AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: wintermute

form_srcid: wintermute

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: wintermute

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'wintermute%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2007/02/23 10:38:12, Link
Author: wintermute
Hi, all.

I've been reading through this thread (so far, I'm up to November), and back in October (I think; I can't find the post now...) SteveStory asked if anyone could come up with a firefox extension / greasemonkey script that would automagically post comments from UD here. And it just so happens I was looking for a project to start playing with greasemonkey, so the answer is... no, not so far as I can tell.

I wanted it to go to the "preview post" page, with the comment already in the box, but the page is set up so that it can't accept input from pages outside of I'm not sure it would be ethical to bypass this security, even if I knew how.

So what I've done instead is to re-write the comment in question into iB code when you click the link, and to also open up the "reply to thread" page in a new window, so you can just copy-and-paste from one to the other.

UD2AtBC greasemonkey script

It'll probably be a month or two before I get this far through the thread, but let me know if you try it out, and if you have any comments / suggestions.

Thanks for all the amusement.

Date: 2007/02/23 11:40:57, Link
Author: wintermute
Quote (Mike PSS @ Feb. 23 2007,11:06)
Is this the same wintermute (different spelling) from that has been participating in AFDave-opoly?

Yes, that's me. I'm seriously regretting letting myself be dragged in, now though. I mean, when I was just reading the thread there were many times I had to walk away from the computer or start banging my head on the keyboard (I did this once - the results were more cogent than anything Dave's ever said), and now I'm in the far more frustrating position of actually trying to convince him that - oh, I don't know - the world outside his skull actually physically exists...

Date: 2007/02/23 13:56:14, Link
Author: wintermute
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 23 2007,13:26)
Oh, this script is great! It puts a little "Tard Alert" link in every comment, and if you click it, it totally reformats the UD post for cut and pasting. Brilliant!

I'm glad you approve.

Really, I had fun writing it. Maybe my next task will be shrinking down the text size in this here posting box so you can fit more than three words in there before it scrolls ;)

Date: 2007/02/23 14:35:15, Link
Author: wintermute
OK, I've fixed a couple of bugs (quotation marks or apostrophes in the poster's name would break it; if the final comment was by a moderator, it wouldn't get the link), so those of you who have been kind enough to be early adopters ought to update.

If anyone finds anything they think could improve it, please let me know.

Date: 2007/03/15 07:54:45, Link
Author: wintermute
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 11 2007,18:15)
Bollocks. This is the greatest beer in the world, period, end of fucking report.

Zurich, Switzerland, 14%, kiss my ass.


Mine goes one higher....

On the other hand, it tastes of shit.

I mean, seriously. I was very drunk and still couldn't stomach it.

My taste runs more towards this:

Probably the finest Pilsner Plžen ever produced.

Date: 2007/03/21 14:22:14, Link
Author: wintermute
Calling for Darwin's portrait to be removed from the £10 at its next redesign seems to be a shrewd move for IDers. Or at least as close as they ever come to being shrewd.

After all, there are many, many notable Britons who richly deserve a place on a banknote, and the Bank takes a redesign as an excellent opportunity to give the honour to someone new. Besides which, it makes it easy to identify which series of banknote you're referring to - telling people that the £20 depicting Edward Elgar is about to stop being legal tender (as will be the case in 2009 or 2010) is a lot easier than trying to describe the old security features to look out for.

So, Darwin will disappear from the £10, as Dickens did before him, not because of his morals, or politics, or science, but because Winston Churchill (or Paul Dirac, or Alan Turing, or John Lennon) equally deserves a place.

And what will UD say, when this inevitably comes to pass? Will they claim that this is evidence that "Darwinism" is falling out of popularity in Britain? Will they claim that their "grass roots" movement had anything to do with this change? In short, will they lie through their teeth about its significance?

If they didn't, would they be the UD that we know and love?

Date: 2007/03/22 10:51:56, Link
Author: wintermute
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 22 2007,08:25)
Or maybe he can move to Canada -- they just have animals and the queen on their money.

Hrm. The reason he objects to Darwin is because  
his presence on the 10-pound note is an inappropriate endorsement of that materialist religion and its related anti-religious ferment.

The Queen is also (as he points out) on the £10 note, as she is on all British currency.

The Queen has amongst her titles "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" and "Defender of the Faith" - the latter, ironically, was granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo XI, and refers to the Catholic Faith. All British coins bear the legend  "Elizabeth II Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor" ("Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and defender of the faith"), or some abbreviation thereof.

Does that cancel out the anti-religious sentiment of having the picture of a divinity student who became an avowed agnostic and was buried in Westminster Abbey on one of the notes?

I think maybe it does.

Date: 2007/03/22 13:41:06, Link
Author: wintermute
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 22 2007,12:20)
Quote (wintermute @ Mar. 22 2007,09:51)
The Queen has amongst her titles "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" and "Defender of the Faith" - the latter, ironically, was granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo XI, ...

Well, I'll be jiggered! Never knew that. I was under the assumption that Henry VIII, awarded that title to himself upon forming the CofE. Thanks for that tidbit, but according to this
it was actually conferred by Pope Leo X. Small niggle (and damned if I know who is correct), on a good bit of re-education for me. TY.

Ah, you are correct. Mea culpa.

I went to Wikipedia to check my facts, and still managed to write down the wrong pontiff.

I was sure it said XI, when I looked the first time. Ah, well.

Date: 2007/03/26 07:51:03, Link
Author: wintermute
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 25 2007,17:49)
What's always puzzled me about it is its hidden implication. It seems to say to me, "Shit, if I knew Jehovah wouldn't punish me, I'd kill rape and rob everyone I saw. He11, how stupid ARE you that you don't share my fear of God, yet you aren't a selfish nihilist?" Really? is this an, uh, accurate glimpse of what you'd do if your fear of a Big Sky Daddy punishing you were lifted? Explain to me again why your theism makes you a 'better person' than me?

When I'm faced with people who tell me that atheists are all immoral, evil, baby-raping, homosexual murderers* (I think that's a direct quote), my response is something like: "Really? Are you seriously telling me that you cannot think of a single reason not to do all those things, other than that God tells you not to? That if you were to have a crisis of faith tomorrow, you'd be killing, stealing and raping before the day was out?"

If they say "Well... No. I suppose not..." then we can start a dialogue on the subject of ethics, and whether or not Christians really are better people.

If they say "Yes, that's exactly what I mean" (and it has happened), I back away slowly, being sure not to make any sudden movements.

* "homosexual murderers" does not mean "people who murder homosexuals", which is apparently OK.

Date: 2007/03/26 12:08:00, Link
Author: wintermute
Shorter DaveScot:

"Animals live longer, if they're raised in a sterile, germ-free environment, therefore the Garden of Eden must be true!"

This got me thinking about evolution vs. design. The animals raised germ-free could not have evolved in the natural world without exposure to bacteria but they could have been designed for GF life. The fact that they live twice as long in a GF environment when eating a diet that is nutritionally complete except for being sterile seems to be favorable evidence that animals were created in and for a germ-free world.

Date: 2007/03/26 12:43:57, Link
Author: wintermute
Quote (Jake @ Mar. 26 2007,11:41)
Actually, thats not even the worst thing with his post - where does he propose all the bacteria and viruses came from, if the world was originally 'germ free'?

The Biblical fall of man, of course!

Didn't you know he's one of those Biblical Literalist agnostics?

Date: 2007/03/27 08:13:49, Link
Author: wintermute
DaveScot is a tard
It just ocurred to me that according to Ernst Mayr I must be a different species from Inuits. We’re reproductively isolated by geography and there isn’t a snowball’s chance in south central Texas I’d be attracted to an Inuit woman anyhow even though we’re probably still physically compatible on a hypothetical basis sort of like brown bears and polar bears.

Anyone want to play "count the fallacies"?

Date: 2007/03/27 09:38:30, Link
Author: wintermute
ajl is a tard
Yes, that indeed made me go WOW! I don’t think I could have ever written that script myself, and if I did, everyone would have laughed at me saying its just too improbable, and totally hollywood.
Yet, that is the beauty of March madness, this stuff happens every few games - its incredible!

As if we needed more evidence that UDer's don't understand probability... If it happens "every few games", then how, by the many breasts of Venus Genetrix, can it be "too improbable" to be believed?

Date: 2007/03/27 09:58:18, Link
Author: wintermute
jaredl is a sneaky bugger

May I suggest, as a birthday gift to Dawkins, a direct, illustrated, and annotated demonstration of the application of the concept of complex specified information to a biological example?

How did that get past moderation?

Quick, BatDave! To the Banninator, before anyone realises that WD has no idea how to do that!

Date: 2007/03/29 08:03:52, Link
Author: wintermute
bevets is a tard

I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith

Of course, he doesn't provide a source for this quote. Was it his The Antiquity of Man from 1915, or perhaps Concerning Man's Origins in 1927?

80 or 90 years ago, some (but by no means all) scientists fell for a deliberate hoax, which was later definitively revealed to be fake. Therefore, all scientists are wrong about everything.

Date: 2007/03/30 07:03:37, Link
Author: wintermute
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 29 2007,15:32)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 29 2007,16:20)
Which origins 'theory' is true?

Let popularity's close:

Actually, it is not close at all.

Repent, ye sinner! Or this will be your fate!

Hehe. The biggest spike, about doubling the volume for Genesis, is for:

"Genesis to reunite for European tour"

The Beetles might have been bigger than Jesus, but Phil Collins is bigger than Noah!

Date: 2007/04/02 09:08:38, Link
Author: wintermute
Evidence, we want evidence [that our religion is wrong] not just blind faith.


Date: 2007/04/03 06:53:58, Link
Author: wintermute
Quote (Kristine @ April 03 2007,00:24)
Here's something people at UD should get pissed about, since they're talking about global warming and green houses and such. I believe in paying taxes, but they're taxing these people's efforts. If fuel is practically non-polluting and they make it, why shouldn't it be free?

That link seems not to work.  :(

Do you have another?

Date: 2007/04/06 13:10:14, Link
Author: wintermute
So, why should we pay any more attention to it than to a chimp throwing a tantrum and launching lumps of faeces at anyone within range?

Sounds like something I'd want to pay plenty of attention to.

Have you ever tried to get chimp fæces out of wool? It's not easy, you know.

Date: 2007/04/06 13:21:44, Link
Author: wintermute
Dave quotes a climtardologist:

Only at the third question — is there evidence that global warming is actually occurring? — do we enter the realm of the observable. Air and sea temperature can be measured. The standard observation is that the planet has fitfully warmed by one degree Celsius over the past century, but this figure is produced by massaging inconsistent readings from many times and places. Different assumptions would produce different trends, or none at all. And that’s without considering whether a planetary “average” temperature is even a meaningful datapoint (some have likened it to averaging all the phone numbers in the phone book).

And some people have claimed that putting your fingers in your ears and hopping during a thunderstorm increases your intelligence. You can always find some people who will say anything, no matter how stupid.

If different parts of an object have different temperatures, then that object has an average temperature. If an object goes through temperature cycles (I don't know if this is the case for Earth, but I would not be surprised to learn that the mean global temperature is different in January to in September), then it has an average temperature. Is this really so complicated?

Date: 2007/04/06 13:30:16, Link
Author: wintermute
DaveScot is a tard

It will either be “Thank “God” you listened to me when you did”, or “You didn’t listen to me soon enough.”
There’s a third and most likely outcome IMO. We do nothing and nothing bad happens. This is the course that we’ll end up taking because there’s too much resistance and bickering when it comes to actually making a sacrifice and who makes how much.
China is on the verge of becoming the #1 single largest source of CO2 in the world. You think they’re going to play along and harm their economy over this? And if they don’t why should we? China was exempt from Kyoto. Do you think that’s fair and isn’t it essential that the biggest CO2 sources all cooperate? All the tailpipe emissions in the U.S. together are 8% of manmade CO2. If that’s reduced by half in the next ten years it will probably trigger a depression. Not one of these mild recessions of recent decades but a full blown depression more like the Great Depression of the 1930’s. I don’t think people realize how fragile the economy is and what a large burden such as this will do to it. To add insult to injury halving U.S. tailpipe emissions doesn’t significantly reduce total global CO2 emissions so it’s all for nothing in any case.

There been no depression in any country in the world that uses Keynesian economics (which were specifically designed to make depressions very difficult), and I fail to see how improving emission controls would trigger one.

Also, China is a signatory to Kyoto, and is bound by it as much as any other signatory. It's just that the limit set for China's CO2 production was above their actual production. Because they produced very little CO2 relative to their population; does anyone know if DaveTard's comment about them being about to race ahead of the US in CO2production is true?

Is there any subject that DaveTard is not completely ignorant of? Other than the proper way to eat cheesypoofs, I mean.

[[edited because subscripts don't work here :( ]]