User talk:Human/archive1

Hi Human... Oh, hai... Human 20:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Human. Giving yourself a welcome template is a very sad act.  :-) --Bob M 20:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw it on RC and it looked tasty. Speaking of tasty, where's the goat pilaf?  Human 20:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this is a goat free zone. It's all tea, biscuits and tofu here I'm afraid. --Bob M 20:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have some chicken on the go, if you'd like. You can pretend it's goat. --Kels 20:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, thanks. I had some Friday Lunch Leftover Meatlover's Pizza next door, I think there was a bit of goat in it.

Planned Parenthood
Well, you heard the man. Add some references! Add some "appropriate" quotes! It's amazing to me that the moment someone adds something that's exactly in line with the ideology of the site, it's immediately written off as parody. --Kels 14:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a good one you could use, Philip would love this.
 * "The racism inherent in Social Darwinism was also advocated by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Writing in 1922 in her book The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger considered “inferior races” to be “human weeds” and a “menace to civilization.”" Watson, Social Darwinism: Old idea re-visited
 * Pack a few of those in, make some refs, pad it out a couple more paragraphs, maybe a picture, and voila! --Kels 15:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With you there, Kels: my first thought was "needs more quotes" preferably quotes of quotes From unimpeachable sources (has Mr Mariano anything to say) Toast 15:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "But it is only when abortion is wedded to a militant and tyrannical agenda used by a ruthlessly ambitious political figure or party that it becomes truly dangerous to dissenting individuals and to the society within which it might flourish. Such as the agenda of Planned Parenthood which was established upon racist premises, the agenda of turning “women’s rights” into ensuring no rights for the babies, the politics of the abortion movement or the Chinese forced abortion policy." - The “Atheist,” the “Muslim” and the “Christian” Murderers – and their victims: Stephen Tyrone Johns, William Long and George Tiller


 * "It is a fact that Sanger, an ardent evolutionist, promoted ‘race hygiene’ and getting rid of ‘human weeds’." -- From CMI itself, you can't get much more truthy than that!
 * Thanks, kids. I loved PJR's irrelevant "analysis" and Sterile's response!  I stuffed those juicy quotoids into the PP article, it ought to be "featured" status any day now! Human 20:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, use PJR's "analysis" as your template, then! He wants "Introduction, detail, supporting quotes/references", then he can have 'em.  You've got the quotes, you've got the references, now you just need to add a bit more that can practically be copy/pasted from any of his recent "articles", and there's nothing to complain about, is there? --Kels 20:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, doesn't the "information" in the detail section have to have something to do with the article title? Eh, let's just get some moar awesome quote mine s and add them, I'll just pepper in some text before the quotes a la Ken and voila, we kan haz eggsellent article! Human 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, and no. You've got it allwrong. The most crucial part of any article is spamming links to it on random forums. Something like .  Considering an ABORTION?!??!!? First, check out THIS hard-hitting article on mthe racist, atheistic motives for abortion. By the time you finished, you too should be converted :):):)!!!   Theemperor 20:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who thinks I should go all Ken on the PP article?

By the way, check out the 1st google hit when searching for "criticism of planned parenthood"... Human 21:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the direction of PP. The best thing about it is they don't seem to know what to do except stare and threaten.  And yet, it's clearly the BPOV.  Sterile 02:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't realize being a moron was so easy.  And the fact that they don't even know whether it's parody or serious makes the embarrassment of typing that tripe less painful. But my efforts pale before yours, oh master. Human 03:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

CopyWright
H, please alter this subhead. It's distracting me horribly. Toast 23:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Human 23:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (Dunno about the "innocent" bit though ;-) )''I want smileys;; Toast 23:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite welcome. (It was written on the bathroom wall at Hot l Baltimore, who knows?) Human 01:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikisynergy
The twenty minutes I just spent on WS just scared me. I don't get those minutes of my life back, you know. Sterile 23:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it more tolerable than PJRwiki, YECers are pure nutters, at least some of the wingnuts at WS would like to try to apply scientific method to their pet fields. I'm surprised you can tolerate the time you spend at PJRwiki, but I guess it's different strokes for different folks... Human 23:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm pretty bored with PJRwiki right now. It's really not going any where interesting for better or worse, and we appear to be getting close to the "block first" stage of wiki decay.  I will try WS some more, although reallife has me busy at the moment....  Sterile 01:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Real life is far better than PJRwiki. And fairly better than WS.  Good for you. Human 03:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the contrast between AndyWiki/PJRWiki and WS is amusing at some level. At the former, they are a too closed-minded.  At WS, they are a little too "open-minded" or at least open to "alternatives" like psi and ESP and stuff.  (Can we curse now?)  Sterile 01:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. No swearing until trent gets home.  Then there'll be a lot.  Have you read http://ethericstudies.org/journal/online_listening_trials.htm (it's an EVP thing)?  It's good for about six head-desks per screen at my resolution. Human 02:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to read later. Reaction on scroll-down: Tom Butler actually publishes this stuff?!?  We, like, have a big kahuna in "the field."  Oh, we're so in deep expletive.  Sterile 03:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is, these people think they are doing "science" and that those that disagree are deluded. Human 03:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but pissing off TOm Butler by questioning his logic is quite entertaining. I was questioning his use of the term hypothesis in relation to his pet topic, and he skirted the issue every single time!Gooniepunk2005 22:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That Green goose guy has a really short fuse and a bad attitude, I haven't seen Butler get nasty, at least. That whole EVP thing is just hilarious.  Goosey wants me to prove that static (or other random source) can make something like their "best examples".  Because, if I can't of course, it has to be dead people in the ether adjusting the energy fields... Human 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No shit. I have been heavily critical of the fact that Tom's EVP experiment because, basically, if he hears anything on the radio, it is automatically paranormal.  I tried pointing out to him that his hypothesis for the experiment (Summary: SOmetimes, you might hear voices on the radio) still doesn't prove something paranormal, but he still won't or can't make that connection: that finding the cause, not proving something unexplained is happening, is what he should be trying to do.  But, no.  That's too hard, apparently.Gooniepunk2005 22:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was able to improve our EVP article a lot just by quoting WS's article and one or two of their references. What I love is how to get good EVP, you have to do the opposite of any other form of controlled observation - you use crappy equipment, set it up badly, and, well, it also helps a lot if you believe EVP comes from etheric beings.  Oh, also, being very experienced at hallucinating hearing EVPs makes it more likely that you will find them.  Woo indeed. Human 23:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know. And Tom flinched when I told him his experiment lacks a control: that everyone involved in his "experiment" already knows about EVP, therefore, everyone will be biased one way or the other; skeptic or "believer."  And, again, he didn't answer my call for him to show that, even if his experiment is successful, how it proves EVP and not some other random interference.Gooniepunk2005 23:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They seem to be getting a little testy. What is it about pinning these people down to definitions and such and pointing out their reasoning issues, let alone asking for evidence?  Sterile 17:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that I've not got too much more to learn from the place. On the other hand, as Human says, there seems to be good article inspiration to be had. --Bob M 18:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer Sterile's question, I've noticed that the wikisynergy crowd (such as Tom Butler) are just like the citizendium crowd: fully vested in their pet topics. Tom Butler is the sirector of a group that fully purports EVP as being real, so, naturally, he doesn't want the good times and BS about EVP to end.Gooniepunk2005 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Butler's deep into it. He gave me a bunch of links to "evidence" for EVP the other day, and even though the sites are different, they "look" the same/similar, and I was a half hour or more into trying to do some due diligence when I hit the first (!) actual example, and the woman asked her electronic toy to say "Tom Butler", and asked the toy about his cats.  Uh, ok. Human 00:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I ne'er spent much time at Citizendium. I'm having enough trouble with here, ASK and WS as it is (and RW and CP) as it is!  Although, I've heard things. 01:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Lasted longer than I thought
Toast 21:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. He really needs to develop a consistent and appropriate block policy... Human 23:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, He really needs to shut up shop & go to CMI or AiG or something. He's absolutely over the top. Toast 23:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally Non Wiki Topic
SirChuck here, sorry to bother you on your page.... But I count 9 seperate insults or veiled references to hell... Most of which were added by the Fly himself..... He is a sick human being and I never say this, but I wish upon him the most foul things imaginable to the human mind.... I hope he gets cancer of the penis. Thank you for listening, delete away. -SirChuckBBack in Action
 * Hi Chuck, no need to apologize, glad you found us! And, yes, Andy's response to Kennedy's death is ghastly and vicious.  Hell, I gave Reagan a one week break from criticism when he died.  PS, Reagan's son Ron has a radio show, and this evening he broke with his tradition and had a guest on - his mother Nancy.  Nancy was very complimentary towards the late Ted.  Nice to see that a person who has seen so much and lived through so much still has a sense of perspective.  Something Andy will probably never learn, although we can hope... Yeah, Andy's just an axxhole. Human 04:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He's a lost cause. Words aren't good enough to describe the bitterness and pettiness which infests that man's soul. SuperJosh 19:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it funny that the "most moral" amongst us are the first ones to pick on those who (by whatever means) cannot defend themselves? I remember hearing about the Savage Weiner go on a tirade against autistic children, calling them fakers who just need to be disciplined, and (seeing as how I have a friend with Asperger's) I thought "What a fucking bully.  Somebody outta kick his ass and see how he likes it"Gooniepunk2005 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

artiqules
Thanks for working on the artiqules.--Bob M 09:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I worked on the articles? Hmmm, I hope my edits were more coherent than my memory! Human 23:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Beatles.
decent story on the Beatles' breakup in the latest Rolling Stone. thought you'd be interested. TheoryOfPractice 04:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and nice of you to remember. When I saw the "new header" I thought we were going to have a fun little fight on teflonpedia to remind us of old times.  Is it on their website? Human 04:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, no smack-talkin' yoko tonight. I just saw the director's cut of Woodstock at my local rep house so I'm feelin' all peace-and-love. Dunno if it's on the web--I actually subscribe to the thing...TheoryOfPractice 04:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I found the article... thanks, although, this comment along a couple similar (between people John v. Paul bitchslapping) "Nothing of this article is new to me. and maybe it's because I am a big Beatles fan and I've read this before. It just sounds like anothe Rolling Stone way of recylcing yet another story thats been told over and over again. The guys got together. They broke up. Like Lennon said. The dream is over. Get over it. Next." was how the article made me feel. So some guy read some books about the Beatles and wrote a fairly vapid article.  Oh well.  Not to denigrate your pointing me at it at all.  And of course the on-line article is not the same thing you read in your print version, from what I can tell.  The on-line one was 2/6 (the last two pages) lame quotes, many not even "real", but hearsay ("John said '....'", said so and so).  I guess that's the trouble with anniversaries of long-tired topics (the Beatles' break-up, not Woodstock) - people who are old enough to have been there churning out repetitive articles on long-dead topics.  Anyway, as I always say, Ringo did give us a drum solo - in "A Day in the Life"; and the Beatles did have a reunion - we know it as "Abbey Road".  And Paul has apologised profusely for being a prick; John likewise, although his apologies were cut short.  The Concert for George showed who really made and kept friends in such a difficult business, though. Human 06:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I DID say it was "a decent story" not "the most bestest and greatest piece of ground-breaking music journalism I've ever read in my life." Interesting--in the full version--how the author on one hand tries to deflect as much blame off of Yoko as he can, while on the other hand being forced by the facts on the ground to reveal how her and John's relationship was, to all appearances, a co-dependent mess that seemed to aggravate whatever problems he had with the other guys in the band in the first place. The whole bit about "silent communication," the constant staring into each other's eyes and whispering to each other while ostensibly in social intercourse with other people reminded me of the reason why I've seen folks who wanted to drop friends until those friends got rid of their horrible new partners--but eventually realised the problem wasn't really the new girl/boyfriend at all. TheoryOfPractice 21:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Beatles?
Not sure why someone would give a Welshman living in teh US a shoutout on this. What would be your reaction if I were to say that "The Beatles are the greatest band that have ever, or will ever exist on this or any other planet"? SuspectedReplicant 20:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say have you ever heard of the Who?! SuperJosh 20:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The whom???? SuspectedReplicant 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many bands who have produced good material but the Beatles - in conjunction with George Martin - have had such a wide-ranging influence on the whole of the music industry that only Brian Wilson can approach their pre-eminence in popular music. I think that Howard Goodall's series about the greats of 20th century music on Channel 4 a couple of years ago was the definitive verdict on this. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah... Human 00:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That series was great - this is the first time I've come across someone else who saw it. Totnesmartin 08:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was indeed great. So was his other one on the history of music, including some fascinating stuff on how Bach was clever enough to get around the musical censorship imposed on him by the church. I can't remember the details now, though... something about producing "forbidden" chords by playing notes on two different instruments. SuspectedReplicant 08:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Not quite, but I was nearly right. SuspectedReplicant 10:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

One thing I will say, is that the odds of virtually anyone alive in the Western world having a favorite Beatles song or Beatles album is very high (Schlafly statistic invoked). That probably can't be said of any other recording artistes of the 20th century. Except perhaps the two other Gods of 20th cy. pop music, Elvis and Bob. Human 08:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Song: A Day in the Life. Album: Revolver (just - Rubber Soul pushes it close). But the greatest ever record of ANY type is the double A-side single Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane, which - as I'm sure you know - was their first single not to hit #1 since Love Me Do (or Please Please Me, depending on the chart you use). SuspectedReplicant 20:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And that single would have been on Sgt Pepper if the thing hadn't taken so long to record. It's fun to play around with what Pepper could have been if those two songs were on it.  And perhaps close side one with All You Need Is Love. Human 22:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True. If Pepper had those three on and lost She's Leaving Home, Within You Without You and Good Morning Good Morning, it would probably be my favourite. SuspectedReplicant 06:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a favourite Dylan song, but I do have a favourite Half Man Half Biscuit song. Does this count? Totnesmartin 20:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Human 22:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

When RationalWiki comes back...
We really ought to create a WIGO:WikiSynergy. I think, at this point, they've earned it.Gooniepunk2005 01:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, although it might not be main page-ready. Because most of what "goes on at WS" is, well, you and me dealing with trolls? Human 03:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I agree. But we should create one, just the same, if are going to have socks there anyways.Gooniepunk2005 04:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Socks? They aren't "cockpuppets" if we tell them who we are and use our "typical" usernames. Cockpuppets are usernames created to parrot views espoused... oh, fook, please, look up cockpuppet on wikipedia.  Or better yet, sockpuppet. Human 05:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you're right. But, at least you gt the point I was trying to get across. Would avatars work better, perhaps?Gooniepunk2005 05:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, giant, flying, animatron avatars with huge claws. And moldy green geese poop and guts to feed the cats. Human 05:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Moldy green goose poop, eh? I guess he was just like real geese: he certainly left a goose sh*t-covered wiki in his wake.Gooniepunk2005 06:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it beats watching paint dry, but only just. Toast
 * Hey, we are totally amusing! Did you watch the gangrene meltdown? Human 05:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite interesting, really. I misunderstand green goose, and call him a narcissistic hypocrite.  He gets pissed off and started bitching about my name calling.  Being a reasonable man, I apologize, and he agrees to a truce.  Not 48 hour later, he's busy attacking me and slandering me over what I apologized for, and goes so far as to cyberstalk me at my myspace.  I respond by counter-attack, and fend the little bastard off by myself for over an hour until Purple Scissor shows up, and that coward runs away scared.  Unfortunately, I don't think that will be the last of him at WikiSynergy, and my crystal ball forsees another wandal joining us RationalWiki once it's back up.  Fortunately, though, he'd be playing on our turf there.Gooniepunk2005 06:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you were probably right about GG with your MC guess Goonie. Tedious little wankers like that I can find outside any bar at 03:45 on a Sunday morning. The rest of the site seems to be a load of Poe challenged persons more self opinionated than me (if that's possible) Toast 06:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but the rest of them, at least, seem to at least not be nearly as hypocritical as goose poop. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who detected some MarcusCicero tact in his bullsh*t.Gooniepunk2005 06:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, could we have one WIGO for ASK and WS? Something like WIGOwikis? It doesn't seem that either has enough traffic to sustain its own WIGO.Sterile 14:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge them into wigoclogs or a similar? Sounds about right.  Let's come up with a funny name for it, though.  WIGOslickys? (no) Human 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So much for neding to watch WikiSynergy....Gooniepunk2005 05:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get PS to be less of a Proxima "there are banhammers under my bed" Centauri chicken and re-implement the site. It's a damn shame that some stupid bullies could do this. Human 05:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Unwelcome reversions
Please refrain from removing factual edits to this encyclopedia or reevaluate your participation. Godspeed! 24.14.72.223 04:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Begone, ye communist Maoist fascist evolutionist atheist troll! Hehe... Human 04:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sysop
Looking at recent changes I see some revisions of "work" by a BON. In case it needs a stronger response I have given you the powers to do so.--Bob M 07:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for this honor. I'd like to thank the Academy, and my parents, family, and close friends.  I hope I wear this badge in the manner that is expected of me, and if there are any parades I am obligated to wave from, I will be there.  Anyway, thanks, Bob.  I think the BON was probably one of us anyway, but again, thanks for the laurels. Human 07:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn, now I have red exclamation points in RC! It makes me want to sysop all those trolls so I can ignore their work. Ah, Bob, it's been nice here in your holiday camp (the toilets are fairly clean, and the beaches are almost as much so), but I long for home... ah, home, where my music's playing, where my stove is singing, where my booze is waiting... silently for me.  Homeward bound, I wish I was, homeward bound... Human 08:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that I look at recent changes I guess the BON was. I just saw the reversions and thought somebody was doing something naughty.--Bob M 09:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Lumenos
I guess I owe you an apology. I thought he was funny at first going on about being unable to make https connections to wikis, security holes and his stupid wiki about... I have no idea what, but seeing the way he wikilawyers over at wikiindex I can see you were right about the premature sysopping at RW. If during your next drunken escapade when you are desysopping PC and you should happen to desysop him, I won't object ;) Pi 07:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very nice of you to say. I have actually been thinking of a new HCM at RW when it's back - "reasons to promote janitors to editors", and I think one is "bragging about adminning RW elsewhere".  Of course, we'd also have to edit the sysop guideline page.  And argue for days if not weeks.  Oh how I love those week-long arguments.  Seriously, I still have an open tab where I'm not sure if you're right or I am.  I keep it for the brains fix.  Anyway, as far as Lumenos, yeah, it's pulling a power play over at wikiindex, which I really don't care about, the only reason I ever went there was that Barbara Shack Proxima Centuari whinged at us on RW about some tripe.  By the way, at wikiindex, some axehandle edited my comments on my own talk page to remove "you freak" because I guess it was dirty language.  We need to start reporting on WI it WIGOwikis once RW is back.  Oh, were you apologizing for something?  Nevermind, all is forgiven, surely I have made ten times as many mistakes as you.  But it was very Gentlemanly of you to post this comment, oh irrational but mathematically definable one. Human 07:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, I have bragged about being a bureaucrat a few times. Phantom Hoover 17:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We shall have to demote you for that when we get back :) Pi 00:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nowhere to demote a 'crat to - I think you mean "promote"... Human 00:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Supercrat? Pi 00:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cabal? Hinthinthint! Phantom Hoover 07:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There Is No Cabal! :) Human 07:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there isn't. Hinthinthinthint! Phantom Hoover 07:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One does not seek The Cabal; The Cabal seeks them (if it so wishes). Pi 08:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of doing a catalogue of previous HCMs that related to community standards, grouping links to previous discussion under recurring themes, e.g, privacy, editing rights. I am kind of playing with the idea of listing them Supreme Court style Blog vs The Mob (obviously the mob always wins) with a quick description of the outcome, e.g; Pi vs The Mob Outcome: TOR nodes should not be blocked for simply being TOR nodes and bots can be demoted for sysop abuse the same as any other editor, regardless of their function. I suppose CUR vs The Mob had the precedent that you can receive punitive for off site behaviour if you falsely claim you are representing RationalWiki with your actions. I figured if people are going to wikilawyer we might as well give them a resource to do it properly. Pi 09:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your idea, Pi. We would be our own RWW, reporting on ourselves.  Very good idea. Human 08:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did think of it being a bit RWW like, but if we can't analyse ourselves, how can we analyse others? Pi 08:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got some really wacked out guitars playing over my head right now... so, oh, yeah. Of course we can, and we can do it better than RWW ever dreamed of. Ooooh, more guitars... Human 09:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And we can't host this stuff at RWW because...? Phantom Hoover 12:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because nobody goes there. Human 22:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have just demonstrated that there is a reason to edit RWW; why not edit there? Why not use the site specifically created for this sort of thing? Phantom Hoover 22:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's easier and more fun to do it on RW. It gets more people's attention and input. Human 22:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is space in the universe for two wikis reporting on RW.--Bob M 20:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am really just aiming to catalogue our old policy debates in such a way that anyone interested in following the back can do so. The reason for doing it on RationalWiki is that this is going to be a meta-look at our meta-space and I would like meta-meta-meta-input. Pi 23:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WIGO wikis would be awesome. We could merge ASK into it and report on any thing that isn't CP (the only one that seems to be able to support itself). Wikisphere or is that meme a little old? Wikiworld? Pi 09:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Godspeed, trustworthy, gentlemen
Godspeed trustworthy gentlemen, let nothing you dismay For Aschlafly our saviour has many things to say How vaccinated liberals destroy the USA Oh, insights of comfort and joy, comfort and joy Oh, Andy's a chivalrous boy.

Totnesmartin 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

MOAR MOAR MOAR!!111!11!11!oneone111!!!     Theemperor 01:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to do some more when RW is back up. A page of CP-related carols would be brilliang! And it could haz votes? Totnesmartin 07:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it kan haz votez. Why else do we write anymore? Human 08:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)