Talk:Main Page

Archives for this talk page: Archive list (new)

409 more days?

Wasn't this US Presidential Elections? Editor at CP 09:00, 8 December 2007 (EST)

No I think it's 'til January 21st, 2009--the day a new President takes office. --Gulik 12:57, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Ok, makes sense. I vaguely remembered that (s)he takes office in January, but my mathematical skills put 409 days into February 2009. Maybe I should take a mathematics course at CP. Editor at CP 13:30, 8 December 2007 (EST)

It is possible I screwed up the formula... Sterile^{minichatroomthingy} 15:40, 9 December 2007 (EST)

According to this page, I've carried the ones correctly. Sterile^{minichatroomthingy} 15:43, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Fuckabee

Actually, the odd thing is, they don't much like him over at CP (at least Andy doesn't, and it's his blog). Andy has made several anti-Huckabee posts. I don't think there's a single candidate batshit crazy enough for Andy, and any questions addressing who the preferred candidate over there are met with reversions and blocks (Ed even said the question was "offensive"). I'm trying to imagine who could get their approval, other than the crusty old bitch herself. Bauer? Alan Keyes (if he were slightly more melatonin-deficient)? Brownback (if B4B were a real thing and not a parody perhaps)? Helms? The reanimated corpse of Joe McCarthy? Torquemada? DickTurpis 14:53, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure I agree - CP's entry on Huck is pretty hagiographic, and he and the Moron...errrrrr. Mormon seem to get an equal amount of favourable coverage on the front page.PFoster 15:33, 8 December 2007 (EST

In endorsing Huckabee, Andy (of Trenton, NJ) has gone against his mom who thinks Huckabee single-handedly destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas. Of course I can't say how I know this or even if it is true. So it may be pure conjecture from reading between the lines. :( Genghis ^Marauding 16:53, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Back in May I tried to start discussion of the candidates across the field, pro and con, etc., but everyone started messing with the "other side's" pages and they all got deleted from my user space due to some whiner complaining that I had "threatened to delete [his] comments". Ah, doze were duh daze... human 18:30, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Liberapedia

That place is so sexy! 77.99.57.229 15:37, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hell YA! --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 11:24, 10 December 2007 (EST)

we have a problem.

Look at all the trolls...

Only 8/50ths of our new users give a crap and/or arent here to spew global warming denialsim / white supremecy / general riff-raff. I feel we need a better system or something, but have no ideas what to do. However, I know we are against permanent bans, but I really don't see the big deal with permabanning people like this and this. ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 21:33, 8 December 2007 (EST)

THE GLOBAL WARMING DENALISTS ARE KNIGHTS OF TRUTH! 12.75.66.228 21:43, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I don't see why this is a problem. If we permaban them, they'll just come back in some other guise through some other proxy. Short bans are good policy, 'cos it makes it easy to spot abuse of power. Permabans stick out like a sore thumb on the recent changes list, and they get scrutinised. Compare conservapedia where perma- or five year bans are the norm. No one notices if the user was really a vandal, or just someone with a different point of view. Also, permabans haven't had any noticeable impact on the rate of vandalism and trolling at conservapedia. I say let the silly user names accumulate, they have short attention spans, and it's just a few extra bytes in the database. --Jeɚv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 21:42, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I see ur point. ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 21:49, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Although I think some RULES might be in order: Limit names to (say) 20 chars, block names beginning "my password", block names all caps. Just 'cause they get on my nerves. Otherwise let 'em all come. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 22:18, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I got a two-month ban at CP with my first ID and moved on. Quite frankly, is any troll/vandal going to say "Ah shucks, I've been banned for 5 years. I guess I'll have to go away mend, change my ways and come back then". Even a month is probably quite enough to put most people off I would have thought, unless they are vain enough to insist on the same user name wherever they go. However, some user names really get on my tits and I would support Susan on that. Genghis ^Marauding 05:16, 9 December 2007 (EST)

FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

IF NEO-NAZI VIEWPOINTS ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED WRONG AND UNPOPULAR, DOES THAT MEAN THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED EQUAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH?! ^{— Unsigned, by: 12.75.66.228 / talk / contribs}

Seeing as we're not the US Congress and we're not making any laws, I guess it doesn't apply here. --Kels 22:02, 8 December 2007 (EST)

So is that what your saying? Neo-nazis are denied the right to freedom of speech? ^{— Unsigned, by: 12.75.66.228 / talk / contribs}

Eat UDHR Article 29.2, dude. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

SIGN for pete's sake, it's not hard to do. And to your question, ask the owner of the site. His rules. Norseman^Wassail! 22:15, 8 December 2007 (EST)

My opinion---indeed, neo-nazi's are allowed freedom of speech in public fora. This is not one of those so we may censor you as much as we wish. Fuck off.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 22:21, 8 December 2007 (EST)

May I come into your house and SHOUT "ALL RIGHT WING WAZZOCKS SHOULD BE SENT TO GUANTANAMO" ? No? How strange! Susan^{purrrrr ...} 22:23, 8 December 2007 (EST)

You have freedom of speech, yes, but you don't have the freedom to put it into the mainspace, and represent it as our speech. Feel free to write teh essays, but mainspace is unabashedly mission-specific, unless I'm very wrong...-αmεσ (soldier)

I'm not supportive of putting it there either, honestly. If he wants to set up his own site, then by all means. Have fun. But why should we be his hosting service? --Kels 22:33, 8 December 2007 (EST)

I think the essay template, and possibly a new "whackjob alert" template, would be enough to make me feel close to okay about it.-αmεσ (soldier) 02:28, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I'm with Ames. If the things they say can be refuted, why not give them the opportunity to say them so that we can refute them? If we censor this point of view then they could quite reasonably claim that we have have no rational answer. We have allowed the essay namespace to be used to present and debate the weird religious and social viewpoints of Heart of Gold; Elassint's New World Order considerations; and childish stuff on global Warming denialism. Indeed, the essay namespace was created, in part, to allow non-community beliefs a an opportunity to be heard and presumably refuted. Furthermore it should be a check against Groupthink. In truth, I have not seen a single post here by any neo-nazi which is even equal to the three poor examples above so it should make for pretty simple refuting anyway.--Bob^{bing up} 08:29, 9 December 2007 (EST)

You know what annoys me more then red links?

PURPLE LINKS. How do i get rid of them? --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 15:47, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Which browser do you use? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:54, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Firefox. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi!

Hahahahaha. Purple links are blue links you have visited. You might be able to alter that in your browser prefs. Not sure if there is a way in your wiki user prefs. human 16:15, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Nah, I think it has to be done in the browser. It you go to Tools > Options > Content tab and click the Colours button, you can change the colour for Visited Links. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:27, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I tried that and it did not work. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 16:34, 9 December 2007 (EST)

In that case, you probably also have to uncheck "Allow pages to choose their own colours", but that'll probably get rid of more than just the links colours. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:40, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Yeesh, no needs to mess up your browser settings. Just poke your Monobook.css file here on-wiki to change the link color... give me a moment to experiment, then I'll give you details... --Sid 16:47, 9 December 2007 (EST)

...are user styles actually enabled here? Could somebody with power check if they're enabled? Not sure if I'm just doing something wrong or not... --Sid 16:58, 9 December 2007 (EST)

In the meantime, my personal solution is to use Stylish - it's very handy because it also allows you to manipulate CSS on any site. I use it to remove the silly "supreme court" and "american government" boxes on CP, for example. To change the link color, just use

@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);
@-moz-document domain("www.rationalwiki.com") {
a:visited { color: #xxyyzz !important; }
}

With any color code in the place of the #xxyyzz. Should do the trick. --Sid 17:21, 9 December 2007 (EST)

>_> _Nerd. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:19, 9 December 2007 (EST)

The proper term is "desperate". :P I only started using Stylish back when CP's new default theme kicked in and combined nice overall design with really weird color choices (IMHO) for diffs. --Sid 18:49, 9 December 2007 (EST)

That got old

I got tired of posting on everyone's talk pages, so hi to evergyone I missed! ɧєɭıסş^{-get sunburn!} 01:04, 10 December 2007 (EST)

General Request for Comments

Does anyone who's neither TK nor a neonazi have a problem with the way this place is run, mobocracy-wise? If so, I'd like to hear and I and others will try to fix it up. Warning: exceedingly insightful commentary may result in bannination (jk!) -αmεσ (soldier) 01:22, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Hmmm. On the whole I would answer "no, but...." The arbitrary boycott decision last week kind of put me off - and so I ignored it and had a lot of fun trolling about dead dinosaurs and dead Indians and got Andy and PJR to say some stupid things. Yay for me. But I didn't appreciate a boycott being imposed from above like that.

On another, not-entirely-related-to-mobocracy-but-still-sort-of-related issue. I had a chat with TK last night, and we agreed on one thing. Some people here, as much as some people at CP, are guilty of forgetting that there is a human being at the other end of the internet. I'm as guilty of this as anyone else - and I want to retract comments I've made about "alleged human beings" and stuff like that. It does little good - and ultimately stifles debate - to call someone a "moron," even if they are saying some stupid shit.

So maybe think of this as a call for a new civility. Just throwing it out there. PFoster 10:23, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I take issue with the over-abundance of goats and the shortage of Long-eared jerboas. I realise this a minority view, and fully expect to be banned for expressing it. --Jeɚv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 10:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I have no problems. I think what we do and how we do it are very necessary. I don't quite agree with PFoster. These people are destructive to humanity. I wish that we could debate, show them the error of their ways, and be done with it. Unfortunately, it'll never be that simple. I have found time and again that ridicule is a very effective way of getting through to someone. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 10:40, 10 December 2007 (EST)

A problem here is that there are too many Edgerunners and not enough PFosters (metaphorically speaking). You take yourself much too seriously to believe that you are "getting through to someone" or making any difference, period. The ridicule is fun and usually deserved but whenever opportunities for dialog happen some people won't dial back their mockery for a while.

Second complaint is that whenever some debate does get going, it takes about 10 minutes for someone to come along and shout "Troll!" to shut discussion down. There should be a ban on using that word. You don't want some CPer or whoever to keep you from the important work of the site? Puleese!!

Otherwise, no complaints!! 204.187.154.49 11:46, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, i agree with 204.187.154.49. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 11:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Once I opened a debate here, Debate:Who consults Conservapedia?. To be honest, I can't see many people coming to RW either, apart from some of us CP emigrèes and possibly from a couple of other friendly wikis. RW doesn't attract the hordes of curious people CP does. Editor at CP 12:11, 10 December 2007 (EST)

EDIT: it is redlinked, I don't anymore remember its location... Editor at CP 12:12, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Fixed it. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! - Thanks! Editor at CP 12:21, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I'm with Edge, I don't think these 'people' are worthy of rational argument. They do troll, inserting opinion on their own pet subject & expecting it to be accepted without comment. If they are prepared to engage in discussion, fair enough, but expecting assertion to be taken as fact is not on. I believe that the American Religious right is one of the worst things on the planet and their beliefs (anti -birth control, anti -abortion, anti -man made global warming etc. Ad nauseam) will would, if allowed to go unchecked, will bring about the end of humanity. Of course that won't bother those waiting for the Rapture. They should be ridiculed and put down at every oppportunity without any thought for their feelings.

As to the site: It's very much an in crowd place with little to attract new editors - the percentage of jokes & references to things only known to long term editors must put visitors off. There are very few serious articles being started - most seem to be relegated to Fun within hours. We need to re-examine and enforce the mission. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 12:19, 10 December 2007 (EST)

When you single out the American Religious Right it makes me think you just have a particular axe to grind. Unfortunately, there are a hell of a lot of people who aren't ARR but are still anti-birth control, anti-abortion, anti-man made global warming, anti-women and a whole lot of other terrible things. 204.187.154.49 12:40, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Don't worry - when Shariapedia or the like comes along, we'll be there. PFoster 12:45, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I gather that there is a definite mission for RW? Is it to just be a counterpoint to Conservapedia, or to be a general site for 'rational' information, or both? I'd say let's decide this once and for all. I much prefer the first, with rational, scientific point-to-point articles as direct answers to CP articles. For generic rational information, it is difficult to beat Wikipedia, even with its conservative, fundamentalist christian, anti-scientific bias. But I'll leave it to the Inner Circle of the Goat Cabal - I am just an Editor at CP 12:34, 10 December 2007 (EST)

The mission is on the front page: Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes the following: 1. Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement, ideas and people. 2. Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas. 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. The thing is that we want to be more than a counterpoint to CP. As far as our difference to WP is concerned we do have a point of view where they try not to. We try a skeptical rational point of view.--Bob^{bing up} 12:49, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Resorting to ridicule instead of rational arguments just contributes to the problem. We need to encourage rational thought and discourse no matter the situation if we expect to do any good anywhere. If we don't do that and instead continue with unrestrained ridicule, all we do is further isolate the two sides of whatever argument, which simply entrench themselves deeper in their position. If we're truly rational, egalitarian-minded people here, we have to respect -all- people. GrandSoviet 12:30, 10 December 2007 (EST)

First of all, I'm sure no one "consults" RW the way Andy insists they do for CP. We're not an encyclopedia, we're really a forum, so the comparison is moot. As for whether the opposition deserves to be treated like humans, I say yes, they do. We are rational people and should treat people rationally. However, when someone proves that they have no interest in discussion or trying to be civil, and would decides they would rather insult and put down large groups of people and individuals as stupid and evil, then we no longer need to treat them with civility either. I'm basiclly talking about Andy and Rob here. There's a bit of hope for the others but not for them. Both have made it perfectly let that anyone who disagrees with them on any matter is close-minded, stupid, evil, a liar, or probably all of them. They are useless people who are a waste of solid matter. I have no problem treating them as such. DickTurpis 12:36, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I will have you know that RationalWiki is consulted by casual internet users for several important topics. We are one of the top clicked through sites for searches on donair sauce recipes and the top click through for questions regarding colonics and goats. 75.161.38.244 12:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Dick - up to a certain point I would've agreed with you - but last night I had a conversation with someone I have repeatedly slagged in this forum and I realised that yeah, he's said some things I find really objectionable, but he's still a human being and therefore as such is entitled to a bottom line of respect. As are Andy and Rob. I guess we can debate where that line falls, but if they don't act like they are meritorious of such a thing, that does not oblige me to sink to their level. PFoster 12:44, 10 December 2007 (EST)

• While I know that not everyone does this, I think that the whole going to CP and vandalizing it should stop or at least be cut back on, because 1.)it doesn't last and 2.)it makes people take legitimate points brought up here less seriously. I have no problem with reporting on when they lie/make up facts/misinterpret things/etc, or with going and trying to engage in debate with them (even though they make it nearly impossible), but I think that the vandalism should be cut down. --BillOhannity 12:48, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry, I can't respect anyone who puts forward ideas like creationism or treats global warming as a matter for making political capital. Belief in the verbatim of the writings of bronze age also inspires nothing but contempt. I do not believe that they are any more likely to be impressed with any argument we can put forward than I am by theirs. The irrationality of these science deniers is beyond all argument. I don't know how to counter them but ridicule has been a useful tactic for years - used by them as much as by us (monkey trials!). The more their ideas can be laughed at, the less they are likely to be taken seriously. Sorry I do tend to ramble. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 12:50, 10 December 2007 (EST)

First, I'm glad that people are taking this seriously. Yay! And, I agree with Bill O'Hannity that the vandalism should end ~ it ended for me and a lot of others earlier, but what remains should probably cease as well. And, while I agree with PFoster that it's important to remember the humanity in our relationship with our ideological opposites, I think we should remember that politeness and decency are not a suicide pact. This is to say that I'm all in favor of treating the other side with respect (as insane as their "ideas" may be), to the extent that, and slightly more than, they treat us with respect. However, I don't think that that golden rule extends to people like TK. I'm sorry, it just doesn't. Myself and a lot of others on this site have had extensive experience with him, and politeness and decency simply don't work with him. Strictly speaking, he's a lacuna in the moral fabric of our society. He's the 2/3 of the reason for our acrimonious relationship with Conservapedia. He spawns drama and antagonism for his personal pleasure, and to the extent that some of us have nice relationships with him now (good for you), I can personally guarantee you that, from experience, he's merely using temporary politeness to attract allies for his next explosion of drama. Honestly, he's best ignored, rather than confronted, so the moral dilemma of how to treat someone like that just doesn't come up.-αmεσ (soldier) 12:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)