xkcd

by **TimelordSimone** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:29 pm UTC

Kewangji wrote:
TimelordSimone wrote:The corner of my eyelid has been kinda twitchy on and off for DAYS.

You need more potassium! Eat a banana!

OKAY.

by **Yakk** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:09 pm UTC

Silly, that won't help. Direct potassium is required! Rub the banana on your eye.

by **TimelordSimone** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:15 pm UTC

Well thankfully it is too late and I already ate it.
Probably tastier than rubbing it on my eye would have been.

by **OBrien** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:18 pm UTC

Rubbing it in your eye? Hell no, next time try a banana smoothie IV.

by **Yakk** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:21 pm UTC

Apply directly to the forehead.

by **Jave D** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:26 pm UTC

Internet debating is such a complete waste of time that I am knee-deep in regret and shame over having done it so much.

by **felltir** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:28 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:Internet debating is such a complete waste of time that I am knee-deep in regret and shame over having done it so much.

Counter-point: It can give you confidence and social skills that you would not gain from masturbating or flash games, the only two other things one can do with the internet.

by **SecondTalon** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:56 pm UTC

felltir wrote:
Jave D wrote:Internet debating is such a complete waste of time that I am knee-deep in regret and shame over having done it so much.

Counter-point: It can give you confidence and social skills that you would not gain from masturbating or flash games, the only two other things one can do with the internet.

Wait.. Internet Debating, masturbation and flash games are all that is?

But.. but... what about gambling? Or finding sources for h3rb4l v1agr4?

by **Jave D** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:08 pm UTC

Those are just forms of, or adjuncts to, masturbation.

Same with flash games really.

It all comes down to wanking.

by **OBrien** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:45 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:Internet debating is such a complete waste of time that I am knee-deep in regret and shame over having done it so much.

Eh, I find that if both sides are using sources and debating properly (ie: actually debating instead of arguing) then you stand a good chance of either getting through to the other person and having a more informed opinion afterwards. This does, however, support the masturbation theory, as this type of debate would count as intellectual wanking.

by **SecondTalon** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:53 pm UTC

Wait, isn't the point of an actual debate not to convince your opponent, just to argue well?

by **OBrien** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:58 pm UTC

I'd say that if there are no outside parties are involved, the point of a debate is to convince the other side that you're right. If there is an outside party, the aim is to convince them you're right. I would also say that arguing something is different from arguing about something. But that's just from how I've heard the words used and from how the debates I've seen have been conducted.

by **Noc** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:16 pm UTC

I've always figured debates to be for the benefit of a third party. But I think it's all about the way you're trying to steer things, socially? Arguing tends to be about asserting social dominance (getting them to cry "uncle," if you will, or otherwise cease contesting your position), while debating tends to be about making the other party's position look as flimsy and ridiculous as possible in comparison to yours. You can definitely accomplish this without necessarily contributing anything that gives them serious food for thought -- say, by simply being better prepared for the debate, leaving them with the conviction that you're still full of shit but that they'd actually need to do some proper research to come up with the sources to properly contest theirs.

What I tend to characterize as "discussions," on the other hand, tend to be more cooperative than competitive, and thus more helpful at changing somebody's mind: the idea here is that instead of trying to "tear their position apart" or assert your own with as much unassailability as possible, you're sharing a perspective that's different than theirs and offering information and ideas they may not necessarily be familiar with, in return for being willing to consider their own contributions. Anything called a "debate" tends to be pretty competitive by its very nature, which means that the other party has a vested interest in continuing to disagree with you as long as it's tenable. You can definitely say things in debates that give them something useful to think about later, but I don't think that's necessarily part of debating well or successfully (or "properly," as O'Brien writes).

by **TimelordSimone** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:59 pm UTC

FYI: eating a banana did not work.
Frowny face.

by **OBrien** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:06 pm UTC

That's because you didn't mush it into your eye.

While I would agree with Noc's definition of a discussion as showing your opinions while considering others' to get a more rounded view on the subject, and I agree that debates definitely can be what you said, especially when there's a third party. With one-on-one debates however (and, to a lesser extent, debates with third parties), I would say the aim would be to get the other side to consider your opinions: If you're not trying to convince a third party you'd usually be trying to convince the other person. Dominating the debate in that situation would be more of a strategy than an objective.

EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to say is that the difference between a debate and a discussion is in a discussion you're trying to give everyone involved (including yourself) a better idea on the subject at hand, whereas a debate is aimed at convincing someone you're right. Arguments would be the verbal equivalent of a brawl: Like Noc said, just getting the other side to give up.

by **Yakk** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:41 pm UTC

Note: Do not apply banana directly to eye.

The banana, it does nothing when applied directly to eye (nothing good).

Spoiler:

by **SlyReaper** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:44 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:Note: Do not apply banana directly to eye.

~~The banana, it does nothing when applied directly to eye (nothing good)~~ MY EYES! The bananas do nothing!
Spoiler:
Cue someone going blind from a banana based fungus...

Fixificated.

by **Giant Speck** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:20 am UTC

Yakk wrote:Apply directly to the forehead.

Needs more repetition.

by **Jave D** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:32 am UTC

Apparently some people think that the King James Version of the Bible was the perfection of God's word as He intended it, and the translations I read are Satanic, watered down, perverted mockery of the word. And are going to tell me so.

Because what, Jesus spoke in King James' English? What about the Latin, the Greek, the Hebrew Bibles? Are they evil too? Or were they just not good enough, because God was waiting for King James. Because apparently King James was like the last apostle or prophet or something.

PEOPLE ARE FUCKING STUPID AND ANNOYING AND I HATE THEM.

There, I said it. I fucking hate people.

I love God, but fools I can't stand. Inconsiderate, ignorant, idiotic assholes who allegedly believe in God but think his name was King James of England. And things never change. Catholics who were fond of the Latin Bible saw the KJV the same way people who are fond of the KJV see the NIV, or whatever. But the difference is in King James' day they didn't have the Internet so they didn't make stupid posts on Facebook about it.

I mean yeah, they burned people alive for it. Bring me back those days! At least I could fight off someone trying to kill me. With stupid words there's nothing I can do, they say their stupidity and it just stains the very essence of the mortal realm. And I burn with hate about it. Can't they see? Do they really think the Word of God is the same thing as the specific words? That "receiveth" is the Word but "receives" is just pure evil or something? YES THEY DO. BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY THINK. THEY ARE STUPID AND SHOULD SHUT UP BUT THEY DON'T.

by **OBrien** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:56 pm UTC

You'd think a high ranking university would have a different application process for teaching assistants than lecturers but as it is I'm having to answer figuratively thousands of questions about how I would go about planning a lecture, setting up online questionnaires and other things I would neither need nor have the opportunity to do. Most of the job is answering student's questions in seminars and helping them to understand the course materials. Why do I have to explain how I would organise the teaching plan for a semester when, if I'm successful, I won't have any say in it anyway? I suppose I could answer most of them with "Not relevant to the position I am applying for" but I don't want to essentially skip over anything they might actually bee looking out for. Aargh!

by **Ashlah** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:53 pm UTC

Is there anyone you could contact to see if answering those questions are necessary for your application?

by **OBrien** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:13 pm UTC

I really wanted the application to be dealt with by the end of today and by the time I realised I should probably call someone and ask it was outside office hours. The application was online as well, and wouldn't let me even move on to the next page without filling in all the mandatory fields (which, as it turns out, was all of them bar "Alternate contact number"). I just decided to answer them to the best of my ability and hope like hell I didn't come across as a moron.

by **SlyReaper** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:35 pm UTC

Bought a shiny expensive new computer monitor. It didn't have a DVI cable. Cheap mustards.

Another rant: my phone filters mustards to mustards. What.

by **Kewangji** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:55 pm UTC

Biserable mastards.

by **elminster** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:42 pm UTC

People need to stop putting songs on repeat for hours at a volume loud enough that you can't ignore it.
Seriously, you're putting music on for yourself, it's not a public performance.

Edit: I meant literally hours. Not metaphorically.

by **Giant Speck** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:35 am UTC

Eight hours until the Tour de Cure and 1) it's raining and 2) I'm not in bed yet.

by **SlyReaper** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:44 am UTC

So, last night, instead of eating dinner, I ate nearly a liter of ice cream straight from the tub in a single sitting. I also drank too much and ended up having a hypo in the night due to misjudging my insulin dose.

God damn I feel grotty this morning. It's even worse knowing it was self-inflicted. Bleargh.

The ice cream was delicious though, and totally worth it.

by **Jave D** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:30 pm UTC

A guy posted angrily on Obama's FB page (which was about the First Dog!) about how there are people dying for their country right now but there's a 'first dog.'

You know, that whole "there are people dying right now" remark alone can suck the joy and fun out of literally any context you use it in. It's just a douchey kind of thing to do. It's saying 'How dare you find something light-hearted! Your heart should be heavy! Death and destruction should be always on your mind! Here, let me help by douchily reminding!' I mean do you think a guy like that is just always a really pleasant guy to be around? Think about it:

"Tom and I are getting married!"
"THERE ARE WOMEN BEING RAPED RIGHT NOW. BUT YOU'RE GETTING MARRIED."

"Happy biiiirth day toooo yooooou-"
"THERE ARE PEOPLE STARVING TO DEATH RIGHT NOW. BUT YOU'RE EATING CAKE."

"I got an A on my test, daddy!"
"THERE ARE PEOPLE DYING RIGHT NOW."

I mean yes, there's a first dog, it's the Obama's family dog. You know, nothing to get upset about, it's just a cute little comment and it probably took Obama's FB PR handler like eight seconds to come up with and two to post, but no. Let's blow it out of proportion and make like Obama's just Marie Antoinette telling us all to eat cake and like Nero fiddling while Rome burns because being a douchebag on the internet is clearly a great way to respect people who are dying.

Side note: Another guy posted on this same FB status update: "If Obama gets another 4 years, 80-90% of the population will die."

I just love how it's not "everyone will die" nor even "90%" but "80-90%", as if to show that this is a real statistic allowing for some margin of error. ON A PAGE ABOUT A DOG.

by **SlyReaper** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:35 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:A guy posted angrily on Obama's FB page (which was about the First Dog!) about how there are people dying for their country right now but there's a 'first dog.'

You know, that whole "there are people dying right now" remark alone can suck the joy and fun out of literally any context you use it in. It's just a douchey kind of thing to do. It's saying 'How dare you find something light-hearted! Your heart should be heavy! Death and destruction should be always on your mind! Here, let me help by douchily reminding!' I mean do you think a guy like that is just always a really pleasant guy to be around? Think about it:

"Tom and I are getting married!"
"THERE ARE WOMEN BEING RAPED RIGHT NOW. BUT YOU'RE GETTING MARRIED."

"Happy biiiirth day toooo yooooou-"
"THERE ARE PEOPLE STARVING TO DEATH RIGHT NOW. BUT YOU'RE EATING CAKE."

"I got an A on my test, daddy!"
"THERE ARE PEOPLE DYING RIGHT NOW."

I mean yes, there's a first dog, it's the Obama's family dog. You know, nothing to get upset about, it's just a cute little comment and it probably took Obama's FB PR handler like eight seconds to come up with and two to post, but no. Let's blow it out of proportion and make like Obama's just Marie Antoinette telling us all to eat cake and like Nero fiddling while Rome burns because being a douchebag on the internet is clearly a great way to respect people who are dying.

Side note: Another guy posted on this same FB status update: "If Obama gets another 4 years, 80-90% of the population will die."

I just love how it's not "everyone will die" nor even "90%" but "80-90%", as if to show that this is a real statistic allowing for some margin of error. ON A PAGE ABOUT A DOG.

The population of what, I wonder? The population of death-row inmates?

by **Jave D** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:43 pm UTC

Sadly, he didn't specify, but I'm guessing he meant the population of Real America due to Death Panels and Abortion. With possibly an impending Holocaust by Nazi Obama-Marx.

by **Shivahn** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 6:56 pm UTC

It's possible he entirely mangled a poor joke about how we're all going to die.

by **Menacing Spike** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:29 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:Sadly, he didn't specify, but I'm guessing he meant the population of Real America due to Death Panels and Abortion. With possibly an impending Holocaust by Nazi Obama-Marx.

Yeah, maybe he was, yknow, joking.

by **Jave D** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:02 pm UTC

I'd like to believe that.

by **SlyReaper** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:14 pm UTC

Maybe he's actually an Obama supporter, but worries that Obama winning a second term would result in an apocalyptic blood-soaked uprising of Republican voters.

by **Deva** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:33 pm UTC

Will kill people with health care. Cannot fail.

by **Giant Speck** » Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:20 am UTC

I'm a bit irked. The route turned out to only be about 90 miles long, and I only got to complete 82 miles of it, before they decided to start picking up and bringing back anyone who was still inside Lake Mead National Recreational Area at around 2:15-2:30. Apparently, they did not foresee so many people still being within the park so late, even though the routes weren't supposed to close until 3:30. Everyone who wasn't in the park got to continue riding.

by **Fractal_Tangent** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:21 pm UTC

I haven't been to the fora in a while and when I saw this thread I just thought: Hooray! I can show people pictures of the cool new glow in the dark space pants I got! I forgot that this is just a place for grumpy people.

Pants

by **roband** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:25 pm UTC

I was looking at buying some custom underwear from Etsy for my gf, as a laugh, but it's very expensive! (I know that's because it's all handmade, but when something's just for a bit of fun that can put you off)

by **Fractal_Tangent** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:29 pm UTC

Pants = very cool. I'd like to think that I have a nice selection of cool pants. But I do always need more. Moar!

by **Shivahn** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:14 pm UTC

Fractal_Tangent wrote:I haven't been to the fora in a while and when I saw this thread I just thought: Hooray! I can show people pictures of the cool new glow in the dark space pants I got! I forgot that this is just a place for grumpy people.

Pants

Ok, that's

that's pretty awesome. <3 astronomy.

Who is online