-time exercises. Although going downwards with the afterburner on seems a bit risky. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have decided that what I saw was either the Great Eye of TK or it was Andy, Godspeeding across the atmosphere. Ace McWicked^Necron99 08:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It could have been Ace Mc Wicked, covertly taking pictures of you as you shower from overhead, panting and pulsing profusely. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm perhaps you should read the above at bit more closely MC. Ace McWicked^Necron99 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There's something I've always wanted to build. You need a big yellow plastic bag - about the size of a rubbish bin. One or two candles. Some old wire - perhaps old wire coat-hangers. Method: Twist the wire into a frame around the mouth of the plastic bag. More wire (or struts) lead to the the centre of the opening of the plastic bag. Stick a candle to the wire and light it. The hot air from the candle fills the plastic bag and turns it into a small hot air balloon and also illuminates the inside of the bag.

Release, and wait for the UFO reports. But I've never done it because there might be one or two risks involved. :-( --Bob^{Not Jim} 13:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What's a "rubbish bin"? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 18:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bin for putting rubbish in. --Kels (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kels. What is "rubbish bin" in American?--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy

Just so's you know, I did a shitty job of starting an article on Hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Someone who knows something should fix 'er up. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You can check this out.-- -PalMD ^--Do not read my blog 18:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wish Me Luck

Tonight I take a huge step in my career as I leave the coffee shops and bars behind and work my first Comedy Club Gig. I'm performing tonight at the Denver Improv's Future Legends of Comedy Night.... Have a drink in hopes I don't bomb. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 16:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

as we say in French, "merde!" (..it's the word for "shit," but it means "break a leg" in this context." TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

From one who (briefly) trod the boards way back when... knock 'em dead. You'll be fine. Holding everything on this side (no, don't ask what I'm typing with...) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we get a preview of your material? Perhaps you've discovered the punchline to "A creationist walks into a bar..."? ^gnostic 16:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck man, and give us a clip!--PitchBlackMind (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Conservative conundrum

That nice Mr Cameron has come up with a cracking wheeze - to find a favourable candidate for Totnes at the election he's holding a primary. Everyone in the Totnes constituency will be able to choose the Conservative Party candidate. So far so good, but by conundrum is this: do i vote for someone tolerable, or do i insert liberal parody? And more to the point, since I'd rather vomit my entrails and make them into balloon animals than vote for a tory, should I sell my soul to Beelzebub and help choose one at all? Discuss. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Subtle parody. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 18:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely parody. I hope the TV cameras show up and you get interviewed. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There are only three candidates, although one couldn't run a cake stall at a village fete, from what i've seen (and he's getting himself in hot water even now). Perhaps I could choose him and get yet another tory buffoon into parliament. It looks like we'll need a few laughs after the next election. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA

We have now officially transitioned to the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, Version 3.0 copyright license. Just so everyone is aware of this fact. If you have released original content such as images or essays on this wiki specifically under the GFDL you have until August 1st to release that content under CC-BY-SA. If you do not, the content is no longer "compatible" with RationalWiki's copyright license. tmtoulouse 18:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to change the rights on an image without having to go through re-uploading it? --Kels (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ala the drop down boxes? I am not sure actually. tmtoulouse 19:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit the page and change the template. 89.134.223.11 19:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)