User talk:AKjeldsen

This user AKjeldsen.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>

, (new)

Despite having had Sysopship thrust upon me against my express wishes, I hereby pledge to do a moderately barely acceptable job, as it would appear that I have little say in the matter anyway. Also, since I, apparently unlike some of my more touchy-feely colleagues, consider Sysops appointed representatives of the RationalWiki community as a whole, I furthermore pledge that if you impugn my motives without warrant, or challenge my "AUTHORATIE", and by extention that of the community as such, I both can and will ban you so hard that the relativistic effects will be sufficient to kick you into next week. Goatspeed!

"Hell-fire"

You shall receive eternal punishment for your transgressions against spelling. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 05:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

This coming from the one who misspelt "mouse". Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I have never mispelled mowse. It is you who have rather clumsily typed the word as "mouse", a painfully inferior version. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 05:21, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Bah. Your simple murine mind just can't handle the high level of creativity that I bring to the English language. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 05:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

That's all well and fine, but can you recite you times tables? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:28, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I doubt it. I haven't had to recite a times table in, what, 15 years? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 05:33, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey, RA! Instead of having a mowse in your sig, you could just change your name to "Murine"! Problem solved! Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 05:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

No thank you. I rather favor being a psychotherapist at the moment. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:34, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I meant your actual name. It is something like "Murine", isn't it? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 05:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

That's "Murane". And how did you find out my actual name, you stalker? I only mentioned it once on a long-forgotten page that was pre-Jellyfish. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:44, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

No, as I recall you used it to sign your "I have no idea what Ides is but I don't like it" letter, and it's on your RWW page, unless I'm much mistaken. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 05:48, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Is that from the same route as "Murrain" - a generic disease of cattle? 'cos murrain is by far my favourite word. --JeevesMkII 05:55, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

That's his middle name :nods with authority: Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 06:04, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

As I recall, the first Murane was a horsethief. So maybe ; ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:04, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Sum questions

I has them. The first one isn't important, but it sets the scene nicely, don't you think?

1. Why would looters on foot attack someone with an awesome horse like mine? Fools!
2. What am I meant to be doing? Is it 100% sandbox or is there some kind of plot I should be looking for? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 08:48, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

1. Because their wretched poverty drives them to acts of desperation. Oh, that reminds me: If you buy a club or mace and whack them with that instead, you can take them captive and sell them to "Ransom Brokers" in the city taverns for 50 gold each (Assuming you have points in "Prisoner Management" skill, that is).
2. It's about 95% sandbox. There's no plot as such, but the most rewarding thing to do is to do quests for nobles or guilds and otherwise defeat enemies and take their stuff until you're powerful enough that a noble will hire you as a mercenary. Then, through the usual combination of bravery and sycophancy, you will eventually gain enough status that one of the realms will grant you a fief. That's usually when you start waging war against enemy realms and besieging castles and such. You could also be a trader and buy and sell goods between the cities, or a highwayman attacking caravans, or whatever else you fancy, but there's not as much sense of accomplishment in those. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:10, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

1. I think I did knock one of them out, actually. But it wouldn't let me capture him. Perhaps that unhinged jellyfish riding around him in endless circles made him too dizzy to travel.
2. Can I be a highwayman and a fief owner? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 10:14, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

1. Possibly, but I think it's more likely that you didn't have points in Prisoner Management. You can have five captives per point. Oh, and remember to have enough food in your inventory for your troops. They get rather distraught when they have nothing to eat.
2. Certainly. Attacking the caravans of your enemies is both good strategy and rather profitable, as is attacking the enemy villages. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 10:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

1. No, it definitely said he was dizzy. "+11 Dizzyness", it said. Right there on the screen. In words. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 10:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh. Well, in that case, I guess you must be right. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:11, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

You are refreshingly honest today. But in your comment I sense the bizarre implication that I'm not always right. How do you expain this? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 13:42, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Moderate doses of paracetamol? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 16:50, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

What kind of linguistic rebel are you if you so scorn my pioneering spelling reforms? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 16:58, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

A bad one. I'm sorry. Oh, wait, rebels don't apologize. But if I'm a bad rebel, maybe it's okay to apologize. What do you think? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I think you've gotten lost. Let me draw you a diagram:

[_______]

^This is our conversation.

^.^

This is you.

Would you like me to go through that again? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 17:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

No thanks, I got it. So what were we talking about again? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

You were rhapsodising about L, and I was listening patiently. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 17:18, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I told you I'd call you about that job. Drowning in other projects at the moment. Have to think it over. Certain you understand. Keep up the good work and all that. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:25, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

AK, with freelance rhapsodising like that, we're glad you're not in the trade. You would put us all out of business. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 17:30, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I must warn you: If you persist in this, I may have to be mean. And you know you don't like that. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Mean in what way, exactly?</cautious interest> Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 17:41, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Mean in the way in which I try to explain that I'm not really interested in "rhapsodising about L". --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:45, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

But that type of mean's not fun at all :(

Alright, what did you want to talk about? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 17:48, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

That is sort of the point, which I why I thought it best to give you fair warning.

Let's go back to M&B. Have you gotten anywhere so far? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:02, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I tried to track down a fugitive, but when I found him he knocked me out and I failed the mission. And since I chose the "don't let me exit without saving" option, I had to close the program down with task manager. Is there a way I can turn that off, perchance? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 18:07, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't think so. As far as I remember, it can only be set at character creation. And there's a reason for that. The reason is that it's only wimps who don't choose the "don't let me exit without saving" option. Take your defeats like a man/woman/thing. The worst that can happen is that the guy who gave the mission gets a little angry. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:11, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

...and fails to give me all his money. You forgot that part. I don't want to take defeat like a thing/mineral/vegetable, I want to take it like a rich jellyfish. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 18:18, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

You'll just have to fight better next time, then, won't you? If you want to be rich, though, I suggest plundering villages. Just be careful that the peasants don't come after you. And don't do it to someone you might want to work for at a later point. And expect the realm in question to consider you a wanted criminal. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Vatican Webiste

Hi AKjeldsen. I've just been looking at the Vatican webiste and I want to avoid misrepresenting it. So, as our resident expert on such things, I wonder if you could clarify something in advance. Is it fair to say that anything there is the official policy of the Roman Catholic Church? I'm working on the assumption that it is - but in the event that I'm mistaken could you clarify in advance the relationship between the webiste and church doctrine? Thanks. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 12:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't actually know who's responsible for the Vatican website, but it's probably a reasonable assumption that it doesn't contain anything not in line with official Church policy. Were you thinking of anything in particular? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Not really. It's fairly dense stuff, I was just putting a few search queries in- "prayer", "miracle", "contraception", "condom", "exorcism" to see what came up, and I was wondering if I could reasonably quote any text that came up as "the Catholic church's opinion" or if that would cause some problem and "according to the Vatican webiste" would be better.--Bob^{bing up} 16:37, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

It's a bit complicated, but I think the best way to approach it is that you won't find anything on the site that is against Church policy, but not everything there is necessarily fully official Church policy. As long as it's from one of the official offices - the Pope, the Curia, the various Councils and Congregations, etc. - it'll probably be policy, but the Vatican is an organization with lots of factions, and they of course each have their own opinions and interpretation of what exactly that policy is. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:15, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Is there a reason why you keep saying "webiste"? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:19, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

The Latin word for website? Thunderkatz^Ho! 20:27, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Just to (hopefully) clarify what I mean: A couple of days ago, we had a discussion, er... somewhere around here about Cardinal Trujillo and his charming views on birth control, I think it was. The problem is that that on the one hand, Cardinal Trujillo is the chairman of the Pontifical Council for the Family, so in that way, his opinions could be interpreted as the official Church policy on family issues. But on the other hand, the Cardinal is also a pretty hardline conservative, and it's certain that his views are not universally shared inside the Vatican, probably not even on the Council itself. So one needs to be very aware of whether he speaks in his official capacity as Council chairman, in which case his opinion will probably have been thoroughly vetted by the bureaucracy and can be considered policy, or whether he speaks simply as an individual member of the hierarchy, in which case it probably can't. Same thing goes for e.g. the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences, to take the other end of the spectrum.

So there's really a hierarchy of decisionmaking that needs to be considered. If the Pope says or at least endorses something, it's always policy. If a high-ranking cardinal or prominent office-holder says something, it may be policy. And if it's just an individual cardinal, it probably won't be. A good case in point is Cardinal Schönborn with his comments about Darwin a few years ago. What he said was not policy, but just his own opinion. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

That was the point I was trying to clarify about the Vatican website . In fact I thought it was clear, but now I'm a bit confused again. Your first comments seemed to confirm that if it was on the site it would at least not be contradictory to official church policy. But your later comments seem to be saying something not quite that clear. So in order to not raise doubts about whether what is said on the official Vatican website is, in fact, official Vatican policy, it would be better to say, "According to the official Vatican website" and not, "According to the Vatican" - as the two things apparently may or may not be the same. Is that correct? --Bob^{bing up} 04:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Bob, www.vatican.va is just that - a website. It is not a journal or official bulletin. But every page you visit should be tagged somehow with its provenience: a quote from an enciclica is much more official policy than an article on L'osservatore romano. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 04:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Now I'm even more confused. Are you saying that the webiste "www.vatican.va" is neither endorsed nor controlled by the Vatican and that it has no official status as a mouthpiece for the Vatican? If so, then I'm very glad I asked before quoting it!--Bob^{bing up} 04:35, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

It is endorsed and controlled by the Vatican for sure, like every .gov-site is by the US government. Still you can find many things in .gov-sites. www.vatican.va is the official website of the Vatican, but it's not the Official Bulletin or anything like that. If you have noticed, it has many different sections. Which of them are you taking your quotes from? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 06:35, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually I haven't taken any yet - I'm just trying to cover my back and make sure that if I do quote from it then nobody is going to criticize me for claiming that it has an authority it does not hold. I see that Wikipedia refers to it as the official website of the Holy See. I guess if I call it that when (or if) I quote from it, then nobody can complain? --Bob^{bing up} 06:52, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Again, it depends on what you are quoting. I'd say most of the documents there are official ones. But if you happen to find a columnist's writings in the Osservatore Romano newspaper, you are quoting someone's views, not the Vatican's. If you happen to find a document by some organization, it's that organization's view. Definitely, if you want to discredit the Catholic Church by using its own words, I suggest an encyclical, preferably by the current Pope or his predecessor. Dismissing them as "personal opinion" will be difficult. Just avoid quote mining and all the other tricks CP is so proud of using. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 07:28, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Bob, I think most of the confusion here comes from the fact that the Vatican itself can be somewhat confusing. While it may appear from the outside as one single entity, it is actually made up of an array of executive, legislative and judicial offices and agencies, just like any other government is. In addition, again like any government, it is divided in different factions that usually go across these organizational lines. These offices and groups all have their own agendas and disagree with each other over questions of policy, just like e.g. the US Departments of Defense and State often has disagreed with each other on what exactly the American policy towards Iraq is.

The difference, however, is that where the State Dept., the DoD and the other government agencies each have their own websites and other channels of communication, the Vatican channels are more unified. This of course means that these differences of opinion and policy will to some extent be reflected on the website. While there's probably no need to get bogged down in political details, it's still best to consider the source of a given quote. Again, as I said above, what the Pope says is policy by definition. If it's from one of the Pontifical Councils or other official institutions, it will most likely be policy as well, but as interpreted by that particular institution. All sources below that level need to be considered carefully, but again, things may not be entirely obvious - a high-ranking cardinal who is close to the Pope may actually be a very good of policy, even if he doesn't hold any official office. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 07:38, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

(Edit Conflict) Is the Osservatore Romano newspaper part of the site? I haven't explored it page by page. But anyway, if I were to write, "According to the official website of the Holy See", I assume that nobody would be in a position to dispute that? (On the proviso that I had not quote mined - that is to say providing that I had not deliberately distorted the meaning by ignoring the context). Am I covered now?--Bob^{bing up} 07:41, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Couldn't all this confusion be avoided by simply stating the actual source of whatever it is you wish to quote? Write e.g. "According to the Pontifical Council on the Family" and then just link to the page in question? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 07:45, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) What AKjeldsen said (but he is always more precise, concise and... right). Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 07:50, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict) Yeeees, but that might not mean a lot to people who don't know what on earth a "Pontifical Council" is, whereas the "Official websiste of X" is clearer. The solution "According to the Pontifical Council on the Family as expressed at the official website of the Holy See" is just a little too wordy. But I'm just trying to get any potential wording problem out of the way first. Presumably there is nothing wrong with "According to the official website of the Holy See" - it's a factually accurate statement?--Bob^{bing up} 07:53, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

As factually accurate as quotemining: that is while technically correct, it might give a false impression of the Pope himself putting his stamp of approval on something, instead of his country's website merely reporting the ramblings of some obscure priest or scientist. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 07:58, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

<- Bob, it depends on how accurate you want your quotes to be (and since you brought this up in the first place, I guess that you want them to be fairly accurate), weighed up against how much detail you want to include. However, I think it is worthwhile to include such details, because they add another level of depth to the discussion - instead of talking about "the Catholic Church did this or that", we might actually begin talking about "this part of the Church did this or that". On the other hand, I don't really think it should be a concern that people don't know what a Pontifical Council is. Wikipedia is just a click or two away. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:31, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Just saw this by random, and thought I'd drop a line that the only real authoritative source is the catechism, found here. The words of cardinals, popes, or any other authority bows before this one (unless of course the Pope is speaking ex cathedra, but that is very rare). It can be cited with absolute authority as the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, and is simply cited.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 02:12, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Time travel!

I am 100% certain you won't like this song, but I'm afraid I really don't care. let's hear it for bright colours! ^_^ Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 19:50, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Also: "I know you're a person of great modesty"...? Have you even met me before? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 19:52, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I may not have been entirely serious in that comment. However! I am nothing less than shocked and amazed that you like Daft Punk. Even though you, as might be expected, picked probably the weakest song of the whole album, this still reveals a most surprising glimmer of taste. This really forces me to adjust my world view considerably. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:05, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

<vaguely scandalised>But I've played you Daft Punk before!</vaguely scandalised> Indeed, I played what is undoubtedly their finest song, Voyager.

I shall expect some manner of confectionary to demonstrate your contrition for this most terrible of transgressions, Andreas. Hmmph. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm afraid I don't have any confectionery at the moment. I do have half a biscuit lying around, though. It used to be a source of an epic conflict between me and User:Wikinterpreter, the exact cause of which I can't exactly remember, but it did involve the exchange of a number of thermo-nuclear devices. I guess you can have it.

Thanks.

Anyway! You may have played Daft Punk before, I don't really remember. But I notice that you're still somewhat deluded by calling Voyager the "finest song". This honour clearly and in fact indisputably goes to Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:22, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

It most certainly does not, Samael. HBFS is, at best, a three star song, a chance radio hit, whereas Voyager is magical, and may well have been written by Jesus himself during one of his many well-documented collaborations with Daft Punk.

Now depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:40, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Interestingly, Ben Ratliff of Rolling Stone Magazine [1] stated the following regarding the album Discovery:

“”Discovery helps you get your mainstream on but only for its first half. The songs that grab you are loaded up front. The momentum of "One More Time," the album's first track, continues through "Digital Love" - a shameless bite of the Buggles' Eighties synth boogie - and rolls up to "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger," which is Euro dance music at its absolute best: hand claps, a clanking ride cymbal, funky stabs on the Fender Rhodes, vocoder and all. The first five songs are the work of a real band, Daft Punk, whoever the hell they are. But then the handprint of the maker grows weirdly faint. "Crescendolls," which is one bouncy two-bar loop over and over, hints at the problems to come; then there's the short "Nightvision," which has the eerie, ambient feeling of 10cc's "I'm Not In Love," without vocals. Where are we going? As for the rest, it grows anonymous, and not in the artful way that Daft Punk used to capitalize on. The album becomes muddled - not only in the spectrum between serious and jokey but in its sense of an identity.

I am confident that this convincing argument will convince you that you are wrong and I am right regarding this matter of the album Discovery. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:57, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

AKjeldsen, I certainly won the debate regarding the goodness of Ulrich Schnauss. Do you own a copy of Discovery? If so, I would be deeply appreciative if you could describe to me the tracklist. Secondly, I also wish to add that you have not demonstrated your contention with regards to Discovery, that Voyager is not amazing and that Discovery trails off in the middle, and I would be deeply appreciative if you did so. Given the absolutely 100% better-than-HBFS amazingness of Voyager, I think you will find it quite difficult to demonstrate your contention as regards Discovery :) hking 21:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)hking

hking, I found your above post rather silly. RationalWiki links to the Rolling Stone website which is recognized on the Internet as a high-quality site regarding the matter of music. Many other websites on the Internet contain similar views. I promise to contact these websites within a period of 697-2391 days. Also, you have not provided documentation for your statement that Voyager is 100% better than Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger. In short, you have utterly failed to demonstrate your main contentions --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:41, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

AKjeldsen, I was made sysop at RationalWiki because of my opinions in regards to Voyager. I am guessing you will not be made SYSOP given that you have not attempted to substantiate your position as regards Voyager. Secondly, I have never heard the publication Rolling Stone mentioned in scholarly discourse. If you would care to substantiate your contention that it is reputable, I would be deeply appreciative. Secondly, you wrote above regarding Discovery the following: "you, as might be expected, picked probably the weakest song of the whole album." Your source, the publication Rolling Stone, certainly does not support this contention. If you could direct me to a source that does support this contention, I would certainly be deeply appreciative. Lastly, you did not describe the tracklist of Discovery, as I asked above. If you are unwilling to continue this debate, I will ask you to get off my talk page, as I do not have time to read your rather silly comments. hking 13:40, 19 September 2008 (EDT)hking

I am not the judge of this competition, but I momentarily usurp the title and declare Chaos! the winner of the first round. Daft Punk versus Nightwish, do I need to add more? Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 14:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I think we passed the first round quite some time ago. But, nonetheless, I accept this great honour (in fact, I accept it very very quickly, before AK can protest). Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 14:11, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Now just a moment there! Is that it? "Sorry, Daft Punk trumps Nightwish." Just like that? What about closure? What about accountability? Think of the children! Save the whales! --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:26, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

It's only the first round, dear. And I like to think I earned my victory through my undoubtedly superior imitation of Conservative. Plus, Voyager is better than your silly song. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:28, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Granted. I don't do Conservative imitations well. I think it was actually the third or fourth round, by the way. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:33, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Picky picky. Who's going to decide who won the other rounds, then? Wasn't RA going to be our judge at one point? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:41, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, he was, but I must say that he's been rather negligent in his duties so far. Also, I believe Ed@CP was made chairman of the rules commission, due to the unfortunate lack of any available Mongol warlords to fill the position at the time. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

As the chairman of the rules commission, I declare that I haven't viewed or listened to any piece of evidence after the first few songs. In fact, it was AKjeldsen himself who let me know about the Daft Punk video. Thus he himself gave the first round victory to his opponent. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 16:21, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Edit mutton

You mean you didn't watch my Digital Love video?? I am horrorstruck. Please correct this terrible wrongdoing at once, Editor. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 16:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

This is an official admonition. Next time you will be sanctioned for trying to influence the jury and insulting behaviour. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 16:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh, go on. It's a great video, is all. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 16:35, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Song war, round 4

Well, if Daft Punk is what brings you to the top around here, then let me waste no time in advancing what is surely their greatest song ever, regardless of what the babbling hordes otherwise might think. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 16:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Tish and pish, Andreas. That still isn't true, despite your repeated claims to the contrary :P

Anyway, I found a nice song for you, which is related to a certain piece of recent news. Please treat it nicely. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 17:30, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I suppose that's not a bad little ditty, although I'm not certain which particular "recent news" you're referring to. Solar eclipse back in early August?

Just to stay with the theme. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:43, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm. I quite like Mike Oldfield, but it's a crying shame he was born with no ability to detect the quality of cheesiness (most especially in titles).

Anyway, it seems you are behind the times a little. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 17:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Sobs. Lunitics are in teh hall no more. (not sure who wrote that, though it's not Who.)...--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 18:00, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

*nods sombrely*

Anyway, here's my next entry... for when AK wakes up ^_^ Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 18:35, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm awake. Unfortunately, "This video is not available in [my] country." I fear that I'm being oppressed by The Man and his oppressive copyright laws. :-( --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:53, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I maintain that you are not awake. Your body is just spasming randomly on the keyboard. There's an alternate version here, if you don't mind moronic adverts. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 18:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm very much awake, thankyouverymuch, but I'm sorry to report that The Man got to that one as well. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:02, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Sigh.

Well this one should be less likely to be protected, being quite a lot older. It's slightly less good, though, I feel. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 19:10, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

That worked, and I found it... slightly to moderately scary, akshually. So we'll move forward with all haste. Here's a bit of high culture, so rarely seen around here. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:40, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

My first choice was scarier. By a little bit.

Anyway, the piano thing was very impressive technically, sure, but I didn't see the point, other than that. I'm sure it sounds different to you. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:05, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

The point? It's Sviatoslav Richter. Playing Appassionata. One of the best piano recordings of the 20th century. What more point than this do you need? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:14, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Again with your silly objectification of music :P

But, hey! If we're allowed to post songs with no videos, I have a new friend I'd like to introduce you to. (Pointless background information you won't care about: "The Tuss" in a thinly veiled pseudonym of that well-known rascal Richard D James.)

Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

It had a video. It's not my fault that video was only made up of a single picture. >_>

That was pretty wierd. I find myself moved to question whether it can truly be categorized as music at all. But I supposse certain concessions must be made to preserve the ongoing dialogue between the peoples genres.

And now for something completely different! With all the oppression by The Man earlier, the People needs to have their say. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:40, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

AK, you've chosen that before.</gentle admonition> Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:45, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

But I'll listen to it anyway. Wait there. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Hah! I told you you were asleep.

Anyway, I already have a perfectly good National Anthem of my own. Please don't expect it to make sense, though. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 21:19, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

And the second (fourth?) round goes to Akjeldsen, thanks to two solid Russian performances. It takes time to get used to Richter's speed though. Situation Chaos! 1 - AKjeldsen 1 and now I'll leave the judge seat to its legitimate owner. I'll go sit in the spectator stands with my headphones on. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 03:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Your judgement has, sadly, been rejected by our panel of impartial jellyfish. Mainly because it rested upon the quality of an entry that should be disqualified for being a repetition of an earlier one. Don't make me sting you, now. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 03:19, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Nowhere in the Rules or in the Regulations is repetition prohibited. Repetita iuvant, as they use to say. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 04:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(breathless interjection) This is a great idea. All wars should be fought this way. Also, you started off with Daft Punk and Pink Floyd, which is tantamount to Awesome. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 09:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I find this whole thing silly. Shouldn't you all be working in soup kitchens or something? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:00, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

We can't all work in soup kitchens, RA. If we did, there would be soup kitches on every street corner, and they would all be so full of happy helpers that the needy would never get any soup. Surely you realize that this situation would not be ideal. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Song car, round 5

Moving on, then. If you do not like this piece, I can only conclude that you're not alive, in any sense of that word. Not even as a cold, unfeeling cyborg. Because even a cold, unfeeling cyborg would like this. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Did I ever tell you I failed a Voight-Kampff test? -- λινυσ^(☮) 14:43, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Wow, the quality of this contest is very high. Neverending story now, Pink Floyd earlier (or so I heard). Congratulations, contenders. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 14:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Now, it is impossible not to like this. -- λινυσ^(☮) 14:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(EC)

Linus: Poor you :( That's why I gave you the mowse! Is a cheerful mowse ^_^

AK: It's supposed to be COLD, UNFEELING CYBORG, as in someone who does not react to something actually good, like Motion Picture Soundtrack. Your video was okay, I guess, but... Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 14:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

What, Linus enters the contest! We have a... triel then! Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 14:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It is also impossible to dislike this. -- λινυσ^(☮) 14:59, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Slow down, dammit! Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:01, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh cool, I don't actually have to listen, because I already know the song. ^_^ Yay! I still think Travel Is Dangerous is better, though... Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(EC)In that case, I shoot you both in the knees. (It's better when it's not live, but even so...) Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:01, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

The definitive masterpiece of music. Please listen to all of it before posting again. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 15:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, AK already posted that :P Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Ouch. The same exact performance? Or this, this, this or any of the other countless examples? You know, in classical music the role of the performer is very important. Luckily, someone comes to the rescue. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 15:14, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I think it was the same, yes. But then, I listen to that song all the time, so I know it off by heart :P Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:17, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

TAKE THIS. -- λινυσ^(☮) 15:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

"Allegro non troppo" is a must movie - Disney's Fantasia with a soul. Its parts are conveniently found in Youtube. For an example, my feelings at the moment. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 15:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

That is, indeed, incredibly depressing. Poor kitteh :(

I must look that movie up some time... Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Hmm. It's been a while since we had some Nightwish. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Has it? I hadn't noticed.

Anyway, I saw this and thought of you, for some reason ^_^ Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 18:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

It's good that you think of me regularly. That way, I hope to eventually influence you away from these interminable tapestries of sound-texture in favour of actual music.

Such as this! Best TV series intro ever. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:24, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

There's something wrong with you.

And what's with this "tapestries of sound" thing you keep muttering about? I could almost see your point if I'd linked you to Treefingers, or something like that (yes, that's my submission :P), but you have absolutely no excuse for such ignorance when it comes to the beauty of Ulrich Schnauss.

Besides, your own Neverending Story video was far more interminable than mine. :P Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 19:40, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah, but the interminability rate of a musical piece is not directly related to length. Rather, it can be expressed as the length divided by the amount of harmonic and dynamic changes it contains, or "I = L / X"; squared if it's by Ulrich Schnauss.

In other news, semper aliquod novis ex Africa. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

"Not directly related to length"? Perfect... *evil grin*

Plus, that piece also illustrates perfectly how it is possible to retain the interest of the listener without any showy changes in dynamics.

And stop picking on Ulrich Schnauss. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:25, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Whawastha... Oh, sorry. I think I dozed off during that. Anyway, if you didn't keep bringing Ulrich Schnauzer Schnauss up, I wouldn't have so many opportunities to pick on him, would I?

But if we must indulge in the genre of repetitive music, we may as well do so properly. Japura River. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Now why does that remind me of Monkey Island...? ^_^

Anyway, I think this is what you actually meant to choose, you poor confused woodland creature. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 20:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

No, that wasn't really what I was thinking of. That's not even repetitive music, it's just Bowie.

But now that you mention woodland creatures, I came to think of Deer Hunter, and that of course led me to think of Cavatina. Who wouldn't? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 21:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

What? You guys have started up again without me? I'm hurt. :( Anyway, I come wielding Peter Gabriel. -- λινυσ^(☮)

That seemed familiar somehow...

And it's not "just Bowie", it's "just" beautiful :P Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 21:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps, but hardly among his best. And Linus, I'm afraid The Man is interfering again with his incessant claims that "This video is not available in your country." --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 21:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Hardly among his best?? Alright then, Mr Tough. Come and have a go if you think yer hard enough :P Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 21:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

No. No, I'm sorry, but Bowie or not, that is boring. Boring and non-descript. This, on the other hand is absolutely incomparable. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:52, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

In keeping with my new policy of being nice to everyone, I'm going to allow you to guess what type of cyborg I'm about to compare you to. If you get it right, you win a stylish Ford Focus, and some raffle tickets :P Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 16:34, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately, I'm not that familiar with the purely technical aspects of Cyborg Studies, such as which specific types exist or are common at the moment. You often speak of COLD, UNFEELING CYBORGs, but on the other hand, I guess the majority of cyborgs are COLD and UNFEELING, so that doesn't narrow the selection much.

Hmm...

I think I'll go with the Cybermen from Dr. Who. When in doubt, go with Dr. Who, is what I always say. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:15, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I was thinking of SILLY and MISGUIDED. As in, "You're a SILLY and MISGUIDED CYBORG". I'll look after the Ford Focus for you, shall I?

Anyway, I couldn't find a proper video for this, so please forgive me. There was actually one with L in it (!!!!), but it had inferior sound quality. You have no idea what a dilemma that was to me :( This one is nice, nonetheless. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 17:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't have a driver's license anyway, so I'll manage. Here's some good stuff. Nice and uncomplicated. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:04, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Edit kitten

You is evil. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 19:14, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Annoyingly, this version of the song in question is of noticably higher quality than the version that I actually paid for. Grrr. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 19:19, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I know I'm evil. Original sin and all that. How does my evil manifest in this particular case? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

By posting songs by the Proclaimers. And by being momentarily convinced that good, sensible copyeditor mowses might have purchased said songs at some point. It's an intriguing manifestation of evil that afflicts you. Ye cursed. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 19:38, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Nah, I'm just trying to multitask beyond my processing limits. Not recommended. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:50, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

You brought this upon yourself. I wash my hands of this. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 05:40, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

You not liek my nu naem? :'( Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 12:05, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Aw. Of course I like your new name. Still, you have to expect certain... reactions. They're practically inevitable. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 12:18, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, they should go in the Complaints section of my talk page. That's what it's for Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 12:24, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

But on the other hand, this was not so much a complaint as a simple reflection. Plus, it was a part of the long bar song war, and that's what this section is for. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 12:26, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Did you ever finish your frantic multitasking? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 12:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Ha! I'm afraid not. "Frantic multitasking" practically defines my life right now. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 13:37, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I found a rather amusing depiction of you online. Isn't the resemblance uncanny?? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 13:47, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps... which one of the two characters in question were you thinking of, and in which ways? [/cautiously optimistic] --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:05, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

You're the big dragon, of course, silly ^_^ It's also very noticable in this strip. See? Uncanny! Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 14:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Okay, granted. That's totally me. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:28, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm glad you agree! Can I maek you a Big Red Dragon usebox? It would be big and red, with a picture of that dragon, and the caption "This user AKjeldsen". And it would float above your talkpage like my PKD-Box. Pretty pease? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 14:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Hmm. While I'm not a big fan of those floating things... okay, why not? But only because it's you. And because it's a dragon. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 14:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

There you go! Isn't it lovely?? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:06, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it's very nice. Thank you very much. Now, you're not trying to distract me from the song war, are you? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:29, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

No, of course not. But are you sure you want to keep songwarring while you're still Frantically Multitasking? O large dragon? Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:32, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

(<-- Yank!)

Of course. Surely you've noticed that a great deal of what I do is extremely strange, O little mowse. (Or whatever it is you are this week). --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Edit mitten!

I am, indeed, a little mowse. Please to not tred on mii.

Bringed you thys gyft. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 15:55, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, that was not too bad. I wanted to stick with the dragon theme, but incomprehensibly, it seems that no metal band has ever written a song about dragons (or at least that no one took the time to upload it (or perhaps I'm just incompetent)), so this was the closest I could get. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:05, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Could it be you actually enjoyed an Aphex Twin song??? And an ambient one, at that! I'm very impressed, Mr Dragon ^_^

Anyway, enjoy the--

..

Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 07:50, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Fun fact: Depeche Mode is almost as old as I am, less a month or two. Let's have some more of that. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:22, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I think I'm the same age as MBV. While I'm trying to think of something to play (I've used up all music known to man!!), do enjoy this comic version of me. It's scarily accurate. Pink_{(Astronomy Domine)} 21:03, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

I guess I am older than both of you (all 12 notes/tones in that wonderful intro). Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 02:46, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

BBC2

It may be old hat or simplistic to you but I've just watched an interesting programme on the Gutenberg Bible by Stephen Fry on BBC2. Генгис^pillaging 15:19, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

This one? I can't watch it here outside the UK (The Man strikes again!), but it looks interesting. I seem to recall they've run series of medieval-themed programs like that before. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:20, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes that was the one, I must have missed it when it first ran on 4. I thought you were in the UK now? You could try these proxies, they have worked for me with C4 before but that was only to check for viewing rights on something I'd already downloaded. Генгис^pillaging 19:31, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Good old YouTube. Генгис^pillaging 19:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah, perfect. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)