Talk:Main Page

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

General question about the site? See RationalWiki:Serious Business. Or post here anyways. See if I care.

We're no longer a sponsored link for "Andy Schlafly"!

Bummer. That was awesome.-αmεσ (orator) 23:32, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Just curious - did they take notice of the posted plans to increase the cross-wiki links, or did your sponsorship simply expire? DanH 00:38, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Dunno, I hope we can get it back, that was awesome. Also, it was way uncool of you to revert my open letter. Andy's homeschooled kids are going to grow up seriously fracked up. I'm just trying to help!-αmεσ (orator) 00:41, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

It would have lasted at most three or four more minutes if I hadn't, and I assume most of the kids have gone to bed by now. Ah, I miss the pre-college days of having a semi-normal sleep schedule. DanH 00:43, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Ah but the night's so fun! There's something to be said for cuddling up with a corporate law book at 1AM.-αmεσ (orator) 00:44, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I'd rather cuddle up with a corporate lawyer. GrandSoviet 01:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I would rather cuddle up with my cat. :P -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:19, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Those three are not really mutually exclusive, are they? Unless you have a really small bed. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 05:26, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

That sounds rather kinky. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:39, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Depends. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:59, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I know it's rather late to be asking this, but what's a "sponsored link"? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:21, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

When you search for something on google, the right hand side has paid advertisments based on the search key. For a period of time, someone had paid google some money so that a search for "Andy Schlafly" would always have a link to Rational Wiki on the side. Does wonders for your ego when googling your own name. --Shagie 17:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

The associated page for signing up for it is https://adwords.google.com/select/Login The cost is based in part on how often people search for that and how many other people have that adword. --Shagie 17:19, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

One wonders if Mandy had it shut down? DogP 17:26, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

spelig era

My apologies for anywhere on the wiki I spelled Eliot Spitzer with two "l"s. Pleez to fix if you find? human 02:10, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

We're Number 2

Just Googled "Pseudoarcheology" - We came up number 2! (OK it's a bit of a con because most spellings have an "a" in (pseudoarchaeology) but ... HEY! We're a world authority) Susan^purrrrr 03:28, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Furthermore, we're numbers one, two and three for "(Teh) Assfly"; a surprisingly low fifth place for "Goatspeed"; numbers one and two (out of three) for Jebbist; and number four for "Psrodt". Killjoys will, no doubt, argue that these are not common terms. --Bob^{bing up} 05:54, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

<pride> Jebbist was, I think, mine. </pride> Susan^purrrrr 06:02, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I would never kill joy. Beat the living daylights out of it, yes. But, heavens, not kill it. What kind of barbarian do you take me for? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:05, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

"Science woo", with the quotes, comes up #5. New Gwenson comes up #s 1 thru...never mind. Secret Squirrel 07:59, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Working through the "DysLexicon" I find that the only four hits for "TrashionalWiki" all referring to us. To my surprise there actually is a ratiwki, and it's for sale as well.--Bob^{bing up} 17:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Despicable

I'm sorry to always be the one to bring dissent to these forums, but I find the front page news item about chatting with a Mormon to be absolutely despicable. 'Nutball' is not a term I would consider using to describe anyone's religious faith. Their beliefs should not be mocked in a pluralistic society which is supposed to place great value on tolerance.

I think some of you guys really need to grow up, and take a good long look at yourselves in the mirrors and see where your conscience lies.

As ever, the perennial critic MarcusCicero 18:22, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes 'Nutball' is bad. 'Persons of low IQ' is much more politically correct. Susan^purrrrr 18:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I would agree with your critique, as far as it goes, Marcus. All religions/cults are equally silly. Of course the magic underwear thing does leave them open for some ribbing.-- -PalMD ^{--Take two aspirin and call someone else} 18:39, 13 March 2008 (EDT) (As I readjust my Tzitzis.)

I agree. Maybe we could at least try to pretend to be better than that other group of people? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:41, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Fuck you Susan. Having read some of your posts on this website I'm sure you wouldn't find it very nice to be insulted by someone saying you had a low IQ. Where is the common respect and tolerance and most importantly pluralism that is supposed to underpin a modern democratic and Liberal society? I've noticed a growing trend in this place that is becoming more and more hostile to different ideas, faiths and concepts. Its not even a matter of trying to appear better than CP, its a matter of common human decency and if none of you can see that then none of you are worthy of reasonable discussion. MarcusCicero 18:56, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

That seems a little harsh, but Ok. Sure, some of us prefer the "touchy-feely" approach, but some of us don't. Since no one is here to convert anyone to anything, it doesn't much matter. Toes get stepped on every day. Shit happens. Susan may call someone a cult-following fucktard, AK may call them somewhat misguided in their search for truth and peace, and I might call them delusional. Oh well.-- -PalMD ^{--Take two aspirin and call someone else} 19:01, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I believe that belief in Big JuJu in the sky (for a mature individual) is indicative of either reduced intelligence or Really Bad Upbringing. In order not to judge the parents & teachers I would rather assume that the holder of such beliefs is less than Genius in the intellect department.Susan^purrrrr 19:02, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Your just as bad as them. MarcusCicero 19:04, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I must respectfully disagree with both of you. I don't think religious folks are necessarily stupid or poorly brought-up. I do think we are genetically predisposed toward religion. Some of us escape that. I don't think feeling badly toward religion makes someone as bad as the fucktard christofascists.-- -PalMD ^{--Take two aspirin and call someone else} 19:06, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

For God's sakes, Susan, why not blame the parents and teachers? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Susan, we know you think that. But expressing it the way you do tends to make what are often very interesting discussions of religion and its followers rather unpleasant to peruse. At some level I may think many religious concepts are, well, fictional, most of the religious people I know, especially the moderates around this site, are not fictional. Overtly attacking and insulting them when they aren't trying to convert me or change my government is not exactly going to make friends. YEC, of course, is another matter. human 19:11, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I value the free flow of ideas and insults this site allows, even if I don't agree with the content or the tone. Arguing about religion requires a thick skin.-- -PalMD ^{--Take two aspirin and call someone else} 19:12, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Respectfully, Peter, as an atheist you're not the target here. You're not part of the minority. I think those of us who are, and this is certainly true for myself, do not find being called unintelligent on a regular basis a particularly inspiring experience. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:15, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Good point.-- -PalMD ^{--Take two aspirin and call someone else} 19:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Your right, arguing about religion does require a thick skin. My atheism fortunately prevents me from feeling personally offended by any anti-religious remark on this site. Mormon and Christian belief is very easy to refute in an entirely logical sense but logic doesn't form the basis of either religion. religion is an affair of the heart, of the soul, it is something that lies deep in the persons unconscious and maybe that actual belief in something which in my view isn't there actually offers a form of salvation in itself. Mocking and ridiculing peoples most earnest and sincere beliefs is simply ungentlemanly and not conducive to a healthy discussion. I hope my position on this is a little clearer, and a proper debate without SusanG's polemics would be welcomed. MarcusCicero 19:18, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I completely agree with your analysis that religion is "...an affair of the heart, of the soul..." and I'd love to see more open debate. I think folks like Susan react to the way we are treated in places such as CP. To change the topic a little, you and I argue that religion is faith, while others, such as the Apologists, argue is is completely rational, and that atheism is irrational. Makes for lively discussion.-- -PalMD ^{--Take two aspirin and call someone else} 19:21, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

While i agree with PalMD, i do think that the mainpage should maintain bit more neutral tone, nutball might have been bit too much. In discussion pages tho i love to see sparks fly. Timppeli 19:19, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Timppeli. "According to" should not sink to the low quality level of half the wigo@cp entries I see. Perhaps that is the discussion we should really be having here? (not to silence the other one - maybe I should have created a new section...) human 19:26, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm a bit late to this, but could someone link me to the diff in question? Pinto's5150 ^Talk 19:36, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Here, not added by a particularly surprising figure. Anyway, way to spark up this debate again, just randomly insult a good fraction of this group as believing in a 'Big JuJu in the sky', and drawing the conclusion from that that we are all either of 'reduced intelligence' or have had a 'Really Bad Upbringing'. Why not draw a 95% correlation between belief in religion and mass murder, while you're at it? Also, political correctness jokes? Please? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}