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.

Wiki publisher

Has anyone using Star office/Open office tried this?   ^Contribs_Talk 16:02, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Interesting Susan. I have OpenOffice on one of my machines but tend not to use it as it completely mangled the formatting of a Word report. However, I have been looking for a better wiki editor. It's a pity that things like AutoWiki Browser are only for Wikipedia. Genghis^pillaging 23:01, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Looks quite interesting. I've also had compatibility issues with open office and word, but it could be an nice wiki editor. I'll give it a shot later. Thanks Susan.--Bob^{bing up} 05:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I tried it out somewhere else. It works quite smoothly, but it's perhaps a bit limited in what it does at the moment.--Bob^{bing up} 15:18, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Another country heard from

Anyone read any of this guy? (His site's referred to from Deborah's main page entry) (at this time of day my connection's down to dial up speeds so I can't really see these sites.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:13, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Sirbrina Guererro

Has anyone done any news relating to her? ^{— Unsigned, by: Storytellershrink / talk / contribs}

Not as far as I've seen, why? (I've never heard of her but just googled & she seems to be a Celebrated(?) Lesbian)  ^Contribs_Talk 21:52, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, she was in the news recently because she is a lesbian who, in Seattle, the second most gay friendly city in the US, at a baseball game was told to stop kissing her date. Because someone next to her was "uncomfortable". The comments about it from people are ridiculous. The main thing was that the people who complained would need to explain to their kids why two women are kissing, which apparently requires a Harvard degree to do now. Anyway, the people who run the stadium said it was because they were groping and being distracting, but Sirbrina at one time said there were tons of couples kissing, all heterosexual. She even took pics of the straight kissers. She was also on the second season of tila tequila, according to sources. Dan Savage (gotta love the guy) commented on it as well. The event happened on may 26 and just appeared in the news around the 3rd or so. Just seemed newsworthy for RW. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 23:00, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

There's always someone ready to be offended and somebody else frightened of offending them. I'm always careful where I display any affection.   ^Contribs_Talk 23:14, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

"second most gay friendly city in the US" - surely, reality must intrude. San Francisco is #1, right? If so, Providence Massachusetts is #2, and always has been. I don't care if you're gay, straight, furry, or whatever, if you aren't HAWT, don't make out in public </just kidding, but still...> ħuman 23:35, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, based on "tolerance", perhaps but Seattle ranks #2 in amount. It was an original quote when I said second gay friendly. Also, did you see this girl? She does not look bad. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 14:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

"She does not look bad."! So, lesbians shouldn't be attractive? (first warning salvo)   ^Contribs_Talk 14:39, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

*somehow avoids salvo* Obviously I did not say that. I was merely responding to Human's humorous comment with an attempt at a humorous, albeit factual comment. The woman was quite pretty. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 14:48, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

We...ell OK. She certainly looks like the sort of person bed out of kick wouldn't I (given chance the)   ^Contribs_Talk 14:59, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Crackers even not for eating, true dat. ħuman 15:06, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

¿Qué pasó al wiki?

Anyone else get a "server connection lost" message for the last 10 or so minutes? Lyra § talk 01:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes. I'm still timing out on pages every now and then. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.} 01:27, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Ich auch! (if you kann speek forrin, then sow kan eye)   ^Contribs_Talk 01:30, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Ich bin ein Berliner ist da ünly Deutche Ich spëchen. Lyra § talk 01:33, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Suben estrujen crujen bajen. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a RWW article.} 01:35, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

¿Cómo traduciste ese? Lyra § talk 01:39, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Pues por mi cuenta. Por cierto, es "tradujiste". NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a RWW article.} 03:21, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm going to need a translator here. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.} 01:40, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Qui est-ce qui veux parler un peu de français? J'ai besoin de pratiquer. NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a RWW article.} 03:21, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Spellito corman croizler Ha! Ha! - smertlint.   ^Contribs_Talk 01:42, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Yah, I went back out to my little campfire a couple hours ago leaving my watchlist a blank screen. Things are still a bit clunky. Slow loading, and all. ħuman 03:06, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Way to violate the state burn ban, Hiu. SHahB 03:10, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Gotcha covered, Hank: http://www.leefirerescue.com/view.php?section_id=17 (for future reference, today it says "fire danger LOW today"). Hell , the wood I was burning was wet. We finally got rain here. ħuman 03:31, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I stand corrected. I hope you will forgive. SHahB 03:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

You've outed yourself, Huw! We now know where you live! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:27, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh, come on, Susan posted pictures of the signs for the Nudist Camp and the race track just up the road months ago... And also, my address is two clicks away from my user page. ħuman 16:04, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

100 best novels

Readers? err ...AAAaarggghhh!. But at least they've got my all time best @ #7 & #12 (same book different lists)   ^Contribs_Talk 04:50, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Rand and Hubbard. Lovely. Though besides that, the lists seem a little, I don't know, Anglo-centered? --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 04:59, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Clearly novels told in illustrated form don't qualify either. Otherwise, why not include Transmetropolitan? In terms of quality, it's actually far better than a lot of the Readers' picks. --Kels 10:13, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

The Modern Library should know better than to do a "reader's list" the way it appears they did, that is the inaccurate "vote early and vote often" method of visiting a site. Obviously there was a concerted effort by the Objectivitsts and the Scientologists to get their messiah's books into the top then. Also, I didn't see Harry Potter on the readers' list, do books have to be published before a certain date? I'm sure in any actual poll of the population today, they and The Da Vinci Code would be righ tat the top. DickTurpis 10:35, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

The lists and the poll is from 1998, I think. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 10:44, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

'Also, I didn't see Harry Potter on the readers' list' That's not writing. It's typing.--PFoster 11:12, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Back up.

Please tell me you did not say that. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.} 15:32, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

And I'll say it again, if you like. PFoster 15:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Please outline your objections in a specific and orderly fashion, heretic. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.} 15:38, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Poor writing. Derivative plot. No sense of character development. No message beyond telling a simple story. Poor writing. Given that it's a list of the "100 Greatest Novels of All Time," there's no way that there's any room for that kind of mass-produced pap - What, you're going to leave of Ngugi or Naipul for a second-rate Tolkein wannabee? Come on. PFoster 15:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

The writing is agreeably poor, but the story is much more than "simple." Great books are made by great interest, not by some guy's opinion. If the public likes it, as they overwhelmingly do, it's a great book. Lyra § talk 15:47, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

No. Public opinion and popularity have nothing to do with literary merit. Were that the case, McDonald's would be haute cuisine, the Spice Girls would be better musicians than John Coltrane, and Star Wars a better film than anything by Jean Renoir. Come on.PFoster 15:51, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) I'm going to have to disagree with both of you, actually. I don't think Harry Potter is poorly written at all, and it is only derivative in the same sense that all fantasy is. If you want mass-produced pap, take a glance at an Alex Rider book some time. And public opinion is irrelevant, I'm afraid -- I agree with PFoster on that, even though he did shamelessly edit conflict me :( <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.} 15:53, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

High art is for those who can afford it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:02, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I object mightily to the presence of Lord of the Rings on that list. I'm sorry, but Tolkien was not a particularly good writer. In fact, I think he's downright crappy. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:00, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Disagree! Regardless of Tolkien's skill at writing, he was a fantastic storyteller. Take it back, or I'll pinch you. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.} 16:04, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

(UNDENT)High art is for those who can afford it Betcha a cheap second-hand paperback copy of Naipul or Midnight's Children costs less than what all those people paid for the last Harry potter hardcover at midnight the day it was released.PFoster 16:11, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

You assume the "cost" is monetary. BTM 16:13, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

That's deep man. Really.PFoster 16:14, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

What I meant is that in order to grasp most of the highbrowed elements that literature buffs insist make literature "great" requires putting a large amount of work into learning to comprehend literary elements (most of which consist of references to other "great" works of literature and mind-boggling leaps of symbology), something that the average reader has neither the time nor the inclination to do. The average working class person doesn't have the time and money to invest in learning such things anyways, even if they wanted to. Hence my claim that high art (high literature, to keep things on-subject) is for those who can afford it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:37, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Don't listen to those people. Reading great literature no more requires you to learn literary theory than listening to Bach requires you to learn how to construct a fugue. Knowing that theory tells you why the works are great, which of course might increase your enjoyment, but they're by no means necessary. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 17:46, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

It's interesting how much sci-fi (broadly speaking) is high on the readers' list. The Randroids (Randbots?) made their ploy too obvious, though, by pumping all her dreck so high... ħuman 16:16, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

As a matter of fact, I was too busy fuming over how little sci-fi there is on the "official" list to notice. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 16:19, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

The Scientologist have them beat though....fucking Battlefield Earth? Really....BTM 16:18, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I know, I know :( Apparently most people are just incurably stupid. Sad. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.} 16:26, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I think the problem rather is that Scientologists are really, really good at voting in polls. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 16:31, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Clearly the Scientologists are very good at voting in polls like this. There's no way Battlefield Earth would be a blip on the radar if that were not the case. It probably wouldn't be tough to track down sites encouraging votes for both Hubbard and Rand. Rand books are a bit less an obvious fix, as there are a fair amount of people who mistake them for literature.

I didn't realize I'd open up this can of worms with Potter, but if the list is from 1998 that would explain the absence. Whatever one's opinions of the books are (personally, I think they're good, but overrated, and I certainly don't get reading them over and over again when there is no shortage of books out there; however, if nothing else, Rowling is imaginative) there is little doubt that if an accurate survey were done today of what the general population thinks the best novels are, they would be near the top. This is, of course, why the Modern Library has a critics' list which they emphasize more, and why the Oscars aren't done by popular vote (except, apparently, the years when Braveheart and Gladiator won; who was asleep at the switch then?), else they'd look more like the MTV music awards. DickTurpis 00:42, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The Oscars are still relatively pathetic. But anyways, on the original link, it wasn't bad, IMO the Critic's list was more consistent, but the Reader's list did have some awesome books in it, such as Dune, which was missing from the other list. Unfortunately, well... Ayn Rand first? L. Ron Hubbard in the top 10 (I wonder how that happened)? Orwell, but no Zamyatin? Tolkien third? The lack of Dunsany from both lists was pretty bad, but Tolkien being 3rd in a list without Dunsany is just plain bad. I would also comment on the lack of Stendhal and Simenon (for his romans durs, mainly) from the list, but I can't be bothered. Ah well, at least there's no Twilight, Harry Potter and Eragon. Neither of the lists are exceptionally bad, I guess. :D -Judas Reward 09:39, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

what makes kids read?

We shouldn't forget that whatever its literary merits may or may not be, Harry Potter is bringing lots of both kids and adults who mmight not otherwise have done so to actually pick up a book and read it - or seven books, in fact. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 16:17, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Which is great, really, but then what? They keep reading the same damn 7 books over and over. I have had this argument with several friends who just keep reading Harry Potter again and again. There is so much out there why waste the time? Harry Potter is as much a gateway book as pot is a gateway drug.....BTM 16:20, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Y'know, AKJ, when the first and second HP books came out I was working at a summer camp and I saw all the kids devouring the things I believed exactly that - but once the books became a medium to sell second-rate movies and videos and t-shirts and happy meals and t-shirts and collector's figurines and everything else, I gave up on that in a hurry. And I'm really, really curious as to how many kids or adults have gone on to read much else besides - have literacy rates/book sales of non-HP books/library memberships gone up noticeably, and if so, is it really because of the books or is it a marketing phenomenon? More importantly, is a new generation of critical readers being created? Of people who will seek out good literature (and history, and poetry, and criticism and and and...) and not read what just whatever Barnes and Nobles and the publishers tell tehm they should? PFoster 16:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously I don't know that, but it's a given thing that none of those things will happen if they don't start reading. As for the rest, the teachers will have to take it from there. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 16:30, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I am of two or three minds here (hello in there!). Once, I worked at a factory, and one woman there read dime novels on all her breaks. At first I thought, "what a mush-mind" - but then I realized, odds are she does it home, too. And her kids see her... reading. Content doesn't matter at the "less intellectual" level - simply using books as tools for entertainment, and being "familiar" with reading, is a good thing. When I was a kid, I had a few classics of the day - Treasure Island, Wind in the Willows, probably Jungle Book, and the Narnia series. Those are some bumpy reads at 6 or 7, I may have had some read "with" or "to" me, who knows. But also, my parents read a lot, subscribed to magazines and newspapers, etc., so, as in my example above, as a kid it simply seemed natural to me that reading was a route to entertainment and information. Now, it certainly helps, a lot, to have an easy route out of simply reading a small number of "canonical" entertainments (think Tao of Physics, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Hypnosis, Shatlas Rugged, etc.) to broaden the mind with exposure to more ideas. But it has to start somewhere. After all, look what Oprah pulled off on her "book club" people - she made them read "real" literature, what, last summer? In the end, I think that anything that promotes reading (and writing!) is a bonus to society. ħuman 17:29, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Sounds like you're pretty much just in one mind, and that that one mind makes good sense. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 17:46, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. Certainly here in the UK, Harry Potter has been one of a few things that has lifted the popularity of books for kids. The others being much better bookshops, the end of fixed book pricing, and Amazon. And as with all forms of entertainment, kids' material will (probably) mature with them. Ajkgordon 04:38, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

JK Rowling does get a load more mooney than she deserves, though. Or, at least, should deserve, if literature being successful wasn't based on advertising rather than literary merit. -Judas Reward 09:39, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I used to read a lot (of books)

Then I got a computer...suddenly book reading fell WAY off. That was in 1994. Last year was the first year I had read with any degree of voraciousness; I think I read a total of, oh, say, twenty real books, mostly non-fiction. The "urge" to read comes from a need that not all people realize they have: a need for intellectual stimulation. It, so often, these days, can be substituted with video games and movies; but the shortfall of those media is the lack of depth to them. The same went for "comic books" back in my yout (circa 1960's), it wasn't that we weren't reading it was that we were reading pap.
Check out an online "writer's forum" and muddle through some of the dreck those people "write", (truly nauseating). If you cannot tell a good, long joke, you've got no bidness trying to sell prose.--20:16, 8 June 2008 (EDT) CЯacke®

Cleaning up the main namespace

Do we really need 200 crazy redirects to Andrew Schlafly? tmtoulouse ^nettle 16:32, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

We definitely need Conservative drivel :) <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.} 16:34, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Realistically, we could probably do without most of those. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 16:42, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

The list of redirects is here remove any from the list you think we should keep. tmtoulouse ^nettle 17:13, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't think they would be missed (other than the obvious; Aschlafly, Andy Schlafly, etc.) ħuman 17:20, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd' miss them. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:40, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Badly? Shall we just keep the vegetables? ħuman 17:49, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Let's go for the minimalist approach and keep just one vegetable. RA can get to decide which one. [/evil] --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 17:52, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I am opposed to this anti-lulz pogrom. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:57, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Why? It isn't really "anti-lulz" -- being stricter with what lulz with indulge makes our lulz much stronger (and lullier) overall. You don't really think we need all those vegetable redirects to get the joke across? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.} 20:01, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

(undent) First they came for the vegetables... ħuman 20:03, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't see why we can't leave them. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:58, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the main namespace should have some level of integrity to it and not just be polluted and diluted into nothing. tmtoulouse ^nettle 21:29, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Stay undented, damn you. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.} 21:34, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Just for clarity, redirects never turn up as "random" pages, but they do get listed under "all pages", right? Anywhere else? Search results? Kendoll's "google results"? ħuman 21:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Damn you Tmtoulouse! I can't think of a comeback to that. In fact, I agree with you. Aaargh! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:48, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

the End of the World

Seems like the world is going to end in a couple of days. End of the world story. What plans do people have?--Bob^{bing up} 16:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I hope to get laid, but then, I always hope to get laid... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 17:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Dinner, perhaps the Daily Show, with any luck some good WEC Wrekcage on Versus. Why? ħuman 18:45, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Side by Side

So when can we expect work to begin on the RationalWiki Annotated Bible? 75.161.33.251 17:28, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

After we finish the RW Guide to the Bible. The RWAB project ought to be completed in late 2023. ħuman 18:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

TeeHee

This is the funniest bit of vandalism I've witnessed on CP, because it's so true. Got whacked by Deany in six seconds. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 23:34, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Really? I'd say that the "Wretched-Assbag Reagan" one was the best, by virtue of having stayed up for over 12 hours, or the Ecuador-South Africa one, which needs no explaining. Lyra Silvertongue 00:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Adsense Report

So the Adsense has been going a little over a month and I have some data on it. It has potential for bringing in some income, but not enough to support the site alone. The biggest issue is that you have to make $100 before they even send the check. That means that basically I can pay for the site out of adsense money once every 1-2 months. For those months which the Adsense is not paying the donations to the site would still be appreciated/needed. Basically, we get $20 a month or so in subscriptions, the site costs $60-$70 a month depending on disk space and bandwidth. I have added a little script thing that accepts donations through paypal and tells how close we are to paying for the site for the month. I will adjust the "total" needed based on subscription payments as those are increased or canceled. As always feedback is encouraged. Though I doubt I have to encourage it. tmtoulouse ^nettle 23:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Feedback has rarely been the problem, unlike COLD HARD CASH. I like that little widgety-thingy, it's kinda cool. I hope this gets figured out TMT, I hate that you're sucking this up all the time. But I do appreciate it. DogP 12:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

Link between IQ and belief in God

Here is a story I don't think we'll be seeing on CP any time soon. Alt 08:19, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I also spotted this during my lunch break. As ever, El Reg's phrasing made me smile. Bondurant 08:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

"...as average IQ in Western societies increased throught the 20th century..." That statement is questionable on so many levels, it's almost exhausting. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 09:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Correlation equals causation not. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:01, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

But then again, it is Richard "Black people are stupider than whites" Lynn, so I guess you have to expect these thing. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 09:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

"Lynn pointed out that most children do believe in God, but as their intelligence develops they tend to have doubts or reject religion." But I thought IQ was relatively constant during a person's life. Thunderkatz^Ho! 10:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I always thought it decreased with age.Shangrala 10:28, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

IQ is BS. BS is constant. QED IQ is constant. Otherwise I'm with AKjeldsen ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 10:29, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

The real answer is that there isn't a legitimate way of measuring IQ even if something like a IQ as unitary value exists. There are ways of comparing sets of people in specific ways, and people have widely held these comparators as an absolute measure of IQ, but upon examination that proves to be a pretty bogus method. ^{Exasperate me!}Sheesh!_{Not the most impressive contributor here} 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

"...as average IQ in Western societies increased throught the 20th century..." - what has happened is that IQ test scores have gone up, at a rate of several points/decade, over the last century. My simple theory is that since the tests try to measure abstract reasoning (basically), people being surrounded by more and more technology, moving to cities, etc., teaches them these particular skills better. The testers pretty much have to reset what they call "100" every decade or so. But, I agree, the trouble with using the results of these tests as being any more than "the results of these tests" runs into insurmountable problems. If I took an IQ test in French, I'd probably score about 30-40. Does that make me an idiot? No, it means my French is very weak. ħuman 13:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Google Ads

This has probably been explained before (if so, then I apologise), but on most pages I see on RW, there are creationist adverts in the Adds by Google section at the side. How do these ads get here? Are they searching for key words or are creationist organisations specifically targeting this site for their ads? And is the revenue from these ads actually contributing towards RW? Bondurant 13:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)