RationalWiki:Saloon bar

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.

edit

National Geographic

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

The big times at last! CЯacke®

We have another Republican to hit golf balls at

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

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

Size and scale of the bar (sticky)

As the saloon bar is massive, I'm wondering if it'd be a good idea to split it into a few sub forums (in practice, sub pages of this page, which would act as a menu screen). The benefits are pretty good, you can organise it all better and probably keep a good level of activity. It might also help a little with server load so we don't need to reload the entire page repeatedly (this has been an issue for me, at least, recently) but I'd want Nx or Trent to comment on whether that's true or not. Downside is that there are more pages to keep track of. ^gnostic 09:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea. At the moment Pibot is archiving when threads are 40 hours old and it is still long. Or we can go back to using the forums? - π 09:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The forums died when the Saloon bar started. This page is more plusgood because it's easier to load in pictures an' that. Sub-saloon bars? Hot l Baltimore, anyone? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But a decent install of phpBB or something similar can do just as much stuff as the MW page. The downside to using the forums is that it's two log ins and two different ways of working. It could be advantageous as the forums are designed to hold forum traffic so may help with the server problems and the archiving problems. So if the forums aren't a popular option, splitting would be a good way to sort of merge the two types of interaction. I'll think of some categories but I imagine the standard net break down of on-topic/off-topic etc. would be good. ^gnostic 11:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly:

• Rationalism/Pesudoscience (for the odd time when we want to talk about it)
• Mad Fuckers (for the reporting of the batshit insanity of the world)
• Saloon Bar (for general discussion)
• Goat Worship (the totally off-topic forum)
• Sticky page (where adding new sections are is forbidden, but the pages aren't archived)

^gnostic 11:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, no no! I like that the Saloon Bar has all kinds of discussions going at the same time, like an actual bar. Splitting it up would decrease the amount of talk because no one would bother to follow all of the individual discussion pages. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's more of a problem than anything else. The bar is fucking huge and threads get archived after less than two days. The prospect of bringing up old topics is practically impossible and some of the interesting or productive or important topics get archived quickly because they're swamped by the random crap. It needs to happen one day. At the moment, the system is like a Facebook group with more than 50,000 members; the messages are impossible to keep up with because there is ZERO organisation and it updates too frequently to keep track. This is especially important as people, you know, work, or have lives and can't be attached to the Internet 24/7 just keep track of every new conversation, at least half of which they may well not be interested in. Fragmenting it on the other hand has numerous benefits, and giving topic titles might encourage people to start more threads, not less. ^gnostic 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. I think we need more discussion though, and I would like to see what other editors have in mind. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The saloon bar should be disbanded.

And why is that, pray tell? The Saloon does more than anything else to contribute to the sense of community here. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It adds to the insular and reactionary culture which is making this place slowly die.

Are you now too lazy to log in, MC? Fedhaji (Talk) 00:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Best reason for keeping it I've seen so far. --Kels (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

From Pi's talk page

As the discussion didn't attract many people, I figured I'd probably go ahead and split the Saloon Bar unilaterally (it gets the mobs attention quite nicely). Would this cause any issues with Pibot and archiving? Adding the Template:Talkpage/Pibot template should work but there could be an issue with searching subpages. The simple way to do it would be to search all the archives of all the "sub forums" (I.e, the saloon bar page itself would have the titles of the search bar, the bartop and the links to sub forums only) but I'm not sure if the pibot parameters would do that automatically. ^gnostic 13:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you leave the archive path parameter as it is, it will archive all the subpages to the one archive page. The search box searches all sub pages of the current page. There is a Template:Talkpage/PibotHidden that will archive a page without creating any on screen display. - π 14:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so literally "don't change it". That's good to know. ^gnostic 14:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No if you need to archive sub-pages they each will need a template, but if you tell them to all archive to the same page it will. - π 23:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a split would be a good idea, but I think we should have more discussion first. No need to do it unilaterally and send everyone into HCM. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Armond, we really need to discuss this before unilateral splitting. How about a "sticky" thread on the bar about it? I'm sure the accumulated brainz here on this site can come up with a good way to do it so it doesn't dilute the energy that makes the SB what it is, while allowing us to perhaps slow down the archive rate a bit. ħuman 00:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is probably best to ask everyone first, however if you are going to do it, the best way would be to put:

{{Template:Talkpage/PibotHidden
|algo = old(time)
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 44
|algo = old(96h)
|archive = RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive%(counter)d
}}

on each subpage. That way they will archive back to the main saloon bar's archive. - π 08:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that will work because of the counter.-- Nx / talk 08:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It updates the counter itself, doesn't it? I haven't looked at the script in a while. - π 08:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but if the counter is different on some pages, won't that cause problems? -- Nx / talk 08:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It does only add one at a time, but it loops until it has archived the threads, so it should keeping going until it finds the next free archive. - π 08:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am an old man, easily confused and I may have missed something. But what we going to split the Saloon Bar into? And how exactly will it help us?--Bob^{Not Jim} 08:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to keep the Saloon bar for off-mission chat (food, music, rl anecdotes, etc.), have a separate but similar page for on-mission or topical chat (anything about cranks, blogging, also news stories, etc.) & a separate place for discussing possible changes to the site (technical, aesthetic, policy), a bit like WP's village pump.

Also, I think this discussion ^ should be moved back to the Saloon bar. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "more discussion" that nothing ever gets done that way. The unilateral action at least gets some attention - but thanks for the comments above anyway. Weasloid seems to have the best idea, it seems. There will always be a place for off-topic discussion. Discussion on cranks etc. (the "on topic" chat) can go on the WIGO pages, though, they're not used much but they should be. Having yet another place might dilute it too much but perhaps if we could integrate it all better, add the saloon bar (off-topic chat) to the WIGO nav-bar. A subpage to discuss new article ideas specifically (perhaps combine with the "to do list" in some way) and also add this to the same nav-bar. Site policy would probably need a new page (or use talk:main_page?). But again, put it on a nav-bar. That puts all the major social interaction points on one navigational template that can be jumped between easily. ^gnostic 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think this should be on a seperate debate page.

And I'm still a bit confused about the objectives/advantages. If people don't understand or sign up to such a change then they will all continue to go to the same page. What would be nice would be a clear statement of:

• The problem which needs to be resolved.
• How the proposed solution would resolve this problem.
• What advantages (if any) this solution would have for individual users.
• How the split would work in practice.

While I understand that unilateral actions have the advantages of overcoming institutional inertia, I do feel that a general discussion would help get some kind of consensus, and messing with the main point of interaction on RW is not a small step.

I would suggest therefore that: 1) this be moved to a debate page. 2) the debate page be announced on the intercom 3) those proposing the change explicitly answer the questions I have outlined above.--Bob^{Not Jim} 17:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with separating off-topic chat from discussion about site changes. -- Nx / talk 20:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Other suggestions

Why don't we create a "forum" namespace, and instead of a new section being created here, a new page in the "forumspace" is created for each new thread. That way users need only watchlist those threads which interest them. And we can keep track of all the new pages created by adding one of those thingies that display Recentchanges, and set it to only display edits to the forumspace. It's a lot like what Uncyclopedia does, really. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That might work quite well (haven't looked at the UC one though). And the SB itself could perhaps be transclusions of all the current ones, set up so the "edit" buttons take you to them? That way the SB contains everything in one place, but after editing one ends up just loading the "current" thread. Can each thread then have a menu listing all the others? ħuman 21:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. With the inputbox extension we can create a box to easily start new threads, and with dpl we can list the x threads with most recent activity on a single page. I suggest we don't replace the saloon bar though, let's just leave it alone during the transition (if we decide to do this), and if the new forum namespace is successful we can close down the saloon bar. -- Nx / talk 06:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, we could use categories to create various "subforums", since dpl can filter by category. Also, the new version I installed a while ago can produce multi-page output -- Nx / talk 08:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Though if we want to actually implement it we'll need to hear from others first. What do Pi, Toast, and Ace think? Bob (both of them)? All the n00bs who've joined since I left? : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean we would scrap the RW forums as they are now? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, they'd be left as they are (presumably as a testament to our own sadness : ) ). We'd simply continue not using them. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to get my brain around this. As I understand it we're trying to resolve two problems:

• The SB uses a lot of bandwidth.
• As a consequence of this the SB gets archived very quickly and sometimes before people have time to read or comment.

So the suggestion is to create a new namespace and make each new topic a page in this new namespace. These pages would themselves be accessed through topic headings in the existing SB (or a new variation thereof).

If I have understood the problem and the solution correctly then I'm all for it.--Bob^{Not Jim} 08:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, dpl and individual threads are more complicated than I was thinking, but it sounds interesting. But yes, Bob, the problem is that the sections get archived so quick they're almost impossible to keep going if only a few people are involved. Sticky threads work, but as with most forums with stickies, they're starting to expand and take up more room. With sub-forums (as categories, as Nx suggested), individual threads and discussions will be easier to find. A single page to a thread won't work like the Saloon bar, where you see everything, but it'd be no more clicks than the usual kind of forum ran on VB, XMB or phpBB or whatever. Though if we go that route, it'll be best to implement it while still running the saloon bar as it is and encouraging people to use both to provide feedback - as the trouble with most changes (As a Facebook user of nearly 5 years, I know this from experience) is that people just go "NNOOOO!! CHANGE IT BAK!!! NOO!!!!!" to any change. ^gnostic 17:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC)We're not typical facebook sheep, though, surely? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As Human has demonstrated, we aren't far off. Professor Moriarty 18:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll get on it soon. Just don't start creating pages that start with Forum: because that will be a problem when I introduce the namespace. -- Nx / talk 18:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The SB became popular because it was a single entry point to lots of different topics, it has an immediacy that is missing from the BB. Previously WIGO:CP seemed to get clogged up with non CP stuff. The advantage of the Saloon Bar is that you don't have to click around to see what's of interest. I don't like the sticky stuff here as I feel there's probably better places where it should go and if a topic generates a lot of interest it is often moved into a separate space. The bulletin board format makes it more difficult to peruse as you have to keep clicking between the different threads. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a good point. In any case, I've set up RationalWiki:Forum for testing, so you can try it out and decide which one is better. -- Nx / talk 01:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to create a page that resembles the saloon bar with the new system: RationalWiki:Forum/Off_topic_chat_expanded. This lists the 25 most recent threads with their content, and allows you to scroll through all past threads (the pagers don't appear because there are less than 25 threads) -- Nx / talk 02:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we make that the default setting, because it's the most familiar view to everybody? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

On a related note

I'm finishing the phpbb upgrade and will open up the rationalwiki forum again soon. -- Nx / talk 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks nice, do you think we can encourage people to use it? - π 01:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Say what?? There's a forum??? (I'm kidding) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There's always been a forum. Search for it on RationalWikiWiki for some amusing insights. ^gnostic 12:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

New thread way down below

I think I'm so smart, but I did make a lot of the things we like here work well. User #188 ;) OK, Trent made them work well, but I made them pretty and wrote the instructions. If anyone wants to cut and paste it up here go ahead, I just didn't want to get EC'd after writing it. ħuman 06:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rage Against the Cowell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dinner

Well, the wife is away again, meaning I get to eat what I like. Therefore I made myself chicken katsu. Not quite as nice on its own as it is with some sushi and sashimi, but hey ho. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I should have checked RW before dinner so that I could get on the "post your dinner" train, too. Fedhaji (Talk) 23:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've neglected the dinner club for a while. It's important that I upload a picture of my dinner again soon. SJ ^Debaser 01:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dinner club" would be a good name for a new forum... ħuman 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We already have a recipe namespace. If people really want to keep up this photograph-your-food thing, it would be better to set up a mini Saloon bar (or restaurant) there for the purpose. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Or it could be a sub-section of the Forumspace. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. fuck the recipe namespace. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Recipe: rules, it's the best part of RW! ħuman 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The last time someone tried to set up another social forum here, we ended up with HCM 2 and half the wiki getting torn down. Just how is the Weeping Lion anyway? SJ ^Debaser 11:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Most awesome dinner ever

So tomorrow I'm going to have dinner with the Jewish side of my family. My older brothers and I are going to have our annual latke-eating contest, and we're all going to have brisket and the usual smattering of Jewish food. It's going to be awesome. I will be sure to upload pics. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Get the fuck in!! Pics, or it didn't happen. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly, Lawyer / Author...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Game's been called on account of rain snow

There we sat in the snow...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I live in a place where it is a light winter if we get 90 inches of snow in one season, and it is not uncommon to go an entire month without the sun shining through. Last winter, we had blizzard conditions for 4 days nonstop and the high school did not close once during that blizzard. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ sysop and 'crat! (does it matter?) 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

For you Americans, I was watching John McCain live on C-Span

If he would have had this passion last year (he criticized TARP, noted a bunch of bullshit riders that are attached to the Defense bill), he would have won the election (I voted for Obama because McCain supported TARP during the election). Coburn's on now criticizing that Defense is only getting a 4.0% increase, because the rest of Federal government has grown 11%. It's this logic that has screwed this country over, IMHO. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell, if the John McCain who gave his concession speech had "run" for the office he might have won. My theory is that when the party foisted Palin on him he stopped wanting to win. He knew as well as anyone else that he'd probably keel over in his first term, and also cared enough about the country to not want that lunatic anywhere near the levers of power. ħuman 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

He sure acted like he wanted to win. He pulled out all the stops, and did all the things he'd turned his nose up in previous races. I don't think he would have bet his reputation if he hadn't been gambling on winning. Before 2008, I respected McCain immensely. McCain's primary race in 2000 was what made me interested in politics. But he put all of that on the line and started the same character attacks that were used so scummily and effectively against him in 2000. He lost the race, but he also lost a whole lot more. I think he wanted to win... he just failed to find the message for his campaign. He wanted to run a decent one, but Palin and the rest of the Republicans didn't. He tried to steer a middle course, and that's not something you can do with two opposites.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 03:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)q

Interesting point. I found his campaign post-Palin to be lackluster and made up my own reality as to why. Maybe he just failed to succeed. But I do recommend comparing late campaign speeches with his concession speech as you consider the truth I presented to you my theory. ħuman 04:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

MCs new incarnation

The old Orator MarcusCicero is undergoing a distinct metamorphis at the moment, and will emerge on the other side an altogether radically different historical character. His oratory will be more refined, his rhetoric better presented. Who dares oppose this new power on RW? The difficult teething pains of the last fews months are behind; the inherent doubt conveyed by a bogus troll admission now long past him. MarcusCicero will emerge in a couple of days, before your own eyes, with an entirely new internet persona. Watch out, for he will never speak of his old character ever again. All members of this website will be like distant dreams to him. He may experience deja vu when encountering some of the more ridiculous Rationalwikians, but that will be a temporary malady. RW will soon experience the introduction of an entirely new beast - a creature of reason, who serves only the one god, logic, and has no need to tarry with ignominous post modernist metaphysics or lazy sophistry, or the even the more objectionable modern internet 'humour'.

RW will never be the same again. All will have changed utterly, and a terrible new beauty will experience life. Prepare yourselves for the confrontation between reason and introvertedness, logic and histrionic. Prepare to purge the sickness that is 'meme' from your disembowelled person. ^{— Unsigned, by: 134.226.1.234 / talk / contribs}

MC's new incarnation.
Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

Idiots.

Gentlemen at an irrational website, Operations Metamorphosis and Flying Reform Society are imminent! Prepare for bowel-crushing surprises from a certain user whose name begins with M, that will likely put an end to internet memes on the internet. Beware the Ides of December! As you are aware, the cat that yelps the loudest is very often the cat that is hit by a shoe. :) -- Conservative 20:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was reading this article yesterday on Wikipedia about this site called "Pranknet". The head leader of this disturbing site was a 25-year old loser named Tariq Malik who was jobless and lived with his mother in a 1-bedroom apartment. His two underlings were two sex offenders who were also jobless and lived with their folks. Now, I'm not comparing Internet trolling to what these individuals were doing, and I'll concede I do engage in a fair bit of Internet trolling myself (usually on sites with a stated political or ideological bent that I find extreme). However, for the life of me, I can't understand why the hell you would troll RationalWiki. For Christ's sake, this site won't even ban you for trolling and allows people of every viewpoint, no matter how extreme or controversial, to edit. I don't see how pathetic your life has to be that you actually feel pride in trolling a small wiki that is ranked a great 130,560th in web traffic by Alexa.com [1]. Instead of trying so hard to validate your existence by spending the last two years of your life trolling the great RationalWiki whose servers are housed in the apartment of some graduate student, have you thought about just killing yourself? You'll be sure to get a lot more attention that way, I promise. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said. But DFTT, everyone. When (or if) he comes back, I think we should just ignore him. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

'Conservapedia Editor' is guilty of the typical logical vacuousness that permeates from every pore of this cretinous website. He is incapable of independent, rational thought. I pity him. Furthermore, I do not 'troll' RW, at least not in the traditional sense. I conduct pyschological and sociological experiments, which are based around manipulating internet pawns into certain situations and seeing how they react. Its a live, small scale observation of authoritarianism and libertarianism in open, mortal combat. Its intellectual masturbation, in short. RW is horribly divided between numerous factions, and its fun to stir shit right in the middle.

MC does manipulate the fuck out of you people....or is that just me being manipulated?? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the troll with no life (except insulting people more fun than him) just admitted to manipulating himself. Or maybe he gets his brother to do it. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Internet pawn, it's everywhere. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 01:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

PEOPLE! STOP FEEDING THE FUCKING TROLL!! Thank you. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw, but it was hungry, and it was so darn cute! ħuman 04:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What can I say! It wanted some honey and I just had to get between him and his mother. The Wine of Tyrants^{Drunk with power again!} 09:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The grand irony there is that screaming "don't feed the troll" in large capital letters is some quite nutritious troll feed, it shows that you're annoyed and angry. Either, don't post, or feed the troll. It really is that sort of dichotomy. Or you can do what one or two of us experimented with earlier and just quietly and unceremoniously move the trolling post into it's own subsection, or "quarantine", so that it doesn't overspill into legit discussion, which is where the actual problem is, not with the posting itself. But what do I know? I don't jack myself off to everything some random dick posts and don't drama-whore myself out all over the site's talk pages all day so I'm not really qualified to judge the "rational" way of dealing with this sort of situation. ^gnostic 15:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right. From now on I will abstain from posting in any section which contains trolling. Your way is indeed the rational way, I suppose my irony meters simply weren't functioning when I posted the angry screed above.

Also: I don't jack myself off to everything some random dick posts and don't drama-whore myself out all over the site's talk pages all day so I'm not really qualified to judge the "rational" way of dealing with this sort of situation. Best description of me ever. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandal break suggestion

What does the mob think about allowing wgVandalBrakeConfigLimit (the variable now to set 30 minutes) to be specified upon binning? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of it being modifiable, unless perhaps 30 minutes is the absolute upper limit. Any more than than that and we may as well just start banning vandals. Personally I think it's easiest to leave it at 30 minutes. --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be modifiable and then the community could decide on the details. Professor Moriarty 18:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it could be interesting. Like "God damn...Marcus is getting really bad, let's up the limit a little" or even "Hey, MC has been on good behavior, let's lengthen the leash". ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the code. Have fun. -- Nx / talk 18:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the matter, Nx? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think it is unnecessary, but my POV is biased, because I know how complicated it would be to do, how ugly the current code is, and how lazy I am. -- Nx / talk 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any point to changing the time limit. 30 minutes is pretty reasonable, being short enough that it's not an undue hardship but long enough that it's not a hardship on the rest of us anywhere. I vote leave it the way it is. --Kels (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If Nx thinks it's too complicated, I wasn't about to fuck with it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's really up to Nx, since he is by far the most skilled at the wiki-fu. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It would also complicate the sysop's job since they would have to choose the length. Most people would just choose the default. -- Nx / talk 18:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm already belabored enough with choosing block lengths. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why we don't allow banned users to edit on their talk pages like Wikipedia? Seems like that is a better solution than the vandal bin that allows for periodic edits across the entire project. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Extending the brake to one edit per hour might be reasonable, but no more than that, & I don't think making it modifiable on an individual basis really serves much purpose. As for allowing extra edits to talk pages, it wouldn't be ideal as it would still allow for spamming, vandalism, obscenity, trolling, deleting others' comments , etc., within that page, & a determined vandal can still make a lot of work for others even on just one talk page. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A determined vandal can also make a boatload of socks and use all twenty of them every half hour—remember Fred? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

They'll also need twenty different IPs, which is a bit more complicated than switching accounts. -- Nx / talk 21:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Having read the comments I've got to say that I don't see any great benefit in making any changes. But it's a good idea to take these things out and brush them down from time to time.--Bob^{Not Jim} 22:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the last time you did serious editing around here, IP wasn't included in the brake/bin, it's since been updated. Anyway, I think it's completely necessary to change it. The thing about vandalism (wandalism) is that it can be rolled back quickly. We use the brake to cut down on the amount of rollbacks people need to do it quick succession, hence the term "brake" - it's not designed to stop anyone. And no matter what we do, a "determined" troll/vandal/asshat will find a way of getting around it. That's all security really is; it just puts off the people too lazy to get around it. ^gnostic 15:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't fully understand the previous comment. Does "you" refer to "me" Bob M? If so, I think I should point out that all my edits are serious. Or at least somewhat serious. Apart from that it seems to me that a 30 minute brake is about right to slow down the "bad guys".--Bob^{Not Jim} 22:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor headfuck

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

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

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

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

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

I saw a sign

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

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

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

Had it been me, I've just left it sitting in the toilet, but that' not a funny solution, is it? Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 13:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO

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

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

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

I think it wou;d be funny, but it should be an option. That way, if somebody gotm sick of the joke, they wouldn't be forced t live with it. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 13:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar Redux

So, finally got round to seeing it just in time for the thread to be ark-hived. Impressions? Storywise... Princess Mononoke meets Dances With Wolves, only a lot more predictable. Visually? Wow. Just wow. Definitely added to my movies to watch while tripping list. Also, the alien chick was kinda cute... think I need to get out more. --PsygremlinPrata! 16:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, have some LOL Avatar. --Kels (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Last night on the late night talk shows it was all-Avatar-all-the-time, I swear. It seemed every single show I caught some of had someone from the movie on to chat it up. Apparently it cost $300 mil to make. Wow. Whatever happened to pie-plate flying saucers? ħuman 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They were left in the same room as the plot and dialogue. Yorick^Crass. 09:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Turns out that VFX artists are even cheaper than pie-plates. Have you not noticed the dozens of people standing on street corners with signs saying "will render hypervoxels for food"? ^gnostic 09:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am drunk...

The beverage of truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twilight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RationalWiki Awards

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

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

Rooftop nativity

wtf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Access to Psychological Science journal

Anyone have access to this article (Evidence That Self-Relevant Motives and Metaphoric Framing Interact to Influence Political and Social Attitudes) that might be willing to grab the pdf and send it to me? It looks fascinating, but I only have Project MUSE humanities access and that doesn't include this journal.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 13:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Festive logo

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

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

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

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

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