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

RW financial update (stIcKy)

As some may remember there was a strike called at my university. The whole long protracted story of what went down is somewhat interesting and worth sharing (I think at least) once things have settled down enough that I feel "safe" in doing so. The gist of the situation is though I have lost about 35 percent of my pay this month due to the strike action. This is going to lead to two consequences for RationalWiki that I wanted to pass along:

1)Since I will barely be able to even make rent next month my solution is to run away to home for the holidays as early as possible and leach off my family for a month. This means I will be physically away from the server for close to a month. Everything has run smoothly for over a month now so I am optimistic there won't be a problem, and if there is we have more tools available than last time to try and fix it. But its something to be aware of.

2)I like to keep about $150 in RW funds in reserve to cover any emergencies. We have about $120 at the moment, however, I am going to have to tap into this to pay for the internet connection for December. Probably on the order of about $60-$70. Leaving our reserve about $100 short. So if you have not tossed a few bucks RW's way in a while it would be great if you considered it. There is no need for the funds right away, but I would like to get things back up to the $120-$150 range by January.

That's about it. tmtoulouse 00:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bummer about the lost pay. I am in a similar position as you are at my university and (though there is no hint of a labour dispute at the moment) I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the whole shebang. I am somewhat ashamed to say that until a few moments ago I had never tossed any bucks RW's way. I've enjoyed this site for more than a year, and it's certainly worth keeping online. Thanks for all your hard work.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 02:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't afford to donate again at the moment, but get paid in a couple of weeks so should be able to throw you another £20 then. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If we wanted to contribute, how would we do so? MDB 14:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

here Bob Soles 14:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we word the little 'Donate' section on the sidebar more strongly? I suggest "Donate much needed funds to RationalWiki' or somesuch. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, I find the donate section practically invisible. I didn't reven realize it was there till now. Which is normally good -- I wouldn't want the site to be reminiscent of PBS during pledge week -- but I was barely aware you even solicited donations. MDB 18:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added some formatting to MediaWiki:Common.css to make it stand out some more. The wording is at MediaWiki:Sidebar (only plain text works there, but it can be styled via css). Suggestions are welcome. -- Nx / talk 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What does PayPal charge you to receive donations? Fedhaji (Talk) 18:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a whole lot, it scales depending on the donation, a few cents on the dollar mostly. tmtoulouse 19:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Donations get solicited every now and then, usually when Trent is strapped or news something new and shiny. This is one of those times. ^pathetic 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Trent does FAR too much for this place, and if you appreciate his dump, hurl some cash his way. I've added some jaunty copy to add to the nice new loud orange panel. Suggestions welcome. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not a flashing orange banner across the top of every page, with randomly selected entreaties to pony up? ħuman 01:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, if it means Trent isn't licking dogfood out of cans. Whatever it takes. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 01:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're exaggerating a bit... have you even read what he said about the state of the RW finances up above? While I agree fully that RW shouldn't cost him any money, going into a sudden panic over the wording of the donation link is just silly. If you think it can be better, let's come up with something better at the sidebar talk page and install it. ħuman 8:37 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Exaggerating? Trent did say he may not able to pay his rent after all? Whatever. Anyway, I'm not "going into a panic", but I certainly see only benefit from rewording the currently lame call to action that is our Donations box. "Join the supporters"? If we had supporters, we wouldn't be needing to make a call out - the problem is we DON'T have supporters. The box clearly wasn't doing any work for us, as per MDB's comment above - even a long term user like him didn't even know how to donate. That's hardly a functioning system. Why not a 'Donate' bar permanently mounted above Recent Changes too? Maybe we can have some vote widget fun and vote for slogans? Can someone do that? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You fail at reading comprehension. "Since I will barely be able to even make rent next month" followed by his solution to no food money - go home for the hols. And the reason for the month's poverty is not RW it's the strike he was dragged into (and encouraged in by some of us). But I'm all for vote widgets and slogans. Chances are you'll have to figure them out yourself (hint, find one you like and copy the code) though. ħuman 04:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget folks that you can take out a RationalWiki subscription and pledge Π dollars (or multiples thereof) per month. This may not solve Trent's immediate predicament but pledging $6.28 (about the price of two pints) a month adds up to $75 a year. Half a dozen new pledgers could make a significant difference. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Is a PayPal account needed for the subscription, or is there another way of doing it? I've chucked in a donation, but would find it a lot easier if I could just set something like $10 per month.--^{Ask me about your mother} 15:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Slogans

As per Doggedpersistence's suggestion above, here's my humble suggestions for a "Give to RW" slogan:

• Don't donate to RationalWiki until you hurt. Donate to RationalWiki until Conservapedia hurts.
• Donate to RationalWiki. The mind you save may belong to a homeschooler who will grow up to cure the disease that's going to kill you.
• Donate to RationalWiki, because Andrew Schlafly's mind already is a waste.

MDB 13:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Aren't those all a bit CP-centric? Well, maybe not the second one... ħuman 00:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

New template system (sticky)

Hi all. By now you might have noticed a bit of goings on so allow me to explain what the fight is about.

Nx has created a base template called Template:Messagebox, it has a very well defined style of an image with text to the right of it. As part of the re-branding he has given it a water mark background of the RationalWiki brain.

If you are seeing this instead of your message, type 2= before your message.

Under no circumstances should anyone edit this template. It has been used on nearly 6,000 pages, most notably on all CP screenshots (of which there are over 5,600 you obsessive people).

What makes it awesome is there is no need to edit it. There are three parameters. The first is the image, you can choose one of about 9 or add you own as you normally would. Parameter two is the text. Examples:

The optional third parameter is the class. This parameter is hugely powerful option that loads all the templates style parameters. Several are already set up in the common.css, you can add them on indefinitely. This has a huge number of advantages

1. Savings on the server load, as when you edit the style of a template in the common.css it will not get added to job queue. User will see the changes as they update their style sheets (you computer will do this, but you can force it by using ctrl-F5).
2. Consistency in the style of the wikis templates making us look more professional.
3. It looks like MediaWiki will be changing over the next few versions. This should hopefully keep us a head of the curve, especially if the old html tags are phased out.
4. If you are using an unusual set up, say those new widescreen monitors I am to poor to afford, you can customise the appearance using your own monobook.css

Basically do the mob like this new template system? Keep in mind all it actually is a box with a picture on the left, with text to the right of it, everything else is customisable in the common.css. - π 07:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell yes. Forward Nx a drink from me for the hard work! I really like the water mark, it's subtle features like that that makes me think "21st Century Internet" rather than the fairly bland and plain feel you get from websites that just seem just short of a decade behind the times. ^pathetic 10:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks great to me. The water mark is a lovely touch. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 10:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay here a few examples:

This project page has been nominated for deletion. The reason given is "it lacks goat". Please discuss this assassination attempt on the talk page.

This page is dead, but is being retained as an archive. Please do not edit it! This page has either outlived its usefulness, or, through neglect and/or disinterest, become unused. If you wish to reinvigorate it, bring it up on the talk page.

As a confirmed mustard jar for taking on this job as a Sysop on RationalWiki: I pledge to only block users if they ask for it, or insert unfunny vandalism. I furthermore pledge that if I indulge in secret private conversations about you, we will make a formal report to the mob. Is that all? If you impugn my motives without warrant, or challenge my "AUTHORATIE", er, there is nothing I can or will do.

Any opinions when you see them in action? - π 10:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the technical issues but they look good to me with the exception of the watermark on the white/blank one. It makes me want to clean my monitor.--Bob^{Not Jim} 12:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The delete or sysop template? - π 12:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The sysop template. But I don't think it's a big issue. I like the idea.--Bob^{Not Jim} 12:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We can colour it for you. - π 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The challenge will be for new templates for new editors. If you don't know there's a system but you are wiki-savvy, it will lead to confusion. Not a huge hurdle per se, but it can be expected. Sterile Playstation 2 13:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's much of an issue there. 90% of anyone making a template will just copy one that already exists as it's just easier that way (even if you are wiki-savvy, in fact, probably more so if you're wiki-savvy). I think people will notice how to use the message boxes and the documentation explains it well enough. ^pathetic 14:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add all the classes to the doc as well. It is three parameters, how can we go wrong? *sits back and waits for the inevitable melt down of the server*. 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

PS They are pretty. Sterile Playstation 2 18:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You sure do got a purdy template thar DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was so impressed with Nx for this. - π 01:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

While this is very interesting and perhaps prettier, I am struck by how differently this was handled than most issues on this site. A template is created, and by the time "input" is requested, it "cannot be edited"? Contrast that with the recent long discussion and feedback over changing the logo. A moment ago I saw a template that did not "obey the new rules" when I edited a page without being logged in. What happens now if someone wants to "support" their new template the easy way, by adding its image and formatting (ie, border style) to the template? Who decided what images and styles would be supported? The current crop are fairly narrow to choose from, I only see a couple of border colors. What if someone wants to make one with a solid green border? Where, indeed, was any discussion on this issue before it was implemented - and implemented in a way that any sysop can now grind the site down to a standstill? In absentia 03:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that there should have been discussion before implementing these, I am struck by how rude some of the reactions were. I would have been pretty upset if someone threw out my work with comments like "smearing bad formatting all over the site" and "wrecking all the boxes on the site" Pathetic transparent sock 11:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting an edit isn't really "throwing out work". Those comments were made after two days of simple questions not being answered, in frustration. While I agree quite a few near the end were quite out of line, so is embarking on a major project affecting the look and feel of the site not only without preliminary discussion, but also not discussing it when asked - and, in fact, rudely turning down simple requests regarding the formatting. In absentia 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

More colours and styles can be added it just takes a bit of CSS know how rather than the old html tags, Human. The reason it can't be edit is because it is being used of the new Template:CP screenshot of which there are 5,600 inclusions. - π 05:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there clear instructions on how to do that somewhere? In absentia 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my ignored question. I'm trying to make a template fit the new fascist RW mold, but I don't know how to do it. ħuman 03:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We'll get there. I am busy with other stuff at the moment, I'll right some instructions as soon as I feasibly can. - π 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

While, in principle, I like the new messagebox system, I do feel that we are losing some identity. I recently tried to edit without logging in and got a bland warning icon. Previously we had the 'ceiling cat' and despite being slightly averse to the preponderance of felines on RW, I felt that this added some humour to an otherwise dry yet important issue. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You can revert it. It is just I edit from IP at uni sometimes and have always hated it so I took the opportunity to change it. - π 09:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to do anything unilaterally but perhaps we could incorporate some of the whimsy into the new system? It doesn't even have to be the same picture, maybe we could ask Karajou to come up with something. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member}

Getting our house in order - the logarithm in our own eye (sticky)

One of the things we criticise CP for regularly is its violation of copy-right with regards to images. Sometime later this week I am going to run a bot across all the image files to find the ones that are incorrectly documented and place them in a category saying that they have no licensing template. To that ends, does anyone know of a licensing template that is not on this list or the Template:Fair use? I am also going to create two new ones, one for work that you upload that is your own private copy-right which you are licensing only for use of RW and those you have gained permission from the copy-right holder for the use only on RW; I will add these to the drop down menu on the upload screen.

BTW, I have noticed a new template saying we don't know the copyright of images and we don't care - that is not really expectable. The onus is on the uploader to check the copy-right status, before they use the picture. - π 01:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"we don't care" Check the edit history on that one. In absentia 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay that was just template unknown before it was fixed. - π 01:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have now made Template:Rw-licence‎‎. I might add an optional name parameter to it though. - π 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The RW-licence is pretty useful. Might give me the incentive to start making more illustrations. ^pathetic 09:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay done - I hope

Alright I have finished running my bot. There is a Template:Nolicence that indicates that the images does not have licensing template on it. If you want to check out what you have uploaded that does not have a licence on it put:

<dpl> 
createdby = Yourname
namespace = File
uses = Template:Nolicence 
</dpl>

in your sandbox. - π 11:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to run the bot again over the less than 30KB images as it seems to have missed a few. I will be doing it in very small chunks, probably after backup has run this evening. - π 01:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Common images

There are a few images marked with the no-licence template (like this one) that are so common that finding the copyright notice for them would be next to impossible. While "it's found all over the internet" of course isn't an excuse for copyright violation, could we possibly use a different template for these.

This image does not have have an image copyright notice. However, its prevalence on the internet may mean that tracking down copyright information is impractical or even impossible. If you are the copyright holder of this image and do not agree to its use on Rational Wiki, please see our copyright violations policy. This image was uploaded:

Or something like that. It's obviously not perfect, but it recognises the practicalities of the situation as being far more difficult. Defining "prevalence" objectively and clearly will be difficult, however. ^pathetic 15:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That does seem like a good idea. Do we have an name for that template? - π 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that I can thinking of. Although I think "poor excuse" would be a decent name for it. ^pathetic 12:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-commercial

I think we need a copy-right notice for people that have allowed non-commercial use of their images. - π 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Non-commercial I just create on then. - π 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cooking

The above thread got me thinking about the attitude of both the UK and US public towards making food. Personally I'm with Ace. I dislike the fact that you can through a supermarket and see 400 different kinds of yoghurt, several hundred different ready meals, and yet only 2 types of cabbage. Seriously, have we really become this lazy? When I mention good food to a guy at work he laughs and tells me how proud and awesome he is because he lives off takeaways and ready meals. I have a microwave, and yet I only seem to use it for plate warming and softening butter. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In the US, almost everyone I know gets food from a supermarket or from a fast-food place. Not only are we lazy, we are unhealthy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, the supermarkets sell (relatively) healthy food as well as junk! ħuman 21:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but think about the big picture. We are much, much unhealthier as a result of a higher percentage of our food being processed than in previous years. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As with Crundy - my microwave is for butter and defrosting stuff. Also for experiments (for example a microwave does not kill a cockroach). I enjoy cooking lavish meals. Although when Crundy says "I'm with Ace" I am not sure to what he is with? Ace^{of Spades} 22:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tet, it really depends on what food one buys at the supermarket, not their overall product line. If one buys lots of fatty, salty, overprocessed junk, versus healthier fare. Education and convenience are major factors, of course - the "easiest" way to slap together "food" is, yes, to nuke some preprocessed crap. Education leads to better knowledge of what is better to eat, and how to prepare it reasonably easily. ħuman 22:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting the health aspect for a bit, I find it absolutely amazing that the vast majority of people I meet don't have even the most basic of culinary skills. How to chop an onion, how to make a roux (and a bechamal / cheese sauce), peeling garlic, making an omlette, the different types of pastry, making stock, what spices match with what. The absolute basics. Let's not forget that Delia made a "back to basics" series which started with how to boil an egg. Really? Boiling a fucking egg? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I lived with some freakish scousers in London who had a recipe that consisted of -

• Boil water
• Add pasta, cook as per packet instructions
• Drain
• Add sauce
• Enjoy

And they would refer to it everytime! Ace^{of Spades} 22:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I know that recipe too! What a coincidence! @Human - well of course it depends upon what we choose to eat, but let's face it: most of us 'Merkins choose processed food because it is cheaper and easier and more available. And as Crudy says, this leads to less culinary skills. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Alright, let's take Josh's meal above. I was quite impressed because I'd assumed he'd poached a fresh salmon fillet in court bouillon (or at least stock from a cube), made a cream / creme fraiche sauce and mixed into some cooked pasta. But no. Microwave fish and "potted carbonara". If I were a student again then I'd be eating for free by tempting the other flatmates into "chipping in" to a meal I cook each night, the cost of which would be negligable (50p - £1) but would pay for my portion as well as giving me a little beer money. The dish I made above made 2 portions (using cheapo british (no sow-stalls) pork) and worked out at about £1.60 for the lot. double up and charge a quid per portion to people (reasonable to have a decent meal made for you) and you would be eating for the grand total of 20p. It's a fucking no brainer. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I make all my food from scratch. It tastes better that way, and is probably healthier, too. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My recipie for pie, for instance

You can't make an apple pie without first creating the universe. By the way, although I do frequent supermarkets, I do try to make an effort to buy my meat from the local butcher and my veg from the farm shop, because if I don't then I won't have a choice soon. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that recipe takes longer than recipe:trilobites in Aspic! ħuman 22:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't care what anyone says, you must have a good knife to be a good cook. You're more likely to injure yourself with a blunt knife than a sharp knife, and if you splash out on even just one decent multi-purpose knife then your life will become much easier. My favorite style is the oriental chef's knife with the American "non-stick" grooves (like this, which I have two of for reasons I won't go into). Beauty and precision come at a cost, but if you look after it you'll never have to buy another knife again. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. I buy a cheap new knife every few years and they do me just fine. In fact, better, since I don't have to care for it at all. Too many guests or girlfriends or dishwasher or whoever abusing knives. A Wal-Mart (or Lotte-Mart or whatever) cheap chef's knife and paring knife are all that's needed.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 22:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well Crundy is certainly right about the injury factor. I have seen people slice themselves with blunt knives many, many times. If you really like to cook then he is right, a sharp knife is a must. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

@Tom: If you actually buy a decent knife then you will only have to sharpen it twice a year on a dual wetstone, even with daily use (as long as you aren't trying to cut through bone, that's what a cleaver is for). How is that more hassle? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not more hassle, it's just much easier and with little loss of efficiency. A cheap knife can be abused and still keep a decent edge for a year or so, and it will cost three or four dollars. A decent knife will generally cost at least thirty dollars even at the lowest end. But with a cheap knife, I don't need to be afraid to trash it. I can scrape, bash, and so on with it to my heart's content. I can put it through the dishwasher, something you're never supposed to do. And I can lend it to my girl or a guest when they are cooking without worrying about them using the blade to scrape up the chopped onions or whatnot. It's just easier.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do try an expensive knife one time. It's liberating. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not speaking out of ignorance; I have owned expensive knives before. My $45 chef's knife - with beveling and a raised handle so you don't rap your knuckles - died a death brought on by my mother's borrowing it and chopping a dozen onions on ceramic. Since then, I have gone through probably a half-dozen cheap knives for less than twenty bucks, and seen little decrease in performance. Even though I cook almost every night, it's just not worth the hassle to me.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 23:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. A decent knife can go through the dishwasher, and most definitely can be used to scrape a chopping board. The only thing you shouldn't do with a decent knife is cut something hard like bone. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. It dulls a knife badly to put it through the dishwasher, as the heat and the beating from the particle-and-soap-filled water tend to make the edge off straight, and you should never use the blade to scrape a chopping board (the back of the knife is fine for that, of course). I do agree that cutting through bone can be bad as well, though.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 23:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My favorite "cookery book" is On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen by Harold McGee. Recently updated I notice (my copy dates from 1984 - first edition? - must check). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 00:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and on knives it really gets my goat that my wife thinks that those glass surface protectors are chopping boards. Consequently I have to hide my special sharp knife at the back of a drawer where it's too much bother for her to get it out. As for washing knives, I often put stainless in the diswasher but carbon steel is hand washed and dried immediately. (Don't get me started on my wine glasses either. My wife once demolished half a tray of Wedgewood crystal red wine in one fell swoop, so I won't let her touch my Riedel shiraz glasses except to sup from them). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 00:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I chop on whatever I please! Surface protectors, wooden boards, on a cheap platter, or wherever! And anyone can use my knife! Need to pry up that brick? Sure, take it, I can get a new one!

But keep your fucking hands off my cast iron.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 00:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Aah, that's better. Just spent a few minutes out in the kitchen with the mandoline and some cauliflower. Not sure why, but that's what was requested. It seems to involve big slabs of tofu under a splatter screen in the big cast iron skillet, and interesting smells. Maybe I oughta trot up the street for a six-pack... Sprocket J Cogswell 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Cooking: my single most favourite activity. Really. It's just so satisfying. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more satisfying if the produce has been cultivated by yourself. Getting fruit and veg fresh from the plot to the pot is really delicious. Sweetcorn cooked within five minutes of picking, warm strawberries and raspberries straight off the plant, herbs freshly chopped. Some of my best days have been spent in my vegetable garden with a bottle of wine for refreshment and the butterflies, birds and bees for company. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Trope

Just for fun:

If you were to be elected Pope, what would you choose as your regnal name?

Note that the joke "We've already had two Pope John Paul's, so we need a Pope George Ringo" is old.

I think I'd pick Pope Homer, in honor of America's greatest living philosopher. MDB 13:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Zaphod the Extremely Relaxed. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 14:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Tyler of Durden. SJ ^Debaser 14:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Theresa the Antichrist. Doin' a Pope Joan on 'em. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 14:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Alexander IX. While there was a VII and VIII, no one's going to use that name nowadays due to VI. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 14:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Biggus Dickus Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Aye the Sailorman Totnesmartin 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Pope Goes the Weasel then. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 15:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Javias. Sounds good to me ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ wasn't me! 16:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Paul VII, in tribute to Paul of Tarsus, at whose feet an incredible amount of evil can be laid.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 17:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Nolo Contendere. DickTurpis 17:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Beyoncé.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Meatwad. Corry 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Bender. ħuman 20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Vatican budget on sacramental wine would shoot through the roof. (And it's a pretty high roof.) Corry 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Strangelove. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope IV the Bitchin', and then I'd be my own successor, Pope IV the Bitchin' the Second. Also, I would replace the curly top of the pope staff with a large pink ball horn, because. Also, maybe Pope Freud. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Ular Mechanics? ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope 86 the Celibate Sprocket J Cogswell 05:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

List of already awesome popes

See here. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Suspected to have had male lovers during pontificate - Pope Paul II (1464–1471) was alleged to have died of a heart attack while in a sexual act with a page." - pwned by god for being a filthy homo. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Legitimacy of Argument?

Ok, since I probably won't have time before I go home for Christmas to look through Kent Hovind's lectures, and once I get home my internet is fairly slow (at least for watching 2-hour lectures to find a single quote, when I don't even know which lecture it is), I think I've decided that over Christmas I'm going to try to do a youtube video on why Social Darwinism isn't a legitimate interpretation of evolution, trying to give a concrete example, that shows the benefits of cooperation, even with individuals less talented that yourself. I plan to build my argument around what I understand about modern-day endurance hunting in a few parts of Africa (it's believed to have been the earliest for of hunting by humans). I'd like an opinion on how my argument stacks up:

The earliest hunts were probably endurance hunts, when humans ran after hooved animals until they collapsed of exhautian and died (modern humans are too fat and lazy for it, but we're actually among the best endurance runners on the planet when we're fit). Now, lets say we have a tribe with 20 males (I'm assuming that for the sake of social Darwinism, if you wanted to spread your genes as much as possible, you'd keep around every available female for that purpose. So, to try to match with the argument I'm discrediting, I'm going to assume that natural selection occurs among males). Now, the children and females gather plant-based food sources, while the men hunt to provide protein (more actual calories come from the plants, but meat is a very important supplement). Lets say that of these 20 males, only 4 are good hunters. Under social Darwinism, that means that these 4 would take all the women, and leave the rest to starve.

Now, here comes the first problem: What happens if one of these 4 supermen has a period of unlucky hunting? Well, that's easily enough solved: A kill will provide more meat than any one of them and their families could possibly eat, so the four of them agree to share meat. So, they go out on their happy little hunts, and one of them gets a kill, possibly makes a fire and eats a little there (hungry from all that running), and gets ready to take the meat back to the camp the 4 of them have agreed on.

...then, he realizes he has a problem: He can't butcher the animal and carry THAT MUCH meat back to camp on his own. The women and children are out gathering, and the other males are out on their own hunts. So, he has to run around the plain until he finds all of the other men, and can bring them to his kill site to help him butcher and carry the meat. Hopefully he can find them before the scavengers eat it all, and naturally this will take them away from their own hunting. Clearly, the simpler solution was to feed the weaker 16 hunters, so that they could be divided up among the good hunters, to follow them around at a slower pace, and help with the butchering and carrying of the meat. Congradulations Social Darwinists! You just killed a useful labor force!

Now, the main response I can see of this is "Well, if you keep those other men around they're going to take wives, and you can't monopolize them." The answer to that: Yes, this prevents inbreeding. Also, if you're fitness is really that much higher, your descendants will eventually dominate anyway, because you'll have more surviving offspring.--Mustex 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Read Jared Diamond's Collapse.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 17:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some even simpler arguments against the proposition: (1) Evolution is science, social Darwinism is political philosophy. (2) Social class is not the same thing as natural fitness. (3) FACT-VALUE DISTINCTION! ListenerX^TalkerX 18:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to illustrate that, but I wanted to provide a concrete, pre-modern example of how cooperation can increase fitness. Otherwise, you leave yourself open to arguments about the sustainability of an idealized society, due to the freeloader problem. (I'm posting this mostly to make sure my understanding of how endurance hunting usually works is correct, am I right?) And, in this particular case, I'm not talking about social class, but athletic ability. Granted, that's not the same thing as fitness, but most Social Darwinists (and creationists, who think Social Darwinism is mainstream evolution) are too stupid to realize that.--Mustex 18:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The remark about social class was leveled at the social Darwinists, who seem to hold that belief. Civilization itself is a counterexample to the idea that cooperation is not beneficial in the evolutionary sense. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Their argument, as I've understood it (and am trying to respond to) is that in ancient times, civilization helped people less than it does now, and so a large portion of the weaker, dumber people died. But, now that we're being charitable, too many fat, stupid people survive, and they will eventually ruin the human race with bad genes. I know they seem to tie that to social class, but I thought intelligence and athletic ability were supposed to be the most important things?--Mustex 18:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The real issue is the phrase "survival of the fittest". Fitness in evolutionary terms is not about superior mental or physical ability, it's about filling an ecological niche. "Social Darwinism" - where one powerful group seeks to eliminate another because they consider themselves "fitter" is a complete misrepresentation of Darwin's theory by both those who wish to get rid of another group, and by the cretinists who want to besmirch a scientific theory because it contradicts their precious Genesis. Fat people might be able to withstand an extreme famine or a prolonged cold spell. Dumb people might be useful as drones. Also our "fitness" as humans is the ability to cooperate on a large scale and thereby dominate other species. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm no anthropologist but I would be surprised if early humans actually hunted something by chasing after it until it collapsed. I would have imagined that early meat eating would largely have been scavenging or finding an injured animal. Once we had started to use even primitive tools then their power could be magnified by being used in concert. A hominid with a stick might get lucky but a dozen all with sticks could work together. Wolves and some big cats use the power of a group to get a kill, I would expect early humans did likewise. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Evolution theory does not contradict Genesis so much as a particularly stupid interpretation of it first made by people whose knowledge of theology was dodgy at best. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I could say alot more on this issue, but the short version is that I don't disagree with anything you've said, I was just trying to come up with a very simple, easy-to-understand way of explaining it (and there's actually some debate about the origin of hunting, but endurance hunts still occur in some parts of Africa). However, after talking to my Phys. Anth professor, I've decided to not use that argument, because it was based on me using my (somewhat limited) knowledge of certain hunting patterns observed today, and imposing it on past hominids. Instead, I'm going to try to dumb down and explain my term paper on the evolution of Altruism. The only problem is, how do I get people to understand what I'm talking about? I plan to substitute words for some of the terms I used in my paper. Can anyone suggest substitutions for "kin selection," "mutualized reciprocity," "indirect reciprocity," and "altruism?"--Mustex 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Musty, try "nepotism", "quid pro quo (bribery)", "campaign finance", and "sucker". ħuman 01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the first two work (although still might be a bit high-minded for my audience), third one I don't think fits (sure you understand Indirect Reciprocity? It basically means you help individuals who help others, even when they haven't helped you, thus making helping an overall beneficial trait. Not sure how that ties to campaign finance.), and the whole point I'm trying to make is that altruists are "suckers."--Mustex 04:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For the third I was trying to come with a less "direct" form of bribery/direct exchange, and campaign finance loosely fit so I ran with it (the bribe is given without specific expectations, it's more of a deposit or retainer). I agree it was the weakest of my three suggestions, but still might work - company A donates to candidate, who then does something "useful" for company B, which then profit company A down the road? Glad I hit the "suckers" nail on the head! ħuman 21:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I've decided. Kin selection=nepotism. Mutualized reciprocity=quid pro quo (or possibly "friendship," if that's easier to understand). Altruism=kindness. Indirect reciprocity=fairness (if you think that fits).--Mustex 21:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Existential crisis

Currently in the middle of one. (AAAAAAAAAA!) Advice anyone? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Cogitere ergo est. Don't worry.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 00:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that not "Cogitas ergo es"? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I always just double up on the cough syrup and when I wake up the crisis is over. YMMV ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 01:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is an existential crisis, anyway? What's it like to have one? OneForLogic 02:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the on for logic. What mean you by "existential crisis?"AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 03:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds as if he doesn't know if he exists or not? Cogito ergo sum? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh you've never had one of these? @OneForLogic (nice name) it is quite depressing. You see some bad shit happened this week and so I'm going FUCKING INSANE as a result. And I think there was even an xkcd about it once. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, dude. I've had two of those before, and I know that they are absolutely shitty to go through. You have my sympathy. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 03:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks Goonie (and everyone else of course). And sorry Sheesh but I am going to pass on the cough syrup method. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So why not tell us what the "bad shit" was, and all us old fogies will tell you how we used to walk to school twelve miles in the snow, uphill both ways, and then you'll feel better? I recommend The Clash at full volume, repeat as necessary. ħuman 03:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I may have to try The Clash it could work. But please no scary stories about your days in school when you had to carve things on clay tablets. I don't want to have nightmares. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We used to dream of clay tablets. We used slates. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Slates! Slates!!! A pointed stick and some dirt: that was all we had. On a bad day we had to without the point on the stick! 09:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The Clash for an existential crisis? Nah, I recommend something a little stronger, like the album "Frankenchrist" by the Dead Kennedys. It starts off with depressing songs, moves into hilariously snarky songs, and then is ended with a song the summarizes the entire album and then gives some personal encouragement; "But what can just one of us do against all that money and power trying to crush us into roaches? We won't destroy society in a day until we change ourselves first from the inside out. We can start by not lying so much and treating other people like dirt. It's so easy not to base our lives on how much we can scam, and you know it feels good to lift that monkey off our backs!" AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 03:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember: "It's are never as bad as it seems" ^{-it's probably worse}. Whatever it is, you'll look back on it in 40 years and cringe. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Words from the wise from "some old crone"^{TM TK} ħuman 05:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody.--Thanatos 04:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Life itself is an existential crisis, the only thing that changes is the degree of crisis. Ace^{of Spades} 04:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ace pwns, as always. ħuman 05:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My grandmother always used to say "worse things happen at sea". However, when I was working on the boats that wasn't very reassuring. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

@Tet: At least you have us bunch of losers to whine to. Big hugs from us all. Here, have a look at this video of a cute kitten. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks Crudy. And @Ace: nice quote. Sounds Fight Club-ish. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Having an existential crisis is an invigorating experience. Utilize it to the best of your ability. I'd recommend cutting down on the sycophancy to the cretins on RW however, these fools know neither how to engage in self critical introversion or challenge the cozy group dynamics of their own self deception. MarcusCicero 17:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I may be doing this out of anger and angst, but all I can say is this: fuck you, MC.

Why is MarcusCicero unbinned?
Remember: Hi, This is John's brother. I know he has been using this account for a variety of reasons, none of them productive for his troublesome history of mental health problems. For obvious reasons I don't want to go into details about this but suffice to say my mother and father have decided to withdraw his access from the internet for the duration of his most recent treatment process. I apologise on my brothers behalf for any problems he may have caused this website during his period of instability. As you know, his posts have been of a bizarre quality but that is merely a reflection of his real world mental anguishes. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And: 20:48, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Delaware" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Argument from incredulity" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bohemian Grove" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "John F. Kennedy" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Lucid dream" ‎ 20:47, 5 December 2009 MarcusCicero (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Gerald Ford"
And: My glorious run has ended. This is not a case of 'leaving and never coming back', but more a case of 'burn out'. I created a personality on the internet so radically different from the real life version that I've forgotten even what trolls remorse feels like.. (You can thank Refugee over on RWW for providing the impetus) My highlights on RW: Making loads of people mad, especially Ace, Susan, Jeeves (Hi Jeeves! Wanker) and also Kels. Doing my best to persuade half of you that I 'was a dick who has something worthwhile to say', while really just being a dick and doing my best to annoy as many people as possible. Continuously rejecting the label of troll; even though I was the most transparent 'concern troll' in history. Riding the wave of mock grievance; So many times you put me on the centre stage with a semi reasonable grievance and I made sure to maximise the fallout as much as possible. Pretending to be a scholar (I know fuck all) One regret: Stooping to do the mental illness stunt. That was a terrible miscalculation. Adios RW! I may pop in from time to time, but at least now you'll know for sure than I'm a fully fledged troll! MarcusCicero 19:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
And: On the other hand, the temptation to shake the ant farm and watch them scurrying to each others aid is far too great to overcome. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wahey!

They love me! They really love me!

Look how popular I was after the whole TK thing yesterday! 20 messages in one night. I love my yellow boxes. SJ ^Debaser 13:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't messaging you about ThickKunt though. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I know. You got replies there und your mailbox. SJ ^Debaser 13:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hotmail? Ugh. Professor Moriarty 17:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The dimensions of crankery

What would you consider to be the major "dimensions" of crank space? These are major, general categories, ideally the smallest number of independent descriptors that covers the largest number of crank ideas. Here is my thoughts so far:

1. Medical (basic quackery, alternative medicine, vaccine hysteria, etc.)
2. Pseudoscience (creationism, quantum woo, perpetual motion, etc.)
3. Conspiracy (UFOs, tax protesters, New World Order, etc)
4. Paranormal (psychics, ghosts, channelling, etc)

Possibilities:

• Historical, things like holocaust deniers and historical revisionism in general.
• Political, maybe conspiracy theory and political crankism aren't totally over lapping?

Anyone else have any thoughts, suggestions or comments? tmtoulouse 15:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can fuse pseudoscience and paranormal, although I've recently been categorizing the relevant RW articles to make them separate. I'm not sure you can totally get political cranks, as politics isn't really science (you can base it on science or reality, or make up some bullshit, but then you'd fall into different ones). So perhaps just add "Historical" to get five major ones. But there is indeed a massive overlap between some of them. Maybe three categories of "Denial", "Conspiracy" and "Bullshitting", based not on subject but how people go about formulating and presenting their ideas. ^pathetic 15:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah there is two approaches to looking at it, starting with the principle cognitive components behind cranks and working down to how those things manifest in the specific is one approach. What I would like to do is a bit of the opposite, find a way to identify individuals who manifest specific crank ideas, and then work out the cognitive components they use based on the identification. So the idea here is to define major categories of cranks, which a series of questions could be formulated. So 4-5 categories with 5-10 questions from each category trying to identify a pattern of holding or not holding crank ideas. tmtoulouse 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think rather than the way the ideas "manifest" themselves as you've listed above, the "dimensions" would be more fundamental - ie, the traits of mind and personality that lead to espousing crankisms, of whatever kind. Or is that what your eventual goal is? For instance, "paranoia" or "superiority complex" might be fundamental dimensions of crankism? ħuman 21:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the ultimate goal is to understand the cognitive and neurological underpinnings for developing these kind of world views. But you can't start with that. If you try you are just arm chair philosophizing. If you want to actually study it empirically you need to first be able to find people that have the world view you are interested in and be able to systematically separate them from controls. The idea here is to set up a questionnaire that looks at various dimensions of crakisms in order to be able to classify someone as a crank or not based on actual beliefs held. tmtoulouse 21:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought you were trying to do. I guess you do have to identify the trash can from the fridge before deciding which to throw a given object into. ħuman 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

An attempt by the Rationalwikian leadership to remove itself from reasonable argument, hence the removal of this post to this section

'Crank ideas' are so subjective that RW tends to make an ass out of itself when analysing the flawed logic of others while concurrently accepting the mediocrity of their own arguments. You should attempt to take as scientific an approach as possible when assessing whether a person is a 'crank' or not; all too often (And Rationalwiki is particularly bad for this) otherwise enlightened historians get called 'cranks' for one argument that they might make (Though I would agree that holocaust deniers are scum) I would call to question the means through which they arrive at their conclusions - their assessment of the evidence, their logical prowess and honesty of opinion should all be taken into account. Unfortunately for you though, these criteria would make the majority of rationalwikians determined and exaggerated caricatures of 'cranks', so maybe this wouldn't be in your best interests. MarcusCicero 17:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oooh Marcus, thank you so much for showing us the error of our ways! Bob Soles 13:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I bet he doesn't have any of these problems at the wiki he runs. Oh, wait... --Kels 13:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't run a wiki Kels, and I don't intend to. I'm merely pointing out your own institutional hypocrisy which is among the most laughable on the internet. Although I didn't entirely unexpect the typical 'if you don't like it you can just geeeet out' response from authoritarian personalities like you. MarcusCicero 13:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Those that can do, those that can't teach, and the really inadequate stand on the sidelines and sneer. Bob Soles 13:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Every ass wants to stand with the king's horses. This may explain why there are critics. —David Gerrold

“”In my country, we say to give a woman a microphone is to give a monkey a gun.

—Borat

SJ ^Debaser 13:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The vaccine

I got it today. No major problems for me, but the interesting part is that of the 18 young healthy people that were there with me 3 got a seizure a few minutes after the injection and were wiggly for ~ 30s. They didn't remember it afterwards. But yes, I took their dope and I'm still alive. HA-HA --194.197.235.240 15:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't "got a seizure a few minutes after the injection and were wiggly for ~ 30s" - you could have forgotten about it afterwards. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 15:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're going to be dead / have serious brain damage by tomorrow. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please people the paranoia is not working with me today. Obviously it was nothing dangerous or the doctors would've stopped. We do all live in the same building most of the time, so that might affect the chances, in particular we had to get up an hour earlier to get to the hospital in time and nobody ate or slept much. 30 s could be a bit exaggerated, it was a longish time but shorter than what it took for a doctor to arrive, ie quite short as we were in a hospital waiting room with good visibility. It was nothing too dramatic, they sat in their chairs shaking and not responding. Recovery was almost instant ("what you say was happening to me a second ago") and the doctors took them to the backroom for a little rest but nothing further occurred. They just zoned out for some seconds. And yes I've learnt my english from youtube comments and not from a medical science book. --194.197.235.240 16:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what the doctor wants you to think. They're in on the conspiracy as well. The vaccine contains mind-controlling quantities of alien mercury which will turn you into a socialist. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how many people would get "wobbly" even without receiving anything... ^pathetic 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To lighten the mood we chatted about how great trollery we could make, and I must say rationalwiki was a creative choice. No it was not just wobbyness, you don't shake that weirdly and violently and ignore people talking to you because of wobbiness. Does anyone want to say something informative? I haven't followed much news for a long time, I was stupid to not to ask at the hospital and I don't feel like going through half the trash of the internet. --194.197.235.240 16:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I had the seasonal flu vaccine about a five weeks ago and came down with a rotten cold just two days later (yeah, I know that's just a coincidence). I had the swine flu thing a week ago, never felt a thing. And apart from some mild tenderness of the upper arm for about 24 hrs, no other side effects. Of course I'm just feeble old fart and know this stuff affects fit youngsters much more. I noticed many 18-30s in my local town throwing wobblies last Friday and Saturday nights. I know that they'd all had flu jabs as not one of them had taken the trouble to wrap up in nice thick coat and a scarf. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You fools, don't you realise the flu vaccine is how the new world order kills you? I'm not entirely clear on why exactly they want us all dead, but obviously they do. It's part of their master plan. 1. Kill most of the world's population with vaccines. 2. ?????? 3. Profit. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Cracked's 6 Hilarious Attempts at Brainwashing Kids With Comic Books

http://www.cracked.com/article/209_6-hilarious-attempts-at-brainwashing-kids-with-comic-books/

Number 4 is the one that made me go Oy Vey. Ryantherebel 15:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that blew my whathefuckery meter... ^pathetic 16:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And no Jack Chick! Totnesmartin 23:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Stargate

I have just found out that - if you are a touch typist - you type "Stargate" entirely with the fingers of your left hand. My more interesting question is: - Is anybody watching Stargate Universe? Does anybody agree that it's bloody depressing?--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Stargate can be considered anything but depressing. Sorry Bob, but I'd rather flay my own penis to shreds and feed it to hungry Germans than watch Stargate. Ace^{of Spades} 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess that we all must take our pleasures where we can.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Depressing is in nowadays. See also: Battlestar Goddidita. They're just trying to copy its success. -- Nx / talk 19:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it reminded me of the "new" Battlestar as well.--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of typing, my wife rang the RSPCA on me because I sent her a text saying I wanted to "kick her puppy". Stupid predictive text. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The longest word typed entirely with the left hand is "AFTERCATARACTS" - plural for a condition that sometimes follows cataract surgery. For the right hand, it's "JOHNNY-JUMP-UP" (a fast-growing flower or a brand name for a type of toy). "Taft" and "Carter" are the only US presidents whose names can be typed using the left hand, and "Polk" the only one that can be typed using the right. This website has those facts and many, many other interesting snippets about words. It's great, if you're as sad as I am. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 21:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And, of course, "typewriter" is typed using only the top row of letters... ħuman 22:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What about amputees? They might type everything with only their left or right hand. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And you should see my friend "Clever" Dick touch type. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

People, people, why hasn't anyone brought up that 'stewardess' can be typed with just your left hand? Creator of QWERTY obviously had a fetish. Vulpius 01:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dinner

Moroccan spiced lamb steaks with chips!

Now for some Thumper stew!

Well, why break with tradition. This steak is so good it's like sex. Except I'm having it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sex. You don't miss what you never had. SJ ^Debaser 21:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

SUPERJOSH MUST HAZ FISH AND CHIPS!

Those are french fries in both cases. Speak English!

French fries are for dipshit yanks. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we're English twits and we have CHIPS. SJ ^Debaser 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

At least we don't call them "freedom fries" anymore. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well what do you unamerican people call potato chips then? Or have they even been invented yet, "across the pond?" /snark Totally agree on the freedom fires how stupid was that? 72.218.139.46 23:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Our imperialistic cousins call them "crisps," I believe. Sprocket J Cogswell 23:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

An English friend of mine, now resident in the States, once went to a British theme pub over there whose menu advertised "traditional British fish & chips". They got the fish about right (fried in batter) but served it with a stack of crisps on the plate next it. She didn't have the heart to them "no, that's not it", so she just grinned & beared it. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's amazing. I've never seen crisps served as "chips" when presented on a US menu as "fish'n'chips". But then, I live in a fairly anglophilic part of the country. Now sepherd's pie, on the other hand, I have seen some abominations, but of course that's a fairly flexible "recipe". Except if it's not like my mother's, it's not the real thing! ħuman 00:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That particular episode of Friends comes to mimd... but speaking of chips, I've heard that there's a takeaway near to me that's doing chips as a pizza topping. ^pathetic 01:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Our redneck friend scored him some Bambi a few weeks ago and was nice enough to share. Very tasty, and nice and lean. Yum. Now for some Bambi and Thumper stew! ħuman 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

antipasto sans Vegemite

Frau Cogswell was kind enough to schlep a take-out antipasto back from the corner grille, it being Friday and all. Two kinds of swossage lurking under all that Thumper forage on a roll that I found hanging around the kitchen. Balsamic vinaigrette from a foil pouch, and there you go. Next time I may put on a skim of Marmite as well. We can't get Vegemite here, have to sneak it in across the border from Canada. Sprocket J Cogswell 21:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we use RevisionDelete to hide IP addresses that have been accidentally revealed?

Moved to Debate:RevisionDelete 23:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Finally watching a full Hovind lecture

(watching while eating and grading undergrad stuff) Up until know I've mostly seen clips, but amazingly the man is even stupider when uncut. I'm 12 minutes in, and he's already completely incoherent. I'm not sure if he personally believes that the serpent from the garden of eden was the devil, but he says that the NWO plan to reduce the population to half a billion is related to a verse in genesis about how the woman's see will "bruise the head" of the serpent, and so the serpent wsnts to kill us all. This leaves two possibilities: 1) It is the devil, which makes no sense, given that the devil wants to tempt us and take us to hell (not to mention, wouldn't this likely speed up Armageddon, and his final defeat?), or 2) Kent Hovind literally believes that the NWO is taking orders directly from a talking snake who's 6,000 years old! (or maybe his descendants...who must also talk to give order)--Mustex 21:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah you've never seen one? You are lucky, or at least you were until now. I'm pretty sure I stopped after 10 minutes. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I made it to somewhere between 20 and 30 minutes. I still stand behind my belief that he's a good public speaker who can tell jokes well, and could have been a stand-up comedian, but some of the things are just so insane my head hurts (still need to find that quote from him, though, for making a youtube video on it someday).--Mustex 01:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Hitler was also a good public speaker. And now I call Godwin's Law on myself and the discussion is over. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And, would you have minded if Hitler became a standup comedian instead of leader of Germany?--Mustex 04:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we all know the answer to that. --Kels 05:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Today's spam

The latest tide washed in a doozy, an email from this humble soul and someone called Dr. Faye, advertising...um...it's actually kinda hard to tell. The top of the message talks about empowerment or something, but the end advertises some sort of podcast or something called "Lord Have Mercy, the Pastor is Gay". She's a one-stop woo shop though, I figured you lot would have fun looking at her site. One question though, since when do evangelicals have Archbishops? --Kels 22:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Nazi userboxen

Does anybody know if we have any? I sure would like one. If not, then I can make one. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 01:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free. - π 01:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Just remember that all userboxes need to be submitted for approval by the userbox subcommittee. DickTurpis 01:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There, now we have one. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 03:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That userbox is full of hammers. ħuman 07:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there also an Anti-Userboxen userbox? I want one. --127․0․0․1 13:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact there is! I had forgotten about making it...-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 18:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Would this cartoon be considered relavent?

http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html I so some user's on the web saying that's an eye opener, and others are saying it's typical cold war propaganda. What do you think? Ryantherebel

Wow, Hanna and Barbera back when they actually animated stuff instead of wiggling cels of Scooby Doo and Fred Flintstone around on a looped background. Fun designs, and a lot of that old style of work. I'm sure there was a story or something in there, I wasn't really paying attention. --Kels 05:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, not as bad as alot of Cold War propaganda (I do like capitalism), but maybe a bit over the top.--Mustex 13:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was quite good. It laid on the Red Scare shit a bit thick towards the end but it had a decent point - you don't give up freedom for anything, and that includes "security" which most of the Western world is doing right now. It's a shame about some of the more fucked up comments under it who just see "LIBRULS ARE BAD M'KAY!!!!" and completely ignore the more overreaching point, which is relevant regardless whether the "ism" is communism, marxism, capitalism, collectivism or any multitude of things on offer. ^pathetic 14:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dinner, Ace wise...

Simple and elegant with non-offensive dishware.

Ace^{of Spades} 06:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bland and boring. And your cola beverage is obviously spelled incorrectly. ħuman 06:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You have a see-through table? I guess I shouldn't have expected anything less. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ace, that is a perfectly presented plate of beer, although I would have liked to have seen some garnish on the plate as well. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some sausages and mustard lovingly arranged around the can. That's proper garnish. --^{Ask me about your mother} 11:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Or dry roasted peanuts. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A medical doctor and sports coach kept a lecture for us on training, physiology and nutrition. One of his points was: "athletes, remember that beer is a complete meal, with all the necessary nutrients". Editor at CP^{mały książe} 11:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ace, this gave me a chuckle. I had beer for my post-food dinner last night, followed by a dessert of beer rounded off with cheese and crackers, followed again by a beer supper that evening to help me sleep. SJ ^Debaser 12:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Beer is food, but it doesn't work terribly well as a meal replacement. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well fucking damnit, this was merely a serving suggestion. I had poured beer onto plate, added some garnish and made it look pretty when my fucking network crashed and has only just righted itself. And my see through table is actually my desk in the study. Not my dining table. Ace^{of Spades} 18:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A see-through dining table is one thing...a see-through desk is another, less fortunate thing. Get yourself some nice hardwood...feel the warmth. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I brought it as it were cheap and is large (I tend to have a lot of papers and other important crap covering it) however I am moving in a couple of months and it may well end up as garden furniture. Ace^{of Spades} 18:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of your excuses. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am living a lie - excuses are all I have. Ace^{of Spades} 18:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oaken dining, Suspected Replicant style

This is my dining table. Solid oak, albeit French oak. Neveruse is right. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 18:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My dining room table is made of a nice dark wood - not sure what kind of wood though. Ace^{of Spades} 18:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Looks good. An interesting piece. If you own that place, it's time to invest in some ceramic tiling (if that's not already). Then maybe take that shelf down and put some chair rail up...adds depth. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ace's nice wooden floor.

Never mind the tables for a second - what I really dig is my floorboards. Made of Kauri (a native hardwood) and about 120 years old. Ace^{of Spades} 19:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Really cool. Lots of character. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the bathroom, the whole house retains the original boards. Very nice. Ace^{of Spades} 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Very nice indeed. @Neveruse - no, I don't own the house alas so I can't do anything about the floor or the shelf. I had to drink a couple of whiskeys before buying that table. It wasn't the cheapest thing I ever bought... –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Us rationalwikians have wood! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nativity chic

Now why am I not surprised about this sort of crap? Half my friends are facing job-losses but some people have money to fritter.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Back in my day we made do with teatowel and a dressing gown! And I turned out fine. ^pathetic 14:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Back in my day we just wore our regular ordinary clothes. The rich kids always always got the best roles though, Them and their fancy unstained undarned caftans. Sprocket J Cogswell 15:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As much as nativity plays make me puke, the charm of them is in their innocence and amateurishness. As soon as they become some sort of fashion parade for tots then the religious message is trampled underfoot. (Not that I care, of course.) Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice thing about growing up in Wales was that we all tended to have the odd crook or two lying around in the attic, so playing "shepherd" was an easy outfit. ħuman 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Odd crook"? Don't talk about your Uncle Dremidydd like that! –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be more like Uncle Dychwfydd... ħuman 00:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

These tabloid-filler festive "news" items on the theme of "it's not like it used to be" are among the many deeply obnoxious things about the xmas season. Complete junk. Why is the BBC, which is supposed to have a non-advertising policy, giving so much column space to anecdotes from Debenhams? It looks a lot like the hacks making a story out of nothing, & then looking for a random retail spokesman to back them up, especially when they mention, briefly at the end of the article, that other spokespeople from different stores said the exact opposite. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Most annoying Christmas carols

Carol Vorderman, Carol Smillie (get that joke out of the way first)

Away in a Manger - Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

HA! Yesterday lunch we were in a pub with effin' Xmas songs on t'muzak for almost an hour. so: ALL OF 'EM. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Toast. Especially since our shops have been playing them since October. Oh... and today I heard Bob Dylan's Xmas carol CD. Which confirmed for once and for all what a sad washed-up wanker he is. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit of reading comprehension please folks. The title says most annoying. They are all annoying, but which one really gets up your goat? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul Westerberg released an absolutely rocking version of Away in the Manger last year though he called it "Always in the Manger." I listen to it all year 'round. The whole digital EP is actually quite good. The most annoying general purpose Christmas song has got to be "Jingle Bell Rock" ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I rather like that "Do They KNow It's Xmas Time At All" song. Oh, the question was "most" irritating. Nevermind... ħuman 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a carol as such, but that Paul McCartney effort - he's been annoying since about 1974 but this is his annoying Christmas song.Totnesmartin 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Little Donkey. And Macca has done a few good things since then... I liked London Town, McCartney II, Pipes of Peace and Tug of War, and (small) bits of his later stuff. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK then Genghis: anything with Harry Webb or "whichever one's on at the time"! (except Fairytale of New York; that's a horse of a different coloured kettle of fish) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Anything heard during December in the grocery or any other shop. IE, all. I guess I'm with Toast on this. ħuman 06:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm with Toast as well. The problem with Christmas music is that there are only so many songs, so you end up hearing the same ones sung by different people, which is intensely boring. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a carol I know but I love all the implied stalking threats in Santa Claus is coming to town. :-)--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For me, probably "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Clause," if only because every time I hear it, it is so horribly off key. Kinda like how I feel about O Holy Nightmare. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 19:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

How about non-annoying Xmas songs? My playlist includes Fairytale of New York, The Hanukkah Song, Trans-Siberian Orchestra's Carol of the Bells and What Do You Get a Wookie for Christmas (when he already owns a comb). --Kels 19:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say, as far as actual favorites go, the Boston Pops Orchestra's rendition of "Sleigh Ride." I hate that song with the lyrics, but I do like how the Pops Orchestra arranged their instrumental rendition. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 19:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Video games violence redux

Last week we were discussing computer game classification laws and I mentioned how Australia had some of the strictest, inconsistent, most nonsensicalness laws imaginable. This week we got a nice example Aliens vs Predator the movie, okay. Aliens vs Predator the computer game, banned. - π 12:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That's really fucked up. There really needs to be something done to get it shoved into the thick heads of legislators that, just like movies, there are games for adults who can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and they're not for children. Because that's where it all comes from, the early 90s where Sega and Nintendo specifically targeted games towards much younger kids, but that's bollocks - you shouldn't let 12 year olds play the likes of AVP or GTA any more than you let them watch a Saw marathon. ^pathetic 14:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The guy mentioned at the bottom Michael Atkinson is a bit of a fundie, not in a big way, but he does get overly twitchy about certain things. He has unilaterally banned a couple of art house movies from the state that was passed by the federal board and he once reclassified a Will Smith movie M when the rest of the country it was PG, both of which were unprecedented that a state attorney general would go against the decision of the national classification board. However, the way he has been dragging his feet over computer games for years now is just plain pig headedness. - π 14:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8 - The Musical.

We've all seen it, right? TheoryOfPractice 14:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that Jack Black as Jesus?!? ^pathetic 14:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Black Jesus, that'll piss them off. ^pathetic 15:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is--and Neil Patrick Harris, and my girlfriend Maya Rudolph, too...TheoryOfPractice 15:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Any Marilyn Manson fans here?

I thought, in honor of Ray Comfort's birthday, I leave you Manson fans this hilarious attack piece against him by Ray Comfort and Junior. Enjoy. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 17:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

MM is pretty badass. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. And that's why the religiously wrong don't like him. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You live with apes, man, it's hard to be clean. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Aww, I love the little goth kids trying to be cool. Yeah, Satan is so bad arse he can't even teach his followers to do their makeup professionally. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be a freak to recognize Manson's uncanny ability to fucking rock. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I can still listen to a few of his videos. But here's my question in YA.
Is this video weirder than anything that Marilyn Manson has ever done?
:-D
Civic Cat 18:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Manson is actually quite intelligent if you ever listen to interviews with him. I like his commentary in Bowling for Columbine. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

His interview with Bill O'Reilly is also quite entertaining. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought she was great in "The Seven Year Itch" and "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes". Her new look and musical career didn't do much for me. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 19:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Boring, derivative, samey music and obvious targeting. He has the potential to be an excellent satirist and songwriter but he'd rather pick easy targets and preach to the easily impressed. Without him, music would be exactly the same. Totnesmartin 20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

While he may be a mediocre shock rocker, I do like a lot of what he has to say outside of music. In reality, his attitude is kinda like mine. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

National Geographic

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

The big times at last! CЯacke®

Are US (and Canadian) soldiers glorified welfare recipients essentially involved in "make work" projects--including those in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I'm thinking of that Gang of Four song "I Love A Man In Uniform" and Dead Kennedys "Kinky Sex". Just a while ago, I posted it in Wikipedia's RD--here's the edit that had it but it's been removed (and now I put a question about the question in their Help Desk). Here is my posting on AB.
Thanks for any help.
:-D
Civic Cat 18:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

World Cup Draw.

Fuck! That's all I'm saying. --Psygremlin말하십시오 18:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Woot! That's all I'm saying.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 18:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Brits and (especially) Italians present should be celebrating. Kiwis are pretty screwed. Aussies... tricky but doable. It's the Netherlands and Brazil groups that will be fun. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 19:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well we knew we were screwed before today. How good is Slovakia?--Damo^Hi 21:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As a Kiwi I'm just happy we got in and I think we'd be screwed regardless of the pool. Unless we had say American Samoa, now the fattest nation, to play.Rad McCool 01:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm an ignorant American and I have nothing to contribute to this discussion. That's all I'm saying. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You should be happy. The only real competition we will have is Algeria. Yorick^{Is Joe Biden Eva Braun?}

As an Irishman, you can all fuck off, you with your poncy World Cup codology. Gits. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 05:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't jump down my throat but aren't you a little embarrassed by the reaction from the Irish football organisation appealing to have the game replayed or even to be the 33rd team. I know it was a fuckup and whinging is fine, but asking for special dispensation is a little childish in my opinion. --Damo^Hi 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC

Agreed, but Henry can still go fuck himself, cheat.Rad McCool 05:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I say: "start all over again". How the fuck does a championship end up in a draw anyway? Someone needs to rewrite the rules. I suggest user:jfraatz, since he knows all. ħuman 06:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, Damo = that was mad shite. We eliminated Georgia from the competition with a ludicrous penalty given against them back in February, so indeed I have little sympathy for the FAI. You win some, you lose some - shit happens, and them's the rules of the sport. And I don't support video refs either. I don't have much of a problem with the incident, actually, just pissed that we're not going to be there, that's all. So youse shaggers who all have teams off to sunny SA can all go fuck yourselves, I'm grumpy about it and that's just that. Fuckers. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And there ain't nothing wrong with that attitude. I felt exactly the same way after another certain referee missed certain things in a certain rugby match in a certain rugby tournament. In fact I am still angry about it. --Damo^Hi 07:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Creepy new username trend....

So our newest (bunch of) troll(s) are taking usernames in the format: "insert girl's name here" is hot. I'm prolly not going to get a lot of agreement on this (not a lot of people seemed to thinK that falldown's using the wiki to threaten to "assrape" a particular person using her real name was a huge issue), but if those are real people's names being used by some Internet creep, does the community think it would be wiser to expunge those usernames from our database? TheoryOfPractice 20:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There are only three, and a name on its own is virtually meaningless. Professor Moriarty 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you happen to be that person. And we might entertain the possibility that this is happening in the context of broader stalkerish behaviour. TheoryOfPractice 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ToP. Our revision-delete policy allows for removal of personal information posted without permission, which would include other people's names with comments about them, & the same approach should apply regardless of whether the comment is posted in the form of a username. (Obviously there are common sense exceptions for comments about famous people etc.) Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ToP as well.TallMan 20:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Back in 1996 when I first made my web debut I was the only person with my (IRL) name that showed up on any search engines. Then there was a DJ in Alice Springs with the same name and now I can find about a dozen others. While there may be only one Terry Koeckritz or Ken Demyer, most names may apply to several different people so a name on it's own is not personal information. When the name is geo-located then it becomes personal. As for stalkerish behaviour it would only be the case if those names belonged to editors here. We cannot make assumptions about every name that is used on this site unless we go for the opposite of CP's naming policy. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kelseigh Nieforth is hot. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew that!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bah, anyone could have a name like that. --Kels 16:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, you stick me into Wikipedia and there's 6 or so articles. None of them are me, though. Yet. But still, that name might only apply to one person on RW and it's fairly clear, at least to them, who it means and who it's targeting. Therefore it's less about privacy and more about malicious stalking. ^pathetic 16:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your favorite Android apps

tell me them. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The three rules one. Y'know, an android can never harm a human etc. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo, your new phone is insanely great. It's got a 28.8bps modem. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That beats the crap out of my original 1200/300 modem in 1985. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 00:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A modem? You mean one of these? --127․0․0․1 00:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Cryptic crossword clues

Does anyone else have any favourites? (Select the space to the right for the answers)

1. Harken to a sexual deviation (5,2,4,4) PRICK UP ONES EARS
2. HIJKLMNO (5) WATER (H to O)
3.   (1,6,1,4) I HAVENT A CLUE
4. ABCDEFGHIJKMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (4) NOEL
5. Wolf (3) EBB (Flow back)

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, cool. I do have a favorite puzzle [1] ħuman 00:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding number four, that was the "theme" of a December puzzle I did with letters missing from answers. ħuman 01:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Private Eye's my favourite. Anyone got 4 across - I seem to have a blind spot on it? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still blanking on that one, too. ħuman 02:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

1. is often seen as "your ears. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Great film, too... ħuman 02:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean 4 Royal family's surprise taking in of Posh? (6)? posh = U, surprise = start, Royal family = Stuart.

Why is posh "U"? a slight insult, as in "you are posh"? ħuman 04:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, The Posh is Peterborough U. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

See here ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 08:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm terrible at cryptic crosswords. I presume there's some little secret I'm missing. "1 Down: Upwards banana flies over, excited darling?" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church is coming to my hometown, hooray

I love in Cherry Hill, New Jersey and apparently the Church of Phelps is coming to protest at one of the high school's due to it's diversity. Figure's something like this would happen. Ryantherebel 04:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Freudian slip there methinks. Please sign talk page entries using four tildes (to include date/time) like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: , on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Other people's gods still love homosexuals. 02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you know anyone counterprotesting, warn them to be careful and obey the law. Westboro is basically a moneymaking enterprise; they've funded their ministry and enriched themselves with hundreds of thousands of dollars they've gotten from suing people who infringe on their rights.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 02:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the Mayor made an announcement basically telling us to ignore them. We'll see how it goes.Ryantherebel 04:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI They don't always show up; they've done that before. Sterile Playstation 2 04:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

WBC has dropped by my hometown before. Sadly I was out of town when they did so. They were outside one of the high schools as well. It's probably the only time the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Gay-Straight Alliance ever collaborated in an event to counter-protest. ENorman 06:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, WBC has often stated they'll protest and not shown up. "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", they are. But Tom Moore's advice is good: my former pastor was an attorney as his day job, and we were once concerned WBC was going to protest our church (they didn't.) He told us that WBC very much knows their rights, and will sue you if you infringe on them in the slightest. The tactics that work best against them are the ones that try to drown them out, like the motorcycle riding veterans who rev their bikes, or just try to "hide" them, like the gay counter-protesters who dress as angels with large wings and obscure them from view (at a legally safe distance.) But don't get physical with them; that's a sure ticket to a lawsuit you'll lose. MDB 13:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

They're sneaky gits like that. And don't forget they tend to bring young children with them as seen on the Louis Theroux documentary. While I'd like to blame the guys who threw the can that hit the kid on the face for being twats, I also prefer to blame Westboro for using young children as human shields. ^pathetic 15:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Need academic resources

Would someone who has student access to Mark Tushnet, Critical Legal Theory (without Modifiers) in the United States, 13 Journal of Political Philosophy 99 (2005) and is willing to email it to me please contact me. 03:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that, whatever it is, something I might find at my local uni library? I haz card and stuph. ħuman 06:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Try emailing Ames? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 08:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I will send it to you. tmtoulouse 08:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)\

I haz been surved. Kthx. 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

So I'm stuck at home...

...with mono and I'm bored out of my mind! Anyone have fun stuff to do on the net? Games are cool, as are good humour sites, good tv shows etc. Many thanks RyanC

I think we have an article that might help. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Public. Library. 04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Build a phase shifter to make "fake" stereo? ħuman 05:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There's always this great standby in times of boredom. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Mono sucks. Convert to stereo, or preferably Dolby 5.1 and you'll be having a much better time. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually mono can be very impressive if well-produced - you can actually get width, height, depth from one speaker playing good program material. That said, there's probably only six recordings that fit that description. And 5.1 is so 2002, nowadays you've got nothing unless you've got 9.3.2 ħuman 22:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading

T'other day we bought, among others, Freakonomics. I (Toast) have been reading a couple of the others but my other ½ (Marghanita L) insisted that I read Ch 4. He (the author(s)) postulate a direct link: Roe v Wade → increased abortion → reduced crime rate (it's not as simple as that, of course). Interesting - wonder how the fundies deal with that? Specially the right wing tough on crime and pro-life types .

It caused a furor and some criticism when the book was released. It's not really very solid scholarship, more of an interesting idea that a workable thesis. But then, that's Levitt's penchant. Too bad his latest (Superfreakanomics) ventures out into less familiar territory, claiming that global warming can be solved by sulferating the atmosphere. But still, there's some good and fun stuff in his work.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 09:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading it about a year ago, only I think it had a different name. I remember that chapter very well. Not totally convincing but well worth a read. --Damo^Hi 10:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought freakonomics was complete fucking garbage. Popularising the obvious. Ace^{of Spades} 10:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)P.S. (By obvious I don't mean truth - just drawing conclusions like we all could and writing a bullshit book about it. You dig?) Ace^{of Spades} 10:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No doubt. But it was well written and interesting. --Damo^Hi 11:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Whew, that's a relief

I saw the Ray Comfort birthday greetings and was afraid he and I shared a birthday.

Fortunately, his is the day after mine, and I can share mine with Pappy Boyington, Wink Martindale, Max "Jethro" Baer, Jr., Dennis Wilson, and, less appealingly, Gary Gilmore. MDB 13:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You're lucky. The only vaguely (in)famous name I can find (or that I actually recognise) that shares my birthday is Joseph Mengele. Go figure. Oh and Erik Estrada. Oh yay! --PsygremlinPrata! 13:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Joan of Arc, Jakob Bernoulli and Sun Myung Moon. Possibly others. Professor Moriarty 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Mine is tax day in the US. Births include Leonardo da Vinci, Kim Jong-Il's dad, and Catherine the Great's mum. --Kels 16:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius, William Shakespeare, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolf Hess, Charles Richter, David Coleman, Koo Stark, Roger Taylor, and lonelygirl15. are the most famous ones on my birthday. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 16:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was born on my own birthday. How's that for a coincidence. --⁠ 16:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing interesting on mind. Well, that singer died on it. Who was it again? Jackson? Mick. Oh yeah, Micheal Jackson, that's it. It'll be an interesting time next year, I'll want to get pissed and everyone else on the planet will want to mourn someone who - until his death - they all thought was a child molester. Fucking great. ^pathetic 16:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

My friend at uni was born on christmas day, I mean the odds of that are like a million to one. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom Waits, IIRC. ħuman 22:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Yup, and Noam Chomsky. And Larry Bird and Johnny Bench, and some woman whose only available photo lacks garmentation.

Prehistoric nuclear war

Interesting. Anyone know much about nukes etc. to debunk (or possibly even confirm!) that this sort of thing is possible? It's a nice, romantic idea that we're not the first intelligence on the planet and that a previous one tore itself to pieces, but the timescale needed for deep-time to erradicate all evidence that a massive civilisation existed numbers in the hundreds of millions of years, if not billions based on the oldest unchurged rocks that exist on the surface. There just doesn't seem like there's enough time for evolution to a sentient species to happen twice given that. ^pathetic 16:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there'd be evidence in the radioisotope ratios. Kind of like how we wrecked carbon dating with our nuclear tests. Also, he seems to think it wasn't "very" prehistoric, though I don't think he risks picking a date. I only Schlafly-skimmed the tripe, though, so he may be correct.fnord ħuman 22:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Invisible Idiots

I saw the cryptic crossword thing up there (which I'm bad at) and it reminded me of Spider Robinson's invention, Invisible Idiots (which I'm also bad at, but you lot might like 'em). Essentially, what you do is take a famous name or something, break it up into sound-alike parts and then jot down synonyms for each of those words (first and last names separated by a semicolon). People have to figure out who the original people were. Wanna give it a go? Here's a couple of fairly easy samples.

1. Burn, fewer; Attempt, succeed
2. Penis; Truck
3. Beam; Sympathize
4. Colour; Bam!, cistern
5. Wealthy, greens; Sweet, relatives

I'll put up answers in a bit, but have a try. --Kels 16:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

As for number two, I stick my neck out for nobody. Not even in Cairo. Sprocket J Cogswell 16:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Three, peel me a banana. Got some first names, but others are being evasive for now. Sprocket J Cogswell 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

So, at a risk of sounding like an idiot. Would the first name of no.5 be Wealthy -> Rich, Greens -> yard i.e, Richard. So something? Although I'm not sure that's right. ^pathetic 16:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going with Rich chard on that one. Sprocket J Cogswell 16:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about the "sweet" there, though. Closest I can come is tilting head to side and going "aww" ... Sprocket J Cogswell 16:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

3 is Ray Comfort. I'm baffled on the others... unless there really is someone called Dick Lorry. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I missed the earlier banana edit. Sorry about that. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 17:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing well so far. Yes, 3 is the Banana Man himself, 5 does start with Richard, and Sprocket and SuspectedReplicant are on the right track. Should I reveal the answers now, or wait a little longer? --Kels 17:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't notice that Sprocket got #2 right as well. Although I did crib that one from Robinson's "Callahan's Crosstime Saloon" books. --Kels 17:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay... I don't get this any more. Truck -> Blaine, or am I totally misunderstanding? –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 17:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sort of pleased you didn't decide to split Comfort's surname up. But that's a good one, anyway. ^pathetic 17:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) hehee -- Skate; orgasm, stacked up sofa cushions

Sprocket J Cogswell 17:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha! --Kels 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, folks are getting a bit frustrated now, so time to cut it short. Here's the answers:

1. Charles Darwin (char, less; dare, win)
2. Peter Lorre (peter; lorry)
3. Ray Comfort (ray; comfort)
4. Huw Powell (hue; pow!, well)
5. Richard Dawkins (rich, chard; d'aww!, kin)

As an aside, the name for the quiz comes from the possibly apocryphal story of the translator who changed the phrase "out of sight, out of mind" into the literally correct "invisible idiot". --Kels 17:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This one's fun, but a little rough. "Also, rendered; Irritate, field" --Kels 18:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty obvious, but I don't know about the irritation. <slaps forehead> Wow, forgot all about Callahan's. Haven't been there since dirt was re-invented. Remind me to toss an empty glass into the fireplace in your honour next time I pop in for a shot and a listen. :-) Sprocket J Cogswell 18:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I kinda went off Callahan's when it started to turn into a franchise. I've read the first three books, and they were good, but I tried one of the later attempts and found it kinda full of its own hype. The "magic" of Callahan's wasn't subtle any more, it was overt and tossed in your face, which kinda defeated the concept of the original set. Didn't bother with the rest after that. --Kels 18:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I kind of facepalmed the Darwin one for not getting it. But I'm still stuck as to how Daw got translated to "sweet", it's something I've not come across before. ^pathetic 18:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Aww, how sweeet!! Ah, well, Callahan's... to every thing its own life cycle. What starts out as radical heresy becomes mainstream, then bohrringg.. Sprocket J Cogswell 18:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in case nobody got my little bonus one up there, it's our old friend "And, drew; Chafe, lea". --Kels 21:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Moore's The Awful Truth

Anyone else think that Michael Moore has a tendency to accidently accidently make the wrong point? The first episode of this show being a perfect example: If you can publically shame healthcare companies into changing their policies, why do we need the government to do it.--Mustex 19:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Haven't seen the show, but the answer would be, I guess, if we really can do it across the board, there's no need, correct. However, part of what can make "public shaming" work is the potential or looming threat of government action (like the big etailers with bricks'n'mortar stores deciding to pay local sales taxes). ħuman 23:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of RC is logs

Is this some sort of record? Professor Moriarty 20:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably, considering we had MC to deal with and then Crooked Penis shows up to make things worse. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 20:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Am i the only one who thinks they are one in the same? Ace^{of Spades} 20:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, guyz, just got back from the library. What the fuck? I mean, what the fucking fuck? TheoryOfPractice 20:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Javasca₧ Over 2700 edits! Thats over 215! 20:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

MC decided to reveal that he wasn't a childish fuckhead by being a childish fuckhead. Nothing really unexpected. --Kels 20:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey ToP, whats up man! You missed some fun! Ace^{of Spades} 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah ToP you missed MC's hissy fit. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't MC confess to trolling once before? Broccoli 21:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Stupid library. Stupid book-learnin'. Will go read recent changes. Stupid MC. TheoryOfPractice 21:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would start way, way down, from when MC makes a section on his talk page called "Burnout". Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what did I miss? I tried to post something last night and the site locked up, so I just came back now and all hell broke loose again? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You missed MC have a meltdown and start a block war, then start deleting pages when the block war he started wasn't enough. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 21:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me: was Human here for all these shenanigans? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Human was MIA. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 21:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Too bad, he would finally have gotten to see MC's true colors. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I know. It was all fun and games until he actually started trashing the wiki. Then we (especially Ace and I) decided he could get fucked and vandal binned him. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

TBH I'm surprised you lot put up with that cunt for so long. How much of a moron do you actually have to be before the bouncers should throw you out? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Th thing of it is, we'd vandal bin him, and then he'd go "I'm not a vandal, look at my logs" and then some drunken sysop would go "He's right, he's not a vandal" and let him out. But, this morning CDT, he actually did finally start vandalizing the wiki, giving us the ammo we needed to purge his ass for good. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 22:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

He'll be back, no question. He has nothing else and he needs his superiority fix. Ace^{of Spades} 22:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but now he's vandal binned, and I will fight tooth and nail to keep him there for good. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty interested in his essays I gotta say. I wanted a whole one dedicted to me. Ace^{of Spades} 22:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hate to say I told you so. But, I told you so. Next time we get a disruptive arsehole chewing up time and bandwidth around here, can we please, please just get the fuck rid of him sooner rather than later? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time I said that... --Kels (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

He was vandal binned because he vandalized RW, not because he admitted to being a troll. -- Nx / talk 22:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And you don't see that as a flaw in the process? Or to put it another way, we want avowed and persistent trolls here because...? MC wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes at wikipedia. Our stupid policy prevented us from effectively dealing with someone who was obviously up to no good, and he knew it and exploited it to the hilt. It's time to change the policy, and not cling to a point of principle that really isn't terribly important. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No. -- Nx / talk 23:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"MC wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes at wikipedia." Indeed. Neither would most talk page threads at RW. -- Nx / talk 23:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Trolls make a valuable contribution to RW. We just haven't figured out what that is. --Kels (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I despair. Even after having your nose rubbed in the fact that there are people out there who are pricks, and will always be pricks no matter how many chances you give them to reform, you're still blindly refusing to acknowledge that, in general, it would be best if such pricks were elsewhere. Every other damn community site on the internet knows this, and has a process for implementing it. The thing is to pick a good process and stick to it. Having no such process, and refusing even to consider one, is just rubber stamping their licenses to troll. I guess I'll just continue my policy of being generally elsewhere too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, would argue that I think this wiki has, hopefully now, learned its lesson. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 23:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) After TK, I hoped the same thing. And others in the meantime. No, the wiki will not learn its lesson, and continue the "soft on trolls" policy. Oh, and MC will at some point be Sysop again, under that name. Remember, I called it. --Kels (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

One things for certain: if he is ever unbinned, let alone sysopped, again, it'll be after I leave and never come back. I promise you that. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 23:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I really shouldn't drink whiskey while browsing the links from MSN Messenger's startup screen...

A couple of the gems which have just given me, intermittently, my best lulz and my worst throw-up-in-the-mouth moments of the week:

10 Totally Ridiculous Combo Gadgets: Think combo taser/MP3 player...

20 Worst Restaurant Foods in America: What kind of sick fuck invents a dish with over 3000 calories and triple-digit saturated fat?

Junggai (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whiskey is just one of those things. I, regrettably, outed a genius sock of mine the last time I chugged a ton of whiskey. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 23:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)