freenode #wikipedia

2008-02-07 10:24 < IronManMario> ???
2008-02-07 10:25 < TheWeasel> the Liquid Oil Agricultural Use Act... I do come across some obscure legislation today
2008-02-07 10:25 < TheWeasel> *liquid gas
2008-02-07 10:26 < TheWeasel> Oh, turns out it's gaseous oil after all, go figure
2008-02-07 10:26 < IronManMario> heh all it did was make it go really slow
2008-02-07 10:30 < cimon> "Rabbits are easily trained to use a litter box and can learn to come when called." - heh, am I the only one who thinks this is ambiguos phrasing?
2008-02-07 10:31 < Cometstyles> can they roll over and play dead ?
2008-02-07 10:36 < TheWeasel> We had a rabbit and we would always get her back to her cave by unexpectedly throwing a blanket on her
2008-02-07 10:36 < TheWeasel> *cage
2008-02-07 10:36 < TheWeasel> which is when she would lie motionlessly
2008-02-07 10:37 < TheWeasel> and could be easily picked up
2008-02-07 10:37 < bumm13> domestic rabbits are weird
2008-02-07 10:37 < fajro> Domestic aligators are weird
2008-02-07 10:38 < NotACow> rabbigators?
2008-02-07 10:38 < downs> hi
2008-02-07 10:38 < fajro> hi
2008-02-07 10:38 < downs> The element.png image on the JSP wikipedia page got overwritten by the ElementOS logo with the same name.
2008-02-07 10:38 < TheWeasel> if one tried to catch her without the use of darkness, she would run around in terror
2008-02-07 10:39 < downs> I'm trying to re-upload it under a new name, but WP seems to be unable to show me the license status of an overwritten upload.
2008-02-07 10:39 < downs> Any ideas?
2008-02-07 10:39 < downs> The image is really quite trivial (a box with a letter in), so should I just guess at GPL?
2008-02-07 10:40 < NotACow> downs: doctrine of merger
2008-02-07 10:40 < downs> ?
2008-02-07 10:40 < NotACow> downs: uncopyrightable.
2008-02-07 10:40 < downs> oh, goodie.
2008-02-07 10:40 < downs> so what license should I select?
2008-02-07 10:40 < TheWeasel> The word "uncopyrightable" is thrown around a lot these days, but...
2008-02-07 10:40 < NotACow> a "box with a letter in" is probably not copyrightable if it's typeset in an ordinary font and in an unremarkable way
2008-02-07 10:41 < downs> yep
2008-02-07 10:41 < downs> I mean, WP requires a license for an upload.
2008-02-07 10:41 < NotACow> there's a public domain-uncopyrightable somewhere
2008-02-07 10:41 < downs> looky
2008-02-07 10:41 < NotACow> pd-ineligible, i think
2008-02-07 10:41 < cimon> Here is another one that whould be lolcated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DSC6270.jpg
2008-02-07 10:41 < downs> nope
2008-02-07 10:41 < downs> "public domain- not covered by copyright"
2008-02-07 10:41 < downs> the only sub-option is "created by the govt"
2008-02-07 10:41 < NotACow> cimon: not a cat
2008-02-07 10:42 < downs> and the dropdown box doesn't let me select anything but sub-options
2008-02-07 10:42 < NotACow> downs: so upload it with some other license and then change it afterrwards.
2008-02-07 10:42 < TheWeasel> cimon: OH HAI, U GOTS KEY, AMIRITE?
2008-02-07 10:42 < downs> okay
2008-02-07 10:42 < cimon> NotACow: there are dogs and ferrets that has lolcatted
2008-02-07 10:42 < bumm13> TheWeasel - :\
2008-02-07 10:42 < downs> and walruses
2008-02-07 10:42 < Snowolf> cimon: something about bans/blocks maybe
2008-02-07 10:43 < cimon> Snowolf or forgetting password
2008-02-07 10:43 < downs> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Element_Jackson.png okay
2008-02-07 10:44 < cimon> downs: linky to walrus lolcat?
2008-02-07 10:44 < downs> icanhascheezburger.com
2008-02-07 10:44 < downs> has plenty
2008-02-07 10:44 < downs> or just google "stealin mah bucket"
2008-02-07 10:44 < TheWeasel> yea, the bucket thing
2008-02-07 10:45 < TheWeasel> Walcat?
2008-02-07 10:45 < downs> lolrus
2008-02-07 10:45 < TheWeasel> Or, even better... precisely.
2008-02-07 10:46 < TheWeasel> Are there eggmen who are not walruses?
2008-02-07 10:46 < downs> ... okay, now something broke completely.
2008-02-07 10:46 < downs> Suddenly, the original Element.png is not referenced anywhere anymore
2008-02-07 10:47 < downs> and wikipedia thinks it's 96x58 pixels
2008-02-07 10:47 < downs> (the size of the original Element.png)
2008-02-07 10:47 < downs> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Element.png#filehistory
2008-02-07 10:48 < downs> what the *bleep bleep*?
2008-02-07 10:48 < downs> Wikipedia image uploading/renaming seems broken in interesting ways.
2008-02-07 10:48 < downs> halp?
2008-02-07 10:50 < bumm13> renaming?
2008-02-07 10:50 < downs> I re-uploaded the original Element.png under a different name.
2008-02-07 10:50 < downs> that's the first link.
2008-02-07 10:50 < bumm13> ah ok
2008-02-07 10:50 < downs> no, not okay
2008-02-07 10:50 < downs> because that _somehow_ broke the original image.
2008-02-07 10:50 < downs> I mean, the overwritten version.
2008-02-07 10:51 < downs> .. overwriting version
2008-02-07 10:51 < downs> oh, and the page that referenced the original image seems to have mysteriously vanished.
2008-02-07 10:54 < downs> okay, this needs some naming conventions.
2008-02-07 10:54 < downs> A is the original Element.png, for the JSP article.
2008-02-07 10:55 < downs> B is the overwriting image, also Element.png, for the now vanished ElementOS(?) article
2008-02-07 10:55 < downs> A' is my reupload of A under a new name, Element_Jackson.png
2008-02-07 10:55 < fajro> mmm
2008-02-07 10:55 < downs> apparently the A' upload has destroyed B.
2008-02-07 10:55 < fajro> Why you don't use commons?
2008-02-07 10:55 < downs> and A too; it's not in B's history anymore.
2008-02-07 10:56 < downs> because the original images were both on wikipedia.
2008-02-07 10:56 < fajro> and?
2008-02-07 10:56 < downs> maybe I misunderstand what you mean.
2008-02-07 10:56 < downs> explain please?
2008-02-07 10:57 < fajro> Are you uploading pictures to wikipedia?
2008-02-07 10:57 < downs> well yes
2008-02-07 10:57 < downs> A', to be exact.
2008-02-07 10:57 < downs> A and B were uploaded by others.
2008-02-07 10:58 < fajro> if it is free licenced you could upload it to commons and it could be used by all the other wikipedias
2008-02-07 10:58 < downs> I don't know how it's licensed.
2008-02-07 10:58 < downs> That's irrelevant anyway.
2008-02-07 10:58 < fajro> no
2008-02-07 10:58 < downs> Yes it is. Somehow, a presumably unrelated image upload destroyed a wikipedia entry and a file history.
2008-02-07 10:59 < downs> That's the problem, not whether I should have uploaded it to Commons.
2008-02-07 11:00 < downs> actually, seeing how the OS thingie in question isn't showing up in google, I'm beginning to question my sanity.
2008-02-07 11:01 < fajro> i know, but if the image is useful and is uploaded in commons, we can use it in the other wikipedias
2008-02-07 11:01 < downs> hm
2008-02-07 11:01 < downs> okay, the problem is different.
2008-02-07 11:01 < downs> the glowy ball image seems gone completely.
2008-02-07 11:01 < downs> fajro, it's a box. with an 'A' in it.
2008-02-07 11:01 < fajro> xD
2008-02-07 11:01 * downs thought it had gotten corrupted because it's still in his browser cache
2008-02-07 11:02 < downs> on reload, it appears the original glowy ball is gone completely.
2008-02-07 11:02 < downs> looks like somebody deleted the article.
2008-02-07 11:02 < bumm13> Element.png and Element_article.png both appear at my end
2008-02-07 11:02 < downs> yes.
2008-02-07 11:02 < downs> bumm13, both look like the [A] right?
2008-02-07 11:02 < GaryKing> Hey guys, how do I report a user that spams other users' discussion pages?
2008-02-07 11:03 < Sfan00> GaryKing; {{uw-spam}} thier talk page>
2008-02-07 11:03 < Sfan00> ?
2008-02-07 11:04 < downs> ahhh!
2008-02-07 11:04 < downs> (Deletion log); 15:43 . . Pegasus (Talk | contribs) (deleted "Element Browser": content was: '#REDIRECT Element Browser (web browser)' (and the only contributor was 'Patternjake'))
2008-02-07 11:04 < GaryKing> Sfan00: Okay; I've got a guy that is posting a link to their site on other people's talk pages
2008-02-07 11:04 < downs> found it!
2008-02-07 11:04 < Sfan00> Village Pump
2008-02-07 11:04 < Sfan00> ?
2008-02-07 11:04 < Sfan00> WP:ANI?
2008-02-07 11:04 < downs> okay, it wasn't my fault at all
2008-02-07 11:04 < downs> :happy:
2008-02-07 11:05 < downs> somebody deleted the original page the very minute I made my changes.
2008-02-07 11:05 < GaryKing> Sfan00: lol, too many options for *anything* on wikipedia
2008-02-07 11:05 < downs> meh, things are worky now. no need for further changes. :happy:
2008-02-07 11:06 < bumm13> that's good :)
2008-02-07 11:07 < Sfan00> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm - What shame Rown Wilams had to say what he did rather than being tactful :(
2008-02-07 11:08 < TheWeasel> heh
2008-02-07 11:08 < TheWeasel> that sounds like cynical humour
2008-02-07 11:10 < Sfan00> Countries rely on there being 'one' law
2008-02-07 11:10 < Sfan00> but what two parties use in dispute resoloution isn't a matter for the cival laws unless it breaches that law
2008-02-07 11:10 < TheWeasel> He doesn't say there should be concurrent law
2008-02-07 11:11 < TheWeasel> He says that other legal traditions should be integrated into the existent one.
2008-02-07 11:11 < Sfan00> Then he's effectivly subscribibg to a dnagerous theocratic veiwpoint
2008-02-07 11:11 < Sfan00> :(
2008-02-07 11:11 < TheWeasel> heh, religion is what he does
2008-02-07 11:12 < TheWeasel> this is not about Islam though as much as it is about social cohesion
2008-02-07 11:12 < Sfan00> Would he for example support the purtian view about banning theatres for example?
2008-02-07 11:12 < Sfan00> :)
2008-02-07 11:12 < TheWeasel> if there were more Buddhists in Britain, they'd have to incorporate Buddhist ideas
2008-02-07 11:12 < Sfan00> That's hardly a big stretch outside Chirsitan thinking but would work fo including such groups in societey
2008-02-07 11:13 < TheWeasel> Yay for the English Mullah Omar, Olly Cromwell
2008-02-07 11:14 < Sfan00> Also do you really want some crazy cult to directly influence legal policy?
2008-02-07 11:14 < TheWeasel> he's not saying "introduce Sharia", he's saying people should probably be allowed to legally go about things their way
2008-02-07 11:14 < TheWeasel> not when it clashes with human rights
2008-02-07 11:14 < TheWeasel> Sfan00: Christianity has informed all public law reasoning for the last 1500 years.
2008-02-07 11:15 < Sfan00> True, hes's not syaing Sharia whoudl eb intoruducd but he does seem to be saying it would be accpetable to let different cultural tradations settle things from THIER sometime objectionable veiwpoints
2008-02-07 11:15 < TheWeasel> with mixed results, granted.
2008-02-07 11:15 < Sfan00> How did Spain under the Moor's operate?
2008-02-07 11:15 < TheWeasel> It's more about technical things I guess
2008-02-07 11:15 < TheWeasel> not get an English marriage to be legally recognized
2008-02-07 11:15 < Sfan00> Givne that there was a conlfict between Christian , Jewish and Islamic laws?
2008-02-07 11:16 < TheWeasel> the law is made by those who have the power
2008-02-07 11:16 < TheWeasel> in this case, the Arabs.
2008-02-07 11:17 < Sfan00> In any case The Rev Willams comments are unhelpful as they will be seized on by tabloids out to stir up trouble
2008-02-07 11:17 < TheWeasel> Right.
2008-02-07 11:17 < TheWeasel> The idea is fairly stupid, mind you.
2008-02-07 11:17 < TheWeasel> But he's not calling for the stoning of adulterers exactly :-)
2008-02-07 11:18 < Sfan00> Well obviously not, but then the Christian church doesn't exactly have a good record on being tolerant over the long term
2008-02-07 11:18 < Sfan00> ;)
2008-02-07 11:18 < TheWeasel> I think Sir Rowan gets hammered for being too liberal mostly
2008-02-07 11:18 < Sfan00> I wonder however if he's really thought it through
2008-02-07 11:19 < TheWeasel> think he did. It's one of those thoughts that are too broad.
2008-02-07 11:19 < Sfan00> I mean as I said if you let religous groups have a say in defining legal traditons would you really want Wiccans able to say a secualr festival liek Haloween was unreasonable?
2008-02-07 11:19 < TheWeasel> If they have a democratic mandate, then yes.
2008-02-07 11:19 < Sfan00> COuncils are quite prepared to nix Christamas lights as it is :)
2008-02-07 11:20 < TheWeasel> If not, it will stay a (valid) suggestion.
2008-02-07 11:20 < TheWeasel> heh, not a problem in Germany
2008-02-07 11:20 < Sfan00> but councils don't ban public schools from having Halloween stuff even though it's offensive to some Wiccans
2008-02-07 11:20 < TheWeasel> we're distinctly non-secular
2008-02-07 11:20 < Sfan00> :O
2008-02-07 11:20 < TheWeasel> the churches are mentioned loads of times
2008-02-07 11:20 < TheWeasel> in the Basic Law
2008-02-07 11:20 < TheWeasel> In America, it would be offensive to Christians.
2008-02-07 11:21 < Sfan00> Hmm
2008-02-07 11:22 < TheWeasel> but then, America is distinctly secular
2008-02-07 11:22 < TheWeasel> the UK doesn't even have a constitution
2008-02-07 11:22 < TheWeasel> and is quasi-Anglican by government
2008-02-07 11:22 < ggreer> america is secular?
2008-02-07 11:23 < TheWeasel> Constitutionally, yes.
2008-02-07 11:23 < ggreer> you could have fooled me with all those evangelicals in the south
2008-02-07 11:23 < TheWeasel> well, I'm talking de iure
2008-02-07 11:23 < ggreer> oh, yeah, but the constitution is more like a guideline :/
2008-02-07 11:23 < TheWeasel> it's the difference between having Halloween shut down by the police and having Halloween shut down by an angry mob
2008-02-07 11:24 < TheWeasel> (in public places)
2008-02-07 11:24 < ggreer> although I thought the constitution said something like "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land"
2008-02-07 11:25 < TheWeasel> yea. Constitutional law only binds the state though.
2008-02-07 11:25 < TheWeasel> that's why it's an issue at school, but not at home
2008-02-07 11:25 < ggreer> TheWeasel: it also doesn't stop the supreme court from just making stuff up
2008-02-07 11:26 < TheWeasel> and the crosses in courtrooms are so obviously unconstitutional, Roy Moore is just making an ass out of himself
2008-02-07 11:26 < Sfan00> As are the Ten Commandments
2008-02-07 11:26 < TheWeasel> hehe... we call it "interpretation praeter legem"
2008-02-07 11:26 < Sfan00> Prayers in Public Schools
2008-02-07 11:26 < TheWeasel> praeter legem = above and beyond the law
2008-02-07 11:26 < Sfan00> And giving Bibles to Prisoners in fedral priosns aparrently
2008-02-07 11:26 < Sfan00> :)
2008-02-07 11:26 < TheWeasel> Yea... the Christian Nation notion is strong though
2008-02-07 11:26 < Sfan00> Not that the last one is ever actually brought up
2008-02-07 11:26 < Sfan00> :)
2008-02-07 11:27 < ggreer> I liked that one religion made up by prisoners
2008-02-07 11:27 < ggreer> it was called Church of the New Song (CoNS), and it said something like they had to have steak every friday night or something
2008-02-07 11:27 < ggreer> obviously they did not get steak
2008-02-07 11:27 < ggreer> but it was a good try
2008-02-07 11:27 < bumm13> heh
2008-02-07 11:27 < fajro> xD
2008-02-07 11:28 < TheWeasel> freedom of religion is always a defensive right
2008-02-07 11:28 < TheWeasel> you can never claim anything for it
2008-02-07 11:28 < TheWeasel> you can sometimes get preferential treatment compared to non-religions
2008-02-07 11:28 < TheWeasel> for example make noise with church bells
2008-02-07 11:29 < TheWeasel> but mostly it's something that mustn't be hampered, not something that has to be supplied with steaks
2008-02-07 11:29 < ggreer> yeah, and it was obvious the prisoners were just trying to get steak on fridays
2008-02-07 11:29 < TheWeasel> hey, it was worth a try :-)
2008-02-07 11:30 < ggreer> I almost wish that case had gone to the supreme court, to hear scalia joke about it
2008-02-07 11:30 < ggreer> that guy cracks me up
2008-02-07 11:30 < Sfan00> And yet the US recognies all kinds of crazy religons :)
2008-02-07 11:30 < TheWeasel> Scalia loves preferential treatment for religious nuts.
2008-02-07 11:30 < TheWeasel> so much for "strict constructionism"
2008-02-07 11:30 < ggreer> yeah
2008-02-07 11:31 < TheWeasel> which is something someone made up to call his own interpretations praeter legem seem to be the only literal ones.
2008-02-07 11:31 < ggreer> if you read his book A Matter of Interpretation, the method for interpreting law he talks about is pretty sane
2008-02-07 11:31 < ggreer> too bad he doesn't follow it
2008-02-07 11:31 < TheWeasel> That would be because it is impossible.
2008-02-07 11:32 < TheWeasel> *no* legal system can make due without some stretching of the textual basis.
2008-02-07 11:32 < ggreer> I think he agreed in the book, but said we should try to be as close as possible to the original interpretation of the laws
2008-02-07 11:33 < TheWeasel> I don't believe in that at all
2008-02-07 11:33 < TheWeasel> it negates all the developments that have happened in the last 300 years.
2008-02-07 11:33 < ggreer> well then the text of the law means nothing and it's up to judges to decide what's right and wrong
2008-02-07 11:33 < TheWeasel> no
2008-02-07 11:34 < TheWeasel> the text has to be interpreted in more than one way
2008-02-07 11:34 < ggreer> if they interpret the same law differently over time, then that law might as well not exist
2008-02-07 11:34 < ggreer> because the judges just redefine it willy-nilly
2008-02-07 11:34 < TheWeasel> hah, thats a very common law kind of thinking
2008-02-07 11:34 < TheWeasel> no
2008-02-07 11:34 < TheWeasel> there's still a text
2008-02-07 11:34 < TheWeasel> it alone is just not that helpful
2008-02-07 11:35 < TheWeasel> there are a few questions to be asked beyond semantics
2008-02-07 11:35 < ggreer> correct, but if the meaning of the text changes without the text changing, then for what purpose does the text exist?
2008-02-07 11:35 < TheWeasel> the historical interpretation in the strict sense is not constructionist either.
2008-02-07 11:35 < ggreer> oh?
2008-02-07 11:35 < TheWeasel> To set a value
2008-02-07 11:35 < TheWeasel> you can't turn the text into its opposite
2008-02-07 11:35 < ggreer> actually you can
2008-02-07 11:35 < ggreer> see: 2nd amendment
2008-02-07 11:36 < TheWeasel> You can, but then you aren't worth your pay
2008-02-07 11:36 < TheWeasel> there has to be some basic trust
2008-02-07 11:36 < ggreer> heh
2008-02-07 11:36 < Demi> linkedin is another of those dumb sites
2008-02-07 11:36 < ggreer> I think scalia's argument has a point, but he's such a hypocrite when it comes to following it
2008-02-07 11:36 < Demi> where you can't enter your login info on the first, obvious page but have to navigate to a second
2008-02-07 11:37 < ggreer> well, I have to head to work, bbiab
2008-02-07 11:37 < TheWeasel> I wouldn't want to live in a land whose highest court interprets your rights through the spectacles of 1775.
2008-02-07 11:37 < TheWeasel> ok
2008-02-07 11:38 < Leslie_S> WTF? why do people think we need a windows toolserver?
2008-02-07 11:38 < Demi> in my world, it's a hanging offense to steal your horse or wagon; but it's okay to take your car.
2008-02-07 11:39 < TheWeasel> In Scalia's world, Thomas Jefferson knew people would want to own personal bazookas.
2008-02-07 11:39 < avar> where's the page that explains what you have to do if you use gfdl images from wikipedia (or any sounce)
2008-02-07 11:39 < avar> *source
2008-02-07 11:39 < TheWeasel> In Kansas.
2008-02-07 11:40 < TheWeasel> (that referred to the above, not your question :-) )
2008-02-07 11:40 < Demi> forget about bazookas, it's all about strategic bombers and ICBMs
2008-02-07 11:41 < Demi> that's what always gets me about the "we need guns to overthrow the government" people--the kinds of weapons you can do that with are not the kind of weapons people generally think should be legal
2008-02-07 11:41 < bumm13> assault rifles seem more common in Somalia than in everyday-life U.S.
2008-02-07 11:41 < Demi> (explosives, mostly)
2008-02-07 11:42 < bumm13> hiya Demi
2008-02-07 11:42 < Demi> bumm13 - Somalia: Libertarian Paradise
2008-02-07 11:42 < Demi> hi bumm13
2008-02-07 11:42 < bumm13> heh
2008-02-07 11:42 < TheWeasel> I was being satirical.
2008-02-07 11:42 < bumm13> suuuuuuuuure ;)
2008-02-07 11:42 < Demi> yes, it's a good point, though, TheWeasel
2008-02-07 11:42 * TheWeasel pleads the 21st
2008-02-07 11:42 < TheWeasel> Cheers.
2008-02-07 11:43 < bumm13> the majority of American will never own anything more powerfule than a rifle or medium-sized handgun
2008-02-07 11:43 < bumm13> most won't even own one of the latter
2008-02-07 11:43 < Demi> let's say you have a law against document fraud? it's pretty clear that it should in some sense apply to electronic documents, even if the law was written referring specifically to paper documents. words have no naked semantic meaning, they can only be understood in a context.
2008-02-07 11:43 < bumm13> *Americans
2008-02-07 11:44 < Demi> (there is a term for that--hermeneutics? something? it's a pet subject of robert lefkowitz)
2008-02-07 11:44 < TheWeasel> Demi: That's a huge problem
2008-02-07 11:44 < TheWeasel> those things are really hard to transfer
2008-02-07 11:44 < TheWeasel> many unsatisfactory exonerations here, before they made special laws for it
2008-02-07 11:44 < Demi> bumm13 - right; and the uses they might put them to don't include overthrowing the government, except in their fantasies. most use them for hunting or as a hedge to self-defense.
2008-02-07 11:45 < TheWeasel> Or when the tax collector enters the premises
2008-02-07 11:45 < TheWeasel> (if, you know, he gets past the landmines)
2008-02-07 11:45 < ggreer> ... and we're back
2008-02-07 11:46 < Demi> the u.s. constitution is a nice document exactly because it's vague and open to interpretation. it's short and sweet. we had an exercise here in citizen discussion about a new city charter--and it's crazy the kind of specific things people wanted to put in it.
2008-02-07 11:46 < bumm13> my issue isn't so much the "right of individuals to bear arms" but the fact that the U.S. government really wouldn't want a coalition of armed citizen groups (a collective) to challenge it if it (gov't.) completely failed and became tyrannical
2008-02-07 11:46 < TheWeasel> (...exonerations because you couldn't subsume the digital crimes under the pen-and-paper laws)
2008-02-07 11:46 < bumm13> and people saying the the National Guard = such a collective of armed persons is silly
2008-02-07 11:46 < TheWeasel> bumm13: Especially because armed mobs don't ask for a nationwide vote before doing so
2008-02-07 11:47 < ggreer> Demi: yes, I like how short it is. also the text is simple enough that almost anyone can read and understand it
2008-02-07 11:47 < Demi> bumm13 - in my mind, an armed revolution would take place because the military *is* the people, they would be the people either downing arms because they won't repress the people, or taking up arms against "the government"
2008-02-07 11:47 < drama> I got a question
2008-02-07 11:47 < TheWeasel> But then your constitution leaves out many things
2008-02-07 11:47 < TheWeasel> that others contain
2008-02-07 11:47 < TheWeasel> the minutiae of government
2008-02-07 11:48 < TheWeasel> it's really more a question of sorting things right
2008-02-07 11:48 < TheWeasel> the constitutional rights are in articles 1-19 in Germany, which is where the laypeople look.
2008-02-07 11:48 < Demi> TheWeasel - the idea is that the principles of the founding document guide you, but the specific rules and regulations--the "how" you protect freedom of speech or whatever--are left up to softer, more easily modified laws
2008-02-07 11:49 < TheWeasel> Yea, but to categorize what into what category is a huge issue
2008-02-07 11:49 < TheWeasel> I just had a seminar about it
2008-02-07 11:49 < Demi> that's why i have no problem with the idea that the nature of constitutional protections, the exact from they take, might change over time
2008-02-07 11:49 < TheWeasel> yea... rights have to be formulated broadly
2008-02-07 11:49 < TheWeasel> but procedures the other way round
2008-02-07 11:49 < TheWeasel> and boy can you do mischief with changing procedures at will
2008-02-07 11:50 < bumm13> I personally take issue with many in our government saying that "only our version of what a militia is is valid" (National Guard, etc.)
2008-02-07 11:50 < ggreer> Demi: I believe in the banality of evil (to steal a phrase from hanah arendt). normal people in the military can be trained to do terrible things to civilians
2008-02-07 11:50 < TheWeasel> I'm not in on that discussion
2008-02-07 11:50 * bumm13 notes that a militia isn't an armed mob, which I have no qualms with those being put down
2008-02-07 11:50 < TheWeasel> (the firearms one)
2008-02-07 11:51 < Demi> TheWeasel - yes, i see that; and taking the u.s. constitution as an example those are places where it is specific
2008-02-07 11:51 < Dramallama> bumm13, are admins able to see deleted pages?
2008-02-07 11:51 < TheWeasel> Vigilantism is one of the worst scourges of an undergoverned polity.
2008-02-07 11:51 < bumm13> Dramallama: yes
2008-02-07 11:51 < bumm13> TheWeasel: I agree
2008-02-07 11:51 < TheWeasel> It's one of the social phenomena I'm personally most afraid of
2008-02-07 11:51 < Dramallama> oh
2008-02-07 11:52 < TheWeasel> Yep, I wish ours included more procedures.
2008-02-07 11:52 < bumm13> ok....
2008-02-07 11:52 < TheWeasel> It was written up in a few month, they didn't expect it to have to last more than a few years
2008-02-07 11:52 < TheWeasel> it's been in place for almost sixty now
2008-02-07 11:52 < Demi> bumm13 - i can conceive of that, but such militias need to be well-organized and accountable; building up a private armed body (whether it's Blackwater or The Montana Minutemen) is inherently suspicious to me, so they would need to serve some public interest or function.
2008-02-07 11:52 < TheWeasel> and it's a remarkable, remarkable document for that
2008-02-07 11:53 < TheWeasel> Demi: And there must be strict procedures in place to hold them accountable
2008-02-07 11:53 < ggreer> I thought "the militia" referred to any male of fighting age (sorry girls 2nd amendment says you can't have guns)
2008-02-07 11:53 < TheWeasel> no free market there.
2008-02-07 11:53 < Demi> ggreer - the 9th circuit court has held that women can carry firearms if they also wear a well-regulated strap-on
2008-02-07 11:54 < TheWeasel> Better stay away from those who carry 'round the firehose
2008-02-07 11:54 < ggreer> Demi: that sounds exactly like a 9th circuit decision :)
2008-02-07 11:54 < TheWeasel> Which is the Ninth?
2008-02-07 11:55 < ggreer> the west half of the US, pretty much
2008-02-07 11:55 < TheWeasel> Is that something like the 19th hole? :-P
2008-02-07 11:55 < TheWeasel> Oh fair enough
2008-02-07 11:55 < Demi> ggreer - the conduct of soldiers under orders is definitely an important point; having known some people in the military, they are given quite a bit of official training on legal warfare, their obligation not to follow illegal orders and so forth. in the event, i suspect that social factors prevent their actual questioning of orders much, plus they are affected by the "go along with the crowd" factor that affects mobs
2008-02-07 11:55 < bumm13> I suppose the reality is that established law is largely irrelevant if enough people decide to revolt against a government, in any event
2008-02-07 11:55 < ggreer> since it's such a big district they're more likely to come up with crazy decisions
2008-02-07 11:55 < Demi> there was a really interesting study about how dissenters give people "permission" to disagree, just recently
2008-02-07 11:55 < TheWeasel> our constitutional court has only two senates and they are split along lines of basic laws-federalism-governmental procedures
2008-02-07 11:56 < bumm13> senates?
2008-02-07 11:56 < TheWeasel> yea, chambers
2008-02-07 11:56 < bumm13> hmm
2008-02-07 11:56 < TheWeasel> whatever they're called in the US
2008-02-07 11:56 < bumm13> not sure
2008-02-07 11:56 < TheWeasel> fixed groups of judges assigned to one part of the cases
2008-02-07 11:57 < Demi> i think we use little-h house to refer to both bodies of congress
2008-02-07 11:57 < TheWeasel> bumm13: That's not necessarily a bad thing, but seeing how badly revolutions have worked out in the last 150 years, it's not awfully likely
2008-02-07 11:57 < Demi> House of Representatives, the Senate, both houses of Congress
2008-02-07 11:57 < TheWeasel> they're called "senates" at the Constitutional Court (as well as all other supreme courts)
2008-02-07 11:57 < bumm13> but was is a "house" of a court?
2008-02-07 11:58 < Demi> we just have courts, i think
2008-02-07 11:58 < TheWeasel> You have one court
2008-02-07 11:58 < bumm13> yeah, that's what I thought
2008-02-07 11:58 < TheWeasel> that always decides all cases
2008-02-07 11:58 < TheWeasel> we have two chambers of eight judges each
2008-02-07 11:58 < bumm13> hmm, interesting
2008-02-07 11:58 < TheWeasel> split along party lines
2008-02-07 11:58 < TheWeasel> negotiated beforehand
2008-02-07 11:58 < bumm13> U.S. judges are non-partisan, IIRC
2008-02-07 11:58 < bumm13> (formally)
2008-02-07 11:59 < Demi> we do have situations where some subset of judges sit for a case, like 3 judges of a circuit court (which might have 9 or whatever)
2008-02-07 11:59 < Demi> but i don't think we have a special word for that (panel?)
2008-02-07 11:59 < TheWeasel> Well, the left side of the spectrum gets half of the judges and the right side of the spectrum
2008-02-07 11:59 < bumm13> I'm not so familiar with the courts below the SCOTUS
2008-02-07 11:59 < Demi> i think all federal judges are appointed
2008-02-07 11:59 < TheWeasel> there are no appointments to the constitutional court
2008-02-07 11:59 < TheWeasel> in Germany
2008-02-07 11:59 < TheWeasel> only elections and smoke-filled backrooms
2008-02-07 11:59 < Demi> and higher positions are appointed by the executive and confirmed by congress, but yeah, below that i don't know
2008-02-07 12:00 < Demi> (and local judges are sometimes elected, sometimes appointed, according to local laws)
2008-02-07 12:00 < TheWeasel> the executive has little say here
2008-02-07 12:00 < ggreer> Demi: states do their own thing. some have elections and some are appointed
2008-02-07 12:00 < TheWeasel> Popularly elected judges are a terrible, terrible idea.
2008-02-07 12:00 < Demi> germany is closer to a parliamentary system, isn't it?
2008-02-07 12:00 < TheWeasel> It is.
2008-02-07 12:00 < bumm13> ggreer: yeah; I just meant lower federal courts
2008-02-07 12:00 < Demi> TheWeasel - unfortunately, so is appointing them :(
2008-02-07 12:00 < TheWeasel> they are elected on their "conviction rate"
2008-02-07 12:00 < ggreer> even lower federal court judges are appointed
2008-02-07 12:00 < bumm13> TheWeasel: yikes
2008-02-07 12:01 < TheWeasel> Appointments to uncontroversial lower courts are no problem.
2008-02-07 12:01 < TheWeasel> here, usually
2008-02-07 12:01 < TheWeasel> that's because only one type is concerned with constitutional matters
2008-02-07 12:01 < TheWeasel> and those are necessarily balanced 4-4
2008-02-07 12:01 < Demi> TheWeasel - it depends, sometimes they're elected on ideological bases (selective enforcement) which is arguably worse
2008-02-07 12:02 < ggreer> yeah, one judge in spokane has a picture of a very young version of himself shaking hands with eisenhower (he's really freaking old now)
2008-02-07 12:02 < TheWeasel> yea, not here though
2008-02-07 12:02 < TheWeasel> our process is openly unconstitutional, but has served us well.
2008-02-07 12:02 < bumm13> ggreer: crap
2008-02-07 12:03 < bumm13> born in the late 30s?
2008-02-07 12:03 < ggreer> yeah
2008-02-07 12:03 < bumm13> geez
2008-02-07 12:03 < TheWeasel> basically, both of the big parties suggest half of the bench
2008-02-07 12:03 < TheWeasel> and there's a lot of dealmaking
2008-02-07 12:03 < ggreer> he's still really sharp, but he hates technology
2008-02-07 12:03 < bumm13> heh, figures
2008-02-07 12:03 < TheWeasel> it seems to have a conservative streak lately though
2008-02-07 12:03 < bumm13> computers were made by the devil!
2008-02-07 12:04 < Demi> TheWeasel - appointments are done for ideological reasons as well, or political ones, or conservative ones (the establishment protecting itself)
2008-02-07 12:04 < Demi> they're all bad reasons
2008-02-07 12:04 < Demi> picking judges is a hard problem
2008-02-07 12:05 < ggreer> Demi: maybe lottery?
2008-02-07 12:05 < ggreer> works for juries (kind of)
2008-02-07 12:05 < Demi> yes, possibly
2008-02-07 12:05 < TheWeasel> there have been very few ideologues on the bench.
2008-02-07 12:05 < TheWeasel> one right-wing I remember, a certain Mrs Haas
2008-02-07 12:05 < TheWeasel> and a left-wing one who seriously suggested there was a constitutional right to getting high
2008-02-07 12:06 < ggreer> free speech -> free thought -> using substances to change thought patterns?
2008-02-07 12:06 < TheWeasel> On the Supreme Court I guess, 99% of all decisions don't follow any particular ideological lines
2008-02-07 12:06 < TheWeasel> We don't have that broad notion of free speech
2008-02-07 12:06 < Demi> ggreer - i'm not sure i'm a fan of the adversarial system at all, i'm not sure what i think about the whole judicial thing, to tell you the truth
2008-02-07 12:07 < TheWeasel> but we have "freedom to do whatever you want, unless it harms others"
2008-02-07 12:07 < Demi> i strongly believe no government has competence to tell me what drugs i may use or the purposes for which i may use them
2008-02-07 12:07 < TheWeasel> Except possibly if it has to pay for your health insurance.
2008-02-07 12:07 < Demi> no
2008-02-07 12:07 < bumm13> our lawmakers are all chemists!
2008-02-07 12:08 < Demi> that's a secondary issue, the former is a basic first principle
2008-02-07 12:08 < TheWeasel> Because then you become an expensive case.
2008-02-07 12:08 < Demi> that argument can be used to restrict *every* human freedom
2008-02-07 12:08 < ggreer> TheWeasel: they could refuse to cover you, but they shouldn't be able to prevent you from doing dumb stuff
2008-02-07 12:08 < TheWeasel> It's easy to justify deep cuts into freedom with that
2008-02-07 12:08 < Demi> you could even take away people's televisions because it makes them obese, or take away certain books because it makes them depressed and you have to treat them
2008-02-07 12:08 < TheWeasel> Well, in a system where you would be obliged to be in national healthcare.
2008-02-07 12:09 < TheWeasel> Demi: Some hazards are more equal than others
2008-02-07 12:09 < Demi> that's something you have to absorb, if you think there is a public responsibility to health care (i do); or you don't. but you can't abrogate basic private freedoms to do it.
2008-02-07 12:09 < TheWeasel> what the content of basic private freedom is, we don't know.
2008-02-07 12:09 < TheWeasel> :-D
2008-02-07 12:10 < TheWeasel> Well, "basic" is probably easy to define, but it does not include shrooms.
2008-02-07 12:10 < Demi> not telling me what i can put in my body is a start
2008-02-07 12:10 < Demi> whether it's information, drugs, or a penis
2008-02-07 12:10 < TheWeasel> Yea.
2008-02-07 12:10 < TheWeasel> those things always happen when you argue with benefits to society at large
2008-02-07 12:11 < TheWeasel> as opposed to benefits of distinct other people.
2008-02-07 12:11 < TheWeasel> "danger to society at large" is blissfully vague and terrifying
2008-02-07 12:11 < TheWeasel> :-)
2008-02-07 12:11 < Demi> well, i think not, i actually think laws like that stem from old theocracies and the notion of the government as enforcer of morality. and from people's innate cruelty to other people (that is, they enjoy other people suffering under the law)p.
2008-02-07 12:12 < Demi> the "danger" and "cost" aspects are rationalizations, not reasons.
2008-02-07 12:12 < TheWeasel> Well... constitutions themselves set values.
2008-02-07 12:12 < TheWeasel> which laws then must follow
2008-02-07 12:12 < TheWeasel> I guess "morality" just has a false definition
2008-02-07 12:13 < TheWeasel> Yea, I think people love see other people hanging
2008-02-07 12:13 < Demi> TheWeasel - yes
2008-02-07 12:13 < TheWeasel> Vengeance is a feeling that all civility in society has not been able to smother
2008-02-07 12:14 < Demi> i think people who, for example, argue against assisted suicide actually like the idea that someone is made to suffer and die needlessly instead (a la Ashcroft vs. State of Oregon).
2008-02-07 12:14 < TheWeasel> even today, the reason for punishment is still essentially vengeance.
2008-02-07 12:15 < ggreer> TheWeasel: well, it does make people feel good
2008-02-07 12:15 < TheWeasel> Demi: I think it's very difficult when companies make money with that.
2008-02-07 12:15 < Demi> yeah, i think vengeance is a related issue that's not quite the same
2008-02-07 12:15 < TheWeasel> there's a grey zone there
2008-02-07 12:16 < TheWeasel> ggreer: It doesn't solve anything, of course.
2008-02-07 12:16 < Demi> i think it's pretty basic right to have control over the end of your own life
2008-02-07 12:16 < TheWeasel> yup
2008-02-07 12:16 < Demi> it's absolutely offensive to me that it could be otherwise
2008-02-07 12:16 < TheWeasel> if indeed you can voice your opinion clearly
2008-02-07 12:16 < Demi> (assuming you're competent--now *that's* a can of worms)
2008-02-07 12:16 < TheWeasel> yea
2008-02-07 12:16 < ggreer> TheWeasel: heh, I didn't say that
2008-02-07 12:17 < TheWeasel> Doctors are so afraid they might have misunderstood the patient, that they will be very reluctant to comply in practic.
2008-02-07 12:17 < TheWeasel> not comply, to act upon it
2008-02-07 12:17 < Demi> there are enough applicable situations to make it worth it
2008-02-07 12:17 < TheWeasel> I agree.
2008-02-07 12:17 < TheWeasel> It's done in Switzerland
2008-02-07 12:17 < Demi> we are able to handle DNR orders (do not resuscitate); i don't see much of a difference
2008-02-07 12:18 < TheWeasel> yea, that's still an active element
2008-02-07 12:18 < TheWeasel> Germany has fairly strict abortion laws too
2008-02-07 12:18 < Demi> heck, DNR is usually applied when the patient *isn't* communicating
2008-02-07 12:18 < Demi> it's arguably even harder to get right
2008-02-07 12:18 < Demi> TheWeasel - how so?
2008-02-07 12:19 < bumm13> my mom is a nurse; dealing with such things is almost nightmarish
2008-02-07 12:19 < bumm13> (it's a thankless job)
2008-02-07 12:19 < Demi> bumm13 - yes, it's extremely stressful for the workers
2008-02-07 12:19 < Demi> being a healtch care worker can really drag you over the coals
2008-02-07 12:19 < TheWeasel> 218 Criminal Code says "Whoever aborts a pregnancy will be punished with prison up to three years or fine."
2008-02-07 12:19 < bumm13> working at assisted-living establishments can easily cause someone burnout
2008-02-07 12:20 < TheWeasel> "Prevention is not abortion."
2008-02-07 12:20 < Demi> TheWeasel - and there are exceptions?
2008-02-07 12:21 < TheWeasel> Yea
2008-02-07 12:21 < bumm13> Demi: worse, nurses are often caught up between complying with state regulations (and protecting their licenses) and stupid crap their facility managers do/say (beancounters, etc.)
2008-02-07 12:21 < TheWeasel> in the first twelve weeks, it's permissible with a couple of caveats
2008-02-07 12:21 < bumm13> I guess nurses have more legal protection in Oregon than in Washington, according to my mom
2008-02-07 12:22 < TheWeasel> and 22 weeks with an enormous amount of counseling
2008-02-07 12:22 < TheWeasel> why 22 of all numbers, I do not know
2008-02-07 12:22 < bumm13> picked out of a hat, naturally
2008-02-07 12:22 < TheWeasel> funny hats they've got there
2008-02-07 12:22 < bumm13> heh
2008-02-07 12:23 < Demi> bumm13 - yep, they're like teachers that way (put in the way of competing tensions) except that more nurses i've known actually care about what they're doing :)
2008-02-07 12:23 < bumm13> heh, yeah
2008-02-07 12:24 < Demi> TheWeasel - 22 weeks is probably some measure of viability at the time the law was written/amended
2008-02-07 12:24 < bumm13> Oregon schools are still hurting financially, IIRC
2008-02-07 12:24 < TheWeasel> Yea, I think it was that the GDR had a far more liberal regulation, and they found a compromise upon reunification
2008-02-07 12:24 < bumm13> (I know OR doesn't have levies/bond issues for school funding)
2008-02-07 12:24 < Demi> "The point at which an abortion becomes late-term is often related to the "viability" (ability to survive outside the uterus) of the fetus. Sometimes late-term abortions are referred to as post-viability abortions. However, viability varies greatly between pregnancies. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and almost no pregnancies are viable before the 20th week. Everything in between is a "grey area"."
2008-02-07 12:24 < Demi> bumm13 - maybe not statewide, but we have locally here anyway
2008-02-07 12:25 < bumm13> I worry more about parents actively killing their kids than much of the noise about abortion legality
2008-02-07 12:25 < bumm13> Demi: ah, ok
2008-02-07 12:25 < Demi> bumm13 - i think this happens much more frequently than we know
2008-02-07 12:25 < bumm13> the killing kids part?
2008-02-07 12:26 < Demi> bumm13 - yes
2008-02-07 12:26 < Demi> in particular i think many cases of SIDS are accidental or purposeful smothering
2008-02-07 12:26 < bumm13> I watched this thing on TV about some messed-up woman who kept having kids then smothering them
2008-02-07 12:26 < TheWeasel> bumm13: Or letting unwanted kids starve
2008-02-07 12:26 < bumm13> back in the 1940s and 1950s in Philadelphia
2008-02-07 12:26 < bumm13> sure
2008-02-07 12:27 < bumm13> Demi: yeah, it's certainly possible
2008-02-07 12:27 < TheWeasel> right-wing governments always protect kids until birth and then stop giving a shit about their economic situation
2008-02-07 12:27 < bumm13> no kidding
2008-02-07 12:27 < Demi> in the u.s. we don't distinguish between cases of accidentaly smothering and SIDS
2008-02-07 12:27 < Demi> so when you go to other countries, their SIDS rates are much lower
2008-02-07 12:27 < TheWeasel> wow
2008-02-07 12:28 < bumm13> the U.S. is really crappy regarding such things
2008-02-07 12:28 < TheWeasel> it's strange, since you've got such legislation-happy...well...legislators
2008-02-07 12:29 < bumm13> (without going into a diatrible about each state's child "protective" agencies)
2008-02-07 12:29 < bumm13> *diatribe
2008-02-07 12:29 < Demi> well, personally i think it's a case of not really digging into something which is obviously extremely traumatic for the parents: it's clearly easier to blame a random syndrome for the death of someone's baby than that they might have caused or contributed to the death themselves
2008-02-07 12:29 < TheWeasel> it's funny to watch C-SPAN because they always pass motions like naming post offices and honoring Little League baseball teams
2008-02-07 12:30 < bumm13> that stuff annoys the hell out of me
2008-02-07 12:30 < Demi> TheWeasel - and making it "official hominy grits day"
2008-02-07 12:30 < TheWeasel> :-D
2008-02-07 12:30 < bumm13> heehee
2008-02-07 12:30 < TheWeasel> Demi: There's where judges can't possibly be "strict constructionalists" or stern daddy figures towards those shattered parents.
2008-02-07 12:32 < bumm13> I'd like a "National Get Your Fuckin' Election Sign Out of My Front Yard Day" ;)
2008-02-07 12:32 < TheWeasel> Judges aren't "life-to-text converting machines"
2008-02-07 12:32 < Demi> TheWeasel - it rarely if ever would get to the point of a judge
2008-02-07 12:32 < TheWeasel> they're psychologists first and foremost
2008-02-07 12:33 < TheWeasel> during the oral examination anyway
2008-02-07 12:33 < TheWeasel> probably
2008-02-07 12:33 < Demi> bumm13 - hehe
2008-02-07 12:33 < TheWeasel> bumm13: I don't necessarily disagree...ahem... We'll leave that up to the states.
2008-02-07 12:33 < bumm13> heh
2008-02-07 12:33 < TheWeasel> thats an awesome stereotype
2008-02-07 12:34 < TheWeasel> and shows that federalism must really be regulated strongly
2008-02-07 12:34 < TheWeasel> so that states and the fed aren't in constant battle
2008-02-07 12:34 < bumm13> The only reason that the situation of the multiple-baby killing mother came to light was the fact that it kept happening
2008-02-07 12:34 < TheWeasel> Some would shout "failure of the community"
2008-02-07 12:35 < TheWeasel> but then we don't want people spying on each other either
2008-02-07 12:35 < bumm13> even then, it wasn't brought to trial for few decades
2008-02-07 12:35 < TheWeasel> wow
2008-02-07 12:35 < TheWeasel> usually crimes expire
2008-02-07 12:35 < TheWeasel> here
2008-02-07 12:35 < TheWeasel> after a good few years
2008-02-07 12:35 < bumm13> murder doesn't in the U.S.
2008-02-07 12:35 < TheWeasel> yea, true
2008-02-07 12:36 < bumm13> she avoided prison time but got a long time of probation ;p
2008-02-07 12:36 < TheWeasel> German law says baby-killing isn't murder, because you need to exploit a sense of safety, which babies are incapable of forming or something
2008-02-07 12:36 < bumm13> fun :P
2008-02-07 12:36 < bumm13> like I said, if it only had happened once or twice, I wouldn't have even seen this program about it on TV
2008-02-07 12:37 < TheWeasel> yea, we have a whole bunch of criteria for murder, not just every pre-planned killing is murder
2008-02-07 12:37 < TheWeasel> yea
2008-02-07 12:37 < TheWeasel> I don't follow crime stories much
2008-02-07 12:37 < TheWeasel> I'm more interested in ideas than people
2008-02-07 12:37 < bumm13> apparently, she "suffered" from Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy
2008-02-07 12:38 < bumm13> however, this doesn't fit the definition of *those affected* being the ones feigning illness, etc.
2008-02-07 12:39 < bumm13> other than the notion of psychological trauma from the deaths, but that's really stretching it
2008-02-07 12:41 < IronManMario> when someone uses a cellphone my radio makes weird noises
2008-02-07 12:41 < bumm13> "Romney reportedly to end his campaign"
2008-02-07 12:42 < TheWeasel> Wow.
2008-02-07 12:42 < TheWeasel> No more money?
2008-02-07 12:43 < Fabexplosive> hello
2008-02-07 12:43 < TheWeasel> "We asked Washington to please sponsor my campaign. They haven't."
2008-02-07 12:43 < bumm13> not sure, the article was like 2 sentences long :x
2008-02-07 12:43 < bumm13> (very vague)
2008-02-07 12:43 < bumm13> breaking snippet? ;)
2008-02-07 12:43 < bumm13> this is happy yet sad --- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080207/ap_on_re_us/severe_weather
2008-02-07 12:44 < IronManMario> dynamite with a laser beam, gallilao gallilao gallilao gallilao gallilaaa-aa-aa-aa-oooo
2008-02-07 12:44 < IronManMario> weird song./
2008-02-07 12:44 < NotACow> IronManMario: you're mixing two songs together
2008-02-07 12:45 < NotACow> "dynamite with a laser beam" is from killer queen
2008-02-07 12:45 < NotACow> the other bit is frpm bohemian rhapsody
2008-02-07 12:45 < IronManMario> oh
2008-02-07 12:45 < IronManMario> soundsl ike queen
2008-02-07 12:45 < IronManMario> * like
2008-02-07 12:45 < TheWeasel> aww
2008-02-07 12:45 < TheWeasel> but precisely the kind of journalism I don't much go for
2008-02-07 12:45 < OverlordQ> ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING bumm13
2008-02-07 12:46 < bumm13> TheWeasel: it should be something other than "news"
2008-02-07 12:46 < TheWeasel> I think this personalization is an Anglosphere thing
2008-02-07 12:46 < TheWeasel> so maybe I'm just not too used to it
2008-02-07 12:46 < bumm13> it probably is
2008-02-07 12:47 < bumm13> at least it isn't "Britney Spears being her insane self" newstainment ;p
2008-02-07 12:47 < TheWeasel> *Brassens - J'm'suis fais tout petit
2008-02-07 12:47 < NotACow> that's a "warm fuzzy" story
2008-02-07 12:47 < bumm13> yeah
2008-02-07 12:47 < OverlordQ> Heh, yea was checking the poll results the other day on ABC's site
2008-02-07 12:48 < OverlordQ> and the newsflash was
2008-02-07 12:48 < OverlordQ> "BRITTANY RELEASED!"
2008-02-07 12:48 < bumm13> all Bretons are free now? ;)
2008-02-07 12:48 < TheWeasel> Released over Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas?
2008-02-07 12:49 < NotACow> OverlordQ: i don't understand why people care so much about her
2008-02-07 12:49 < NotACow> hollywood is full of burnt-out actors and musicians
2008-02-07 12:49 < TheWeasel> She wasn't supposed to burn out.
2008-02-07 12:50 < kenlyric> yes she was
2008-02-07 12:50 < kenlyric> all child actors burn out
2008-02-07 12:50 < kenlyric> it's a story when they don't
2008-02-07 12:50 < TheWeasel> She was the family-friendly version of offensiveness.
2008-02-07 12:50 < kenlyric> actors/celebrities
2008-02-07 12:50 < TheWeasel> nobody expected her to turn into real offensiveness
2008-02-07 12:50 < mib_agp8za7v> I hate to disturb but I must ask for assistance
2008-02-07 12:51 < NotACow> the only child actors i can think o that didn't burn out are jimmy sikking and christopher walken
2008-02-07 12:51 < mib_agp8za7v> I was trying to write my case against a racist who blocked me indefinitely and the racist yamla locked my talk page to prevent my writing my case out
2008-02-07 12:51 < NotACow> mib_agp8za7v: you might gain some ground by not calling everyone a racist.
2008-02-07 12:51 < mib_agp8za7v> they blocked me indefinitely for speaking against balantly biased articles that are mere grounds for hatred of jews as written
2008-02-07 12:51 < kenlyric> yeah, you racist fuck
2008-02-07 12:52 < mib_agp8za7v> and the block was made in violation of the policies, no documentation, no nothing
2008-02-07 12:52 < Riana|Sleep> mib_agp8za7v: you want #wikipedia-en-unblock