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

Secular believers

I have just watched this video from the BBC's education service about "Secular Believers" which is meant as a classroom teaching aid but also shows some insights into the differences between the UK and the USA. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, BBC's education service, that takes me back. Pretty good video, though. ^bomination 10:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Near the end now. On the part about American Atheists... hmmmmm... okay. I see that even without God, teh yanks are still religiously religious! ^bomination 11:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual is more the term preferred here, since one who doesn't have religion cannot be religious. I have often found it quite intriguing how stubborn Americans are when it comes to faith. I, myself, hold Wiccan beliefs while, at the same time, consider most of it woo. It's quite an interesting exercise in doublethink.The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 11:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I need to track down that rant about how saying "I'm spiritual, not religious" is bullshit. I thought it was Maddox but it doesn't appear to be on the "phrases that piss me off" article where I thought it was. This must be the third time in a week that I've wanted to reference it... ^bomination 12:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, though I don't think it was the great Maddox who said it. Spiritual in lieu of religious is just being too politically correct, in my opinion, so that you don't offend people who don't want to admit that they are religious, especially so-called secularists.Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 12:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think political correctness is the motivation behind it, although some may go the "oh, I'm open to the possibility of religion" to avoid offense and appease their ways out of conversations that might be a bit awkward. I think the real motivation is more about trying to separate out the "good" aspects of religion and the "bad" aspects. Claiming not to be religious gives the air of individuality (or at least removes any notion that you may be "a sheep" of some kind) while claiming the spiritual aspect allows people to appear deep and complex; "I believe in so much more therefore I'm deeper and more complex because my worldview appears deeper and more complex". ^bomination 13:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My wife says that she's "spiritual, but not religious". It's a cop-out that basically says I don't believe in god, but I'm not one of those horrible atheists. Z3ro^talk 14:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think exactly the opposite, that the label is a cop-out for theism, as I argued here. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be true for some people; for just about every person in my life, it tends to be the opposite. Z3ro^talk 16:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say not really to that one... "Theism" specifically refers to the belief in God, gods or the big cajones running the universe. "Spirituality" in the context of "spiritual, not religious" is more along the lines of "I'm not going to go with that God crap, but I still like to believe in ghosts/fairies/souls/psychic-powers/spirit-realms". Often a disbelief in the latter is stated as a per-requisite for atheism (and the BBC video above certainly endorses that view towards the beginning) but I think they're certainly completely different things and I think you can be atheistic while still holding onto notions such as the soul and other things in the "spirituality" camp. It's not particularly a cop-out for theism, explicitly, but perhaps for deism. ^bomination 16:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the old slippery-slope of what is a God and what is not; use some people's straw-man definitions of "God" and I am "atheistic." ListenerX^TalkerX 16:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

North East Passage

This is a couple of days old but still worth reading. I'm sure Schlafly will dismiss it, but the fact that a shipping route blocked for 500 years by ice is now navigable might just make an impression even on his warped thinking. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 09:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But they're saving a bugger-load of money. Hence, by the law of "Capitalism Trumps All", Global Warming does exist and is a gift from God. ^bomination 10:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that more like 5000 years? @500 years, Columbus could have used it to discover Korea and call it India... ħuman 19:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I was going from the 1553 date in the article, but you're right - it'll be a lot longer than 500 years ago that the route was last navigable. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 09:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cookie Monster and 9/11

David Icke's forums have many wonderful loose threads, but surely none looser than this: someone found a Sesame Street book from 1976 and a whole new conspiracy is uncovered. Fifteen pages of comments are there for your delight (or possibly despair). Totnesmartin 15:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent thread. It starts off as pretty much a troll, but after ten or so pages the wingnuts are out in full force. ħuman 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As if the "J is for Jihad" song they recorded the following year wasn't a tell-tale sign. Jihad, Jihad, Jihad starts with J Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What's funny, of course, is no one points out the obvious - that major landmarks are always the target of fictional attacks and other mayhem. That's why King Kong climbed the Empire State Bldg - it was the tallest, and very recognizable. So for the decades following their construction, the towers were the target of writers and artists of all stripes. A few were bound to presage the real attack at some level. What I'd like to see is a presaging of the OK city bombing, or Columbine. ħuman 21:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's just crying out for a "cookie monster did 9/11" meme. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That kind of wingnuttery cannot possibly be made up. Or can it? Who knows, who cares. It doesn't surprise me that it is real.Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 21:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that, if in the future a giant ape climbs the Empire State Building, we've had it coming? ^bomination 09:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that this was posted on "David Icke's Official Forums". Look closely, you see two fs. A f looks like a tower with smoke coming out of it. And there's two of them right next to each other. I'm not saying anything, just pointing it out. But if you notice, and this is what I call the "smoking gun", there's no "J" in there; nowhere in "David Icke's Official Forums" can you find the letter J. J is for Jihad, so they're trying to subliminally say to us that there was no Jihad behind the attacks on the World Trade Centre. It was all LIZARD MEN!!!! ^bomination 09:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought, of all the Muppets, Bert would be the one. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 14:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No More Dirty Dancing

Patrick Swazye has died. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 00:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I preferred that "Roadhouse" movie. That was him, right? ħuman 00:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You told me Ghost was your favorite because you had a crush on Whoopi Golberg. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Did he ever bang that advertising airhead from About Last Night? And if so, was it before or after the boob job? ħuman 01:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

He was in an episode of MASH too, in which his character discovered he had leukaemia. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 04:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

He was good in that one, I think I saw it last week. He hung on to help his buddy survive even though he couldn't give blood. ħuman 04:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the one. There's a very brief article on IMDB. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 05:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a classic. Mulcahy's actor when asked about M*A*S*H*: "It's about a priest in Korea"... ħuman 05:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh now come on, no-one has mentioned his performance in Donny Darko? Both creepy and hilarious! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 07:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Creepy, hilarious and many shades of wrong. ^bomination 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget his liberal-surfer-hippie character in Point Break! SJ ^Debaser 19:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but this guy mattered...

Jim Carroll ("People Who Died"; The Basketball Diaries) is no longer among the living. ħuman 04:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that too. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 04:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that Norman Borlaug, who died a few days ago mattered far more than all the recent celebrity deaths combined, Michael Jackson included. Secret Squirrel 14:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the weirdness of society. People who do important stuff are forgotten. Bastard cubic Hoover! 14:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

At least he got a mention on The West Wing. That's real fame. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 14:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The horror, the horror.

Observe the freak of nature. I like the postfix about the two headed snakes attacking themselves too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"...especially as the heads have a tendency to attack each other." Now, I don't want to come across as a sick fuck who endorses bear baiting or cock fighting or feeding Christians to lions... but I have a very morbid curiosity to watch that. ^bomination 09:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have stopped recycling

I am going to put this empty beer can in the dustbin. Feels good. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 04:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whyever stop recycling? One can obtain money in exchange for empty beer cans. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

One cannot do so in NZ (Although you used to be able to) and because I dont have the special "recycle bin" because I am too lazy to go steal one from up the road on garbage night. Also, I like feeling naughty. Speaking of which, would you like to join me in a slinky pillow-fight? Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 05:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there! Cans being metal, and aluminium at that which is expensive to purify, you actually make a profit recycling cans. Paper recycling is pointless, plastic recycling hardly works but the cans, the cans are good. ^bomination 08:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, glass is also good. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 09:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just checking. But either way, recycling is overrated in the hierarchy of waste management. I recall seeing "recycled chairs" which were more like overpriced artwork made by taking plastic bottles, shredding them, heating and melting them, and then forming them into artsy looking chairs. I was watching the news report on it and thinking "holy crap, between you driving all over the countryside looking for these plastic bottles, washing them out with hot water and detergent, using an industrial shredder to cut them up, heating them to over 600 ^OC to melt them and releasing all the volatile components into the atmosphere, you've done more environmental damage making one poxy chair that will probably snap in half in 6 months than making an entire three-piece from scratch!" ^bomination 09:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Glass is good but not particularly economical (heavy to transport, the raw materials are cheap). My town no longer "recycles" glass by selling it, we keep it and crush it to use as aggregate under roadwork. In other words, doing that is cheaper than buying sand from local pits. ħuman 23:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to look up the number, but the number of kilowatt-hours to take bauxite to aluminum is enormous, and the amount of fossil fuels burned to make it be is a a lot. It's something like 1-2% of the US energy production per year. Furthermore, the bauxite has to be mined and shipped further than the recyclables have to processed. Sterile candlestick 01:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dino Adventure Land

Eric Hovind has managed to raise $380,000 to "save" Kent Hovind's Dino Adventure Land after it was forfeited to pay for the structuring charges against his father [1]. Here is an interesting thread on some weird dealings that some might be interested in [2]. tmtoulouse 05:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at the tax exempt status of the donations, can anyone make a complaint to the IRS about this? They are claiming that the donations are tax free and yet the receiving organisation doesn't appear to have tax-exempt status. So they're defrauding the IRS while trying to raise money to pay for the fine they got for defrauding the IRS? Awesome. Are they genuinely thick as fuck or do they think god will just take care of any dodgy situation they get themselves into? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 07:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, if they aren't a not for profit doesn't that mean they'll need to pay income tax on donations received? It'd be hilarious if Hovind the younger managed to get himself banged up for tax fraud too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Yes. Your donation is tax deductible to the full extent of the law." Classic weasel phrase. The IRS doesn't list them as a tax-exempt charity and Creation Science Evangelism isn't a church (which wouldn't be listed) so it appears Eric is indeed trying to pull a fast one. Godspeed 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Who will bail out Dr. Dino's backyard next time?--Tabris 23:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Take that Assfly!

(1) that is all. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 07:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution is slowly losing support. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 08:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is further evidence that Britain is becoming a "very liberal place" for the Assfly. SJ ^Debaser 19:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So farewell then..

Keith Floyd, he made cooking interesting and moderate inebriation a fashion statement. He also once cooked up a paper beer-mat and served it to a snooty customer as veal. Excellent! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"On me Clive, on me". Legend. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This was always a classic. What a horrid woman, and yet he humoured her. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I loved Keith Floyd - a man never seen without a glass of wine in his hand. I have a cookbook of his and almost everything in it is completely impossible to make as I'm not normally able to source the ludicrously rarified ingredients he expects you to have lying around your kitchen. 'Green ham' anyone? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo releasing woo

Huh, there I was thinking Nintendo were quite rational, then they release this shit. What do you think? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo are nothing if not a great success in marketing. It's not really an issue of "rationality" in the sense you're thinking of. It's more that "there's a market for it, it's a rational no-brainer to exploit this". ^bomination 10:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Rational can mean several things but in socio-economics it usually means doing what is best for oneself or group. As an industrial enterprise their purpose is to make money (forget all that mission statement stuff) and if people will buy it and they make a profit then it is perfectly rational for them. We, of course, tend to use the term differently, but it has caused arguments in the past. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Today you will sit in front of your TV. Tomorrow same. JS Leitch 11:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo is just adding to its "improvement" of it's users. Kinda reminds me of all that Viedt crap from the Watchmen comic. Instead of making the better machine, build better users.--Tabris 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

doors.txt

I was looking at the recent changes and saw loads of edits by unregistered users just adding "doors.txt;10;15" into loads of pages. Wondering if this was some kind of exploit I searched for this phrase and found it all over the internets. Am I missing something? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is what taggers do when they get a computer. Who knows? The world is full of morons. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume it's a malfunctioning spambot. I've seen various similar things before. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 13:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That was my other thought, but you'd think they'd spot it wasn't working quite quickly? Then again, spammers are of quite a low intellect. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "wasn't working"? The doors I ordered for my house from Nigeria will be here any day now, and damn good value they were at $500 each, too. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Men Who Stare At Goats

Just saw the trailer; I'm not sure what to expect. I really should write an article on it, though. I might try when I have more time to waste. Bastard cubic Hoover! 14:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We have one or two vague mentions of it on RW. I think it'll be fun at least, I was wondering exactly how they'd convert the book to a movie. ^bomination 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I bought the book a few years ago. Not bad. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that the film looks really good. The book is pretty cool too. I'm still a bit in two minds about Jon Ronson. He is a very good journalist, who picks up some great stories (Stanley Kubrick's Boxes and his article on Sylvia Browne for instance) but I can never make up my mind whether he is naive, gullible, disingenuous or simply very open-minded. Worm ^{(t | c)} 15:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've often wondered how much of it was completely true, but there are other sources, for instance you can get the First Earth Battalion manual here. ^bomination 16:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The BNP shop

https://excalibur.bnp.org.uk/acatalog/Race_and_Science.html Special. ^bomination 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Bastard cubic Hoover! 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Excalibur?" These people make you feel ashamed to be British. "Patriotism" has become an ugly word because of them. SJ ^Debaser 19:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Neveruse513 for bureaucrat

I thought he was one. Bastard cubic Hoover! 15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought he was leaving and never coming back. Totnesmartin 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. I have left to never return again. For anyone who hasn't already caught on, I now declare my reprisal of the Ken/Marcus/Rob "disappearing act" over.^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 16:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

oh I see. whatevs. No to crat. Totnesmartin 16:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the suggestion is flattering and very much appreciated, but I don't actually do anything. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 16:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What gives you the idea any of the rest of us "do" anything either? Oh, and Yes to kingmaking. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I have it instead then? I've no idea what I'm doing, but the bragging rights would be awesome! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's that kind of can-brag attitude we should be rewarding here. It's also that kind of attitude that drove me to leave and never come back. I still miss you all very much and think about you all the time. I wish there was a way to come back, but I fear it's too late. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sooo, is that a yes then? :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: If I took the Wiki with the same level of seriousness as Neveruse513 appears to, I would give as my reason that I am on Neveruse513's "Don't Like" list. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My case was based on the fact that he's been here for a while. Bastard cubic Hoover! 18:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I don't like LX, he's right. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Then again, Gooniepunk and myself were both cratted last week, and while I can't speak for the Lord o' the Goons, my actual contributions to "real" articles have been minimal AND I've only been here about 5 months. Please don't take my super-secret rights away!!! SJ ^Debaser 20:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I feel slighted. I'm glad I left this place. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 20:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I may have had a bit too much homebrew (mmm, Mexican Cerveza), but this all sounds like gobbledegook to me. Do I get my cratship so I can get fly bitches all up on my dick or what? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Right now, I put myself in the oppose column, since it appears that Neveruse513 no longer wishes to be a contributor here.The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 22:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position: I will support Neveruse513 for bureaucrat only if they are not, in fact leaving. Otherwise, I oppose making a bureaucrat out of someone who otherwise will no longer be contributing here.Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 23:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

He is not actually leaving, it is a joke. He is parodying the people who leave and continue to edit. - π 23:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am suprised we are having this conversation, Phantom usually just crats who ever he feels like. - π 23:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. TheoryOfPractice 22:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to reak the habit. Bastard cubic Hoover! 17:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Same reason a ListenerX. - π 23:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't we make him something else? Or just turn him into Bohdanite and have done with the issue? ħuman 23:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

'Crat him! Broccoli 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I still say 'crat them, but we can always give them the lateral demotion of "vandal" as a resolution.The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 00:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, just because I said so. And 513 was my old house address, and there was a lot of beer drank in that house. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 01:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Chart

Handy not-really-a-chart:

SUPPORT:5

OPPOSE:9

NEUTRAL:0

It looks like the current decision is that he should not be made a 'crat

Before this gets close I'll add my oppose, just because we should never use. Or, alternatively, we could take this to some RW: page and you could all force me to 'crat everyone. Then what? ħuman 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, that wasn't as funny as I thunk it was when I typoed it. Nevermind... Babies like heroin! ħuman 02:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I really think that there are enough crats the only advantage they they have over sysops is user rights, i.e. making trusted new editors sysops. So first of all why make someone a crat; just because of longevity here? RA was a crat (and rather spawned the fashion for handing out cratships like candy) but he wasn't happy because he didn't get thanked or be given goatstars. I don't think that this will get much support but decrat someone who no-longer edits and hand over their rights or give the guy an award for his awesome editing. But at the end of the day is this some sort of mutual admiration society? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lick lick lick, I don't use my 'cratship because everyone else beats me to the 'sopping. Not that I was in a hurry... Question is, since we have no criteria whatsoever for goat'cratshipness, should we? We have Trent's "mostly harmless" and RA's rampant demotions as common law on 'sopping, but what are our terms for 'cratship? Keep in mind, a 'crat can force a server reboot/root rewrite of the wiki if they are malicious. A 'sop can only waste people's time for like ten minutes (of course, that's partly because we have like 40 'crats on 'round the clock...). ħuman 08:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(Shhh, psst - let's make NU513 (what is that, am FDA registered drug?) a crut and not tell anyone - including NU513!) ħuman 08:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Cratship is also useful for promoting sysops in an emergency - I think CUR's blowout was the last one, wasn't it? It's useful to have somebody around who can do that when it's needed. Also, what happens to the old cratships of departed users like Hojimachong or Yossarian? Totnesmartin 09:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In passing, what happened to Yossy? He and I teamed up well on teh stalinist republic thing PLUS I was always jealous of him picking that name. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 18:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting about what should happen to so-called "retired" users with powers. On the one hand, they're not doing much, on the other hand if their accounts are hacked then potential malicious forces can walk in with 'crat powers but back on the other hand that's highly unlikely and they can't do much damage anyway. ^bomination 10:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't do much, since Trent could just restore a backup of the server, and then decrat an ban said user. A minor annoyace, really. However, if, like CP, we did not back up data, then it would be a large annoyance. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 17:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I might be missing something here, but what can a bureaucrat do that would require us to restore the wiki from a backup? -- Nx / talk 18:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume that they're thinking of a 'crat removing the rights from the others, not remembering the fact that Trent (and maybe you) can alter user rights in other ways. Bastard cubic Hoover! 18:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My feelings are that making sysops meaningless keeps people from caring about the damage that they might do by being one. CP made sysopship a game. And, it was akin to chess that was worth playing for the right people. Sysopships at RW are like musical chairs with one more chair than players. So, there is no satisfaction in becoming a sysop. 'Crats have moar powerz, but if they were handed out with a little, but not much more, forethought it wouldn't matter either. In fact I'm going to do one right after this. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 18:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey I guess this is a good place to start?lol Hello room.

Hi, rationalwiki.com. Just wanted to say hi and get to know this forum a little better never thought signed up. Any new people here like me? ^{— Unsigned, by: 212.235.107.56 / talk / contribs}

We're a forum? Bastard cubic Hoover! 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Dunno if we're like you. Describe your interests. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 17:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we be getting the newbie to divulge such personal info so soon? Totnesmartin 17:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to work for someone at another site. Newbie: Please email me all your personal details, including measurements and sexual preference (please don't, this is a piss-take of someone else). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Want to know us better? Then register and create an ID. Until the end of September they are absolutely free and have no annual renewal charge. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Forum spambot. Do you remember the one that came around not so long ago that completely confused forum terminology and started talking about things that are blatantly impossible on wiki? I think they even tried formatting it with VB code too rather than wiki markup. ^bomination 19:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably. Still, no harm done. In fact, I finally got rid of this -- Nx / talk 20:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu... (H1N1)

Is an new virus that hasn't been seen before. Therefore it is a new specie, therefore evolution happens. Should someone tell Andy and PJR? ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ Who said anything about fair?! 18:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Goddidit. Bastard cubic Hoover! 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

They would argue that it has just been lying dormant in pigs and mutated within the strict confines of the Flu Virus Baramin to become the current global menace. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Creationists do believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution. It's a convenient getout clause because so-called macroevolution is unlikely to be observed first hand in a lifetime. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

They have only accepted microevolution because it would be embarrassing for them to deny it; CMI and similar ilk dislike the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" because it gives a useful dividing line. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's usually presented as "what some scientists call microevolution". I believe the creationist terminology is something like "variation within kind". ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block} 19:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ATCHOINK! Gesundheit. --79.24.1.188 19:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's still "the flu". Wake me up when it turns into a frog or grows wings. ħuman 19:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What, you mean swine flu doesn't turn people in to pigs, Circe stylee? That's evilution, right? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's gonna mutate into R2-D2. Now that would be a surprise. --79.24.1.188 20:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Beep-beep-beep". "That's right R2, I'm off to bed because you're giving me severe lethargy and muscle cramps". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Waaay ahead of you. I brought this up with Philip and he said it hasn't gained information it has lost information. The information that made it specific to birds has been lost meaning its now able to spread to humans. I asked if it lost that information and then gained the capability to spread human to human but not chicken then that would be a gain right. No. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 00:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude. Mutations can't (with a creationist italicization) create information. Even the ones that go from A to T to A again. Loss, loss, loss. Sterile candlestick 00:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

USA! USA! USA!1121leventypwned!

It's been almost 46 years since we assassinated our political leader, and over 41 years since a major political figure was gunned down in public. Subsequent attempts have been thwarted due to USAian supremacy at ubercool supercountryism! Match that, ROW minor western world "powers". </utter fucking snark> ħuman 04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So is that what the big sign saying "[4][1] years since last political turmoil" is all about. ^bomination 10:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ In Soviet Russia, the flammable ripple constructs YOU! 11:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yale murder

So when will CP jump all over the murder at Yale and our godless universities? Czolgolz 11:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been mentioned before but: We do not do "Ooh, how will CP react this tragedy" it's gloating, necessary and extremely bad taste. ^bomination 11:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

*shinkick* ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ In Soviet Russia, the mysterious article deceives YOU! 11:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying RW has policies? Czolgolz 17:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Policies? We don't need no stinkin' policies! ListenerX^TalkerX 18:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)