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

Main page revamp

Come to think of it, does anyone think the front page may need a little bit of a revamp? The random cover articles and WIGO list are great, but does anyone look at the portals and featured conent lists? I'm wondering if we're packing too much stuff onto it whereas a more streamlined page that consists of just the featured article, news and highlights would be better. Anyway, that's just rambling vaguely on the topic, feel free to ignore. ^theist 11:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, AOTW is dead. -- Nx / talk 11:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea a lot. I feel like it's too busy.--^talk 12:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We used to try and have a sample WIGO on the front page but it broke. Nx, with the new WIGO storage system would it be possible to say have the last 3 to 5 WIGO Worlds stories appear on the frontpage without the voting arrows? - π 12:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the vote id, yes (i.e. list wigos with vote id >= max(vote id) - x, so you'll have to take extra care not to screw up vote ids). Note that the date option in Bestof actually uses the timestamps of individual votes, so it's broken (for a certain value of broken). When you select a date, it lists wigos that have received votes in that (month and) year, and only counts votes from that (month and) year. -- Nx / talk 12:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, can you make it happen or should we check with Human first? Also what about commented out ones, we don't want them appearing on the main page. - π 13:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

They will. Problem is, once something has been added to the bestof database, it's there to stay. -- Nx / talk 13:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, another pet peeve of mine is the way cover stories are transcluded into the main page. I'd much prefer if we transcluded, for example, a subpage that is specifically crafted for the main page, instead of hacking the article with noincludes and crap like that. -- Nx / talk 13:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, wait... I'm channeling Human from the Other Realm of the "offline" he says... I can just about make it out... he says "Why are you trying to break my wiki?!?!?" ^theist 15:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

But on a serious note about your pet peeve there, it was suggested I think, but was probably shot down on grounds of "too much work". I'd favour that idea, on account of being able to get around some of the odd introductory remarks made on articles and the fact that images (which I personally like being transcluded) need to be rescaled - it'd certainly be easier than the noinclude and includeonly hacks. ^theist 15:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Too much work? For most of the articles you just need to take the lead section (perhaps just part of it, but then you could cut it sensibly instead of in the middle of a sentence), add some formatting and that's it. It's easier and less error-prone and more maintainable than the fugly noinclude hacks. -- Nx / talk 16:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, exactly. ^theist 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Suit yourself. -- Nx / talk 01:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, am I coming across as I think that it'd be too much work? On the contrary, I agree with everything you've said. I might give it a shot when I have some free time later but I'm about to bump up my Real Life Intrusion-o-meter. ^theist 12:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, I thought you were playing devil's advocate and I probably misunderstood your last comment. Anyway, I don't want to ruin the wiki. -- Nx / talk 12:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Affirmative. I didn't want to butt in in a everyone-is-a-critic kind of way, but I never liked it. I either go straight for the search option when I might want to check something, or the recent changes button. I am sure that discussing/talking about everyone's idea of a front page in his head is going to take forever, so what about a page where people can post WIPs of alternative layouts so someone can comment on something specific/feasibility? Sen (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tried that before, it usually doesn't work. The way to get things done here is to do it then win in the resulting HCM. -- Nx / talk 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

LArron has Dembski on the ropes

This is too interesting to let it slip by, check out her for the conversation, also his article Conservation of Information in Search - Measuring the Cost of Success is worth anyone working through, also check out the talk page. tmtoulouse 23:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"...direct your analytic skills to other concerns where your talents are needed more desperately (such as fraud in climate data). Unlike climate scientists, we are committed to truth and transparency. Also, unlike them, we do this work on our own time, without government funding." - Dembski. Wow, is he using the Schlafly quote generator now? Are they writing material for each other? ħuman 01:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Awesome work, LArron! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I tip my hat to you sir. Only wish I had the smartz to make my own contribution.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I too wish I had even half your patience and brainpower LArron. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking an interest. The whole discussion is about a couple of minuscule errors in a peer-reviewed paper of Dembski et al. (Conservation of Information in Search - Measuring the Cost of Success). The very existence of these errors after peer-review - and their handling by Dembski and Marks somewhat shows the agenda of the IDers. (Tom English has some interesting entries in his blog). More interesting is the upcoming paper The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search. I described here on RW a major blunder in the draft of this paper, and I'm now eagerly awaiting the publication of a revised paper. (Dembski implied that only small changes were made - I doubt it)

Uncommon Descent and Conservapedia are two faces of the same medal: W. Dembski himself praised at UD CP's article on cp:Global Warming.

And both blogs have similar moderation/blocking strategies: I'm contributing to UD for over a year, and I'm still seen as potential trouble. So, my comments doesn't appear immediately, but are hold in moderation - for a random time: this can be a couple of minutes, usually an hour or two - or perhaps half a day or a day (a deviously constructed vandal bin :-) Sometimes - though very seldom , they don't appear at all, without any further explanation.

And - as with Andy - you can't call a spade a spade. First, you have to say that it's a beautiful spade, and that it was clever to think of it. Only then, you can explain why it is rubbish. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious. He publishes a paper, and you (politely) point out some valid errors. A proper scientist would take your comments on board, thank you for helping them, and correct their article accordingly. This whole situation shows Depshit for what he is. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

LArron, you just gave me an idea for our vandal brake... make the editing delay random, between say, 15 minutes and 2 hours, to make the pigeons start pulling out their own feathers. You edit there as DiEb (?), right? ħuman 02:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The randomization is quite effective: You can't really participate in a discussion, and you can't plan your comments. Furthermore, the comments appear (if at all) in the thread at a place according to their time of creation - so, in a lively thread, where may be dozens of comments done after it, no one who isn't especially looking for it will find it...

(le larron (fr.) = der Dieb (ge.))

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they take longer to review your evil words depending on your post with the result that the delays are different. Cock up rather than conspiracy.--Bill E Goat (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There's also the difference in time zones.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Kudos to LArron! Šţěŗĭļė Volkswagen 23:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cognitive biases

This is the single most interesting paper I have ever read. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Ironically, Taber and Lodge's experiments confirmed all six of the authors' prior hypotheses." (p. 9) I lolled! This looks to be a very good book when it comes out. !!!! oops ħuman 02:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. Should be linked from eleventy RW articles. ħuman 03:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting stuff. ^theist 12:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tetronian, I've seen you at Less Wrong recently. I'm glad you've found some of the fun stuff. (I'm Will_Newsome on Less Wrong, but I don't comment much and have yet to write a post. I'm an intern at the Singularity Institute.) It'd be nice to integrate more RWers into LW. RW has been mentioned on LW already. One problem with the rat wiki is that it's a little too intent on reversed stupidity. For those interested in really learning about what it takes to be rational (or at least, less wrong), I highly recommend taking a look at lesswrong.com. (Trent, I remember your essay introduced me to Bayesianism. You'll find some awesome applications/justifications of Bayesianism on Less Wrong in various places.)(It'd be cool to see Human, Toast, Genghis Khant, etc. over on LW, if only because I'd get a kick out of it.)

Tetronian, I hope you continue to comment. The crowd there can get pretty tough, especially if you haven't read all 1000 or so previous posts and every comment thread thereof and aren't highly trained in theoretical computer science, Bayesian probability theory, artificial intelligence, decision theory, utilitarian ethics, philosophy of science, philosophy generally, quantum physics, evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, evolutionary biology, et cetera, et cetera... Clepper ^{is fallible} 15:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been hanging around there a bit. Though their conversations are much drier than those here at RW, we RWians can learn a lot from what goes on over there. For various reasons, their conversations almost never degenerate into fundie-bashing; they do lots of math and are very, very rational thinkers.

You're an intern at the Singularity Institute? Sounds very interesting. May I ask what you do? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I can tell you I spent all Sunday morning working on Bayesian inference models that determine how much computing power whole brain emulation would need and when we're likely to get that amount of computing power. This is part of a larger project to determine probability distributions for the occurrence of various catastrophic or existential risks. Sunday/Monday-till-now was spent on in-house strategy talks, reading, and talking with a potential Visiting Fellow. I'm also gearing up for the Summer when we're going to be getting a lot of Visiting Fellow applicants in from colleges around the globe. Pretty standard stuff at the moment. - Clepper who is too lazy to sign in at the moment^{— Unsigned, by: Clepper / talk / contribs}

Atheist Barbie

Hee hee! ^{Hat tip yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall call her "Susan". ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange name! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, "Toast" doesn't really work as a girl's name. Too crunchy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, "Toast (with honey) Spice" has a certain ring to it... ħuman 03:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Mixed meme trip: "Where is the Atheist Ken doll?" made me wonder why they didn't use the template. ħuman 03:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. No one told me about the surprise orgies. Damn. ^theist 13:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

copyright question(second one)

since NX wasn't able to give me a mature amswer can anyone tell me if this is fair use? http://mountandblade.wikia.com/wiki/File:Desktop2.jpg Waronstupidity (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Pick one from:

• Yes it is
• No it isn't

^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

............ Waronstupidity (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

17 USC section 107 copyright fair use provisions.HERE You should be fine if it was used to illustrate a review of the game. If its in a picture gallery of cool game covers then thats not OK. Fair use depends on use and intent Hamster (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll also have a better case if you make them smaller. IE, lo-rez is far less of a copyvio issue than hi-rez. For instance, this is pushing it, but consider how bad a nice 1200 DPI scan of the original 12" I own would be. You could probably see her nose hairs. ħuman 03:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider a couple of things. Are you trying to make money out of this use? Does your use of this image potentially reduce the income that the original author might make? If the answer to either of these questions is "yes" then you will certainly be in violation.--Bill E Goat (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You probably didn't get a straight answer (besides Nx's extremely sarcastic attitude to copyrights) because there rarely is an answer to "is this fair use". It's a complicated thing. Firstly it only applies in US law, which is almost de facto on the internet but be aware of that, e.g., there is "fair dealing" in UK law that's far more restrictive. Fair use isn't so much something about it is or it isn't, it's more of a rationale for you to violate copyright should you ever be asked to take it down. So you have to think along various lines: 1) is it neccessary? 2) is it relevant? 3) does it actually violate copyrights? and so on. It's not as straightforward as yes or no, you just claim it and the only way to see if your rationale is good enough when it goes to court - it sucks, but it's better than nothing. Also, for Wikis, the fair use rationale should be re-done for each article that the image is used on (although RW is lax on this). ^theist 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

curious

So who here would fuck a member of the same sex just to try it? Tweety (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that a question or a proposition? Vulpius (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Question, lol Tweety (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No desire what so ever. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

tweety! i want your **** in my *** Waronstupidity (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to be coy, just say you want him to sink your praline, we'll accept that. --Kels (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I find the notion icky* but not immoral, though I do find it "interesting" that you titled this thread "curious."

• Full disclosure: I find the notion of sex with many people (sequentially, not all at once) on the planet "icky" I don't single out "the gays" in this regard^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 02:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't a better question be "who hasn't yet?" ħuman 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You are being very speciesist.--Bill E Goat (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Species was not specified (?!) ħuman 08:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I do feel that it is implicit though. So my complaint is about hidden speciesism in that case.--Bill E Goat (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to examine your own implicit assumptions for complicity in the speciesist agenda then. ħuman 22:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd classify myself as trisexual, because I'll try anything sexually. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

TK is the smartest user i ever saw

While a complete heartless asshole, he is VERY smart, i made some research and i can say he is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism . what is funny is andy doesn't know that he have a evil guy in his wiki, the Machiavellian are those who hold string behind power.(Captain obvious is here!)but there something we must be happy about... that he chose to use his evil trick on thy internet instead of real life.

TK is the kind of guy that could get power in real life, this is scary, i respect him for his High level of inteligence but hate him for his lack of heart and his Dirty trick .Waronstupidity (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think he isn't/hasn't acted this way in real life as well? He was Tricky Dick's right-hand man, after all. ħuman 03:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't he best buddies with Ed Meese too? To say nothing of snuggle-bunnies with Nancy Reagan. --Kels (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm snuggle-bunnies with One McWacked. ħuman 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, Waron fails at judging intelligence? I must write this down because it surprises me. Mei (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Put it on a list somewhere. Yes, TK is smart, but that smart? Sorry, no. I could easily name 5 or eleventy people on this site who are smarter. They're just not assholes. ħuman 09:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's smart as in devious or cunning, not as intelligent or erudite. Also, you don't need to be very clever to fool Andy Schlafly.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's all about focus. I used to work with this utter wretch who was certainly less capable and intelligent than almost any of her/my co-workers. But she got her way and she made life miserable for anyone she targeted because she had the focus and energy continually strive to do mean, shitty and devious things all day, every day, week-in-week out for the three years I knew her. That's TK. He's not a moron or a genius. He just has the energy and focus to be a douche bag over the long term. That gives him a capability most people lack. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 17:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that just being a sociopath, though? Not really a great capability when it comes down to it. --Kels (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not a great capability, I phrased it that way because early on I realized that I could stop her from screwing with me professionally simply by make a point to bring up her professional short-comings in the appropriate circumstances. I never put the plan into play because the thought of it sort of turned my stomach and I knew that I'd lose interest in the whole enterprise in short order. She had a capability that I lacked. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 18:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

TK is a Sociopath, well more precisely he suffer from the dark triad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad .Waronstupidity (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank god you tell us all these true & verifiable things. Mei (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

could you stop being an ass? keep your sarcasm and bad attitude to yourself .Waronstupidity (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone has to remind you that you are not a psychiatrist, Waron. Mei (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

and all that give you the right to be an ass? but anyway its pretty obvious that TK suffer from it.Waronstupidity (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PROTIP: Armchair psychology = not a good idea. Diagnosing someone with a mental illness over the interwebs = not cool. -- Nx / talk 20:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

your right on that one, but it doesn't mean you were useful today! Waronstupidity (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not useful, Mei is. -- Nx / talk 20:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say something after 'its pretty obvious TK something', but Nx said it better so I did not say anything after all. In fact I am not even saying this. Mei (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether TK can be diagnosed as a sociopath (well, Antisocial Personality Disorder is what they call it these days) or not is unverifiable. But from personal experience with a couple of clear cases, I'd say he pretends to be one very well. --Kels (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

[1] - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Predictive text lulz, pt 94

I was attempting to write "Rupert Murdoch" in a text message, but the phone wanted "Murdoch" to say "Nuremberg." I find this exceedingly appropriate. And hilarious. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

On a similar note, one of our largest banks is ABSA. However, MS Word keeps telling me the closest spelling it can find is "abuse" or "abase". Gotta lurve MS sometimes. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 09:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

bestiality

Is it immoral if it's pleasurable to the animal? And why do people consider the killing and consumption of them ok, but sex as abhorrent? Tweety (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible for an animal to give informed, clear consent. Having sex with any living thing, including humans, that cannot or does not give consent, is rape and therefore immoral. Next question. --Kels (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

EC

1. Yes.
2. They're stupid. Mei (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So, if animals can't give clear, informed consent to being eaten, then... Totnesmartin (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You just hit the nail on the head Tweety (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Analogy breaks down. You're not allowed to eat humans either, even if they do provide informed, clear consent. You can still discuss the morality, but one situation is not equal to the other. --Kels (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

But it's ok to eat deities. ħuman 22:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, the analogy isn't pertaining to human eating, it's about the moral double standard extended to animals Tweety (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It can only be a double standard if the situations are equivalent. They aren't. --Kels (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm exploring whether the degree to which sex with animals is immoral is in proportion to their slaughter. It's an odd quirk of humanity. Tweety (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not immoral to fuck an animal, its just fucking awful. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There's room for a line here about New Zealanders and sheep, but that wouldn't be classy. --Kels (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we do eat a lot of lamb chops but thats not the point....Aceⁱ⁹ 21:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And I bet you've had rack of lamb as well, you pervert. --Kels (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The "analogy" is pretty good, and I have two things to offer. One is that there seems to be a sort of NOMA involved here - discussions of sexual ethics and dietary ethics are "separate" discussions. The other is one of necessity. Ignoring for a moment the slight possibility of being able to live entirely without killing anything, we have to eat to live. What we eat and how we "prepare" it is then a different kind of discussion than what we have sex with. Bread, wine, and hamburger were all once alive, and we killed something to make these into food. ħuman 23:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you gotta know I'm getting in on this discussion.

We have to eat something to live. But the decision of what to eat is almost as open-ended as what to have sex with. You can have sex with people, animals, fruit, and probably a variety of rocks (if you are unusually kinky). You can also eat many of those things. You don't need to do either. Cows don't consent to being eaten, just as they don't consent to being molested.--^talk 02:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the biggest difference between the two is the necessity of the action. Even though an animal can't consent to being killed, it is accepted as something unavoidable. At the same time, most people who eat meat would still be against torturing an animal to death or killing it in "inhumane" ways (please don't give me any of that PETA shit about how horrible slaughterhouses are). However, sexually abusing an animal is not necessary. It would done only for the pleasure of the person and there's no way to fuck a sheep in a humane way. SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 09:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fucking an animal, yes, but what aboutbeing fucked by which, according to those in the bestiality community, is a different thing (it's in an old issue of Bizarre magazine) which you assume that the animal does give consent (in so much that an animal can) to do the act, because it's the animal that initiates it. No abuse, no inhumane treatment and, one presumes, there is pleasure for the animal. So where does that lie? Because I'm pretty sure I agree with the people who say that fucking and being fucked are two different areas in this case. ^theist 11:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Eating meat is only done for the pleasure of the person, too, Chuck. You don't have to eat meat, so the killing of the animals and harvesting of their flesh is only done because you like the taste of meat. This is easy to prove: just imagine if you didn't like the taste of meat. You would not starve, and would probably be only mildly inconvenienced. But you like it.

In the same way, fucking an animal is only done for pleasure. I'm not sure why you think there's no way to fuck a sheep humanely but still think you can kill an animal humanely. What does "humanely" mean to you? A minimum of pain? So use the sheep when it's in estrus, prepare it with lube, and so on. I'm sure it can be done to many kinds of animals without damage or significant pain, although admittedly that's just speculation.--^talk 11:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, whether it's necessary or not is often debated, but very young children who grow up on purely vegan/veggie diets often end up malnourished which can cause some severe health complications or even death. So it is necessary, particularly in early, rapid growing phase of your life to shove something meaty down your neck occaisionally. Less so as you grow older and perhaps stuff like fois gras is more indulgent than necessary, but it's clearly not a black and white issue. However, that's sidestepping needlessly into a vegetarian debate that really isn't needed too much. And "humanely" probably means different things to different people with different standards, which is the trouble, because people will usually change those standards for the sake of their own comvenience. So if someone is desperate to fuck a goat when the goat isn't too up for it that night, they'll more likely turn around and say "you know what, some extra lube will make it fine" and change their standards rather than think "oh, it'd be inhumane to do it now, after all, I do have principles". Well, in general, I think, you might find a few idealists who'd stick to their guns at their inconvenience but there's probably far more examples of the other case. ^theist 19:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not really debated about necessity, actually. I believe pretty much every competent nutritionist agrees that it's possible to eat a balanced diet as a vegetarian. And while yes, some children raised vegan (seldom veggie) experience nutritional problems, that's generally because their parents feed them a terrible diet. There are far more examples of omnivorous bad parenting, it just doesn't ever make the news. Witness the skyrocketing childhood diabetes trend (only starting to level off recently).

I agree that "humanely" is a subjective term. I just find it difficult to conceive of any definition that includes cutting the animal's throat that doesn't include painless use for sex.--^talk 22:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

AD, there is overwhelming evolutionary proof that humans were designed to eat meat. Teeth, digestive system, etc. Vegetarians constantly have to rely on extra supplements to get the required nutrition. If we didn't have the medical technology to create such supplements, they would be in some serious trouble. I had a friend who wanted to be vegan and refused the supplements, she found that she had to eat ridiculous amounts of calories to stay healthy. Humanely is not some abstract concept. People could easily (and have) come to a consensus on what is humane and inhumane. Just look at the current laws worldwide regulating the slaughterhouse industry and butchers. I also think you're going off the deep end a little toward the end of your comment. No rational person can think that "Oh, I'll just use some lube and the sheep won't feel a thing." Is a realistic assessment. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 19:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Humans weren't designed for any purpose. That's the soul of the wp:Naturalistic fallacy. We evolved and can now make moral choices. For example, recent research suggests the large coronal head of the penis may have evolved to scoop out rivals' semen, and that further the unusual length of the human penis is suggestive of a need to supplant rival semen implantation efforts. Does that mean you can't be happy with one person, just because there's "overwhelming evolutionary proof that humans were designed" to have sex with many different people. Or even if you don't buy the science, imagine if you did. Do your moral choices really depend on the latest biology journals' findings?

And as a vegetarian, I assure you that I do no more than take a single multivitamin a day (and could probably do without that if I cared to). There's this notion that there's all sorts of things you can't get as a vegetarian, but that's just usually ignorance (or wishful thinking). The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada agree that it's a perfectly healthy lifestyle, with several important benefits.

"Humanely is not some abstract concept."

Seriously? Because it seems like an abstract concept to me.

" No rational person can think that "Oh, I'll just use some lube and the sheep won't feel a thing." Is a realistic assessment."

I think the sheep may feel something, and feel discomfort and whatever. I don't know, I'm not a veterinarian or shepherd. But I find it hard to believe that you can think it's humane to kill cows, but not to have sex with them. If a cow was in estrus (or whatever you call it for cows) and medical assistance was rendered, I don't see how you're going to hurt the cow. If you've ever seen the organ on a bull, then you'll know that she probably wouldn't even notice.

I'm not advocating this, of course. I'm advocating the opposite. I think it's wrong to fuck animals for the same reasons I think it's wrong to eat them. But I can't think of any consistent morality that would let me raise a veal calf in a cage too small for it to move and then kill it, but would frown on me having painless sex with an adult cow.

Can you explain it to me?--^talk 22:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a combine harvester is a fairly inhumane device. You still kill to eat, you just don't eat animals. ħuman 00:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that I have no alternative that I can take. I eat hand-harvested vegetables and fruits for the most part, with some grains that are also mostly hand-harvested, because I actually have that alternative here and can afford it. My killing is certainly less purposeful and more essential. And I would encourage less of it.

But you forget that this isn't an attack on my personal ethics, which would be be better placed on the essays for that. This is a discussion of the ethics of bestiality. Do you have an opinion, Huw, on the matter?--^talk 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's only an issue of social acceptability. Humans are strange like that. Here in Spain you can go to watch a bull being killed and it's culture. Most people are quite happy to eat animals that have probably died relatively unpleasant deaths - though those same people probably wouldn't want to visit a slaughterhouse. Yet there is no social shame in these activities. On the other hand having sex with animals is not only socially unacceptable but probably subject to criminal sanction. I guess it's just the particular set of social taboos which exist at the moment. Or it's what the bible says. One or the other.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WOOOOOOT!!!

File:HN09poster1A.jpg

It's World Homeopathy Awareness Week. Keep taking the tablets folks. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on this one way or the other but posting to get the text to wrap around the image so as to NOT have it hang off of the bottom of the page. 21:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

Strictly speaking the water is full of shit idea shows a lack of understanding about homeopathy. It would need to be banged about umpteen times in a glass jar to retain it's memory. Just like when I was a kid at school the nuns would beat the living daylights out of you to make you remember things.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And the Principle of Similars would mean that it would... I don't know what the opposite of a giant turd is that would cause it. Although because people often flush medicine down the toilet, it'd also have a lot of pacetamol and asprin in it, so would it cause headaches? ^theist 11:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yo, Fuck y'all, someone ought to get this all up in Andy's shit

[Copied from CP:Talk to here because it'll do more business in here]

One of the all-time very worst bands in the world, the Insane Clown Posse, have a new song out called 'Miracles'. You just have to hear this shit, yo. These two dipshits "have a theory" that scientists got all this shit wrong, bitch. There's miracles in the Universe, shit. Giraffes, magnets (Prepare nose for coffee when you hear "Fucking magnets, how do they work?" at 1:53) - it's all to be wondered at, and fuck all y'all scientists. Meanwhile, over here, someone has written an ICP-curriculum science textbook. Anyway, point being, these intellectual giants are clearly promoting an agenda of Godidit, and so therefore they are Andy-friendly, and therefore I encourage readers to urge Andy to promote the video at Conservapedia. After all, Violent J, Shaggy 2 Dope and Andy Schlafly have at least one thing in common - they all have clown faces. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 18:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd put it up in Andy's shit Tweety (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible they are being sarcastic, or tongue-in-cheek? How smart are they in general? ħuman 23:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

One way to judge this Human might be to meet their fans, The Juggalos. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fun fact: The first guy in the video (the one rapping) is from my hometown and used to look up to me. He was a little awkward back then, but I'd never suspect he was a juggalo. When I first saw that video, I had to contact my sister. "Oh my god, is this so-and-so?" I'm actually still good friends with his mom, who's a very religious Christian but still goes to midnight showings of Rocky Horror Picture Show. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 16:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it doesn't have the feel of poe to me..........nor is there humor along these lines from what little I know of them. Its just classic surreal idiocy. And it is classic. I had many a good laugh at it, it is better on subsequent viewings when the shock wears off and you can appreciate the subtle points like, talking about shit that will shock ya eye lids off while showing a CGI of his wife giving birth to a mini-me ICP. tmtoulouse 23:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It does make you speculate about the state of their marriages when they think it is a miracle that their kids look like them. - π 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well they only claim one set of kids match, the other looks just like daddy, we are left to speculate who daddy is. tmtoulouse 09:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh man! Dembksi's blog is calling it a modern manifestation of Francis Bacon! tmtoulouse 23:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

ICP aren't smart enough to understand the concept of Poe. These are white blokes who wear clown face and play 'horrorcore' hiphop, have an audience of fourteen year old boys, and squirt soda pop at their audience by the gallon. Rocket scientists, they are not. Draw a line of ludicrous rock theatrics from Alice Cooper, Ozzy Ozbourne, Kiss, Billy Idol, Eminem, and add children's TV into the mix and you have ICP - they are cartoon characters. To suddenly find them prognosticating on the nature of magnetism is, well, surprising. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't you be dissing Alice Cooper, he is a demigawd! ħuman 07:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OH, puhleaze! Name one song of his that's of any use other than 'School's Out'? Mind you, thats a great song, and he seems like a good bloke. And I think Eminem's a remarkable musician, he's the real deal and has oodles of talent. It's just all the "Oh I'm so FRIGHTENED of the SCARY ROCK MAN, he's CRAYZEE!" nonsense that they've all gotten up to that's bollocks. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A customer gave me some dvds of concerts. The Alice Cooper one was simply amazing. Three hours of energy and performance, a fake beheading, eight costume changes, etc. Half the songs I now like on it I didn't even know before. Billion. Dollar. Babies. T Shirt read on the front "Paris Hilton wants me". On the back... "dead". ħuman 08:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

@DogP: "No More Mr. Nice Guy." SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 09:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually ICP are Native American so the wigger label is invalid. Waronstupidity (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I lasted fifteen seconds. In my twenty-eight years as a record collector and rocknerd, that goes well beyond mere stultifying mediocrity to actively one of the worst things ever. I hate you and will be killing you in your sleep soon. Nothing personal - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you found it suitably hideous. It is, I reckon, an all-time classic. Plus, the music track is incredibly lame and looped to bejasus, it's got to be the whitest hiphop I've ever heard in my life. Vanilla Ice is one badass mothafucka compared to these tailgaters. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

again... they are not white but NATIVE American. Waronstupidity (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that it's that important, because the point is that they are appalingly terrible and I don't really give two shits about whether they're white, orange, pink, or blue. However, since you raise the point, what is your source for this? I see no mention of it in their fabulously encyclopedic Wikipedia article, which was clearly written by Juggalos. I love Juggalos, they're cool. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 06:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I found the WP article on these guys fabulous as well as the video on the juggulo gathering. I was sort of aware of them peripherally, but had never heard their music and had no idea that they had the sort of following they do. I absolutely love the detail about them distributing two liters of diet soda at their concerts. Has anyone ever been? The article made it seem like they just toss them into the crowds. What is up with that? Also, in the godawful video, the line after the gravity line, something like "don't ask a scientist cause they are liars" smacks of climate change denial. At any rate, thanks for bringing this up. Finally, some clowns who are really funny. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I only knew of these idiots before due to a mocking station ID at WUNH 91.3 FM college radio. Now I get the joke they were making. ħuman 13:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The birth of RW

I pulled this up due to the on going dispute over at WP, but though some people might find it of interest in a nostalgic sort of way. This diff was the "birth" of the idea for this website. The first public manifestation, though you can see I had no idea what we would wind up creating. Or I could just be waxing nostalgic for no reason. Just passing it along. tmtoulouse 23:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, RationalWiki:History claims it was in Feb 2007. Is that wrong? ħuman 00:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently. I have got a lot of interesting archived material as well, like my generic "invitation e-mail" that was sent out to people after it was started. The back and forth about what to create (listserve, irc channel, wiki, etc.) If this is of historical interest I can spend some time playing with the early history of RW in the article. tmtoulouse 00:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be great, yeah. Just don't muck up the awesome TOC! ħuman 01:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That's quite cool. Although I'm surprised that this WP dispute is still ongoing. It seems like pretty much the silliest bit of bureaucratic shite ever. They're of course entitled not to trust "primary" sources, as people often lie about themselves or companies try to put out false infomation etc. etc., but this isn't even close to that sort of situation. ^theist 10:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course Colin was involved... Šţěŗĭļė Volkswagen 11:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC) PS: JFC, I didn't realized how far the wp dispute had come.

40 Years of Blaming Yoko

File:Josh Lennon.jpg

You may say I'm a dreamer... but I'm not the only one.

Having a Beetles weekend on the classic rock station to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the breakup. I've started to like Lennon's solo work. Any thoughts my fellow degenerates?--Thanatos (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I blame Paul. ħuman 01:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The walrus was Paul. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 07:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am the Walrus. And the cabal^{There is no cabal. The cabal can go fuck themselves[2].}

! ħuman 07:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Perfect opportunity for me to premier my Lennon-style sunglasses to the RationalWiki community! SJ ^Debaser 12:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I buried Paul. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, paul married Ms. Kodak, John married an artist... you decide... Alain (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong wealthy Eastman family. And Linda was cool, unless allowed near a microphone. Was watching some 80s interview with J & Y, 'twas funny as she tried to explain to the host that she didn't know what the Beatles was when she met John. ħuman 00:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember that even Linda admitted she had no sense of rhythm, she just had fun being with Paul. In fact, there are recordings where she pointed out where she's unable to keep the beat with a tambourine, but it totally didn't matter. Because that's the kinda band Wings was. --Kels (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My partner is a huge Beatles fan. He also likes Yoko Ono's "music" (and Barry Manilow's, but that's besides the point, unless I'm trying to prove his taste in music is as bad as his taste in boyfriends...) We were music shopping once, and I bought a Led Zeppelin collection. He made a snarky remark, and I replied with, "okay, let's compare. I like Led Zeppelin. Key influence on music? Seminal influence on rock and roll for many years. You like Yoko Ono. Key influence on music? Broke up the Beatles." To which he responded, "She did not! Even Paul says it wasn't her fault!" Which is true, but it was still a fun conversation. MDB (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I used to have an old single (yeah, 45rpm vinyl, bitches) that had Yoko singing the old standard Those Were The Days on the B-side. And you know what, that woman could definitely sing. Nothing wrong with her voice, and she could carry a tune when she chose. The fact is, she chose instead to experiment, and see where the limits of this whole "music" thing were. Because while she can/could sing, she's not a singer. She's always been an artist. Which is why I shake my head at people who get on the "Yoko's music sucks" bandwagon. As to the Beatles, from what I gather they would have broken up pretty soon even if she wasn't there at that point, so it's pointless to blame. --Kels (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(unDent)I think it is fair to say, regarding the Beatles break up, she may have accelerated a result that was inevitable. And yeah, he's played a few of her less experimental pieces for me, and, yeah, they're not bad. But she's just such an easy target if I feel like teasing him a little. MDB (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pain

Even though I am past the age where wisdom teeth give you trouble I am suddenly thrust into a world of unbelievable pain. I have never had wisdom tooth problems before and never thought I would. Can't get to a dentist today so I am surviving on a diet of codeine and whisky. Christ, it fucking hurts. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dude, my fuckin' sympathies. When I had mine out, the dentist put me under with a shot of demerol followed by a cocktail of valium, seconal and some other painkiller/narcotic--maybe strong codeine pills? anyway, I was as high as a fucking kite, it was awesome. P-Foster (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you can type. Also: try aspirin. A lot of it. That usually helps me. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fuck aspirin - I have opiates. I am tying to finish an essay but keep getting distracted. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck, Ace. Tooth problems suck.

P.S. - have you at least used ice to numb it? I know that doesn't compete with opiates but it's worth a shot. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am hosting a goddamn dinner party in 2 hours but I can barely use my jaw to eat anything and I'll wind up with my head lolling around on my neck like its hanging from a fucking hinge while I mutter away in a drunken, drugged up fog. Ahhhh the pain! Shitballsfuckknuckle. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Rub small amounts of cocaine on your gums? Calling Dr. Robert... ħuman 03:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Having evolved to only have a complement of 28 teeth I've been spared wisdom teeth problems. However, trigeminal neuralgia brought on by cold wind has occasionally reduced me to tears of agony. Warm compresses and NSAIDs have been the only thing to offer relief.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that sucks. As does the talk page for the WP article. I would recommend cocaine for you, too. ħuman 08:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's happened to me twice and for those who have a chronic conditionI can understand why it's called the suicide disease.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"I'll wind up with my head lolling around my neck like it's hanging from a fucking hinge while I mutter away in a drunken, drugged up fog." Not to be a smart arse, but is that not the state your associates know you best in? I'd recommend a bit of the green. It's secondary purpose is to numb physical pain. (First is for recreational use.) SJ ^Debaser 11:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had impacted wisdom tooths but I've also had herpes zoster ophthalmicus (shingles) the wisdom tooth thing was horrendous and nothing would numb it but two visits to the dental hospital cleared it up although they cocked up the anaesthetic first time & I had to overnight, the shingles was absofuckinglute agony & lasted for weeks and still, thirty plus years later, gives me repeat nadgers at random (see also trigeminal neuralgia above). ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to cheer you up: a friend of mine had a rib cracked under anaesthetic as the butcher dentist pressed his knee on her chest while removing wisdom tooth. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I had to go to hospital to have mine out, complete with general anaesthetic. All four at the same time, although to be fair the bastards were growing in sideways.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nostalgia

Somewhere here somebody said 'You can find anything on Youtube' (except dwarf lesbian nun porn, it seems). However, now that I've found this - one of the best and most under-rated 80s songs evah, I'm inclined to agree. --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Some days ago I took a small roadtrip with some friends. The car had a 3.5mm jack audio in. At first people were just playing music from someone's ipod but then I noticed that even while moving, my phone had no problem streaming youtube (I have "unlimited" 3G internet) even on the move. Thus what we did from one point and after was searching songs on youtube and playing them on demant. At that point I realized that my, deck of cards sized device was essentially, an unlimited music database of almost every song in existance... Sen (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

*ahem* Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You can also find this great song from the 80's on YouTube!. Meaghan!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not click on the rickroll link. Save your souls. Mei (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Aussies safer in a strip club than a church, figures show

And we know that statistics arealways right ^{Hat tip yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, no one would want to desecrate such a sacred place. - π 14:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Most strip clubs don't push blood sacrifice, cannibalism and communication with invisible supernatural beings. That could account for their patrons being safer to be around. Also, security is normally pretty good. Strip clubs are also cheaper than some churches, and you may get complimentary nachos.--^{Ask me about your mother} 14:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How many people have Christians killed and how many people have Strippers killed? I thought that much was obvious. Sen (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you have the muslim fags who proudly kill people in the name of "allah." Seems the more clothes people wear, the more violent they are. Meaghan!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So strippers are holy people? Sounds like the idea of pastafarianism is making more and more sense. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is some potential danger Man sues for alleged breast beating. You have been warned.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is England

Dunno if any of you have seen this but there's a Facebook campaign to get This is England by the Clash to Number One on St George's Day (23rd April). SJ ^Debaser 15:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't they have chosen a good song? Totnesmartin (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How... dare... you................ This......... England................. awesome.................................. SJ ^Debaser 18:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But there are better songs out there, and by a large order of magnitude. They probably just chose it because it "sounded patriotic". Now, I'm no collectivist so the concept of patriotism always confuses me, but there are songs that better suit the UK's national identity surely. Bunging London Calling up for the Olympics would be pretty ace I think. ^theist 19:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"Anarchy In The U K"? Though I suppose that would be British rather then English.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a good song... Meaghan!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not click on the rickroll link. Save your souls. Mei (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mei is useful. 'Cource I clicked at the rickroll link anyway because I am a sceptic. (It was a rickrcoll link indeed. OR WAS IT?) Sen (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It just has to be "England Swings" by Roger Miller. For those that missed this gem

England swings like a pendulum do

Bobbies on bicycles, two by two

Westminster Abbey, the tower of Big Ben

The rosy red cheeks of the little children

Now, if you huff and puff and you fin'lly save enough

Money up to take your family on a trip across the sea

Take a tip before you take your trip

Let me tell you where to go

Go to England, oh

Now, with lyrics like that.... Jack Hughes (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I vote for Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever. Fish and finger pies in summer.... ħuman 12:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

'sup

WIGO at RationalWiki these days? Meaghan!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Usual stuff. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Boo, this place is boreing and nobody responds to threads. /b/ is a lot funner. Meaghan!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Go hang out with the /b/tards instead then. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Image uploader

whatever happened to da image uploader? too many newfags abuse it? Meaghan!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. -- Nx / talk 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"newfags"...nice... PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 05:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your edit summary, it is channer speak, usually from 4Chan's /b/ forum, to indicate a new user. Our trolling friend seems to find the use of "interntspeak" and/or "meme" amusing - they are of course wrong. - π 05:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's cool... I assumed (being a newfag n00b myself) that there was some inside joke involved...no worries :) PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 05:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use "fag" as an insult on this wiki. Or I will start blocking your lame asses. For seconds at a time. Oh wait, I will rename you forever. ħuman 07:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be less offended by the idea of using "fag" as an insult and more offended by needlessly importing 4Chan memes into the site. A bunch of channers are literally the very last thing we need. Of course, having said that, and if they see it, you know what will happen. And having remarked on it like that, the probability has probably gone up so I'll stop speaking and just go triforce something. ^theist 18:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

my friend an IDIOT.

He bought a bottle of alcohol with 94% and he indend to try it tonight...( i aint a Straight Edge so im going to party like hell)and im trying to tell him that its deadly...(he want to try it without anything else,he dont plan on drinking the whole bottle but still) im going to have to be a fucking nanny to prevent him from drinking it but i will be too damn drunk...im thinking of putting water in the bottle...should i do that ? (hes 22 im 19 we live in Canada so we both have the legal drinking age)Waronstupidity (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Go sambuca style and flame that drink !!! ( be carefull, kids! ask your parents for supervision... Alain (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

dude im adult...its been a year since i no longer live with parent/relative, im free! i live in a apartment.Waronstupidity (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not more poisonous than regular liquor, except that it's possible to get enough into your system before passing out to kill you. It's gonna taste awful unless mixed with something, though. Keep it away from open flames. ħuman 00:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Tell your friend to grow the fuck up and drink a proper drink. If he wants to try his luck with a bit of that French-Canadian crumpet you have there, then drinking a 94% drink will make him look like a prat - if you wanna get merry, start the night with a couple of beers, then around 12 go and do shots like men. Anything above 60% is for fucking idiots. SJ ^Debaser 01:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dude, drinking a 94% drink will physically scar the guy's throat. That crap has to be mixed with something. --Kels (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's probably something like wp:Everclear (alcohol). I used to drink that. When I was goddamn sixteen. You're nineteen, dude. You and your 22-year-old friend shouldn't drink grain alcohol alone at home. Go to a bar and get a couple of decent beers, or a gin and tonic, or a dirty martini. Something a little better than that rotgut.--^talk 03:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that anybody could swallow 94%. I had a bottle of Polish Pure Spirit (80%) once that that was almost undrinkable.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a Latvian girlfriend a coupla decades ago. Her grandmother knew the family's secret plum vodka recipe. We estimated the stuff at 80%. It crawled up the side of the goddamn glass (or looked like it did). One sip and your speech was drunk before your brain noticed. I was 21 and survived. Great stuff - ~@David Gerard (talk)

Nice to see you around, Dave. As inebriated as we/I might be. ħuman 08:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The big problem with higher ABV drinks is that people don't seem to understand first pass metabolism. 200ml of 10% alcohol != 50ml 40% alcohol. More alcohol slips past your liver enzymes as they get saturated. It's the same as the twats I heard about who injected vodka and died. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

CPEDIA

Oh mother of all lols... You guys know about Cuil, the worst search engine since yahoo? [3]

They made an automated encyclopedia: It's name? CPedia !!!!!!!! maaaaaan, almost as reliable than conservapedia!!!

For example: Here's Mr. Schlafly's entry :[4] ^{— Unsigned, by: Alain / talk / contribs} 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a clusterfuck! Schlafly Doo made the cut, though! ħuman 00:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is Reddit'S take on this trainwreck: [5] Alain (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's 2:30am. I was going to go to bed by 1am. Damn you - David Gerard (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pray for me instead, I'm already damned Alain (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be flattered that Schlafly Doo made it to another website, but that "article" is so incoherent no one in their right mind would go to it for information. SJ ^Debaser 12:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea, hopeless implementation. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

[6] it's got us too - bizarrely, the section called Totnesmartin is a quote from Phantom Hoovers Wikindex talk page, which I never wrote a thing on. Still, it's the internet so it must be true. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That "article" is surreal. The closest I get to a mention is "human sacrifice". ħuman 09:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Shintolin

Has anyone else heard of or played it? It is a surprisingly good game. You take the role of a stone-age person, and do what you want in an open-ended world. For those of you with addictive personalities, it has an AP system that prevents you from playing all day long. Drop in on me, I am John Ibans in the village of Oro Percorso. Just letting you all know, I am with another group, the "Philosophe Knights", nice people, just don't rob our storage area. Here is a linkey - [7]. If you want to get to Oro Percorso, start in the Hillside Tavern, head south to the river, then follow the river east. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ withstanding poodles! 00:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the forums, it appears as though the creator has abandoned it even though it needs a lot more work. Actually, it seems like the creator (Isaac) is a pretty huge jerk, taking donations from people and then ditching the game entirely and hosting his new projects on the server people had donated for. Too bad, it does look cool; a lot like Urban Dead.--^talk 10:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You also play UD? Cool. Are you in any groups, what do you do? (And where in the forums is Issac a jerk? I haven't found anything suggesting that). I have a PKer character, a "normal" human and a zombie. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ Who said anything about fair?! 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Drunk history

Don't know if you guys saw this. Nothing to do with RW and maybe oldmeme... BUT! I still laugh even if i saw it three times today

Drunken history: Nicola Tesla Alain (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty funny. ħuman 10:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually side with the creaetionists

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I've found a controversy in a school where I side with the creationists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHm5xIQ_Mok --Mustex (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Creationism should be to science like RationalWiki is to CONservapedia, i.e: not even mentioned in a science classroom. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 05:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat rambling, but my understanding is that the point being made is that we shouldn't call creationism a myth because this could offend creationists? Or did I miss the point?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got it, Bob. ħuman 08:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is really the point, a look at the "definition" of myth would be useful... (Hi to all, by the way.) --ZooGuard (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty obvious that it is a myth. Which leaves me wondering if I care if I offend people who believe that the moon is made of cheese or whatever. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

hey wow a mustex video i am surprised--^talk 10:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Bob on this one. Creationism is an ancient story used as a way to explain the nature of the universe--by definition, it's a myth. That's not a judgment, it's calling something what it is. The "feelings" of people who believe this myth reflects reality are of no import to the question of using the right terminology to describe something. Mustex is wrong. P-Foster (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I searched for Roxy Music 19 seconds into this one. A dizzy new sensation! Dae Thae Strand! ħuman 13:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with all of you if there was no other appropriate terminology, but they could very well call it a "belief" and there wouldn't be a problem. Offending the creationists is our job.--Mustex (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

MMMmmm. But you could call evolution a "belief" as well - albeit a belief in something which happens to be true. So now creationism and evolution are both beliefs, and so far so NOMA. And no doubt some well-meaning individual would then suggest that the "truth" lies somewhere between the two "beliefs" and we end up with theistic evolution or some other offensive hybrid.

But the truth is that one of them is a myth and the other is a fact. I think that using a non-offensive weasel word like "belief" concedes too much.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yuri's Night

Today (12 April) is Cosmonautics' Day (for those born on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain) and Yuri's Night (for the people who like to party). Happy 49 years of human spaceflight! --ZooGuard (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay. But what about poor Laika? Does she get a day?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Beep beep. Has it been that long? Wow. ħuman 09:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I realised the other day that the sixties are 50. but 50 is the new 30, so actually it was the eighties. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still stuck ten years behind too. I still think "20 years ago" was 1980, it wasn't, it was 1990... But seriously, we went from manned spaceflight to the moon in a decade, and in the three decades following it we've gone almost nowhere. It's quite sad really, although at least computer technology has caught up to the space age so that when we do go back it'll be proper sci-fi style rather than the equivalent of strapping three blokes inside a tin can and crossing your fingers. ^theist 11:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You've got to admit the Mars rover things were pretty fucking amazing. So is the ISS, for what it's worth. ħuman 11:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Every night is Yuri Night in this club. Ladies only I'm afraid. Mei (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bastards

Connecticut bishops fight sex abuse bill ^{Hat tip yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Fuckers. There is just something so wrong in this whole story that broke ten years ago. Gee, just what might it be? ħuman 12:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

we need article if we don't already. that cited site is just insane ħuman 12:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops." WTF? ħuman 12:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado ... founder of the Legion of Christ...

...was the greatest fundraiser of the modern Roman Catholic church ...

...was a notorious pedophile, and a man who fathered several children by different women.

...was a morphine addict who sexually abused at least 20 Legion seminarians from the 1940s to the '60s

More here ^{Hat tip yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On this side of the pond, the Archbish of Canterbury gave a big sermon a couple of weeks ago saying (basically) that too many people in the Roman Catholic heirarchy still haven't got the message and their continued attempts to bury the truth is destroying the credibility of their own church. He got shot down for interfering in other churches' affairs but IMO he was dead right. As this story from Connetcictu (spelling?) demonstrates. The Real James Brown (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah "[the law would put] all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," - basically that's the least subtle admission of guilt ever. Although even if they were innocent, I imagine the vogue for child abuse by priests, combined with the fact that you can easily manipulate someone into thinking they were abused as a child when they weren't, means that a lot of innocent people will be accused and dragged through shit because of it. I hope that's what they were getting at. As much as I'd like to see the entire church hauled for this, we have to remember that these people are still human, the abusers are still the exception rather than the rule, and the law must protect the innocent just as much as it should punish the guilty. But as the bill, from what the report says, appears to have various clauses that require a lot more proof and a few other hurdles from older claims it should be enough to prevent frivolous suits - meaning that the bishops in question either didn't read it, in which case they're idiots trying to spread fear and paranoia, or they're guilty of abuse and want to cover their own arses. ^theist 11:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"These people are still human, the abusers are still the exception rather than the rule, and the law must protect the innocent just as much as it should punish the guilty": As I understand it, that's what the AB of C was getting at. Taking responsibility for what went wrong and trying seriously to make sure it doesn't happen again is what the Church needs to start restoring its shattered credibility. i.e. a rational approach to rebuilding a deeply damaged organisation. The Real James Brown (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Book

Hehe, the title says it all really 1. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I like one of the reviews:

“”This book promised to explain the principles of intelligent design, and since I have a backlog of thirty websites that go live next week, I bought it. Now that I've read it, I've decided to abandon all of the principles that most web designers are using today and design my sites using faith. My clients aren't happy with this, but that's because they're intolerant of my views and are closed minded to the truth.

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally enjoyed the two one star featured reviews. And, yes, the title says it all. ħuman 13:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I find you get more information about a book from its one star reviews rather than five star ones. But it appears that the "complete idiot's guide" really is for the completely idiotic arguments only. From the comments section in the best one star review: "Especially annoying is the fact that you've more than once (in an apparent cut-and-paste job) stated that the book doesn't claim that evolution runs contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, but it makes the Entropy Argument. As a pointed out before, THAT IS THE ENTROPY ARGUMENT." It seems that many IDiots do need it spelling out for them. ^theist 21:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

conservapedia and porn

I just received an email addressed to one of, if not the, first character I created over at CP (~June 2007). It was blocked after the third or forth edit for appending more straightforward text to racist euphemisms found in a couple of articles on the site. Yeah, I feel a bit slimy about it now, but at the time I thought the point was worth making. I still do, but just not on that site and not without some even more straightforward editorial on the topic. Anyway, the email I received was an advertisement for porn. The only time I've ever used that character name was on CP, so there is no other source it could come from. FYI ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 13:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Was it good pron? ħuman 13:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't look, sorry. I just thought it was interesting the porn content providers were able to put together my user name and email that I only ever used (or even mentioned AFAIK) on CP and even that was perhaps a dozen references. I'm not very sophisticated in these matters. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 15:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the address, its possible the spammer just generated it randomly. They didn't necessarily get it via some kind of harvest at CP. MDB (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember a single-purpose Hotmail account I created ages ago for something or other. Within a couple of hours (and before it had been used anywhere) I was already receiving offers of Russian brides. So as with MDB, I wouldn't read very much into it.. alt (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a single purpose account, it was created years ago (perhaps five?) and the chance of the user name being randomly generated seems slim indeed. It can't be derived from the name associated with the email address or from the email address itself. It would be as if the email was "sheesh!@gmail.com" and the user name was "Fernirator7" or some set equally unrelated. I wouldn't have twigged at all were the connections obvious or the name common.^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 16:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If its anything other than purely random characters (i.e. agqwegew@gmail.com) it could be randomly generated. Trust me, spammers are very ingenious at coming up with working e-mail addresses. MDB (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

sure it could be randomly generated, based on the million monkeys meet a million typewriters model, but the email address, the name associated with the email address and the CP user name are each completely unrelated. The kindly porn spammer somehow connect the email address with the CP user name. Occam's razor tells me it is no random coincidence. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 22:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn, i have to defend CP... I Started a new job yesterday morning, they created my email adress at 10 am, 10h15: spam was already pouring in from casinos and porn in my spam folder... In fact , the first email I received was spam... The adress was not diffused anywhere... Random Spambot are on fire these days i guess... Alain (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bumblebees

on the cherry tree. And what the hell am I doing still up? ħuman 13:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say why are you up so early :) 13:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Early? It's less than two hours to noon. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sean Hannity's New Book

So, I see Sean Hannity's ghostwriting staff has a new book out.

I wonder... how many conservatives who are vehemently opposed to socialism is any form whatsoever will borrow a copy from the public library? MDB (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Which reminds me: I'm surprised I've never heard an ultra-conservative rail against the library system. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. But if the library charges, then that's business, which is capitalism, which is okay even if it is technically socialism of some form. ^theist 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have actually heard of a few conservatives saying "I buy my books; why shouldn't other people?", mostly stories from my partner who works for a library system whose budget has been repeatedly slashed the past few years. But for the most part, this is an example of it being socialism only if people other that aren't you take advantage of it. MDB (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thunderf00t vs Ray Comfort

Yeah, I know if came out last year, but I only just got round to watching it. Interesting stuff to say the least, and a few good lulz in there indeed. Top notch bits:

• TF explaining a change in the genome to Ray, to which Ray says, "that's microevolution, isn't it? Well I don't believe in that!"
• Ray saying, "one just needs an overreactive imagination to believe in evolution."
• Ray refusing to answer / basically ignoring the idea that God could say paedophilia is good and by that logic Ray would also find it good.
• Ray's entire argument being "Goddidit." I don't know much about Ray Comfort except for the banana fallacy, but I assumed he would at least try his hand at some creation science.

Entertaining stuff anyway. An hour and a half well spent. SJ ^Debaser 21:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Ray doesn't come across particularly smart in that one. TF could have taken him to the cleaners and just brought up repeated fallacies within Ray's arguments but that would have been out of place in a "discussion" rather than debate, and I prefer TF's style of doing things this way (the Dawkins one is pretty much along the same lines, where it's a discussion rather than "interview", as such). And of course, you can't argue with idiots, they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. ^theist 22:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Aye, that's a good discussion. TF was criticised for not being aggressive enough or going after Comfort's loonyness, but I think his tactic of playing it cool and reserved and just letting Comfort make an arse of himself was a good one. My personal favourite bit was when TF wonderfully explained speciation, only to be 'rebutted' with "you're going to hell". DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No need for being aggressive in a situation which doesn't require it. They seemed to genuinely wanna talk to each other about their respective views and try to understand one another, rather than just argue pointlessly, as obviously neither party were gonna change their mind. It seemed that TF talked more, but that's simply because he had more stuff to say than Ray, all he could really do was say "Look at the world around you! Look at the trees! Goddidit!" SJ ^Debaser 22:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2FskTKrx40 Mei (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

For people who have not seen it. Mei (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

From our friends at Less Wrong...

...comes something truly mind-blowing. Yes, it takes hours to read all of the essays, but it's worth it. I think. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dentist

So I have just come back from the dentist. Turns out my "flu" was actually a severe infection that was caused by my wisdom tooth growing slowly into my molar. It made a hole over the last 5 years causing me to need both teeth pulled. After the first one I punched the dentist in the leg and called him a bastard. Then when the second one came out the dental assistant collapsed on the floor, cracking her head. I couldn't stop lauging. Now I hurt. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait. How does "dental assistant collapsed on the floor, cracking her head" = "tooth coming out"? (It does sound funny though!) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, when the second tooth got pulled she fainted. Went down like a ton of bricks. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha!! I feel bad for her, but then again, you would think a dental assistant wouldn't be freaked out by that sort of thing. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you got lots of hefty painkillers. I recommend 750mg of Vicodin followed by a stiff G&T. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 08:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

While I know (hope?) it's tongue-in-cheek, the readiness with which people suggest taking alcohol together with drugs on RationalWiki is always disturbing me. Anyway, I wish you a speedy recovery. — Pietrow ☏ 09:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Painkillers + alcohol = big&clever. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Medicinal marijuana man. Only way to go. SJ ^Debaser 13:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you actually get pot in the UK? Not just hashish? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's illegal here, but it's very easy to get it. SJ ^Debaser 14:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There's places it's hard to avoid it. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My campus for one. SJ ^Debaser 17:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Private Eye

Bit of a random topic, but I guess that is what this area is for. What are people's opinions on the Private Eye magazine? On the one hand, it can be funny and is certainly an entertaining read, but on the other hand it sometimes smacks of conspiracy theories. I know that they seriously messed up on the coverage of the MMR vaccine, which is reason enough to take what they say with a pinch of salt, and I also know of a NHS 'scare' a few years back that my dad was involved in, and was a complete and total fabrication on the part of the newspapers who reported the story, among them Private Eye. --Grey (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I love PE. Obviously I have been rather disappointed with the MMR coverage, but on the whole I think they do a good job. They're often the only ones to bring up a point or are at least first to do so. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Eye is absolutely outstanding. Yeah, the fucked up with the MMR bullshit, but generally speaking they stick their necks where others refuse to tread. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

For every time they fuck up with something like MMR they can point to a massive success like Paul Foot's work on Pam Am Flight 103, where PE was just about the only place you could read about the utter insanity of Al Megrahi's trial. Plus it's genuinely laugh-out-loud funny sometimes. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Good paper.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Secret forums no longer secret?

What you can do with the right gear and the right knowledge. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I'm not too sure what to thin of that... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Need a short description of RationalWiki

that doesn't start with "A wiki about...". It's for mediawikiwiki:Sites using MediaWiki/en. -- Nx / talk 15:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia's answer to the outright irrational wikipedia bias in conservapedia DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"A colossal waste of time". --Kels (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Vell, it's just zis site you know" (in a Gag Halfrunt voice) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol, serves me right for asking a serious question from a bunch of drunks in a bar. -- Nx / talk 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"RationalWiki is a community working together to explore and provide information about a range of topics centered around science, skepticism, and critical thinking." If it's good enough for the RationalWiki article..? alt (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, look, what a coincidence: [8] -- Nx / talk 16:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Heee! Nice to know someone else is reading here. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Naughty

Transubstantiation! ^{Hat tip yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)