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

Important changes regarding page titles (sticky)

& and + now work in page titles, e.g. User:Nx/sand&box and User:Nx/+sandbox will link to the correct page. However, this means that hacks like User:Nx&action=edit and User:Phantom Hoover&action=delete no longer work (since this is now correctly interpreted as a full page title). If you see something like this, change it to https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nx&action=edit.

There might be things that don't play nicely with this, e.g. I'm not sure how DPL will work with page titles containing + or &, and Capturebot2 for example uses & to separate pages in its configuration (though that's just minor problem).

If you see any breakage anywhere, tell me ASAP. -- Nx / talk 11:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought we'd had this since an update ages ago since I'm we and Wikipedia have been able to get "Penn & Teller" for a while. Though I may be mistaken and getting it confused with some redirecting hack. But anyway, cheers for that, I'll keep an eye out. ^gnostic 13:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not a MediaWiki problem, it was an apache problem. I'm rebuilding all link tables now (that's why the server is slow), because of this and because there's some DPL junk there too, and then I'll check Wantedpages. -- Nx / talk 13:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I. Am. Awestruck.

The Who's Baba O'Riley.

As played exclusively on items available at ThinkGeek.

It's over. They've won.

In less than ten years, people who were educated this way will be running the world. Between this and vajazzling, I'm convinced that the end of Western civilization is nigh. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fuck. That makes me more pissed off at social conservatives than I've ever been before. We can only hope that American educators are smart enough to counter this bias. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

it will be interesting to see what the universities do in response. Disqualifying a states curiculum from entry to courses may need to happen Hamster (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To present Republican philosophies in a more "positive light." Far right American Republicans tend to pride themselves on freedom of speech, hating Communists, and all that, but how is this anything short of propaganda? Fucking hypocritical cunts. SJ ^Debaser 17:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfect example of the inmates taking over the asylum. Can't disagree with ToP. The end of the world as we know it. All the more reason to fight the idiots. 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

The horrifying thing is that Texas sells textbooks to thousands of schools in almost all 50 states, so this will affect education all over the country. As Susan says, "All the more reason to fight the idiots." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Won't there be a legal battle? Or is it that late in the game? Šţěŗĭļė wiener 17:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this WAS the outcome of the legal battle. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess that every empire has to end sometime. Insanity like this will just hasten the end of the American one.--Bob^{It's windy!} 19:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Texas doesn't really sell textbooks to other states. Texas is such a huge market that they largely set the standards for textbooks, though. MDB (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Since when does America mean "Western civilization" or even the "world"?--Earthland (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It won't, for long, but the US has a lot of bombs, guns, and huge economic influence. In other words, our stupidity get magnified by our wealth and projected far beyond our borders. Say, ie, emboldening IDiots in the UK or elsewhere. ħuman 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad I live in my far out corner of the world. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A good way to counter this is to make Texas the national laughingstock for that, like what happened to Kansas when they took evolution out of schools. But then again, we may or may not have bold enough comedians to beat that for sufficiently long to have a significant influence. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 07:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And of course, Listener has reduced it to the Reds. Mindless stupid Hoover! 07:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(cut from fuss closet) So in study of economics, in addition to learning about Karl Marx, one now has to learn about people who were actually educated in economics, like Milton Friedman. And in political history, developments that do not fit the Marxist model of social progression will not now be ignored. Yes, obviously the end of civilization is on its way. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're fucking nuts. Ever study a guy named Keynes? Oh, I thunk not. Because you disagree with his conclusions? Maybe. ħuman 09:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Fuck Listener can you even read? Read the summary of the changes made. If the current Texas books are full of marxist social progression, then apparently the Texans have completely missed the target, because instead they've kicked out Jefferson and the hispanics. Then again, maybe I overlooked the part where they decided to end the current compulsory reading and memorization of the Communist Manifesto.

I think Listener saw the part about how they're going to claim that McCarthy was right and got all hot under the collar. Then when he found out that they even mention Marx and his philosophy he just couldn't help himself. Bil08 (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I hope that one day Listner can get over his McCartyism. Mindless stupid Hoover! 11:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Human, Keynes is still on the list of economists to study, and he belongs there, since he was actually an economist.

Bil08, face it, McCarthy was right. His only problem was that he got so reckless and heavy-handed that he managed to disgrace anti-communists to the point where actual communists could get under the radar; this is why I oppose McCarthyism. The specific events I was referring to were the "conservative resurgence" of the 1980s and '90s and the concurrent collapse of communism the world over; while the Red would just see it as a mere speed-bump on the glorious road to socialism, and the wingnut would see it as akin to Christ's Second Coming, the neutral observer would see that it happened and that it has exerted much influence on our political history.

I much disagree with the removal of Jefferson (although John Locke would probably be a better writer to cite there) and the refusal to add more Latino historical figures (provided that the addition was to correct previous unwarranted exclusion of Latinos, rather than exaggerate their influence for political purposes, but it does not look like that was being attempted). ListenerX^TalkerX 17:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A hypocrite too? My, my, Listener, you are indeed a man of many faces. Mindless stupid Hoover! 18:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

??? ListenerX^TalkerX 18:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't support disallowing racist neofascists from being teachers, but you do support witch-hunts for commies? Mindless stupid Hoover! 18:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the removal of foreign spies from the government when their presence becomes known, but would not go so far as to support witch hunts (as I have said, several times, I very much disagree with McCarthy's methods). The CPUSA was at that time effectively a Soviet auxiliary, as several "anti-war" organizations were effectively Nazi puppets during World War II. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So ListenerX, a quick question: How many "foreign spies" did McCarthy discover? --Damo^Hi 18:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

He was so reckless and self-aggrandizing that he did not actually get very many, as I understand. As Edward R. Murrow said, he was just exploiting an existing situation for political gain; that he happened to be right about the infiltration threat was no excuse for his tactics. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

He was right about the infiltration threat (there has always been the threat that a government can be infiltrated by foreign spies) but was he right when he asserted that the State Department had already been infiltrated? He never proved it, was my understanding. Bondurant (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant the threat posed by the infiltration campaign that was going on. Alger Hiss, for example, was caught as a spy, as were several CIA people; if the evidence from the Venona project had been able to be used, the accusations might not have seemed so reckless. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read a lot about McCarthy as I find the whole subject very interesting. From what I understand he didn't actually find any foreign spies at all. --Damo^Hi 04:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

McCarthy did not, perhaps, but HUAC did. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Which foreign spies did the HUAC find? One, if you count Alger Hiss. And how many false positives? And, bonus question: Who said the HUAC was "most un-American thing in the country today?" Bondurant (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides Hiss, there was Whittaker Chambers, who cooperated and also named Harry Dexter White as a spy, although the investigation was cut short by White's death. There were several other spies named as part of that group as well. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I make that about 6 people then. And the false positives - the 300+ artists who were blacklisted - were these acceptable collateral damage? That and the trampling of freedom of expression? The answer to who said the HUAC was the "most un-American thing in the country today." was Harry Truman, by the way. Bondurant (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not defending HUAC's tactics, only noting that it took a less reckless approach than McCarthy, which brought it more success. As to the Hollywood blacklist, the Hollywood Ten were all Reds and were jailed for contempt of Congress when they refused either to admit it or to plead the Fifth Amendment. I do not think the screenwriters should have been blacklisted, but there was no law compelling the studios to blacklist them. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"the Hollywood Ten were all Reds and were jailed for contempt of Congress when they refused either to admit it..." Silly me. And here I was thinking that there was freedom of thought in this country. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Membership in the CPUSA was not illegal at that time. The Hollywood Ten would not have gone to jail if they had admitted their membership, and they would not have gone to jail if they had pled the Fifth. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

They wouldn't have gone to jail if they hadn't been dragged in front of a kangaroo court in the first place. Bondurant (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And as for the 300, let's see who gave evidence to the committee... Walt Disney and Screen Actors Guild president, Ronald Reagan. It was a witch-hunt; once accused publicly, nobody cared if they drowned in the dunking chair or were burned at the stake. Bondurant (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall making any pronouncements about whether or not what McCarthy did was right. What I did suggest was that you look for the reds and the anti-reds in every news story and then judge what's happened on that basis, because not only are you rapidly turning into some kind of cartoon cut-out paranoid from the 50's, but you've outright lost the ability to evaluate anything in any other way than how it fits into the west's ongoing war against communism. The only thing that the SBOE's changes to the curriculum have to do with communism is the fact that they are attempting to revise history to fit their ideological viewpoint (and of course, you back them) Bil08 (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me. I do not "back them" in the slightest. Most of them are ignorant fools and probably would have introduced creationism to the curriculum if they could have gotten away with it. I support the changes only insofar as they remove historical revisionism, which in this case would be that of Marxists and various derivative groups, whose influence in the field of history — even mainstream history — is a fact (which even you seem to acknowledge, going by your admission that historical revisionism has something to do with communism). As you point out, the board also seem to be inserting some revisionism of their own, and I oppose that.

"You've outright lost the ability to evaluate anything..." Replace "you've" with "communists have," and "the west's ongoing war against communism" with "class struggle," and you will have a true statement. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are evidently the Odinist version of Andy Schlafly. Mindless stupid Hoover! 16:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Mr. Schlafly has fallen hook, line and sinker for certain Red modes of thought (all issues being political, dissenters being somehow mentally incapacitated, a cultural elite keeping the masses oppressed, certain authorities' pronouncements being a priori incorrect, etc.), even as he rejects explicitly communist politics. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly is a communist, though he doesn't realise it. Were you always this insane? Mindless stupid Hoover! 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

One of my examples was an allusion to the time that Mr. Schlafly, in one of his "WTF" moments, classed George Orwell as a "conservative." This was done to cover his rear as he is consistently quoting Orwell's statement that "all issues are political." ListenerX^TalkerX 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

this is hopeless.........

with conservative far right taking over the USA and Australian Far right putting new censorship law.

i fear for the future. i live in Canada so if America fall to the loony so will Canada...... Canada is the USA little brother always copying his elder brother........

god i hate this world.Waronstupidity (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

australia just hates young actresses with a-cup breasts. Its all about protecting the children and cartoon characters. Hamster (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A-cup breasts? Ears and eyes on alert... ħuman 09:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, me senses a kindred spirit in the Human one. --PsygremlinPrata! 12:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe... ħuman 00:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, with our (UK) gov't sucking up to the US all the time and allowing cretinism in state sponsored schools We've gotta stop it ASAP. (see "Another poll, above) 02:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Always darkest before the dawn, pessimists. Though we've been waiting quite a long time for the dawn. Don't forget this time about 20 years ago we had the Falklands War, and the ten years before that we had Maggie Thatcher trying to destroy the working class, the five years before that stealing milk from kids, then the twenty/thirty years before that we had reds-under-the-bed and the disassembling of the British empire, then the fifteen years before that we had Nazi Germany to worry about, then the fifteen years before that we had to try and please everyone in Europe, then the four years before that we had World War One.

In short, America and the UK always find themselves in the middle of some wacky jam. But we always manage to pull ourselves up, blunder on, and kick about weaker countries! SJ ^Debaser 11:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"...we had Maggie Thatcher trying to destroy the working class..." She did not need to; the workers did that for themselves by abusing strike actions. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, bugger off Lx. 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

As you wish. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Josh, the Falklands war was 29 years ago, at the start of Thatcher's time as PM. This is a significant part of modern British history, and it's a little worrying that a young chap such as yourself could be so far off with it. (hope that isn't too bitchy/daily heilish) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Australian Far right? This has been coming from our centre-left party. Each Australian Labor Prime Minister is entitled to one true stupid idea that will blow up in their face. This is reminiscent of Hawkes' Australia Card we were all going to carry around, that got so heavily debated and pushed we had a double dissolution over it. The bill was withdrawn when it was pointed out that no funding was provided to implement the scheme in the bill, rendering worse than useless. - π 05:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Delta- We didn't learn about the Falklands in school and I thought it happened in the late 80s not the early; thanks for informing me. And Listener- Maggie abused her position as PM, threw the country into a recession, and didn't have the fucking decency to support the workers that she'd kicked out on the street. The whole reason of unions is to raise concerns when you're being treated unfairly. That's hardly abusing strike actions. Please try and learn with an open mind in the future, or there is no point in talking to you. SJ ^Debaser 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the strike actions before Thatcher was voted in, e.g., the Winter of Discontent. And the British economy was in a mess even at that time. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just going to put this out there

Could we do something for the Day of Silence next month, possible followed up by some snide comments on the day of truth?--Thanatos (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

sure why not, what did you have in mind ? Not very in favor of messing with the other sides day of truth, both sides entitled to have their say regardless of what it is. snide seems fine though. Hamster (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of a notice and maybe a picture of Harvey Milk--Thanatos (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When the hell is it? Artikal not say. ħuman 03:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's April 16. MDB (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Marjoe

Been invited to watch Marjoe tonite. Should be interesting to watch a film they were too scared to show in the Bible belt. --PsygremlinSpeak! 12:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of it or him. But it certainly sounds interesting from the liberalatheistevolutionistantiamericapedia atricle. Let us know if it's worth searching out. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Wasn't there (quite recently) a couple of fundie preachers/televangelists who came to their senses and realised what they were saying was bollocks, but admitted it's "too late to go back"? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Dennett has mentioned a few times that he is planning to release a study of 6 atheist preachers who are still preaching for various reasons. I have not been able to find a release date but it should be an interesting read when it does come out. --Damo^Hi 04:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A thought/question

Should Rational Wiki celebrate Pi Day?

I mean, it is today (the date being 3/14), and Pi is certainly scientific, but it is, by definition, not rational.

MDB (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Pshaw! Pi is not 1.43! Down with your American dates of inconsistent endianness! Mindless stupid Hoover! 18:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that we have to agree with them on this one occasion unless we can persuade everyone to add an extra day to April. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When you get an April 31 or a fourteenth month on the calendar, you can celebrate Pi day, too. MDB (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so! The 27th of July, or 22/7! (Fun fact: My father used to hold an unshakeable belief that pi was exactly equal to 22/7, until I convinced him otherwise with much argument.) Mindless stupid Hoover! 19:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean the 22nd of July? Or am I being unusually dense? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I said. Mindless stupid Hoover! 19:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's often celebrated on both days. Although this is also Steak And Blow-job Day for those who wish to partake in that sort of thing. ^gnostic 22:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

1. See the top of RC/watchlist, ie, "yes". 2. We also celebrate 22/7. 3. Sounds good to me. Can I choose whose steak I have to blow this time though? ħuman 23:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought Steak and BJ day was the day after Valentines Day? That's how they advertise it here. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I MISSED STEAK AND BLOWJOB DAY!?!? Oh, well... There's always NEXT year... The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Google maps

Google's updated the UK. Yonken ago I mentioned that the Street View mobile had ben outside. We're somewhere on this map. (I've marked the river that flooded) Happy hunting. 20:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Hehe, it looks as if the Police have been called to a disturbance at this shop. Bondurant (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And he's parked on double yellows! 21:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Just roaming around the map above, I think I've found #2 cat outside a neighbour's door, scrounging, no doubt. 04:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

It's nice. I can now drive home uninterrupted via Street View. However, this latest round of images seem to be a lot closer together so you can't get up to any "speed" - making a long distance race between car and Street View a little one more sided than the across town one you could do before. ^gnostic 12:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Free Will: An Illusion?

http://pda.physorg.com/_news186830615.html Interesting. What do you think?Ryantherebel (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You made me type this. ħuman 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What I think is, "Who is seriously disputing Prof. Cashmore on this?" ListenerX^TalkerX 02:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Reds. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely you mean "the creationists"? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. In order for there to be free will, there has to be somthing more to a person than simply the physical body. I don't think it is possible for there to be free will if there is no God. I'd be interested to hear what some of you atheists believe on this issue. --CPAdmin1 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If we feel as if we have free will ... (If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck ...) 04:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ~~

(Disclaimer: I am a determinist.)

CPAdmin1, for there to be free-will, not only does there have to be "something more to a person" than the body, but that "something more" has to affect the body in a manner that violates natural law. There is no evidence of such violations.

On the other hand, I agree with SusanG; although all our decisions may have been set before the beginning of the universe, they are still our decisions to make. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Quantum uncertainty? Many universes? Stuff of science fiction. 05:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

To me such debates all seem so fuzzy without definitions. I understand that even the definitions are themselves debatable... but we can barely have a good discussion without defining what is "free will", a "decision" and a "choice". I've tried and the definitions quickly end up circular and entirely unsatisfying. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1 brings up a good point. What exactly is "free will"? If you define it as a sort of consciousness that cannot be predestined, it falls flat pretty quickly. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would define free will as the idea that our choices are not determined by physical reactions. This requires a consciousness that is outside the body.

@SusanG: if we have free will, how are the choices made?

@ListenerX: If decisions are set before the beginning of the universe, how are they still ours?

--aSKTim 14:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's basically dualism, which is unfalsifiable. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

free will is the ability to select (chose) the grape jelly bean from the jar. You prove this is free will by NOT having the last grape bean but rather lemon or orange. Sometimes close your eyes when selecting to let pure randomness :) enter the arena Hamster (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You think you are choosing, but isn't it just the neurons in your brain firing based on chemical reactions? You think you are choosing by not taking the grape one, but in reality you were going to take that lemon or orange one all along. You had no choice. What is making the decision?

Dualism, yes exactly. If some form of dualism isn't true, then it is very hard to argue for free will. --aSKTim 17:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC²) Tim, it is a bit sticky. To state that choices are not "ours" because we must act according to natural law, seems to imply that a person is defined solely by some existence beyond the natural universe (i.e., a person is properly their soul, not their body). However, if one includes a person's body as a part, or even the totality of their existence, this includes the portion of the universe where the decisions are made, so the decisions belong to the person in question even if they are pre-determined. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

@Hamster: that isn't "pure randomness," sort of like rolling a die isn't really random. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"If some form of dualism isn't true, then it is very hard to argue for free will." How so? ListenerX^TalkerX 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You already answered this question yourself: "In order for there to be free will, there has to be something more to a person than simply the physical body." Physical body + something non-physical = dualism. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought he meant moral dualism; confusion of terms. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the universe determined? That is to say, if we had complete knowledge of the entire universe down to the sub-atomic level would we be able to predict everything that the universe would do from now on out. My understanding is that this is not possible even in principle because quantum processes are probabilistic rather than deterministic. We can predict that 50% of the atoms of a radioactive substance will undergo fission - but we cannot predict which 50%. So some things which happen in the universe are random in the sense that they are not individually predictable. I was going to brilliantly link this into free will at some point but the thought has escaped me. So much for my Nobel prize.--Bob^{It's windy!} 22:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to this question whether or not we can know how exactly natural law operates (we will probably never know), but just because we do not know which 50% of atoms will split, does not mean that it was not predetermined, before the universe began, which atoms would split and which would not. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Equally we do not know if it was predetermined.--Bob^{It's windy!} 21:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Can a US President resign?

If Barry were to say to his party "Back my health bill or I quit" what'd be the outcome? 02:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

If he quits, then Biden becomes the president. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 02:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

see Richard Nixon --CPAdmin1 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean if Barry says "Screw you guys, I'm going home to Kenya"? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Can he just quit though? 03:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Yes, although bowing out would probably hurt his allies than it would help them. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 03:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Excactly think of what a threat that'd be to them. 03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

yes, he can resign. I believe he is forbidden to hold any elected office though, so he is done politically Hamster (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the second clause of Hamster's comment. But anyway, Susan, why do you think whining "or I'll take ball and go home" could possibly be effective politics? ħuman 03:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, when if he doesn't get it through, he's politically finished isn't he? After all it was a major point, or am I mistaken? 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

There's nothing that would legally prohibit Obama from resigning and holding any elective office later. He could even run for President again, and, if he resigned before January of 2011, he could serve two full terms. I'd say its unlikely he'd be elected to anything of note is he resigned the Presidency, but there's nothing to prohibit it. (And one President -- Taft, I think -- served on the Supreme Cort after being President.) MDB (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Susan is thinking like someone from a country with a proper parliamentary democracy, where the leader of the ruling party can resign, become a backbench MP, the party can choose a new leader and continue to run out their mandate. If the US were a country with a proper parliament, BO could impose party discipline to get his party to pass his legislation his way, lest they get kicked out of the caucus. The weird system here is weird, where folks from the same frickin' party but in different branches on the government (executive v. legislative) often find themselves in as much of an adversarial relationship as folks from different parties. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose: you can't have a "vote of no confidence" over there, can you. Fixed terms are a bit of a curse as well as an occasional blessing. 03:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

"The weird system here is weird..." Yes, we were started by people who believed that legislators were individual people and not just party hacks. The reality varies somewhat, but the groundwork remains. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Our government was designed by the French, most likely in a brothel. It was designed to not function. Better ideas have since been implemented. ħuman 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For someone like me from a country with a British-style parliament, the idea that members of the Democratic Party are the biggest obstacle to a Democratic Party policy initiative, or the idea that a party with a majority--a substantial majority -- in both houses cannot pass the legislation it campaigned on, is weird. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It makes you wonder? I live here and it boggles my mind. Bush got his shit in with are bare naked majority and Obama can't with supermajorities? Can't even get a watered-down version of what he wanted passed? Of course, this is a giant bigger country, with some huge voting blocks (bible belt) who are truly insane. A "Democrat" from Mississipi could easily be far to the right of a "Republican" from Massachusetts. And, yes, we also are competing with the Welsh for silly place names. ħuman 05:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary democracy require more party cohesions because the government does not have a fixed legislating period, the government can be voted out at any time using a simple parliamentary motion. Internal party fight is usually kept quite and they try to united front in public. Although when the deputy has called the Prime Minster out publicly, you realise it is just a well organised façade. I remember the later days of the Howard government when he would sit with his back to the opposition benches so he would be able to keep his enemies in front of him. - π 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, I don't care who you are, that's just funny, that is. I'll try to remember it. ħuman 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just think of the (alleged) acrimony between Blair and his de facto number two (Brown). 05:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Also remember that in a win/loss system like America has (IE, no proportional voting) smaller parties tend to consolidate into the larger ones. If you actually rank congress by positions they hold, they are rather scattered around the political map. Thus, you have some very conservative legislaters in the Democratic party (ala Stupak, Nelson, etc) and some rather liberal members of the GOP (McCain (socially) Collins, Snowe). If the candidates weren't so reliant on the major parties for funding and such, we would have about 10 different political parties in congress. SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 07:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

One downside of the British system is that we could conceivably have two general elections in the space of a year if the first one results in a hung parliament - a definite possibility this year. Instead of just getting on with the business of making a coalition, as we see in other European countries, the Prime Minister can call an election as soon as (s)he thinks their party can win. I'd prefer to see some kind-of minimum term - say 2 years - for a coalition government to knuckle down and get on with running the country. Bondurant (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1974 Feb & Oct Wilson 12:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Copyright Violations

How ironic it is that you people complain about CP's copyvios given the excessive amount of copyvios this site has! I hope MPAA rips this place to shreds! DMCA Fanatic (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Examples. Now. Please. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 03:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just go ahead and delete all of your images; about one in ten of all of the images here are legal. DMCA Fanatic (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Examples! Goddamnit, give examples and links to ones you think are in violation, or else you are just, obviously, being a liar and a concern troll. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 03:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously a sockpuppet of epic troll Nx, Goonie, don't fuss about it. ħuman 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So now I'm an epic troll, nice. (for the record, no, it's not me, it's this guy) -- Nx / talk 03:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, now you're TK!!!! ħuman 03:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So, who here watches South Park, and which character is your favorite? AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 03:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh shit, you killed Kenny! You bastard! ħuman 03:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I look to Cartman to make all funny--Thanatos (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the things that makes South Park so good is that all the characters are very strong, even the minor characters are good characters in their own right. As a result, I'd be tempted to say that Randy Marsh is my favourite (character - just in case I haven't used that word enough in this edit) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a huge SP fan, but I do agree with Delta* - the characters are strong amd well-written. Randy is one of the stronger "supporting" characters. Chef used to be. Before they CoSed him to death. ħuman 05:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Butters. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

seriously........... these guy think they are so important....... what the next step ? telling the FBI to arrest us for being Liberal ?Waronstupidity (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never got into South Park. It always seemed like a summation of what's wrong with the world today. A couple of homos in Colorado making snarky comments about celebrities and being offensive for the sake of being offensive and everyone hails them as brilliant. SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Chuck, you've just articulated why I think it's so good! Some of SP is bang on the money, and they also touch subjects that no other programme would touch with a barge-pole. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Would even CP agree with these guys?

It is people like this who are taking over the Christian identity, and some conservatives don't see it. These guys are way more extreme, and God only knows what they truly plan to do--Thanatos (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't watch the vid (the fun-police have blocked YT), what group is it about? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Attack all homosexual stuff, like plays about how they were killed by the Nazis and something about missiles. This is there website.BE FUCKING AFRAID!--Thanatos (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On-line gaming mini-rant

So, I'm a World of Warcraft player (yeah, I'm a geek. So sue me.)

For those of you unfamiliar with the game, dungeons are large areas that have to be in teams of five. There's also a tool to find other players to work with you to do the dungeon.

I've had it demonstrated to me lately that there is no minimum age to play the game, or at least not a well-enforced one.

The first time, there was a ten year old (I asked) in the team who would not stick with the party, and actually asked us to stop for a while because he had to go do his chores. Even when he was "helping", he proved completely useless. We eventually voted to kick him out.

The second, while he was at least useful, kept asking repeatedly if we were at the location for the quest he had to complete. Basically, it started to feel like.... this:

I know there's no really effective way to verify age on-line, but geez, maybe they could establish an "adults only" server with a requirement that the account have a credit card with the owner's name on it... MDB (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that's been a long-running request, particularly for role playing servers. The inherent problem though is that age isn't a guaranteed determiner of mature behaviour. It's a good one, but not perfect. The "are we there yet" thing has always been a problem with PuGs, but it's becoming more common now with cross-realm randoms. The thing I dislike the most is the need to just rush through everything at high speed, as the game is about nothing more than already over-geared people farming badges. I suggest a spinoff game in which there is a UI with a single "give badges" button. Players would receive a badge for every thousandth click of the button. The worst kid I ever grouped expected us to wait while we went off to watch a TV show. I thought he was kidding, but after he'd been gone for 15 minutes we decided to remove him and move on. It's one of the many reasons I stopped doing PuGs. I'm a pretty good healer, so I can get groups at the drop of a hat, and see no reason to deal with the hassle of aggressive and willfully ignorant people. Ultimately they're self-defeating, since that mentality drives good tanks and healers away.

Are you on a US or EU server? I'm on Moonglade EU. --^{Ask me about your mother} 13:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm on Proudmoore US. The problem is that I'm playing a Retribution Pally (a dwarf named Atreuss), which pretty much means I DPS (though I can tank in a pinch. I'm not good at it, but I keep a one handed weapon and a shield handy just in case.) I'm in a good guild, but its mostly level eighties, and even if they are willing to help a leveling character, I'd rather do the instance with people at my level, so there's a challenge to it. I mean, where's the fun in doing Zul Furrak if you've got a level eighty who can spit on the bosses and kill them instantly? So, I resort to the Dungeon Finder. I've gotten some excellent groups, but also some really awful ones. And I know tanks like to prove the size of their e-penis by doing huge pulls, but I like taking it slowly and getting a chance to breathe in between fights. And I at least try to be polite by taking "bio" and smoke breaks before even getting into the queue. I try not to step away for more than a minute. MDB (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not as easy for the DPS monkeys. I rolled a healer because my small guild had too many nights of being unable to run dungeons or raids, and I got kind of bored finding groups when they were at the time preferring ranged DPS and those with crowd control. Fury warriors were amazing DPS if tuned and played well, but our only viable CC was to kill things very quickly.

Chain pulling tanks can be fun, at least in heroics. It depends entirely on whether or not that group want that and can handle it. It's been fun to do that as a challenge, although not so much fun if the group sucks and their simply doing it because they think it'll be faster. Reminds me of Shattered Halls. That was arguably the best heroic ever. Streams of mobs, and a lot of fun for fury warriors and resto druids. Misery though with a bad group. --^{Ask me about your mother} 15:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proper tanking requires intelligence. Yesterday, I had an entire group wiped because our tank got a shiny new weapon he had no skill in, and decided to switch to it right before the Gahr'zilla pool in ZF. (To his credit, he admitted how stupid it was after the massacre.) MDB (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand nothing in this thread. I am officially my parents. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that you directly asked, but...

*DPS: Damage Per Second -- the job is to kill the enemies, quickly.

*Tank: The job is to draw the enemies' attacks, soak up their damage, and hurt them while you're at it.

*Healer: The job is to heal your fellow players, especially the tank.

*Paladin: A holy warrior, can be either a tank, a DPS or a healer. My paladin is a retribution paladin, which means he specializes as DPS, and can kinda be a tank. He'd only heal in an emergency.

*Pulling: Getting the enemies to attack.

*Zul Farrak: A city of evil voodoo practiciing trolls. A dungeon you run at roughly mid-level (and has a really cool epic battle mid-way through it.)

*Gahr'zilla: a great big lizard monster in Zul Farrak. Any similarity to a famed Japanese movie monster is purely coincidental, no really.

MDB (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus motherfucking H christ on a bike. I knew there were problems with age verification online, but I didn't realise just how serious it could be. Kids annoying the grown-ups in whilst they're playing online dungeons and dragons? Whatever shall we do? Let's stop pouring money in to renewable energy and medical research, and get those boffins working on a way to allow adult nerds (who really should know better) to play in peace. I feel your pain MDB, but you'll just have to be brave, lil'soldier. Have you considered praying for a solution? (PS. ToP, I only know about WoW due to the South Park episode) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a surprisingly assholish response, DS. Having a bad day?

To reply to the actual topic: I don't touch MMOs, but I do occasionally play Team Fortress 2. There's a very similar problem in FPS games, not just with kids but with adults of very low maturity. There's nothing that ruins a good round faster then having a whiny 12-year old start screeching through voice chat or some nimrod plays terrible music at ear-splitting decibels. My solution is to stick with rooms run by clans that I know and trust. That's not much help in WoW, I suppose. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

DS, some might question the value that editing RW offers to society, not to mention time spent wanking that could otherwise be used campaigning for better science standards in schools. Oddly enough, people I've met in-game and here on RW have been pretty helpful when I went through a difficult time. The squirrel is probably right, and that all of these online things are subject to the effects of anonymity and disassociation. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gimme a break, DS. I'm complaining about an annoyance in my life, nothing more. I never claimed it was of earth-shattering importance or anything. If you're not interested in the topic, then just don't read it; there's no reason to get insulting. (Oh, and for what its worth, on-line age verification for WoW is pretty trivial, but it doesn't take much imagination to come up with ways on line age verification could be quite useful.) MDB (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry MDB, I didn't mean it to be so personal. However, I have just read through yours and CR's discussions and description, I can only conclude that this game is even sadder, geekier and nerdier than I had imagined. Though there's nothing wrong with that, each to their own! Happy gaming! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean it so... nevermind. I've found that every hobby looks sad, geeky and nerdy to outsiders. My company is filled with hockey fans, and I just don't see the appeal of it, but if they enjoy it, more power to them. MDB (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't logged in since around New Year's, since I was so busy with school. And on Saturday, I get a request to change my password. Which is odd, since I didn't do a "forgot my password" request. So I do, and for fun log in to see what's up. Well, my main character is suddenly in Northrend, all her stuff is gone and replaced by minerals, and my other three characters have all been deleted. So I alert the GMs, and they lock down my account to fix things up. In the meantime, I get another change of password request, and I change both that pass and my email's pass, plus do a system scan on my computer. Comes up clean, and I'm behind a firewall anyhow. I get my characters and their stuff back (but not the stuff on the surviving character, sadly), and I get another password request. So I alert Blizzard again, saying someone's hitting the "forgot password" button. So they lock down my account again, and give me the same form letter about how I need to secure my email and such! So two days later, it's still locked down, I've had to fill out forms three times for reinstatement, and I've received no less than SIX customer satisfaction surveys! This is insane! If nothing else, I've stopped getting password change requests, so that's a mercy at least. Frustrating for a game I probably won't play much of for another five or six weeks yet. --Kels (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Gannet

What would you call someone who ate 6 (SIX!!!) Cadbury creme^[sic] eggs in the space of one hour!!!? 11:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Full. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Newman??? Bondurant (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger Schlafly's new girlfriend? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The eggterminator! Sen (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd call the "nuckin' futz", but then, I hate Cadbury Creme Eggs, even if I do find the commercials amusing. Give me a Reese's Cup or an Almond Joy any day.

"Sometimes you feel like a nut (yeah yeah yeah), sometimes you don't".... MDB (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Pah, six? A former workmate of mine once (stupidly) proclaimed that he could eat 30 (yes, thirty!) in half an hour. No sooner had he uttered his words then the posters were made and the creme eggs purchased for "Woody's creme egg challenge". A large crowd gathered the next lunchtime, we even had some motivational music on (Eye of the Tiger, that kind of shit). He managed 21 in 25mins then spewed everywhere. Not a bad effort, better than I'd expected (my £2 was on 15) but way short. I don't know if he still eats creme eggs. (I may in the future regail the RW camp with the tale of "Lamby's diet coke challenge" - 8 litres in 3 hours) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Six in an hour is a strange amount. It's not up to eating contest level, like DeltaStar's example, but seems like more than somebody would choose to eat as a regular snack. Did anything particular prompt this creme egg binge? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

They arrived in a pack of six. And she called me a "Fucking Gannet", just 'cause I woofed 'em down while reading ScienceBlogs. / 22:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Isn't the more relevant question "how do you eat yours?" Nope, advertising has no effect on me. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Poll encore

Autism:vaccine ^{Hat tip} this time. 13:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

When I saw it, the poll was 23% believe in a connection, 77% don't. That's pretty horrifying seeing as the article above the poll stressed that there is no connection. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

They live in a giant Skinner box, and right now they're confused and trying to replicate the behaviour that'll reward their actions, or beliefs in this case. There are quite a few comments in there that mirror the utlimate conclusion of any debate between a naturalist and a believer in woo. The connection is there because it has to be! --^{Ask me about your mother} 15:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Now it's 20-80. I agree with CR; almost all religionists and conspiracy theorists live in a Skinner box. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hitler and evolution

Since the loonies over at CP claim that Hitler was an atheist motivated by Theory of Evolution, they should take a look at this.

http://www.cristianesimo.it/cattonazismo.htm Mr.Orange (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For those who can't read Eye-talian... MDB (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

All these photographs are pretty much taken from this: http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm website, which btw is nicely referenced. I intended to do a "Nazi & Christianity" article or something but never got around to it. Sen (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, they'd just use No True Scotsman to say that Hitler really wasn't a Christian. I've seen that argument many, many times before. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What I hate, regarding the illogicality of that argument, is that it doesn't matter wither Hitler was Christian or not. Germany was a christian nation. I mean, pointy buildings? Churches? Hello? The "Volk", as today most western "volk" (and today Europe is at its most secular), was a Christian majority by far. What did they do when the Nazis were in power? Were they all "charging them extra?" /sarcasm

That picture from the children's book "Der Giftpilz" saying "Remember what the Jews did to Jesus" says everything about Nazi era Christianity that needs to be said. Sen (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read a quote somewhere in Kenneth Miller's book Only a Theory something like "There is nothing worse than having a beautiful theory slaughtered by a bunch of ugly facts" (Please correct if I am wrong). The scientist changes the theory, and the creationists changes the facts. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon about Phyllis Schlafly / Texas board of education

Here [1]. CS Miller (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Very funny, but I'm busy trying to guess which gnome will tell you that this section doesn't technically belong here. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

saloon bar may have been better , since its not specifically CP related, but it is Schlafly so that close enough .. I Hamster ^{RW SYSOP extrordinairre has spoke} Hamster (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh oh oh.... I'll do it. I never get to be annoying and wiki-lawyerish: CS, that is very funny, but this page is for CP related discussion. You should move that to the saloon bar. SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

moved from CP talk:WIGO CS Miller (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh jeez, I was just joking.... SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 19:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll just move it back then... CS Miller (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

you has abrogated Hamsters unilateral decision and super sysoppy powers. I shall blok youz laters SirChuckB when I figure out how It does fit here better though Hamster (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this deserves it's own article, in Category:Cartoons about Phyllis Schlafly and the Texas board of education DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fox News is really Helpful

You know, I have come to realize that I love Fox News and conservative wingnuts. Whenever I start a discussion with someone about politics, I know exactly what key words to listen to. Whenever I hear someone use the word Obamacare, I know that there is no real possibility for an intelligent discussion and I move on. Fox News: Helping liberals recognize insanity. SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 19:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the "ram it down your throat" meme. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Daily Show did a great sketch on that and the underlying homoerotic content behind the whole thing..... Very funny. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Colbert Report had a bit (I saw it on the Sunday Funnies on ABC's This Week with David Brinkley George Stephanapolous Host To Be Named Later.) It featured a graphic of Uncle Sam's head, with the Democrats trying to ram health care down his throat. At which point a Republican Congressman whose name I forget comes up Uncle Sam's throat to block health care reform.... prompting Uncle Sam to begin choking. MDB (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Thanks You!

Hello, everyone, this is Jesus Christ, just stopping by to thank you all for buying my two thousand year-old best-seller, the Bible. It was a work in progress, and a hell of a challenge, especially the old testament, but god damn-it, I did it. Some of the Jewish poets that I collaborated with were real assholes, trying to change the plot-line, switch words around, and interject some of they're own philosophy, but they were a mostly helpful lot of guys. We'd come home on Fridays down to my basement and sit around a large semi-circular table, have a couple of martinis, and I'd tell the guys the basic theme of the story, then they'd dress it up, make it look pretty. Of Course, some of 'em didn't like the story. They said, "Why does God have to flood the earth?" and, "You mean Mary's a-virgin?" Some of 'em would even go as far as to change the actual scheme of some of the parts, and that's why certain parts are contradicting to the rest of the work. But, after trial and toil, and three years of hard work and concentration, we got the book finished. Of course, it would be another five-hundred years or so till printing would be invented, but we told it to many other writers of the day, and they wrote it down and translated it. So, thanks, for keeping this historically-inaccurate and racially-suggestive thousand-page piece of propaganda alive and well. And thanks, too, for the money!

     P.S.   My real name is Jerry.

^{— Unsigned, by: Jesus / talk / contribs}

Living in 2010 AD sucks. I miss you Jesus. --Swedmann (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Work in progress? Your disciple says otherwise:

Revelation 22:18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Although Your coworker/subordinate also have been witnessed to confirm that, ~600 years later. Please, make up your mind. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::Dead guys dont talk so shutup  --Radioactive PIzza (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This can't really be Jesus. Jesus would write "G-D". --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yo Hey-sus, arent you late for your second coming ? Hamster (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

He just cummed/came (I don't know which word it should be) I think. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Texas School Board & stuff

How is the TSB made up, is it elected, appointed or what? How come homeschool fanatics are allowed to dictate the curriculum for public schools: "The group of Republicans on the board includes David Bradley, a Republican from Beaumont and an insurance and real estate executive whose children were home-schooled. (Two other board members have also chosen to either home-school or send their children to private schools.)'" Huff post ^{Hat tip}. / 00:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Yeah, that's insane. For example, last I knew, Boston has a requirement that city employees (cops, fireladies, teachers, etc) actually live in the city, in order for their interests to coincide or whatever. Homeschooling parents on the school board is just fucking insane. Private school parents bad enough, too. I wish Barry's kids were in some "test to get in" public school in DC, but we all know how that goes.... ħuman 03:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Private schools should be barred from enrolling kids in their school district! ħuman 03:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole democracy thing is a bit out of hand over there, if you ask me. Elections for jobs that ought to be decided by qualifications (sheriff?) is mad! 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

...damn--Thanatos (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

they talking the State school board. Theres a school board at the local level as well. I think all positions are elected. An elected sheriff has to meet some qualifications Hamster (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The TriFuck of Shit

In order to take my mind off of all the bullshit from Beck, O'Keefe, The GOP, Armies of God, etc. I decided to play the original Zelda titles on my emulator (Before you condemn me, I used to have copies of both games, but my NES bit the bullet when I was 12). I can finally say I beat the original game. YAY ME! The second game though, ARGH!!! Enemies should not take away exp. points. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW OR SOMETHING! Instead of calming me down, this game is driving me insane--Thanatos (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I used to quite like you, Thanatos but ... /00:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Susan does not like games. This saddens me. -- Mei (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is because I said I use an emulator--Thanatos (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I now dislike you as a person. -- Mei (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I used an emulator for a while once, & it ruined my laptop. Just say no. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote Gendo Ikari "I’m not used to being liked. Being hated, on the other hand, is quite familiar."--Thanatos (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The original Zelda was my favorite game in the history of gaminghood, but I downloaded it for the Wii, and it was sad and boring. 'Twas kinda nice to play, for nostalgia's sake. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 00:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with enemies draining levels, try playing Rogue or Nethack or Angband. You'll get you ass kicked. Come to think of it, S've been playing rogue for probably two decades and still inevitably get my ass kicked. It's sad, in a way. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I use emulators, but only to fiddle with operating systems. Mindless stupid Hoover! 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was anti-emulator sentiment left among educated members of the internet. Megaten (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...what the fuck is with that? If you don't have an NES emulator on your cellphone, you're not as cool as me. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably nothing, but....

Take a look at this. Any thoughts? Keegscee (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh! it's DMorris playing his silly games. / 00:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

I fixed both his odd criticisms just because it seemed like a good idea. Everyone can now be thankful we are no longer a Wikipedia mirror. -- Mei (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"==Personal vendetta==

Is this the place for continuing what is apparently a personal vendetta? The user was repeatedly asked to identify breaches of copyright and refused to do so on RationalWiki (see contribs linked to above), it appears to be rather a grudge match caused by his membership of Conservapedia. I recommend that he be told to take his battles elsewhere." [2] ^Contribs_Talk 00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize DMorris created an account here. Hopefully TK doesn't find out. Keegscee (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is he still on this shit? Doesn't he have a bible to translate or something.... PS, I love how he still thinks we're hosted by an outside company even though we have pitcures of the server uploaded to the site. What a fucktard. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 01:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is... he's not wrong. Using CC-BY-SA images without crediting the source does violate the license. I know that this has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, but it's a problem that won't just go away. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he's right, but his "solution" is wrong. And Trent's ISP is not the "contact". I added a section to the main project talk page. ħuman 01:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

EC) Yes, but all he (or anyone) need do is tell us and we'll sort it. He's just shit stirring. / 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Oh, thanks for finding it Keegscee. 01:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

“” I do not deny that I have a personal distaste for RW; it is a very childish slander site which serves no legitimate purpose in my opinion. It slanders more than just CP, and anyone not involved in the anti-Conservapedia cabal should be shocked at their "article" about Wikipedia. They list WP's homepage as http://www.nationalenquirer.com/! Granted it appears they're trying to make fun of CP's take on WP, but it's still disgraceful. Fact of the matter is, I was checking out what the site is all about, and when I found one copyvio, I looked for more. I refused to give examples because I feel as if the copyright holders should see it for themselves, and if I gave examples, they would delete the images (some of which other users had pointed out only to be ignored) before the CR owners ever saw it. When Wikipedia benefits from personal goals, is it so bad to persue those personal goals? One last thing: I see some RationalWiki editors carry out their personal vendettas here as well, only Wikipedia does not benefit from their actions. Unlike some of the RW trolls I've seen editing the Conservapedia article, I do not, and would not, carry out "personal vendettas" here that I did not think Wikipedia would benefit from; I am not trying POV push or be disruptive, therefore, I don't see what the big deal is. [[User:PCHS-NJROTC|<font color="red" face="Comic Sans MS">PCHS-NJROTC</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:PCHS-NJROTC|<font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS">(Messages)</font>]]</sup> 01:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

—response

02:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Pot, meet kettle. If you're concerned about 2 examples of copyvio here and making vindicating some strangers' rights part of your holy mission, you might find RJJ and JM's persistent (and I mean shockingly flagrant) thievery of non-free-licensed material of particular concern. Cuddles. 02:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have said something on wp, but I'm not taking our quarrel with them over to there. Don't wanna give RW a bad name. 02:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Based on that response, I'd say he's obviously more interested in harming RW than about any sort of copyright violation. Keegscee (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

He's wimped out and had the cheek to put a "let's be friends' thing on my talk page! (I've deleted it) 03:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

OMGD we stole a stop sign from WP!!! How can WP honestly claim that a design made by the US government is CC by SA anyway? ħuman 03:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There's so much irony in that post that a lesser man would have to resort to cheap jokes involving some sort of irony detection device, possibly including a visual readout of some kind, having a mechanical malfunction.... But being a better man than that, I'll just point out to our friend that Denile ain't just a river in egypt. He points out our article on Wikipedia, but ignores the fact that CP says the same shit but means it. Hey DMorris... Have you seen the ungodly examples of bias on Wikipedia article? I vote DMorris for our new Jinx. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 08:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

British Libel laws (bump bump)

Email (Dated 12th - I don't check my mail often enuff):

“” (edited) Want to see for yourself how English libel law stops you accessing websites? Go to the National Enquirer website (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/). They’ve blocked access to anyone in the UK because they fear a libel action in London. You can access this site anywhere else in the world. Tell your friends and ask them to sign our petition: www.libelreform.org/sign Professor Francisco Lacerda is a Swedish academic who has been threatened with a libel suit, here in London, by an Israeli lie detector manufacturer. He visited London this week to tell MPs in a seminar in Parliament that England’s libel laws are preventing him from publishing research about technology being used by the Department of Work and Pensions in England. Millions of pounds of public money has been spent on this technology. Times and the Daily Telegraph. Also this week, we ran an event on documentary film makers. Simon Singh wrote his last column in the Guardian today, read how his libel case has taken over his life: Guardian Read Fiona Godlee’s excellent British Medical Journal editorial on the need for libel reform.

What the fuck is this and why does someone keep moving it to the bottom of the article? ħuman 04:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an email received by me. And it's not been moved - it's a new one. It ought to concern everyone as the British libel laws have been used to silence people from all over the world. The matter that brought this up was the complaint by a load of chiropractors against journalist Simon Sing. 04:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Can't you just link to their website or something and mark it "sticky"? I know it's an interesting topic but the emails aren't. ħuman 04:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they are interesting but I've trimmed it down just for you. 04:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Unfortunately Susan's correct, Huw. This is serious shit and British libel laws have a major impact on science & journalism around the world. Read a few of the examples and you will see how wealthy people use the London libel courts to censor anything they don't like. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: It's true about the National Enquirer. 04:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

I said I know it's important, but this is a lousy way to spam it. Maybe we kan haz artikle pleez? ħuman 05:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at it Tuesday. Off to bed now: dawn chorus has started. That: 05:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC) is the time here ^Contribs_Talk

Thanks! ħuman 05:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing, though. I think the libel law is both just and necessary. The problem is not the law, but the cost of fighting a lawsuit. This is a generalised problem for all industries, it's the same problem exploited by patent trolls to extort money from legitimate businesses. It's also a problem that's very hard to fix. While one might argue that libel law has a chilling effect on some legitimate journalism, I have to wonder what else it has a chilling effect on. Is the reason we have no horrific attack journalism like fox news in the UK that there are legal consequences to flat out lying in a defamatory fashion about politicians? There's certainly a discussion to be had. To be honest, I find it very hard to support Simon Singh. He made a lazy sweeping generalisation about a major organisation in print. What exactly did he think was going to happen? If he'd stuck to specifics, and his criticisms were well founded he wouldn't have this problem. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's entirely fair. I agree that his wording was rather lazy, but he certainly was specific - he cite the research that backed up his statement. And his criticisms have indeed turned out to be well-founded, as the 'evidence' produced by the BCA is a laughable collection of irrelevant, inconclusive and/or unscientific 'studies'. If they based their promotion of treatment on that evidence then they are either incompetent or dangerous. The problem is that Singh's words read in one way seem to call them dangerous (they know the evidence isn't there - but they don't care). The real irony is that their whole defence now amounts to 'we are not dangerous, we are incompetent' (they didn't know the evidence wasn't there). What is most worrying really is that their first response was not to accept the offer of a rebuttal, but to sue. Worm^{(t | c)} 10:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeeves, you're wrong and seem to have it a bit backwards. We do have some attack journalism, in fact the UK has plenty - they just cover it up because newspapers can A) afford fancy and expensive lawyers and B) you get away with murder with the word "allegedly". All Singh did was cite the evidence and the claims of the BCA - and then called them on it publicly. The injustice is that the BCA didn't have to lift a finger to get the libel action sought - Singh had to prove that he wasn't slanderous when pretty much every other legal process in the world does it the other way around, where someone suing for libel should have to show that it was actually slanderous first. That's the issue. If someone says that "So and so fucks goats for a living" they should have to prove that the person actually did, otherwise it's lies and slander and yes, they can be done for it. Singh's case is the other way around completely, he challenged them on the evidence and they sued to shut him up - if anything the BCA assert things without evidence so it's they who are guilty of slander, in a way. The result of the case existing is marginally positive, however, in that people now know a lot more about chiropractic medicine than before; the public conciousness may have just dismissed it as just some people working on back pains, but this case has brought to light the outlandish claims that aren't backed up with evidence. ^gnostic 12:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What you just said is so fractally wrong, I'm not sure where to start in explaining why you're wrong. From what you wrote, I'm reasonably sure you've never actually read the article in question. Singh didn't present evidence, he presented an anecdote. He used the anecdote to imply that all chiropractic treatments were both dangerous and inefficacious. I'm sceptical about whether chiropractic treatments have any value myself, but if you do this for a living and you really believe there is evidence that what you do works, then this is certainly a libellous contention.

Secondly, in no instance is any plaintiff in a lawsuit ever required to prove their case before it is brought to trial. Your suggestion that they should is insanity.

Thirdly, go back and reread what you said. Notice the gaping internal inconsistency? I hope so. Do try and at least make what you say make sense in and of itself, even if it conflicts so heavily with reality. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

At some point in our mutual sobriety, Goonie and I decided to take over your wiki

We think the criteria for sysops and 'crats should be "slightly" better vetted. ħuman 07:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

we have never had 'crat problems. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My concern was mostly, if I remember correctly, that we have a standard of "mostly harmless" for sysops, when I think the bar should be raised to "mostly useful" or the like. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 07:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not. Perhaps bring it before the LJ? Aceⁱ⁹ 07:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Mostly harmless" was the invention of RA who simply hated the red exclamations points, and sysopped everyone in sight. 'Twas never the best idea. I don't like to argue with Ace, however, because he might come here and kill me. ħuman 07:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to argue about. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been in favour of this for quite a while, it's only been fear of "being just like CP, OMG!!" that's kept us from making sysops actually useful. Give block powers, page move and some other similar stuff to sysops, raise the bar to "proven useful or at least we know you well" rather than "had an account for more than 30 seconds", leave stuff like article creation and other day to day stuff to any member and set BoN's to editing only every 5 minutes or so, but no goodies beyond straight editing of existing articles. Simple. Done. Don't much care about 'crats, we haven't had a lot of problem from that direction so don't mess with it. --Kels (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What Kels said...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have created a debate (or vote) about this topic here: [3]. I hope that is okay. -- Mei (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Omigod

ħuman 07:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling the LJ.

How do we call the lazy bastards to a meeting? ħuman 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps intecom? Aceⁱ⁹ 08:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't have our fucking badges, let alone an intercom channel! Qnd Qhy Os Tour Skypey So WEirF? ħuman 08:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe there are instructions on the wiki for adding an intercom channel. -- Nx / talk 10:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason to call them that falls within their purview? The LJ do not run RW, they arbitrate specific disputes. If you want to change policy on sysopping or cratting, that's a matter for the whole community.--^talk 09:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AD has a good point. But I think Huw was asking a hypothetical question anyway. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 11:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tet's right, my mistake was in the header level, making it look like this was part of the sysopery discussion. ħuman 22:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

TOO LATE YOUR TYRANNY IS EXPOSED - THE SKEPTICS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG LET'S CLOSE RW.--^talk 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said. --94.197.22.135 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a Leatherjacket matter. Throw it to the mob. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I recommend projecting a massive "brain in brackets" sign into the air. ^gnostic 17:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that changing policy was part of the Loya Jirga's role --92.41.65.248 (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not. See AD's comment above. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to offend. --94.197.22.135 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On snark

I'm on the fence about the whole idea of SPOV and snark. There's nothing wrong with making an intelligent discussion humorous, but I don't think that snark is always justified. After all, isn't it the same as a creationist snidely adding "I'll pray for you" after making their point? As rationalists, shouldn't we patiently and calmly refute false arguments without spiteful add-ons? Granted, I realize that a lot of snark is rooted in frustration, since the YEC crowd simply won't listen to reason. But even so...does that justify obnoxiousness? I'm not sure. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a bit of snark, but not as a substitute for reason. It does at least stop us turning into dullsville wikipedia. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. The reason that "snark" exists is because Wikipedia is as dry as those arid regions of Antarctica. But it shouldn't be at the expense of well researched, well written and well sourced arguments - it should be added to enhance the readability of those arguments. ^gnostic 16:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, there has to be a decent fact to snark ratio. We have fun space anyway for stuff that's intended to be more funny than factual. --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Crazies on TV

So I decided to turn on the TV while cleaning up the apartment and the first thing I see is Kirk Cameron on NBC. Switching over to ABC I'm greeted with Jesse Ventura. Waiting to see who CBS will throw at me. Maybe Ken Demyer? DickTurpis (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you try Fox News? I'm sure they'll take the cake. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't have cable, so I can't. Though, now that I think about it, it seems Kirk was sitting in for Kathy Lee, so it doesn't increase the craziness by much. DickTurpis (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sizing Up Sperm game @ National Geographic

Did you play the sperm game at NG website? it's fun to play. the prequel to this video game is a lot better though. Mr.Orange (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It was much more difficult than I expected. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Default search options

Since we're looking at updating a few things, I think the default search options could do with reviewing. Currently, for new users & anyone who hasn't set their own preferences, searches show results for: *Main *Essay *Essay Talk *Conservapedia *Conservapedia Talk. This seems rather out of date. I would suggest adding at least Forum & RationalWiki, & maybe removing CP (depending how others feel about this). If it's going to include Essay, it could have Debate as well, but I don't think they're essential, & I don't think talk pages (i.e. Essay Talk, CP Talk) should be in default searches at all. It could include Funspace too, as it contains a lot of things that were moved from Main, although it is mixed bag of mostly crap, so maybe not. What does anyone/everyone else think? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you check search recently? I've enabled the new UI which has become default in MW 1.16. The categories aren't set up correctly, I have to figure out which settings control them. These are the default categories:

• Content pages
• Multimedia
• Help and Project pages
• Everything
• Advanced (this shows the old box with a thousand checkboxes - the default search options still apply here)

You can debate what should go into which category. E.g. should Debate go into content? Also the old search UI is unavailable in MW1.16, so if you don't like the new one, tough luck. -- Nx / talk 21:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice, that's way better than the old help return. I like the hyperlinks to broaden a search, can we add a few more? Like all the namespaces and all their talkspaces? ħuman 22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's a simple way to add new profiles (that's what the software calls them), but it's only available in MW 1.16. -- Nx / talk 23:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

- π 21:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so which namespaces are in the "content" bit? It seems pretty similar to the old defaults (i.e. main, CP, essay). & Does the forum come under content, project pages or neither? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Content uses the same setting as the old default. I just changed it to Main, CP, Fun, Essay, Recipe. The tooltip shows you which namespaces are searched btw. Project files currently contains User and Category, but in MW1.16 "Help and Project" is by default Help and Project. -- Nx / talk 21:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the settings in preferences only applies to the Advanced option. -- Nx / talk 21:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And finally, in MW1.16 there's a new preferences system, which allows me to specify the defaults for any setting that will apply to any user who hasn't customized the setting. I can use that to specify the search defaults. Currently I'd have to edit the setting which determines what goes into the Content category, and it wouldn't update existing users' settings. -- Nx / talk 21:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages should DEFINITELY be searchable/included in seach so that when I want to reference something stupid I said weeks or months ago, I can find it...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I second that. We do a lot of stuff on talk pages, and there are some real gems in there. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They are searchable, but you have to either use the Everything option or select specific namespaces in Advanced. -- Nx / talk 22:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. The everything search is a nice time saver. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In regards to a certain super secret discussion group starting with a 'z'

I was wondering if it would be allright to create a page in which we indicate which pages contain interesting material (e.g. "see pg 884 for the discussion on TK copying the UCLA article from WP, and see how Geo bends over backwards and how Andy ignores the issue"), as this would allow people to get their laughs without having to trawl through a large volume of uninteresting material (e.g. "Gentlemen, expect to see a certain page starting with an E rise up the rankings of a certain search engine starting with a G!"). There's some really enlightening stuff there. Also, feel free to memory hole this if it shouldn't have been said. EddyP (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's on the internet, co memory-holing would be silly. The link is here for those who haven't figured it out yet...RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead, but this discussion should probably be at talk wigo cp I suspect. Call it CP:Guide to the Blues? ħuman 19:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Patrick's Day

To all Irish, and people who once a year claim to be Irish on account of owning Riverdance and being an admirer of all things quaint --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There was an SNL sketch, years ago, which featured a reporter in what she thought was an Irish themed pub, with the line "today be Saint Patrick's day, the day when everrrrrrybody's Irish!" And she mentioned some famous Americans of Irish descent, like "Donald O'Connor. Tip O'Neill. Wendy O. Williams."

As it turned out, though, she was in a Jewish bar, and that year, Purim and St. Patrick's day were the same day, so it became, "today be Purim, the the day when everrrrrrybody's Jewish!"

Me, my ancestry is Scots, Dutch and English, so, despite my company bringing in the very traditional Irish breakfast of doughnuts and bagels, I'm lobbying that we should celebrate Pi Day next year. There's more geeks than Irish Catholics here anyway.... MDB (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Slap a bit of black pudding on that bagel and you'll be halfway there. Yup, pi day is my favourite new tradition. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm mixed, African American and Irish. I celebrate St. Patty's Day, but I do it by drinking malt liquor. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 17:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm mixed English/Irish heritage. I'm celebrating by drinking Guinness, which tonight is £1 a pint in the students' union. SJ ^Debaser 17:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Half-Irish and quarter-German. Rest is muddied up (some small fraction is Native American). Bring on the shamrock shakes!--Thanatos (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am of the same nationality as St Patrick and shall celebrate in the traditional way (puts kettle on). Totnesmartin (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am technically all Irish but have lived in Scotland all my life, so I am Confused. Mindless stupid Hoover! 20:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Chuck, but no Irishman (or woman) would refer to it as St. Patty's Day, it's St Paddy's Day! I'm Engligh, so happy "Take advantage of all the Guinness promotions and get leathered on the black stuff Day"! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember, I'm Irish AND Black. In our community it is "St. Patty's day." Mostly because we spend most of the getting patted down by cops and security. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 23:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a minute

I claim an extra point for not being interrupted for 100 edits without hesitation, deviation or repetition. (here) (10 days & >100 edits) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC) ^Contribs_Talk

Log In Difficulties

I am trying to log in, but always get a "not a valid user name" message. What gives? (RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor). AlsoRWWUR (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, NX--what was the problem? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your name was longer than 32 characters. I limited usernames to 32 characters because someone was spamming us with extremely long usernames. I did not know it would also prevent existing users with long names from logging in. I apologize for that. I've increased the limit to 64 characters now, I hope that is reasonable. -- Nx / talk 18:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Some assistance requested

This paper, which is also mentioned somewhere on TWIGO:CP, seems to be somewhat on-mission. I have two requests:

1. Does anyone know how to upload it and put it in the proper format to do a side-by-side?
2. What is your opinion of it? The abstract seems to indicate that it is some kind of postmodernist diatribe, but I'm not sure.

Thanks, Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The first step will be converting it in to text. I haven't used these myself, but there are some online OCR tools available. The side-by-side bit is fairly straightforward once you have the scanned images converted in to text. --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

At 40 pages long, my advice would be not to even attempt side-by-siding the whole thing. Look around RW & you'll find loads of cases where people started overambitious side-by-sides (like the entire Bible) & lost interest, leaving pages of text in a left-hand column, with just a few stray comments on the other side. With something like this, it's better to just quote the parts you want to comment on & comment on them, as a selective side-by-side, + link to the document so readers can read the whole thing if they want. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, thanks Weaseloid! I'll do it that way instead. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)