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^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 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)

Should our logo have our name "RationalWiki" under it? (sticky)

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:Logo brainstorm. - π 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It has grown to include discussing the background image/color. ħuman 22:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2012

To celebrate the release of the movie, I present you all with this. Enjoy! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The odd thing about that article was that even though it called out conspiracy theorists on some of their bullshit, it wasn't really a total refutation of 2012 theories, and it did not rebut all of the pseudoscienctific claims that it brought up. All I could think while reading it was "teach the controversy." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait and see, I guess. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 00:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's like death: You don't know for sure whether there is life after death or not, but sooner or later you will know. So why worry about it? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Depressingly enough, one of my American friends is into all sorts of nonsense (she tried to give me a tarot reading last time I was over there. I declined, and she said "I'm not surprised you don't want it - typical Aries"). She is convinced the world is going to end in 2012. So convinced, in fact, that she recently insisted on a bet with me. "If I'm right, you owe me $50. If you're right, I owe you $50". I agreed, but obviously don't plan on collecting the bet come 2013. I don't know how she plans on collecting the money if it turns out she's somehow correct. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 06:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to collect and give the money to a sceptical organisation (or the Red Cross). If she loses money it will perhaps make her thinks a bit. 157.193.206.103 18:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Procrastination

Anyone have any tips for beating this? I'm a uni student and my procrastinating tendency, combined with a high workload, is getting pretty annoying. Drinking vodka while working only helps a little bit. EddyP 21:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say this but my worst source of procrastination is RW. I don't have a solution to your problem, though, as I can barely solve my own. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You could try to develop some sort of power word that you habitually repeat in order to foster motivation. Something like if-i-keep-dicking-around-I'll-become-a-loser-and-a-alcoholic should work. Perhaps some creative avoidance? Do some chores. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 21:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was a procrastinator at university until I saw my grades drop to the point that I couldn't get into the School of Pharmacy, and my procrastination stopped immediately. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 21:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty bad at uni too. The only thing I can suggest is to tell yourself that doing your work as soon as it's been assigned to you will allow you to reward yourself with a good piss-up afterwards. Do this once and the sense of relief should be enough to convince you to get your work out of the way quickly in the future. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewards are good. Also, it's a good idea to set your own deadlines - obviously in advance of the real deadlines. Milestones also useful, particularly in larger assignments. It helps you keep track of your progress, and you get a decent feeling of achievement as you reach your milestones. You might want to have someone else checking in on your progress. I do this once a week with my projects and it generally keeps me on track. --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Meet "A Conservapedian" Live this Wednesday...

Apparently Andy has broken from his usual M.O. and announced^img one of his public speaking appearances while there's still time to attend. Here is the Facebook invitation for anyone who's able to make it to the Rutger's campus tomorrow evening (11/18) at 8:00 PM. It'll be interesting to see if Ed Poor or any of the other NY/NJ acolytes show up as well. --SpinyNorman 22:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be on the livingston campus and will be getting out at 7:30, would anyone mind if I write an investigative piece on it? Greepigfoot--If you want to experience the medieval rituals of faith, the candle light, the incense, music, important-sounding dead languages, nobody does it better than the Catholics 00:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Video or a mp3 would be nice.--Thanatos 01:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Or audio. Yes, please take notes- I wish I could go. Hopefully somebody will ask Andy if he believes that Obama is using mind control techniques to pass health care reform, seeing as how the AAPS, in their fake journal, accused Obama of doing the same to get elected [1]. Corry 03:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would die to see Andy looking over his shoulders waiting for someone to "block" a real live person arguing with him... I so hope Rutgers posts video of this event. ħuman 04:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It could well be like the handful of times Rush Limbaugh has ventured into a forum where he's not in complete control and dealing with a sympathetic audience. He will make a complete ass off himself.

For instance,

* When Pat Sajak had a late night talk show on CBS, Limbaugh guest hosted for him for a week or so. Some people opposed to Limbaugh (gay activists from ACT-UP, I think) managed to get into the audience one night, with the express intent of disrupting things. It got so bad they cleared the entire audience.

* Limbaugh once appeared as a guest on David Letterman's show. Letterman asked him, point blank, "does it ever occur to you that you're nothing more than a ball of hot gas?" Limbaugh was speechless.

Just like any bully, when people like Schlafly are confronted and they can't control the situation, they lose quickly and thoroughly. MDB 18:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is obviously why he feels king of the castle when he can block people and very rarely do any of his acolytes come over here for any real discussion, instead preferring just to shout and moan if they do. ^pathetic 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiSnail iPhone/iPod app

WikiSnail is an iPhone app that should allow me to read RW on my iPod. Anyone try it before? Sterile glycerin 02:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's just a reader? The browser experience on iPod touch and iPhones is great to me. What more do you want than the full interface including your monobook? 02:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to click on "Recent Changes" etc. Editing is awkward, too, I think. You certainly can do everything on RW on an iPod normally; it's just the interface isn't the best for the small screen. Sterile glycerin 02:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How does the mobile version of Wikipedia work? I find that much better than the default interface on the iPod. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Which one? There are a ton of them. Search wiki in the app store. I can't figure out if there are any that can be customized to a different wiki or if they are "set" to Wikipedia. Sterile glycerin 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ListenerX might be referring to the official WP mobile sites, 1 and 2. There's a list of some iPhone apps here, but they appear to be primarily WP-only. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the first one has a different software to interpret the database, which makes sense. Actually, that would require being at the server end, so it's probably a nonstarter without further investment. Oh, well. Not a big deal. Sterile glycerin 14:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That is, uses Hawhaw Sterile glycerin 14:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to show my complete ignorance, could there be a Javascript gadget that would make a more mobile-friendly version of a wikiscreen? My impression is that that is not what Javascript can do. Sterile glycerin 15:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

crap!

so i just managed to slice my lip open while shaving and 15 mins later i'm still sitting with a towel pressed against it trying to get the bleeding to stop. not one of my brighter moments. --PsygremlinHable! 12:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Shame dude, I hate when that happens. I don't think I've managed to cut my actual lip before though... SJ ^Debaser 12:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I hate to break it to you, but you are going to have to put a band-aid on it and walk around looking stupid for a while. After you do that you can find award names for me. - π 12:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

$\pi$'s lying, he loves that he's broken that news to you. It's how he gets his kicks, the sick bastard. SJ ^Debaser 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I must confess, I do. I like the thought of you sitting there with a band-aid on your mouth, searching Conservapedia for pictures for me. - π 12:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed go the band aid route... and then had to go shopping. *sigh* Lemme know what pics you're looking for and I'll have a scrounge for you. --PsygremlinPraat! 15:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am running out of ideas for the CP day awards. I am looking for head shots, preferably pd. so we can upload them here. I would actually like more than one option per award so the mob can choose, but at the moment I'll settle at having an award for each category. - π 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be the "Psygremlin Self Facial Mutilation Award for [Insert Award Name Here]." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Do they have pictures of Psygremlin on CP? - π 23:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Easy fix: Stop shaving your tongue.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 23:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What and just let it get all furry? You are weird. - π 00:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only person who keeps a styptic pencil in their bathroom cabinet? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not when I find out where you can buy them. - π 09:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When I started shaving they didn't have all these fancy multibladed gizmos and the occasional nick was par for the course. Any old-fashioned shaving kit would have included one. It's much harder to cut yourself nowadays (unless you move the blade sideways) so there isn't as much call for them but any large chemist/drug store should still stock them. I must admit that it's not the sort of thing that you're continually replacing so it it was probably about ten years ago that I got mine. Also with all the present concern over cross-infection via blood products they may not be as popular as they were. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote

I'm writing a paper at uni and found this quote in the book "The Rise and Fall of Phil Spector" (He was a record producer.)

“”The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one insists on trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

—George Bernard Shaw

The first man this made me think of was Andrew Schlafly. SJ ^Debaser 14:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a great quote. I'm going to write that down. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Except in this case the unreasonable man doesn't want progress - he thinks everything has been going downhill for the last 6,000 years. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 14:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All Andy controls is Conservapedia, and he is under the illusion that that is progressing - which is arguable, as it has gained more attention in the last year. Although the actual efficiency of his editors? No progress obviously, they chase away the worthwhile ones. SJ ^Debaser 14:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy isn't trying to adapt the world to himself. He's just adapted a virtual one instead. EddyP 15:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I totally just Facebooked that. No, I'm not kidding, I really did. I have a lot of Christian friends and I enjoy pissing them off." SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 21:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hooray! SJ ^Debaser 12:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I Got Mine.

So Ray Comfort's people were on campus today. got my copy of the new edition of OofS. Sadly, the clone that was there was not at all interested in discussing the project. Still, lookin' forward to reading it. TheoryOfPractice 18:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seen enough of this heresy online to never need a copy myself. Ace^McWicked 19:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

ToP: Sounds like you just volunteered yourself to write a commentary :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A commentary on a commentary? Have we learned nothing from the recursive black whole that is rationalwikiwikiwiki? tmtoulouse 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Or can you just scan it so we can all have fun tearing it apart? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much a commentary than an introduction that only really consists a rehash of Ray's tired, old Hitlerum and a part-plagerised biography. So, put that way, we hardly even need to bother reviewing it... but for the sake of completeness it's possibly worth examining one or two points in detail for the Origin 2009 article. ^pathetic 21:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The most satisfying things I did with the previous books Ray's people sent me for free this summer was to take one nice picture of them on my desk before chucking them into the garbage. 22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I heard there were some pro-science people trying to organize to hand out flyers or something telling people that Comfort's introduction is nonsense. Did you notice such people around, or did that effort fizzle? OneForLogic 03:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I've heard about people protesting it, or "ripping out the introduction" (along with the obligatory "shrill/angry atheist" comment) is from Comfort's or the general creationist 's camp. So I reckon protests, if any, are either A) wildly exaggerated or B) totally made up for purposes of denigration and publicity. ^pathetic 09:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I was being serious. Ray Comfort's people were on my campus yesterday, too. I'm on a mailing list of science students who have been organizing to make posters and flyers and gather people to hang out in the vicinity of any book distributors they find. My understanding was that this was going on at most of the universities Comfort's people planned to hit, and I was curious to know if that effort ended up being at all visible or effective. OneForLogic 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw nothing on my campus. Go Blue! TheoryOfPractice 14:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I got a little prize in the mail today from Creation Science Evangelism. I love this stuff... is Eric Hovind Kenny boy's brother? They also namecheck Banana Comfort with some blurb about the "Origins of Species". Didn't know the title was plural... and the announcement of a new website joining the "CSE fleet", VisitCreation.com! ħuman 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, cretist math: "Creation Science Evangelism began in 1989 from a desire to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the science of God's creation." vs. "With over three decades of research in the sciences, Creation Science Evangelism has become a trusted source for information pertaining to the creation vs. evolution controversy." ħuman 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My first reply from a Creationist!

Ok, I think I'm going to do a more detailed video on ring species when I get the time to better explain it, but I decided to leave my original video up, since my primary goal is to bring Ring Species into the debate. I decided my video was too low profile to attract attention on its on, so I've been messaging some prominent creationists requesting responses. So far, NephilimFree has commented on the video as follows: "Ring species do not support evolution. An inability of one species within a kind to breed with another is an evidence of baramins. It supports creation. Speciation does not cause change to morphology - it does not introduce new morphological features or transform extant features into new ones with new biomechanical function. The loss of the ability to breed between varieties within a baramin (kind) is an example of how variety is a mechanism that moves all life towards extinction. Refuted." (arrogant little prick, isn't he)

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone would like to comment on how I'm doing in my responses (now on my second one as I write this). Also, I'd appreciate ratings (be honest, I'm not asking for five-stars, but I imagine that even without being votebotted this tactic will lead to me getting several one-stars, and I'd like some non-creationists to delude that effect). The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiTGxTl3dAk&feature=response_watch --Mustex 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Did a video giving him a longer refutation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMuz0xlAHG0 --Mustex 04:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)--Mustex 04:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rush, your stupid side is showing again.

After trashing Obama and the World Wildlife Fund for 'indoctrinating school children', Rush comes out with this little number to show them how indoctrination is really done. -- CodyH 03:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A pity that Mr. Limbaugh has more issue with the message the children are parroting than with the fact that they are being stuck in front of the camera at all. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm more amazed Limbaugh missed the fact the kids probably are, y'know, paid actors. (Well, their parents get paid, but still...) Those kids aren't personally endorsing anything, no more than my six year old niece, aka Her Worshipfulness, would be making a serious political statement if I taught her to say "Palin/Prejean in 2012" (which would be a good way to annoy her parents, who are liberals like me.) MDB 14:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why I debate

One question that a deeply religious person asked me today struck a chord. He asked me why, in my agnosticism, did I care so much about debating him on the Bible [though he, to be fair, told me that the Bible is the truth, starting the debate] instead of having conviction for my belief. I told him i'd get back with him, and I went home, and thought about it for a while.

I think that it irks me, not just above but the entire belief system I disagree with, because I was once like that. I used to believe in fanciful things as a child, and at times I still do, though before it was magic and Gods, now it's FTL drives and colonizing other worlds. But as I grew, as I moved between belief and belief, I discovered that the knowledge that we have progressed far enough to have the understanding of nature we have now, and knowing that we are nowhere close but on our way to discovering so much more, is more comforting than any story. And, until God is proven or disproven, that is all we know the Bible has to be. Stories.

That is why I am driven to correct people who say Sarah Palin would be a good choice for President. It is why I am unafraid to tell people that the Bible is outdated, and isn't doing their God justice by making him look like a petulant wizard. And it is why, with everything I can muster, I will point out when commentators, left or right, are bats**t insane.

And I feel, excuse the word, blessed that I am with the unit I am with. I've been called out on several occasions for being wrong, and it's made me better for the trouble.

Though I would like to pose the question here, just for an exercise: why do we continue to debate things like religion and obsolete views? I think the responses will be interesting. -- CodyH 03:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because >gasp!< religion is not actually obsolete? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

agnostic ≠ "don't care about religion" anyway -- =w= 03:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean those two together. Creationism [or ID] is an obsolete idea, anti-vaccine paranoia [in it's current incarnation] is an obsolete idea. Holistic Medicine, on a whole, is an obsolete idea. Religion in my mind isn't obsolete, thought it may need an update. -- CodyH 03:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree then. I don't know why we spend time interacting with closeminded people. I guess because its quite fun most of the time? -- =w= 03:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

How are you going to update the Judaism, Christianity or Islam? Except if there's a coming of a Messiah, it's hard to imagine how to update religion that is based in a text. Sterile glycerin 03:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a start. Stop worshipping texts. -- =w= 03:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The liberal strands of Christianity, the ones that do not practice bibliolatry, have done a fairly good job of it. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When a messiah appears, the religion generally splits into two faction: those that believe that he is a messiah, and those that don't. Since the second faction is larger in the beginning, the first usually says something to the effect of "well fuck all you guys", and splits off, leaving the others to go upon their merry way. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that most "formal" religions (Shinto, animistic ones aside) are based in a text, even the liberal versions. You can update the morality, but how so ideas on origins and miracles? Sterile glycerin 04:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Judaism was once updated by the appearance of prophets (and, as the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown, the texts were not altogether static). Christianity and Islam both scrapped the role of prophet.

Sterile, gap creationism and day-age creationism were early attempts at this. A more current version is theistic evolution. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. But what is theistic evolution good for? That is, how could anyone tell the difference between theistic evolution and non-theistic evolution? I would think, for example, a pattern of mutations detected that couldn't be by chance, could be explained by something other than "regular" evolution. (Although, how one links that to a designer is still not clear.) But it's never been observed, and it's not even clear in which type of organism or under what conditions it could occur. I guess the question is, do you update the scriptures to reflect modern science, or do you accept that they are perhaps non-literal stories with a decent message? Sterile glycerin 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand the distinction between theistic and non-theistic evolution. To reference the thread below, it is a "why" distinction, not a "how" distinction, and the theistic vs. non-theistic interpretations are strictly a philosophical matter. Also, most proponents of theistic evolution do think that Genesis is a "non-literal story." ListenerX^TalkerX 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I would love to continue the discussion on 'updating the bible' I fear we're getting off topic. Back to point: why do we 'debate' [for lack of a better word] what we don't believe in or know is false? -- CodyH 04:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If I think I have a hope of convincing someone to my point of view, I debate for that reason. If not, I still debate in the capacity of gadfly, to keep the opposite side from getting complacent and seeing my point of view as beyond the pale. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, my atheism is irrelevant to my life. It demands no acts or thoughts. It only comes up when discussing religion or, worse yet, religion that attempts to supplant actual knowledge. So I'm not an atheist thumper unless provoked by people who believe - or claim to know - things that seem on the face of it absurd. ħuman 04:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

PS, I also do think "religion is ... obsolete". We no longer need gods to explain thunder, or birth, or tides (ad infinitum). What does religion give people today other than a reason to think they are right when they are wrong, a reason to go to war over whose god is bigger, and a sense that they are somehow "better" than those of other religions? Religion is heading towards the "ashcan of history", it's just going to take a long time because it is built on incredibly strong memes, and because so many people still feel a need to believe in something magical because day to day life sucks so badly. Or because they feel a need to be "holier than thou". ħuman 04:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What science addresses is the how of thunder, births, and tides; the why, however, is not its province.

Also, you are putting altogether too much emphasis on the universalist, "our way or the highway" sort of religion. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "why" of thunder. It is a physical phenomenon. I find religion's answers to "why" to be unambiguously stupid, so if I care I make up my own. As far as the "our way or the highway" religious, yeah, because they are the only ones who cause me to have to address what I don't believe, usually. People who keep their superstitions to themselves don't bother me at all. And the ones who can make them funny and amusing and even philosophically/ethically useful are the best. As an old SCA/pagan/tarot reading/astrologer once said, "you aren't a believer, so I won't bother to run your chart." ħuman 05:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"There is no 'why' of thunder." Says you; someone who has just had his house destroyed by a lightning bolt might be slightly more curious. But at any rate, even the strong rationalist has his answer to that question: "Such are the laws of physics." ListenerX^TalkerX 05:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking for meaning in random events is a human trait. It most certainly does not imply that random events actually have meaning. But as Listener implies, this attempt to imagine that random events have a personal cause or meaning is probably behind a lot of religious thought.--Bob^{Not Jim} 06:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if there is a "why" question that needs to be answered, ListenerX, it's difficult to see how religion has any way way to answer general why questions. Sure it can answer questions such as "Why is the pope wearing a funny hat?", but anything outside of it's doctrine or beliefs is really just guesswork. The supernatural, superstitious, and doctrinal elements of religion actually make it harder to answer "why" questions. Christianity could blame thunder on God being angry, or a random act in a world that was corrupted by the fall of man. Norse mythology may claim that it's Thor riding his chariot around in the sky. Religion is great at finding whys that don't actually exist, so it's hardly providing why answers. I've very little time for the notion that religion somehow provides a special way of knowing things. I could sit here with a six-pack of beer and some friends and come up with answers that are just as valid (good and bad ones).--^{Ask me about your mother} 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of these "why" events are really failures of most people failing to grasp statistics. One-in-a-million events probably happen 60 times a day in the UK but many people attribute them to luck, punishment/reward from god or some special ability. The only real why question is "what is the purpose of our existence here" and any answers to that are just pure guesswork. But I suppose some people do feel comforted or reassured by a made-up explanation. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Religion is great at finding whys that don't actually exist, so it's hardly providing why answers." One can only say this if one repeats the questions and ignores the given answers.

"Most of these "why" events are really failures of most people failing to grasp statistics..." Statistics do not explain why a particular event should have happened to a particular person, only that such-and-such a number of events will happen.

"Norse mythology may claim that it's Thor riding his chariot around in the sky." That is a myth, not a "why" question. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

LX, it's an "answer" to a "why question" provided by the religion of the ancient Norse. Next question: how are we to distinguish between "myth" and "religion"? ħuman 19:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is instead an answer to a "how" question, the literal interpretation of which is now falsified: "How does thunder roar?" ListenerX^TalkerX 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also the answer to "why is there thunder?". I'll await your answer to my question. ħuman 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As it does not explain per se why Thor should be riding his chariot around the sky, it only adds a layer of indirection to the question.

As to the distinction between mythology and religion, the myths are a set of stories and the religion is belief that, at some level, they are true. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, so religion is caused by the human desire to imagine that there is meaning to random events. I'll accept that. It says nothing about whether random events actually have meaning. And there is no evidence that they do. But it's a good explanation for religion's popularity.--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason why a particular statistical event happens to any particular person, shit happens. But people don't like that, they think that shit should happen to other people or that the good stuff should only come to them so they try and ask for divine intervention. Religion based on personal interaction with a "god" can be a very self-centered and even selfish way of looking at the world. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Note how you are presupposing that anything except utter selflessness is unconscionable; also that people who pray that "bad stuff" does not happen to them are praying for the "bad stuff" to be palmed off to other people. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(<=) The reason I debate with people about religion is because they insist on trying to get their bloody religion into my life. There are obvious examples like abortion and gay marriage, but in the UK we even have bishops of the church as de facto members of our law-making bodies. If people want to believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago and that we are all descended from one family that escaped a flood, that's fine. But their devotion to that meme shouldn't give them authority to decide my laws. Even worse than that is that some of these idiots demand their idiocy be taught to children as fact in science classes. No. Fuck off. Keep your superstitious bullshit to yourselves.

Given the huge head start these people have, it is necessary to point out the contradictions and lies in their initial set of beliefs to undermine their hereditary credibility. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if I were a creationist, I would still object to creationism being taught as science. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you really were a creationist I suspect you wouldn't. But it's a pretty hypothetical point.--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

By "creationist" I meant "person who believes that the world was created in six days 6,000 years ago." It is possible to believe that and still prefer that such things be taught in Sunday-school instead of science classrooms. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness to the bishops in the House of Lords, although they may seek to impose some of their god-bothering views on the rest of us, I doubt if the teaching of a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is a widely held viewpoint. (I still giggle whenever I see the phrase "Book of Genesis" after a Graham Garden/Tim Brooke-Taylor sketch back in the 70s about a monk spending his entire life illuminating a single page of the Bible - The Book of Benesis) Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The Lords Spiritual do not even vote, do they? ListenerX^TalkerX 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Semantic point: Probability predicts that such-and-such number of events will happen. Statistics records that they did happen. I also agree with Bob: Why must there be a why? If there is one event (my getting hit by lightening) we can't determine if the occurrence is by chance: you would need repeat trials. You can't compare one occurrence to a predicted distribution. But I bet if you mapped out people being hit by lightening, you could make a model it with patterns of weather and population density and that the statistics of multiple, repeat trials could match that model. You could make a model of weather based on temperature, pressure, water currents, etc., and population density based on the dynamics of city growth, agriculture, economic distribution. At some level, there will be "randomness" involved, although that is different than saying these aren't predictable. (The molecules that go from high to low pressure do so predictably, but are still moving "randomly.") There is no a priori reason to include a supernatural being into the model and there is no way directly or indirectly detect its presence. (That's not to say I know 100% that a supernatural being does exist; but it is useless to me to invoke one.) Evolution is much the same: The randomness of mutations is explainable through regular biochemical processes (the chemistry of which is the same as non-living chemistry); that's not to say that evolution is "random": Given a certain survivability rate, a mutation will become fixed. So where does God fit in all that? Mostly, you can't tell whether or not God exists in my opinion. Sterile glycerin 02:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I take your point on the semantics although in real-life it only applies to mathematically constrained systems like coin-tossing or dice rolling. The probability of being killed by a bolt of lightning is actually derived from the statistics so it becomes a bit circular. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there does not have to be a "why" for everything, and that there is no way to tell (scientifically, at least) whether or not Gods exist. Also, I am not claiming that religion provides the only answers to the "why" questions. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh, summer in Australia

The sky is orange at the moment.
That is all. -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 04:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not orange in Melbourne but we just had our hottest November night on record, 28.1C (82.5F), and its going to be the hottest November ever. Which is no good cause my rat bastard landlord is dragging his feet installing the air-con. Rad McCool 04:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was about to bitch too, but Rad beat me too it. Where the hell do you get nice orange skies? It is white where I am, as in white hot. - π 04:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression RedBack was in South Australia but don't know where that came from. Its 43C (109.4F) there at the moment. Poor buggers have been hovering around there for over a week.Rad McCool 04:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the NSW/Vic border. The wind is coming from the north, bringing all that lovely red dust with it. -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 05:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's moments like these I'm glad I live on the tropical coast. Might be warm & humid most of the time, but rarely as hot as you guys are experiencing just now. Also amazed at the difference in Adelaide's temp today (43) & the forecast for tomorrow (29).RagTop^{Gone sailing} 07:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Change of wind direction. If the wind comes down from the north it blows across the desert and is freaking hot, if it comes in from the west it is a sea breeze and is pleasant, from the south it is Antarctic wind and is freezing. - π 09:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh, summer in NZ

It'll be nice and balmy for a week then inexplicably it'll rain and be cold for a couple of days. Suddenly it'll June and I'll have a groaning bank balance, wondering what the fuck happened. Ace^McWicked 06:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WTT one warm day for one nice, moderate day. PST.
^{Argh! Too much WoW in my veins!} -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 06:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am blocking you for egregious use of Warcraft links. Fucking geek etc. Ace^McWicked 07:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ace, around here "geek" is a compliment. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not to sure about that. Also I was using the term in a derogatory fashion. Ace^McWicked 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well of course you were using it in a derogatory fashion, but some people - myself included - aren't very insulted by the label "geek." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell, if you're gonna spam a WoW link, then spam this one. --Kels 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Those things are starting to shit me off, every time I go to check my mail/bank/AH I end up with a mohawk. -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 23:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it's like the pumpkin heads, limited time only. Mind you, I've been in Desolace lately, and NOBODY wants to stay there. It's boring. --Kels 05:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

hehehehehehehehe

I know the guy is ill but this tickled me. Hehehhe. Ace^McWicked 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"That being said, rational wiki is slightly less stupid than conservapedia." Heh heh. Considering RW doesn't set its bar too high, I'll take that as an exceptional compliment! ^pathetic 09:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to see Jinx is still true to form. "Gosh, pigboy, you're an even bigger shit-for-brains than I thought." when Wilbur calls Jinxy out. And how about that signature: "I was... ordered to drop my pants, bend over and spread my cheeks." How about putting that on your CP userpage Jinxy? --PsygremlinSiarad! 09:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much still true to form as the posts are a little old, isn't this what crops up quite high on google for "rationalwiki"? ^pathetic 10:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What's funniest about that is it isn't us!! The CH thing he quotes is the archive I made of the New Hampshire Gazette's chickenhawk articles. I guess he forgot to read the notice at the top of the page. ħuman 19:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is why Jinx is my favorite CPer to read. Bigoted, foul mouthed, impervious to criticism and totally shit for brains yet somehow believes it is everyone else around him that is wrong. Ace^McWicked 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That was hilarious. I was laughing as soon as I read the title of the post, which called RW "Rational"Wiki (with quotes around the rational). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also interesting in that several users on that site appear to side with us as far as Jinx _{hi Jinx!} is concerned.. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tourism

I was just watching a travel programmme - not a very good one, but it covered some places I had been last year. Anyway, the presenter visited Medjugorje (Bosnia Herzegovnia), where, in 1981, half a dozen teengers had visions of the Virgin Mary. Now it is major tourism. The day the presenter visited, one of the (now much older) visionaries was expected (?) to have a vision, and so thousands of tourists (pilgrims) were there, clutching amazing photos of the VM. In due course there were cries and screams from within the house and then the visionary appeared amongst some minders with some words of wisdom. Tears and emotion all round.

My question is - is there a name for this sort of tourism? We have ecotourism, gay tourism, health tourism etc. See here for more. Is this christo-tourism, religo-tourism, god-tourism? Any ideas?RagTop^{Gone sailing} 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Pilgrimage? - π 11:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, but no overtones of the mighty tourism dollar there.RagTop^{Gone sailing} 11:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame that "pilgrim" and "tourist" don't portmanteau together well. Tourgrimage? ^pathetic 11:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Pilgrist" could work?RagTop^{Gone sailing} 11:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The gullibility of some people never ceases to amaze me. I need to have me some visions... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Pilgrimage has always been a tourist trap. Arguably it was the original form of tourism. In medieval Europe, for example, pilgrimage was pretty much the only thing (aside from warfare) that would take ordinary people out of their immediate locality & (sometimes) into foreign lands. Churches and monasteries that had holy relics or were the birthplace of a notable saint or the site of an alleged miracle became enormously wealthy, as did the communities around them. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And you should add "those along the way" as the pilgrimage routes such as those to Canterbury or Compostella were often well defined. Ultimately we are all gullible to some degree as we can't spend all our time questioning the validity of everything we come across. The trick is knowing what can be accepted as true because it could be independently verified if you could be bothered to follow it up. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I grew up near the Clearwater Virgin, and when people started flying in to see it the papers called it just plain "religious tourism," although the local Catholic weekly called them pilgrimages.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 02:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that a trip to Graceland borders on a pilgrimage in America, for at least a segment of the populace.

Oh, and as a complete aside, since someone referenced Roadside America, I grew up near theAirplane Filling Station. MDB 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

My semi-interesting day

<warning>You are highly unlikely to care about this post.</warning> I have had one hELL of a weird day. First, I quoted Phyllis Schlafly to win a policy debate (I am on my school's debate team). Then I found out my results and found that though I had amassed far more points than anyone else, by some statistically unlikely series of events I had only won 50% of my debates. Later on in the day I got into an argument with a acquaintance of mine who happens to be a creationist. His argument (which I am still laughing at) is that I have "faith in science" just as he has faith in God. (Obviously I was able to refute that.) After than I had a nice discussion with an existentialist, who seems to think that it is ok to kill babies because their brains have not yet developed to the point where they can consciously decide that they want to live (provided they are killed painlessly, of course). (Strangely, I am still not sure how to refute that.) So yeah, it was pretty surreal. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If the existentialist piqued your curiosity, read Peter Singer's Practical Ethics.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 02:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, is there supposed to be a connection between existentialism and believing it's okay to kill babies? Or was 'existentialist' just a filler description unrelated to his odd ethical argument? - Clepper

My wife pushed me into the milk freezer at Costco, then photographed me with her Blackberry and posted it on Facebook by the time I climbed out. That's pretty much an average day on this end. --SpinyNorman 04:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rocking out on my bass and annoying my roomate are how I spend an average day. Getting completely hammered is a typical evening for me, also. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 05:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that existentialist one is interesting... I'm not entirely sure if existentialism would say that's okay, in fact I'm sure it would say the opposite. But still, you can fault some reasonings; if it's okay to kill "dumb" animals for meat, say, then it's fine to kill children under the age of 10 months because most tests show that they're not sentient and have minds on par with monkeys. But as it's possible to take any premises and justify pretty much anything I'd call bullshit on the whole thing and just roll with instinct. ^pathetic 10:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, although I try not to roll with instinct if possible. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mac emulators

Anyone know any good ones? I run Vista, in case you needed to know. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The real question is why would you? - π 03:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Windows equivalent of VMWare Fusion can do the same on Windows, but I run OS X Server in Fusion. Haven't tried it under particularly heavy loads though. --^{Ask me about your mother} 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to divide by zero again? Stile4aly 05:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait...what? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

HCM

Human and Nx seem to be getting in a pissing contest, ending, as these thing inevitably do, with leaving and never coming back, and hurt feeling all round. I've given Nx back his rights, and the blocked them both for a day so they cool down. While you two are perfectly capable of unblocking yourselves and the decratting me for abuse of powers, I would strongly recommend that you two both take a little break for a day or so and stop freaking out of this. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I second this. Put your Rational minds back on. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 05:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty amazed. Nx spends hours pimping the site. The old man fears teh change and shakes his fist. Nx caters to Huw, which is just more change to fear. Moar fist shaking. Wow. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Just looked at it. Human can really be a git. Wisest time Phantom! 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's particularly disputed. ^pathetic 19:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And then there's the fact that he thinks that if he doesn't like the change it was made against the will of the whole community. Wisest time Phantom! 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I see RA's point more clearly now. Wisest time Phantom! 19:44, 20 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 glycerin 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 glycerin 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)

Andy at Rutgers

(I've moved the recap to Essay:Andy at Rutgers - November 2009 per the very reasonable suggestion below, and comments are welcome on the Talk page there.)

Hey Spiny give the length of this do you want to prematurely break it off as a debate or a discussable essay or something? - π 07:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm fried, though, and will do it in the AM, unless you want to relocat it now for me and leave a link to it here. 'Nite. --SpinyNorman 07:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Great read! Thanks, larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff. I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that he's as nutty in RL as on CP, but it's still a bit weird seeing his opinions coming out like that. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 09:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, fascinating reading and well reported I have to say. If only you were wearing an RW t-shirt at the time... ^pathetic 10:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Any biologists here?

Hey, I don't want to post links to all my videos here in the Saloon because I know I'd seem like I'm a complete attention whore, but is there anyone here who can, and would be willing to, give me feedback on them, to make sure I don't make any blatant factual errors??--Mustex 14:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia Day

is tomorrow, being Conservapedia's third birthday. Damn, I feel old.

So how should we celebrate it? Brian Ugler recommends:

• an improvement competition, to start on November 21
• a poetry competition, subject Conservapedia
• announcement of the first Conservapedia Awards?
• have a virtual party
• mention the top three contributors to News related wanted pages on the Main Page.
• mention the top three contributors to [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions#Contributions|News suggestions]] on the Main Page.
• Announce new sysop(s).
• a keynote article on the achievements of Conservapedia over its first two years.
• A statistical analysis of the first and the second years' growth, accomplishments, and major contributors.
• The top-scoring American History class student could be named and profiled on the Main Page
• an essay competition, open to the homeschool classes, on a topic to be suggested here. The winning entry to be 'front-paged'.

Thoughts?

--䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

We're already giving out awards. Wisest time Phantom! 16:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

When are we giving them out? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is if I tell you, they will lock editing or something. - π 23:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We should invite the class of '08 back (Bugler, RodW, et al) back to reminisce about the good old days. --Psygremlin말하십시오 17:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

They're both already here, although I haven't seen fretful porpentine in a while. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A poetry competition! Definitely! Although it might be hard to rhyme many things with Schlalfalfly DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I wandered lonely as a cloud

Screaming "I hate Lenski (and Dawkins)" really loud

CP is mine, I'm Andy Sclafly

And rhyming is a Liberal trait anyway.

Thank you, I'm here all week. --PsygremlinTal! 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

How 'bout some Conservapedia Haiku? I'll see if I can come up with an entry later. --SpinyNorman 20:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rough winds shake the bough
Cherry blossoms tumble forth
Like lies from TK
–SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 20:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The shining stream flows
Its mirror-like surface bruised
By Andy's bullshit
–SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Liberal deceit
Abortion brings breast cancer
Five-year banhammer
TheoryOfPractice 20:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The rainfall is gentle
In the distance we can see
Another Ed Poor stub
--PsygremlinПоговорите! 20:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I just made Fun:2009 CP poetry contest for this; I'll copy yours over. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

TGIF

What a shitty week. I haven't been happiest that it is now the weekend in a long time. Ex-girlfriends, useless fucking cash machines that decline your bank cards (I now have literally NO CASH on my person and I am relying on the £2 I have in my pockets to get me the bus home tonight), and important morning lectures which I overslept, meaning I lost a percentage of my course module.

Thank God for weekends. SJ ^Debaser 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

We're having our 4th (yes 4th!) day of non-stop rain (so much for the usual 1 hour thunderstorm). 120mm so far and it's only 16C and I had free tickets for the cricket tonight. *grump* I need a drink... and some dodgy viewing material... and maybe a chat with my local neighbourhood Nigerian. --PsygremlinSiarad! 17:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, apparently the next few days are going to be pretty wet. And I have to walk across a f**king field everyday (A magnetic and a grassy one, I'll let people figure out what one gets worse in the rain). Anyway, drinking is always good. ^pathetic 19:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

When will the injustice stop?

Once again, People Magazine has failed to name me "Sexiest Man Alive".

Truly, There Ain't No Justice. MDB 16:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not while I'm alive, there isn't :) --PsygremlinZungumza! 17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

They gave me the Lifetime Achievement award a few years back. It was the only way to give everybody else a chance. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 17:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's it. They keep passing me over because they don't want to discourage the rest of the less sexy men; they don't want them saying "how can I ever compete with MDB?" MDB 18:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

H1N1 Vaccine

Who here has gotten one and who hasn't? I just got mine today. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ Banhammer, Renamer, and Goat 18:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I got mine Tuesday. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No. I wasn't even aware they'd rolled it out for non-priority groups yet. ^pathetic 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

They're Americans, remember. Wisest time Phantom! 19:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never gotten a flu vaccine and am not going to start now. Flu vaccines are for people who are scared of germs and death. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Last time I had a flu vaccine I caught pneumonia. Whether the two go hand in hand, I don't know, but it turned me off of flu vaccinations altogether. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I got pneumonia when I gave up smoking. I've only had one 'flu vaccine and had a mild reaction causing me 'flu-like symptoms for about 24 hours. Fine after that though. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 20:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was fortunate enough to get jabbed as soon as they started vaccinations due to other health concerns. Seems my immune system is too busy killing off other parts of my body to really protect me against much else. How's that for intelligent design? -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I got mine at the beginning of this week, as part of our pre-deployment cycle. I joked with one of the medics about how I was being injected with a virus known for it's remarkably quick evolution. They smiled, jabbed me and sent me on my way. At least it wasn't the Anthrax shot, which makes your arm feel like it was on the wrong end of a golf club. -- CodyH 22:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already had the seasonal flu jab and I get my H1N1 next week. As my wife's had a stem cell transplant her immune system is not up to scratch and they don't want to take any chances. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 00:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I might also add that the needles are so thin nowadays that you hardly know that you've been penetrated. When I was a kid the needles could have been used for sewing leather. Before the risks of blood contamination were known they would use the same needle for everyone. As the needles were pretty thick my I remember my father telling me that when he joined the army during the war most people didn't like having a jab because it bloody hurt. However, he always reckoned that it was best to go first while the needle was still sharp. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 00:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Smallpox was fun. Didn't hurt much, but a zillion needles in a circle? 24.62.251.210 03:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, a gin and tonic is what you need. Booze has great preventative powers against H1N1. Two G&T's can protect against AIDS. And three can cure cancer. I should be indestructible at this point. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 03:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody's reading us

was receiving error messages just now about the server load being too high (according to Trent's blog it was over 20). Even now, it says server load = 6.6 (very high). Somebody appears to have latched onto us. --PsygremlinPrata! 21:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps its a result of the Dembski copyright thing? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Children in need

The problem with it, and other appeals like it, is that it brings out my inner misanthrope. I should really stop, before I start kicking babies. Wisest time Phantom! 21:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a UK Liberal magazine called Liberator that has a feature called Lord Bonkers' Diary (I used to do their website - not any more: ugh!). It sometimes refers to the "Well-Behaved Orphans" group. Children in Need always reminds me of that. I think it's the title that I hate... "Do you want to give for Children in Need?" "No." "Oh - so you hate children?" "Fuck off". Plus the whole awful "Look at these famous people doing silly things!!!!!". Now *I* should really stop, before I start kicking babies too. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 22:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll never forget when Joanna Lumley stripped down to her undies for £1,000,000 back in 1983. I don't think that's ever been bettered. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 00:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Joys of Life

So I haven't been feeling well for this past week, this morning I woke and found that my minor nuisance has become a full blown throat infection. This makes number 8 or 9 in the past three years, and I am ready to scream (not literally, my throat is killing me). I asked about the possibility of a tonsilectomy, but they were not very receptive to the idea, saying that there is no guarantee it would help. I now understand the appeal of those bogus woo-inspired "cures." At this point, if someone came along and told me that my throat infections would go away by putting this mini glue traps on my feet when I sleep, I might have to seriously consider it. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 03:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)