User talk:GoodDay/Archive 7

Tally on the Ireland move
I couldn't help notice you asking after a tally on the Ireland move. I have created one so I might as well leave you a transclusion here. Feel free to remove it or put it elsewhere! :) Best, --Cameron* 18:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. I myself just took the liberty of removing a support !vote by User:Yman88 who has been confirmed a sockpuppet. --Cameron* 18:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The pages don't have anything like consensus for the moves, though praise to the admin who preformed the moves for closing them. I find it very difficult to see how they can stay where they are if the supporters of the status quo ante bellum become active. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the admin in question won't have anything removed nor will anything bad happen to him other than, perhaps, having some attention. It was a good-faithed act. The discussion was happening in three places, but check out Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force; this vote is most favourable to the moves, and was probably the one the admin was paying attention to. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the admin may have accidentally only read one of the three pages on which discussions were taking place. I have notified him and I hope he will see that discussion is still taking place. I see no reason for this to go to arbcom. It is a simply mistake. We left no note in the respective section so that he might find the other discussions! ;) Best, --Cameron* 17:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the air just came out of my party balloons. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to the admin, I think it would have been very difficult for him not to have looked through it all, and made his ruling on foot of having done so. And I believe that this nomenclature will allow us to make better articles with more sensible and less ambiguous content. In good faith, -- Evertype·✆ 18:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano
He is currently not blocked.--Tznkai (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Republic of the gods (and goddesses)

 * GoodDay, now isn't this a pretty name for a Republic? Now why couldn't the USA have chosen such a delicious, Grecian name for their Republic, eh?--jeanne (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom
Hey GoodDay, two more edits and its my 1000th! (one now). Is it too late to go for a place on Arbcom? Titch Tucker (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's me, 1000. Now, how do I usurp this Jimbo Wales guy. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With considerable difficulty :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll maybe wait till I have another couple of hundred edits before I plan my coup d'etat. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottawa
So yes, it's a bit of a laugh today isn't it. If a coalition government comes in, backed by BQ, we all know it'll last about a month before the Bloc starts demanding something Dion and Layton just aren't willing to grant. It really is politics by the 10 year olds. Canterbury Tail talk  02:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

GG
Hey, good day GoodDay. I thought you might appreciate this strange bit of vandalism: The Govenor General is a $110,000 random number generator that only outputs zeros, BUT could do something different. Cheers, Double Blue (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary drama
I've been following the drama for a couple of hours now. The news has been so slow that I've started trying to figure out what would happen if Quebec left Canada and joined the US. It's a weird logical progression that involves Harper promising the BQ a referendum. All of this is just in my imagination; like I said, the news has been slow. -Rrius (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but it does look like the Conservatives misjudged this one, however it ends up. I've got to think the Liberals and NDP end up taking as much damage as the Conservatives do, though. If they back down, they look silly, if they succeed, they'll look like they overturned the will of the people.


 * The funniest part so far is dragging Chretien out. I did a double take when I saw that name in the press again. Also, it would serve them right to end up with an election out of this. -Rrius (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Prorogation
I have to admit I was surprised Harper pulled the trigger; I had put the odds at less than 50%. I guess he usually manages to win the high-stakes stuff, but how is this going to work? -Rrius (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI
Don't intend to tar and feather, but I do think this is a pretty big cluster f--k. Frankly, having read some of the debate, I'm the closest I have been to saying, yep, this as a group of moves is a good thing....but the way it was done may have been in good faith, taking it to board etc, but it was certainly not well advised. It smacks of being only a couple of slippery steps away from cabal like behaviour. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To expand on that, I see issues for IPs and casual editors when it is taken more and more steps away from the article pages. I also am not a huge fan of 'I've moved it with no evidence, now provide evidence to move it back', as that smacks of a reversed process. Applying WP:IAR to this as the admin has done invites chaos. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the best option is a reversion to pre move status and either a fresh vote (F--k it, I'm not calling it a !vote. It is a duck. Lets stop pretending it is a feathery water cat) or as you say, taking it to arbcom. Leaving it as is represents an extra-process fait accompli which rankles. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh. This is very rapidly going down hill. The IP is a little confrontational and the admin isn't helping with his....shall we call it bluntness? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put up a response which I hope should provide an out for tariq. I don't tend to get involved with the pages as you do, for the same reason I stay away from middle east articles usually. I am interested in both spheres but I can't be arsed to deal with partisan bullpup. Though I feel sorry for Sarah in all this. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, much as I disagree with her POV (I do not think it is clear either way) and she does in her passion overstep the boundries of good taste, she is, I think, a good person and passion on a subject is something we should admire, albiet perhaps contain. She has campaigned well for this move over time and it is a pity everyone can't be happy. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a big British conspiracy, no-one let me in on it. Though I am very much less than a half blood ;) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I used to keep a record of it al for me. Pro British, anti-British, Irish, anti-semite, zionist..... -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? The country would be at RoI or Ireland (Country), Ireland the Island would be at Ireland (island) and the disambig would be at Ireland. I am assumingyou would also bar the plastic paddies. See, policy wise I can see an argument for Ireland (country) and it is the best attempt in a long time for a compromise. The method was just awful though -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it shouldn't remain. There was no consensus attempt on that article. However, if they did revert and try again, I think a consensus has a good chance of favouring the change (Hell, I'll go for it). It should be given that chance to develop or the hardliners will, and rightly so, say that the process was hijacked. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. It is important to do this properly or it will never end. If it happens properly, any other attempts to move it back can be resisted from a position of consensus. As it is now? It would be bloody. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering your nationality, wouldn't goose or loon song be more appropiate? An GD? Don't walk away from the articles. You've tried it so many times, you wouldn't want to miss the end of the saga would you? I mean, you'll never find out how Anakin becomes Darth Vader. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. I can't imagine Sarah and her ilk enjoy me and other fly in fly out editors. I think I might drop a message on her page to emphasise how much I do admire what she has done. And say things when you need to GD. God knows the process needs more outside views. Even if they are from you blasted colonials ;) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm only hoping Sarah won't pulverize me. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * She is a good gal. I think she will understand the issue. We all want this buried, no? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jesus man, don't mention Football ;) The Football v Football debate pales everything in comparison ;) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't make canadian miltiary jokes as I have mates in that service. Anyway, looks like it will end up with the revert and new move. Rest assured, when it comes up, I will go for Ireland (state). -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. OK, that is a good one I do enjoy baseball. Bear, hotdogs and blimps. What more can you want from a sport? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cluster f--k, I haven't heard that one since I worked on a US Naval base. Cluster f--k!!! I love expressions of that sort.--jeanne (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I blame my time at interntional school. And GD? Don't step away from the articles. Your view remains as important as it ever was. Just a bit more patience and we are there. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blimps????????--jeanne (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Non-rigid airships? -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, big balloons with engines? Titch Tucker (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what a blimp is, (in fact I once saw one of the fat f..kers lumber past my bedroom window in Los Angeles-I know what you're both thinking Titch and GoodDay!), but what have they to do with sports events? Forgive my deplorable ignorance.--jeanne (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The tv companies use them at big sporting occasions, baseball, American football etc. If I remember rightly they are usually Goodyear Blimps. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was a Goodyear that sailed past my window-or perhaps it was really GoodDay LOL Just joking.--jeanne (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It weren't me; I'm 6 ft tall & 155 ibs. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Your post on Roux's talk page
I have removed your post on Roux's talk page. He clearly stated that he does not want anyone to post there. At this time, I think it may be best just to leave it for now, and wait until Roux is ready to take messages again. Cheers. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal
You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No thanks. Been there, done that, moved on. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is by no means "all-encompassing". This is ridiculous. -- Evertype·✆ 08:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If we don't handle the ambiguity of "Ireland" we'll keep doing this interminably. -- Evertype·✆ 17:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Weird
Some weird shit going on in your Parliament! Is anyone talking about 'constitutional crisis' yet? Has the GG acted well, do you think?--Gazzster (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Some think im a trouble maker from the past
Based on the comments some people made in response to one of my requests for a change to the article, clearly some think im a sockpuppet. Nimbley seems to be the main trouble maker so id liked to be checked againts him if that is really him and others when they reveal themselves. Perhaps after a process of elimination, there will be no sockpupet characters left for them to suspect me of being. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Americans
You North Americans, always pulling peoples legs. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't cause any trouble! ;) I'm thinking of leaving the Ireland/Northern Ireland article area. Everything seems rather passive aggressive and very sensitive...PS: I think my moniker seems to have been changed accidentally by someone else. ;) Best, --Cameron* 17:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama resignation
I noticed that, too, but I didn't want to bother figuring out exactly when his last day was and when the vacancy started. I'm starting to think that since he resigned "effective November 16" Does that mean the last time he was a senator was on November 15 and that the vacancy started at midnight on the 16th? -Rrius (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source either, but his letter to the Vice President informing him that he had resigned says "effective November 16, 2008". I know representatives resign by writing to the speaker, but maybe senators resign by writing to their governors. With nothing else, obviously we should say the 16th, but it is an interesting question. Oh, and I wasn't being critical about the source; I had just been dealing with a lot of nonsense on congressional articles and didn't feel like dealing with another minor thing. I guess I'm over that because I'm preparing to go to the mattresses over the irrational italicising of the "(R)" and "(D)" labels after names in the Nth United States Congress articles. -Rrius (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a weird stat. I wonder if that has to do with it being more desirable these days. -Rrius (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland
The fact that the Queen's regnal name is Elizabeth II is irrelevant as she should correctly be Elizabeth I as she is the first Elizabeth to reign over the United Kingdom. Elizabeth II implies that the kingdom of England is synonymous with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.--Palefire1983 (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the article you are referring to. However, you can't compare US presidents to British monarchs. I think you might be one of these people who think that Scotland is nothing more than an English county --Palefire1983 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. In otherwords, Scotland is not independant (hasn't been since 1707). Again, future UK monarchs will number themselves after either their Scottish or English predecessors (depending on which has the higher regnal number). A future King James, will be James VIII of the United Kingdom (even though England & Wales have only had 2 King James'). GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Palefire1983"

I know this already. Can you explain your analogy with regards to Alaska and Hawaii?--Palefire1983 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I mention the fact that there has never been a Queen Elizabeth I of Great Britain in my first message to yourself, sir. That is the very point of our discussion, no? I understand that monarchs will now be numbered by the method you mention, however, this is a new development and I am quite confident that without the complaints of Scottish nationlaists in the mid 20th century, all future UK monrachs would follow the English tradition and be numbered accordingly. I have also never suggested that Scotland is independant or that Scotland has its own head of state or monarch. All I am saying is that a great deal of offence would have beem avoided if we had started from a blank slate in 1707 in relation to regnal numbers.--Palefire1983 (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Alaska/ Hawaii analogy does not work. In 1707, Scotland did not merely join England. As I have already mentioned, a new country was formed via an act of union. In 1959 (?) Alaska and Hawaii joined the United States; a new country was not created. If a new country was created, like in 1707 in Britain, then Eisenhower would indeed have been the first president of that new country.--Palefire1983 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * GD,the analogy between the United States and the United Kingdom is wrong. there have been 43 presidents of an entity known as the USA. Only one Elizabeth has been Queen of the entity known as the UK. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob, I've already dropped the comparison. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Psst...
you may want to read "about me". --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

re:IP
Got it done. He seemed to have a problem with the GG too. -Royalguard11 (T) 22:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Ignatieff backing down?
Does this mean Ignatieff is creating a situation where everyone saves face, and a constitutional crisis is avoided? I seem to remember Harper offering the opposition a seat at the table in constructing a budget, so this would allow everyone to call a truce, right? Someone acted like an ass about it, but I think it was Rae or Layton. What do you think? -Rrius (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, based on that NYT article, I'd put the odds of a change in prime minister at less than 20%. -Rrius (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Senate appointments
He'll take a hit for that, but it is easy to get around. "You can't leave the Senate a quarter empty waiting for the opposition to take seriously measures meant to reform that body. What's more, there is little support among the current Senators for reforming their chamber. We need to more Senators, Canadians who reflect the broad support in our country for reforming the second chamber." There, I should have been a speech writer or a PR guy. -Rrius (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Liberals are confusing me
Hi GoodDay:

Thanks for your note. I replied on my talk page. CBHA (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And again. CBHA (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a bit more. Now I better do what I'm supposed to be doing.  Cheers, CBHA (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists
Yes, i can see why it would be useful to add them to list of population / area but the trouble is there are dozens of other examples that belong on the list when exceptions like that are made. Thats why i would rather see one article listing all comparable data on the UK countries which could be linked to instead of having to include the info on international lists where places like England really do not belong. UK belongs on the lists, then someone can click a link next to it taking them to a table on the data article which breaks down the UK countries on the issue.

On another issue i was watching some Canadian news last week on the political crisis there after talking with a friend of mine who lives in Canada. What was very interesting to me was harper and the medias use of the term separatist to describe the Quebec bloc. Here in the UK people with similiar intentions always get called nationalists, never heard em called separatists in the media or by political leaders. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Its still a separatist movement, both seek to break away from a sovereign state. I just found it amusing hearing harper and the media say it there, couldnt imagine hearing that get said here. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Devolution
GD, I notice you always say that Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland have a devolution bend. You do know they are already devolved don't you? Titch Tucker (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The correct term would be separatist rather than devolution yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What the heck's wrong with my state?
I gave you a ribbing over your state's relatively minor scandal of having, what, a quarter of its Senate vacant; as a result, it is only fair that I admit that my governor was just indicted for trying to sell a seat our country's Senate. Frankly, it's embarrassing, but it's also thrilling (in a finally sort of way). -Rrius (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I like him. My preferred course would be for Blago to resign and for Quinn to appoint someone. Our state is in enough financial trouble without running an extra election. Illinois voters rejected the call for a constitutional convention (which Pat Quinn and I both supported) based in part on the overinflated claim that it would cost 80 million dollars. A special election would cost 30 million. A constitutional convention could have produced amendments with long-term effects. A special election will give us a Senator for less than two years. Apparently, Dick Durbin wants a special election either way because he and Quinn don't get along. -Rrius (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read the pleadings now, and Madigan has a reasonable argument. Were the judges appointed, I'd say there was a better chance than not that they would deny the request. The fact that our judges are elected could drive it the other way. They have a different perspective because they are elected officials, thus they may be even more outraged than they would be otherwise. Also, they face the prospect of losing a retention vote (we vote yes or no whether to keep incumbent judges). They also know the already dysfunctional political processes has ground to a halt.

It's also worth noting that if we had a Westminster system in Illinois, the General Assembly would have voted no confidence ages ago. Even if they hadn't, the head of state would have sacked him by now. -Rrius (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there are essentially three main questions to answer:
 * Do we take the case?
 * Do we grant a TRO, which would give Madigan what she wants until we decide the main case?
 * Do we grant declare a disability indefinitely?
 * We should get an answer to the first question quickly. How long will depend on how long Blagojevich gets to respond to that particular question. I would guess we could hear within a week, but it won't take much longer. I would also think the answer to the TRO question would take no more than a couple days after that if they decide to hear it. The court will almost certainly handle this very quickly, so I would figure it would be done before Christmas, or at least the end of the year. -Rrius (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what I forgot in predicting what the supreme court would do is that it is very literal. Many states have anti-logrolling provisions in their constitutions that say a bill can only legislate on one topic, but the Illinois Supreme Court is the only high court to hold that a bill, with only a few exceptions, cannot amend multiple titles of the state code. We had a crime bill that included, among other things, a three-strikes law and funding for midnight basketball, which is supposed to prevent crime. The supreme court struck the law down saying you can't amend the criminal code and the education laws at the same time.

With Blagojevich today confirming he won't resign, it looks like we're stuck with him (and a vacant Senate seat) for some time. -Rrius (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Madigan is very, very clever
I should have seen it earlier. I just heard reports on local Chicago media that Blago will either resign or declare himself disabled (or some equivalent). Madigan's move was absolutely brilliant. Her pleadings recited the allegations Pat Fitzgerald made. He would have to either admit or deny what she alleged as part of the supreme court case on oath. If the allegations were later proven, he could also be tried for perjury. Moreover, it complicates plea negotiations and sentencing. He has to step out of the way for his own sake now. -Rrius (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson, Jr.
My initial reaction was to be inclined to believe him, but he is quickly losing the benefit of the doubt. If he can't explain himself fully and soon, he may end up out of office. The bombshell that a friend of his through Blago a $1 mil. fundraiser last Saturday is a bad sign. Short of the middleman rolling on him, it may be difficult to prove he did anything illegal, that there was any quid pro quo, but it could be enough to ruin him. About the only good result at this point would be Jesse Jr. or Jesse Jackson, Sr., coming out and saying the fundraiser was thrown to remind Blagojevich that the Black community was his last base of support and that he needs them if he has any hope of being elected to anything ever again. It is not clean and will not get him a statewide office ever, but it could save his congressional career. -Rrius (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Madigans
Neither one has really ever gotten along with Blago, but not for the same reasons. Mike was the top Democrat in Springfield from the early 80s until 2003. That in itself was enough to get his back up, but then when you add to it the fact that Blagojevich treated the Democratic General Assembly like the opposition, there is more than enough reason for him to want Blagojevich gone even before you get to the fact that he could bring down the Illinois Democratic Party. Lisa seems to actually be a good-government reformer and to absolutely hate the way Rod does business. Blago is also disrespectful to the other executive officials, who are each elected state-wide on their own (except for the lt. governor, who shares a ticket with the governor). The national, and I suppose international, media are trying to imply there is a nepotism problem with Mike and Lisa Madigan, but Illinois have gone through that already. The issue was there when we elected her. We hoped she would deliver on her promises, and she has. She is one of the few clean politicians around, she has criticized her father when necessary, and, as a result, she is probably the most popular politician in the state (barring Obama). In the end, I don't think this will be a problem for either of them. -Rrius (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My amended proposal
I have withdrawn my amendement - it was poorly thought out and obviously won't get support. I thought I was simplifying aspects of Mooretwin's proposal that were inhibiting discussion - the last thing I want to do is create more division. Scolaire (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Titch Tucker

 * GD, have you any idea as to the whereabouts of our comrade Titch Tucker? Typical, I disappear for a week and when I return discover that Titch is doing a Dave Garver on me.--jeanne (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's what they all say. I know a brush-off when I hear it. Wiki-break means I'll call you! What he's really saying is Beat it, blimp.--jeanne (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He just did, boo hoo hoo--jeanne (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder where Titch is goin for his winter break? Hawaii? Cancun? Tahiti? The Holy Land? As for myself, I'll have to settle for the men's hotel in Brighton sigh....--jeanne (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Flames captains
I've integrated the list into List of Calgary Flames players. Each captain is noted, and there is a paragraph in the lead discussing the team captains. Otherwise, you'll have to delve into page history to get it. Cheers, Resolute 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I made mention of this on the talk page, but I do intend to redo that table to be sortable. I'll be adding a sort key to allow the captains to be grouped by their term, thus effectively duplicating the captains list.  Hopefully this will help address the issue of the captains being hard to find.  Cheers! Resolute 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please use "LW"
Please cease referring to me as "Loner". If you wish to shorten my handle, use "LW". Thanks. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (Moved to here from my talkpage)
 * As you wish, LW. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hope that you don't mind my restoring this section, and I think I should explain a little about that, and about the topic concerned: On the first bit, I prefer to keep conversations in one place, generally the one where they begin, so I erased your response on my talkpage toward the end of moving it here, but then got side-tracked before doing the second part of the transfer.  Meanwhile you erased the section, here.  If you still want it gone, that's your prerogative, and I apologise for restoring it (with additions), but I have an uncomfortable feeling (based largely on your edit-summary) that you nuked it under the false impression that I had done likewise on my talk-page, with hard feelings over that.  I don't want there to be hard feelings, nor some mis-understanding that I meant to rudely erase your reply. Second, "Loner" has been grating on me for a long time (mostly because I don't like its implications), but I just never got round to mentioning it to you before.  I'm not blaming you, but merely asking that you not use it -- to which you've agreed, so that's fine.  I suppose that anyone should be careful about what nick-names and short forms they use for another.  For instance, I sometimes use "GD" for you.  If you object at all to that, please let me know.  I can use something else, or stick to the full form, as you prefer. In general -- and I could be altogether wrong about this -- I have felt a degree of personal rancour against me coming from you.  I do not desire any such, so if there is any then I'd like to clear it up. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob, thanks for clarifying things. I use nicknames for many editors & there's no underlying message behind them. You may continue to call me GD (if you wish). Also, your brief appearances per month lately, led me to believe you wouldn't be back again, until mid-January 2009. PS: I'm not angry with you. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hap py  H olid ays


''' Titch Tucker is wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow! '''

Have a great holiday, and an eventful new year!
 * GoodDay, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family.--jeanne (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland
Yes i seem to recall seeing it as nation some time ago, then for some time it was constitiuent country, then when i next looked it had turned into just a country. I just wonder what would of been next, wikipedia might of ended up declaring Scotland an independent sovereign State :) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but hopefully people will see there is a valid point I'm raising about the phraseology.... hopefully. WP:CCC comes to mind! --Jza84 |  Talk 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The arrival of Lo2u seemed to lead to the situation being resolved, nothing was happening for the several weeks i was trying to get it changed, although ill wait a few days before im sure its over coz some still may decide they want it changed back. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In practice in was changed despite your intervention not because of it, The consistent approach was one long advocated by several editors (none of whom attempted mediation) but showed patience and waited. Hopefully you (as a new editor) will have learnt something for the process and will track the key interventions to see how things evolved. --Snowded  TALK  05:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Caroline Kennedy
I really don't get this Caroline Kennedy talk. I don't get how she's qualified or how she is supposed to win election in 2010 and re-election in 2012. I thought they would give her some attention, then move on to the real candidates. I have a problem with appointing someone to elective office who has never been elected to anything before. I don't normally have a problem with relatives of politicians getting elected, or even appointed, to something because it is more unfair to deny them that because of their family than to give it to them because their family. In this case, there really does not seem to be any reason other than her name. -Rrius (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's starting to look the media have finally gotten bored with the idea and have started turning on her, calling into question her qualifications, her commitment (e.g., pointing out she hasn't voted regularly), and her political abilities. Apparently, she has been really bad, technique-wise in answering questions and generally handling herself. The lack of professionalism may do her in. -Rrius (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom feedback
Good day, GoodDay. I'm a bit confused by your comment on the ArbCom feedback. I thought you'd put the comment in the wrong section but then I saw that you moved your comment from my "Confidence" section to my "No confidence" section. Could you perhaps explain how you have no problem with Arbitrators but have no confidence in me? It's confused me a bit. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Check it again. My comment is in the Confidence section. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I suck. Thanks for the clarification. --Deskana (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) --Deskana (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. I confused myself somehow. --Deskana (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

International lists
Well the vast majority of the lists on wikipedia already dont include England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and rightfully so. Theres probably about a dozen or 2 out of over 150 country lists that mention them. Im not totally opposed to their inclusion on everything, but it has to be justified and not just for the sake of it. otherwise others want German states or american states added as well which would be crazy. England etc have been removed from a couple of lists over the past month, something im glad about although cant claim credit for :) BritishWatcher (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument for inclusion in at least some of these country articles is, well, they are verifiably countries. For all the talk that people will want German States included I don't believe it will happen. If they could come up with a stack full of good sources that say they are countries then fair enough, but thats not going to happen. Can it be right to have confirmed countries not included in any country articles? Titch Tucker (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it is fully justified not to include England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on international lists. I have produced sources before for this showing international lists of "countries" which dont include them but act as major sources for wikipedia. Such as the CIA world fact book, world bank, IMF all of these use the term Country to describe the United Kingdom but dont mention England. Just because they are called counties by the British government doesnt make them internationally recognized countries / states so there has to be clear justification to include them on the list as most are only about sovereign states.


 * Sporting events such as FIFA there is clear justification for England and Scotland to be listed and ranked differently in tables. Legal systems is also another as they are separate systems, Age of consent has also been different in Northern Ireland compared to England, or abortion laws. I have no problem with the countries of the UK being listed on their own in such cases (although their should be a note saying they are part of the United Kingdom) to avoid confusion BritishWatcher (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So the fact that Wikipedia has a strict verifiability criteria when including information, and that the multiple sources ( I think you would be hard put to find so many sources for one piece of information anywhere else) verify them as countries you don't believe they should be incuded seperately or not at all on any article relating to countries? Can you not see my point? Titch Tucker (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a clear campaign I think Titch. In some cases where the lists are clearly sovereign country lists then its OK if the lede makes that clear.  However when it gets to anthems and flags then its getting silly and smacks of a political campaign, although a note of the UK status is a reasonable request.  It's also interesting to note that the EU is now included on some lists as the sovereign countries have delegated powers, which ironically the UK has also done to the assemblies in Scotland and Wales.  In addition only a few years ago the US reception for the Welsh First Minister used the word country extensively and the dragon was laser projected onto the White House.  --Snowded  TALK  05:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a campaign to exclude the UK countries from all articles outside their own by adding the criteria sovereign state to every article they can get their hands on, including national anthems and flags. Don't we have national anthems? Or perhaps I've been dreaming it all these years! Its all politics I'm afraid. I promised myself I would stay away from these type of articles knowing this would be the case, and I think I will do so again. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Actually, it's a campaign to put out the truth. England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland are not independant countries & therefore shouldn't be made to appear as such on thoses lists. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, the truth! The truth being that they are verifiably countries, the truth being England,Scotland and Wales have their own national flags, the truth being Scotland and Wales have their own national anthems. Are any of these things untrue? Nobody is saying they are independent countries, but everything I have said is true, yet wikipedia wants to wipe these facts from article after article by creating a criteria to do just that. As I said on Dai's page, its all politics and very sad to see. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Either they're independant or they're not (and they're not). I appreciate the fact, that the UK has a multiple identity approach, but I won't be convinced of the 4 components being listed until the UK breaks up. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll ask you again GD, Are any of my statements untrue? Titch Tucker (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're a true. But, they're still not independant. That is what the criteria should be. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Scotland and Wales have national anthems. Wikipedia has a list of national anthems, but some people want to change the criteria to exclude, erm, national anthems. A reader looks at the article and sees that Wales and Scotland are not included and presumes they don't have one. Wikipedia has done the reader a disservice, he/she walks away with the wrong information. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wales, Scotland, England & Northern Ireland (and their national anthems) are certainly alright, being listed in the sports articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So you would be quite happy for the reader to walk away with the wrong information? ie: Scotland and Wales having a national anthem and not being included in the list Titch Tucker (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The only compromise I'd except, would be if the 4 'countries' were listed directly (with an indent) underneath the United Kingdom entry. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do your caveats extend to other constituent countries, like the Netherlands Antilles, and Aruba, GD? I notice that List of national anthems doesn't show autonomous communities such as the Canary Islands (anthem: Arrorró). --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see whatcha mean. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales can not be exceptions. It's gotta be independants listed. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not about removing national anthems of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its about duplication and the fact a badly defined "country list" holds the prime position on the National anthem articles, whilst a featured list List of anthems by country is almost impossible to find. Doing something about this is important especially now that Matt has retired as he was the main person transfering some of the anthems from a different page, a process that now will not be completed.
 * I simply want two lists that show different things rather than one list which basically is a copy of a featured list along with 30 other countries or regions anthems that get lost in the 190+ UN countries. This is exactly the same problem as there was on the list of countries articles and i believe a similar solution is needed. Something i would like to see is an article on British anthems, like there is a British flag article explaining the different flags of England, Wales, Scotland and NI. The British anthems article could then be linked on the featured list for UN countries anthems List of anthems by country as well as all the anthems individually listed on a separate list for non sovereign states, territories etc BritishWatcher (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whom are you responding to, me or Miesianiacal? GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Was to titch and snowded mostly. sorry BritishWatcher (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

⬅ to suggest that the national anthem of Wales should be confined to a sports article Goody is either a nonsense or an insult or both! Its played when the Queen is in Wales at national events for example. BW - I agree the articles are a mess and they need to be sorted. If you have an article called "anthems of UN recognised countries" then fine, but if its called national anthems (well you know the answer I am really tired of repeating it. As to a new article I don;t see the point.  The English don't have an anthem, cause they have always seen their identity as UK, The Scots have a couple they use and have not made up their mind.  There are none for Northern Ireland although there are sectarian alternatives.  Ironically only Wales really has one!  --Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  08:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wales is not independant. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said it was? However it is a country and it does have an anthem (oh and it should be independent within Europe) .--<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  15:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland & England do not belong on those article lists. I'm sorry but you haven't convinced me otherwise. PS: Thanks for not jumping on me, the way Daicaregos did. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Kissing cousins

 * Are you a hockey fan? If so, you may be interested to hear that I'm a distant cousin of Bernie Geoffrion.--jeanne (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * GD, do you have a Vista laptop? If so, could you please tell me how to find the curly brackets on the keyboard? Thanks--jeanne (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I edited the article on Boom Boom. What do you think? Pierre Joffrion and Marie Priault were my 8th great-grandparents. Geoffrion was originally spelled Joffrion, the way my family in Louisiana spelled it.--jeanne (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool stuff. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which! Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh a rebel like me

 * I just read that you refused to stand for GSTQ. When I was in elementary school (6th grade), I refused to salute the flag as a protest against the Vietnam War.--jeanne (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would stand for GSTQ. Just to walk out the bloody place that was playing it. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I was such a rebel in school that I was convinced Alice Cooper wrote School's Out for me!!! Titch, can I confess that I (whisper whisper) like GSTQ. Soooooorry, but I must be honest here.--jeanne (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ach Jeanne! You and your Royals. BTW, did you know there is a verse in GSTQ that mentions crushing the Scots? Makes me feel like standing up and saluting. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can find the words here, verse 6. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I never knew that. Honestly, I prefer the Jacobites to the House of Hanover. A pity the UK doesn't have a Stuart on the throne. British royalty became so drab after Queen Anne died without heirs.--jeanne (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously Marshal Wade is to the Scots what Oliver Cromwell is to the Irish. --jeanne (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually Marshal Wade sounds like a character out of the tv soap Dallas!--jeanne (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Someday, it'll be the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Doubt it, more likely Ireland reunited as a republic, Scotland and Wales as countries within Europe and the English form the 51st State of the US.  I'm planning to own a cross border farm in retirement to take advantage of that.  The Queen goes to the highest bidder as a tourist attraction and the only extact version of GSTQ is that performed by Queen.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But Snowded, Freddie Mercury is gone. What is Queen without Freddie?! It's like the Stones without Keith, McCartney without Lennon or Memphis without Elvis. On a different note, doesn't anyone here think Prince William should become King? Come on guys, he's a charming lad, really. Anyroad, I like him.--jeanne (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

e/c Hehe. I know, not very adult of me. But if that came to pass I would do more than laugh, I'd do a naked jig in George Square. ps, it wouldn't be for the squeemish. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Monarchies have gotta be abolished, they're so not 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Better yet, Scotland, England, Wales can be republics, along with the unified Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the recording of Freddie Mercury has more life in it than most English Rugby Crowds. As to William Windsor I am sure he can find employment somewhere, his education and the entertainment of his various relatives has cost enough.  The English are too anti-European to stand on their own, US is the only refuge.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  15:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for a new gardener, minimum wages. Do you think he would be interested? Titch Tucker (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Vive la Republique! Now start dancin' Titch just jiggle away no need to blush as you're among friends hee hee hee--jeanne (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I got past the blushing stage years ago, it's the onlookers who would be blushing. As long as there's no sniggering. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Italy should become a monarchy again. I'd love to see Clothilde Courau Queen. She's got class. As for blushing, Titch you're scaring me.--jeanne (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * HAHA. Don't worry Jeanne, I'll keep it all tucked away. By the time it came to pass I'd be so old people would pay me to keep my clothes on. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I walk around, with nothing on but my clothes. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's disgusting GD! Titch Tucker (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What a drag you are GD. You gotta RELAX, let it all hang out, get into the groove, don't be so uptight, maaaan.--jeanne (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, sometimes I only wear a smile. I like to grin & bare it. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Service with a smile.--jeanne (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget the classic: Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas, I'll never know. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We had a streaker at my high school in 1974 as well as a mooner. She'd already been mooned right there in front of the shoppin centre--jeanne (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't look Ethel. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was too late, she'd already been in the scenes--jeanne (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Boogaday, Boogaday. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When you're hot you're hot like Homer Jones and Big John Talley.--jeanne (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I mooned out of the back of a van a few time when I was younger. Stopped the traffic for miles. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The three of you should take this into Second Life then you can all have avatars and live out the fantasy --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  16:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on Snowded, you must have done something a little daring in your lifetime. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When I was 15, I rode around for a couple of streets in my boyfriend's car, topless. Nobody noticed-not even my boyfriend so I put my top back on sigh...--jeanne (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You should have been in the next lane of traffic. Let's see this took place in Culver City just after we'd left the drive-in. OOH wasn't I a bad girl? Actually quite a few people passed the car saw me topless and I was the talk of the school for weeks!! God, isn't Jenny a total slut....--jeanne (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, when I mooned they just called me funny. Funny that! Titch Tucker (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I get laughs when I go topless. I get more laughter when I go bottomless. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowded's still not answered my question. I'm sure he's done some crazy things that would even make Jeanne blush. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When I go topless I just get it!--jeanne (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The cold? ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Many things, but generally at Welsh Rugby matches involving a lot of alcohol which means I have generally forgotten, or more accurately did not remember at the time, the actual events their nature and their consequences. I do have a vague recollection of a police cell in Edinburgh but its vague, oh and something involving a Bishop in Dundee but that is it I am afraid.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  16:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A Bishop in Dundee? I couldn't even guess at that one. There's nothing like waking up in the morning with no idea what's gone on the night before. GoodDay won't know that feeling of course, he's tee-total. He should give it a try some time. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No thanks. If I got drunk, I'd behave in a sober manner. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I remember sitting in a pub with a few friends while I was off it for a while and they were throwing them back. Halfway through the night I thought they were talking rubbish, then realised I was usually talking rubbish with them. It's a sobering thought. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Intoxication is alright, if nobody gets injured. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading this whole thread, the thing that stuck out for me was the question of what the Bishop was doing in Dundee. Then I realized it isn't the 16th century and there are actually bishops up there. I've got problems. -Rrius (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The World needs to be rid of all religions, as they've caused alot of tragedies. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

⬅ Ok my god the Dawkins straw man trots out again. I thought better of your logic --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  20:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Atheism is the way of the future. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree GoodDay, I am a devout believer in the IPU and this is the way forward.  BigDunc  Talk 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a religious statement to be Goody! Dawkins site has testimonies by people who became atheists having heard him preach.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  20:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya'll gotta see George Carlin's views on religion, at YouTube website. I've been an atheist for as long as I can recall. I admit, I've never heard of the IPU or Dawkins (until today). GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I always keep my options open, you never know. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just look at the mountain ranges. A god created those?? eek they're all crooked. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He likes to make it difficult for us GD. Where would the fun be for all the moutain climbers if they where all nice and even. That's also why he made women, to give men a challenge. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins i'm sure you would enjoy it, a very good read. BigDunc  Talk
 * Something BigDunc and I agree on! <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 07:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then read the criticisms from Eagleton and others. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdate) Hmmm, sounds like an entertaining honest read. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I heard this being said years ago. "If there was no God someone would have made him up". Titch Tucker (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I like Judaism better than Christianity or Islam because its adherents aren't duty bound to try to make me see their invisible friend. -Rrius (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a jolly good one: It's said God can do anything; Can he make a rock, he can't lift? GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure he can. He could do that, then unmake the rock. Voila, problem sorted. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but no dice. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If a tree falls in the woods, does he hear it? -Rrius (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A falling tree creates soundwaves. However, he doesn't hear it, because he doesn't exist. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He saw you writing that GD. Look round, he's behind you! Titch Tucker (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Typical. I leave my computer and you guys bring up the clergy and God in my absence. I would have regaled you with a story of the scandal I created in my church back in 2005 with a young Romanian priest who bore a strong resemblance to Monty Clift (see image on my talk page). Oh GD, don't knock God, today I'm going to confession.--jeanne (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no God to knock. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone to their own GD. I just don't like preaching to convert them to a certain religion. Nor do I like preaching to those with a faith to change their beliefs to atheism. No one has the inside knowledge. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Atheism is the inside knowledge. But, I too have no ambitions to try to convert anyone (as noted in my UserPage). GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You believe there is no God, others do. The only way to find out is when we die, of course if you're right we will find out nothing. If there is a God there when we die you can just tell him you made a mistake, honest guv! I'm sure he'll forgive you. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've the advantage, indeed. In the former, I'd have no way of knowing the result. In the latter, I'd get a nice surprise. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My friends Mike T. and Pudgie from Venice, California (where else?!) said to me back in 1974, Jenny, when you die, just remember to follow the blue light. Now I think that's good advice. Whatdaya say Titch and GoodDay?--jeanne (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and Merry Christmas (or should I leave out the word Christ LOL? --jeanne (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When one expires, it's over. Merry Christmas to you aswell (see, it don't bother me). GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone for a turkey sandwich? Titch Tucker (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm too full. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yesterday evening, I went to Mass. It was lovely with incense, candles, Latin intonations and hymns Venite Adoremus, dominus Beautiful.--jeanne (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've little memory of going to Mass (when I was little). It's quite possible, I slept through it all. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You couldn't sleep with my priest, he's got a voice like a siren.--jeanne (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't wanna sleep with your priest. I'm straight. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry GD, I phrased that badly. What I had meant to say was that you couldn't sleep through a Mass officiated by my parish priest as he's got a voice like a siren. BTW, who still uses phrases like sleeping together? How droll.--jeanne (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle. Not much would happen if both people were sleeping. It's likely the priest yells out his sermons, in order to keep people awake. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He also sings loudly and out of tune. He looks like a churchman from the Borgia era as well-hooded eyes and all.--jeanne (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll pass, on his sermons. My way, is best. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually he's very charismatic, despite his hooded Borgia eyes and Machiavellian mind. I have a crush on him. Priests turn me on.--jeanne (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, we ordinary guys can only offer ya a good time. Where's a priest can offer ya eternity. GoodDay (talk)

Merry Christmas
Hi GD ...

Merry Christmas. Looks like you've been busy on constitutional issues. Wish I had time to do the same. --soulscanner (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas. Yep, I'm looking forward to January 27, 2009 (a possible Parliamentary showdown). PS: Where's you been lately. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Priests versus ordinary guys

 * GD, remember a few minutes of pleasure can bring a lifetime of regret, while eternity is forever paradise.--jeanne (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Be careful GD. Jeanne has been warned on her talk page not to chat, you'll be next. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, a newbie throwing his/her weight around. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, they started the account two minutes before leaving the message and has done nothing else since. Curious! Titch Tucker (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we all know our UserPages are our castles (as long as they're political correct). GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, guys. Obviously, this newbie didn't like my blimp image and comments.--jeanne (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It took the newbie three takes to add that message-and it's his/her only contribution to date. Did this person join Wikipedia just to chastise moi? Honestly. BTW, did you, Titch, and Sarah sneak away on a pleasure cruise to sunny climes and forget to invite ME?!!!!!--jeanne (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

EU
Hi GoodDay, I noticed a comment on my talk page, and then it vanished. My point really is that EU laws are delegated legislation made by statutory instrument, like local authority by-laws. The assertion that the UK delegates sovereignty, rather than legislative responsibilities, is factually inaccurate. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

national anthems
Sorry! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never let Wiki affect my appetite. I can actually eat and be online at the same time. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quebec inclusion on such a list, is mis-leading. Also, it's a invitation for possible Quebec seperatists to indulge themselves on similiar articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your're not canvassing are you Goody? --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  09:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

 * Where ya been, man? Thought you'd jumped ship. Now the party can start up again, with you and Titch back in the scene.--jeanne (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Holidays kept me away, along with the sleep-overs of my nephew & nieces (in otherwords, they controlled the computer). GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here. My kids have the run of the computer during the holidays as they're off school until 7 January.--jeanne (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You've a gorgeous daugther, by the way. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment. What do ya think of my clerical friends?--jeanne (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

They look very clerical. My athiest opinon: they look like con-artists. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But of course they do, it's all part of the magic show.--jeanne (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Party animals

 * Hey, GD. Jeanne has invited you to a party. You've to bring the party hats. I don't know what kind of party its going to be, (I think Jeanne's organising it) but eveyones welcome. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, I dont think God got an invite, couldn't find his address. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * i've invited my priest friends to the party as well (see bottom of my talk page) just to provide GoodDay with stimulating party conversation when he gets tired of dancing to Andrea True Connection.--jeanne (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You know the song I'm talkin about GD, Titch How do you like, how do you like it, MORE MORE MORE. Told ya I'd provide the music.--jeanne (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know the song. But it appears to be kinky. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Check it out on YouTube. It is very suggestive, as well it should be, seeing as it comes from a singer who also happens to be a porn star. Ooh how do you like your love, more more more...--jeanne (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust ya (concerning the song's nature). GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, seeing is believing. I'd advise you to go check the video out on YouTube. Trust me, you won't be disappointed.--jeanne (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)OK, saw it. It had a very disco appearance to it. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can remember when it first came out-back in 1976! God, do I feel old.--jeanne (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I began kindagarten in the fall of '76 (born in 1971, I was). The 1970's was so glittery (discos, loud clothing etc). GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That I know only too well as you can see in my photo on my user page. I was just a wee bit into glam rock, and I also used to wear glitter in my hair.--jeanne (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When I first started going to the dancin I dressed just like I was in Saturday Night Fever. Good suit, the trousers a bit flairy and shoes with the little gold tips on the end. The height of fashion, honstly! Well, it was at the time. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who was the better dancer? Travolta's or Hays' Manero. IMO, the latter was better. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recall Hay's playing Manero. Whas it a comedy version? Titch Tucker (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, the portrayal was a spoof on Airplane!. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Having check the YouTube clip, I do believe a double filled in for parts of the gag. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, it wasn't John Travolta was it. Did you see him dance in Pulp Fiction, now that was cool! Titch Tucker (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've often felt that Travolta never fully recovered his image, after Grease. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he chose a lot of crap films after that, and he was out of the loop for a long time. But I think Pulp Fiction got him back on track, certainly back amongst the highest paid actors in Hollywood. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, Pulp Fiction gets Travolta a thumbs up. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So does his role as Tony Manero-just for his dialogue alone (You stoopid pr..ks, you almost broke my p...y fingah),complete with Brooklyn accent.--jeanne (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Harper v. the coalition
Has there been any change on the constitutional crisis front? Is it still looking as though we were right to believe Harper will continue on as PM after Parliament comes back? -Rrius (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Things are still at a standstill until January 26, 2009 (when the 40th Parliament resumes). So far the Haper goverment has defused things, by allowing the Liberals more imput on the upcoming Budget. Also, the fact that Michael Ignatieff isn't a big fan of a Liberal/New Democrat coalition government, has cooled things too. If the Harper government is defeated (after the Budget is presented), it's most likely the Governor General (at Harper's request) will dissolve Parliament & yet another Federal election will commence. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

New Senate coverage
It gets worse. C-SPAN had a woman from the Washington Examiner on who did not now that only 32 (not 98) get sworn in. She also thought the Senate votes on its rules at the beginning of each Congress&mdash;it doesn't. Also, C-SPAN2's graphics suggest there will be an election for President pro tempore. A President pro tempore serves until he or she resigns as PPT, is replaced as PPT by the Senate, or ceases to be a senator. C-SPAN should at least have its facts right. -Rrius (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Robert Byrd, would be rolling his eyes. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oldest national anthem

 * GD, do you realise that God Save The Queen is the oldest national anthem in history, followed by La Marseillaise? Talk about stamina! There must be something to the monarchy after all.--jeanne (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly God save the Queen is not the oldest national anthem in the world, its one of the oldest and when Britain got one everybody else wanted one too, atleast we did beat the french to it though as you rightly say. Monarchy is a wonderful thing, there is simply nothing better. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh really, it's not? What is the oldest national anthem then? I cannot criticise the French national anthem. La Marseillaise has got to be the most rousing national anthem in the world, although the Irish is the most poignant. The American is also pretty stirring but not as dramatic as the French. Yes, I am a monarchist and I've put that fact on my userpage.--jeanne (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the national anthem page it was the Dutch who first had a national anthem. According to their figures over 100+ years before Britain got one. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered why a large population of British folk sing God Save The Queen. Why do they particulary want to save her, and do they really think God is going to save her due to their singing it. Most countries anthems would ask God to save their country or their people, although personaly I'd leave God out of it, he's got enough trouble around the world at the moment without having to bow to the demands of people who think a woman (and her family) living in luxury off our taxes is better than the rest of us. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Titch, don't Presidents of Republics do the same with their taxpayers hard-earned cash? Even Obama has reportedly rented a villa in Hawaii at the taxpayers expense and he hasn't yet taken office!--jeanne (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jeanne, I'm sure many of them do, but people have the option of voting them out if they don't like it. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And voting another in his place to do the same but with taxes raised even higher to accomodate wifey's taste for designer clothes ?--jeanne (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * People get what they vote for, but they have voted for them, which is my point. Perhaps the Americans should give up the voting system and allow Obama's children and grandchildren reign after him. I'm curious Jeanne, why do you love the Queen so much, and as I said previously, why do you think God should save her particulary rather than the country or its people? Titch Tucker (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Titch, I don't care much for the Queen. My favourite Royal is Prince Charles. I just prefer the system of monarchy, but it wouldn't work in America as most US presidents have been a wee bit low class. Can you see King Lyndon and Queen Ladybird Johnson? Or Duke Billy Carter? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease.--jeanne (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean by low class. Can you imagine King Charles and Queen Camilla? What a laugh that would be. Of course, I'm just being silly now. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think even a Republican like GoodDay would agree that Charles has far more class than LBJ? Don't you remember him, Titch? An he invited America to a real fun party in Southeast Asia.--jeanne (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you not remember Charles dirty phone call to Camilla a few years ago? I've got more class than Charles, and that's saying something. A posh accent and having a flunky brush your teeth and dress you every morning (its true) doesn't equate to class. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree on the "God" bit, its strange that a country which is more atheist than religious still has an anthem mostly mentioning God but that simply reflects how much we have changed over the past 60 years. When the Queen dies i imagine the anthem will come up for debate again along with many other things including the monarchy itself.
 * You can say the same thing about the United States. Americas anthem goes on about a flag which they feel very strongly about, children in American schools pledge allegiance to the "flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands". If its possible to rally around a flag, surely its possible to rally around a living person, our monarch? Look at the countries where they have elected presidents, to qualify for such a role you would have to have some political background, which means you are from a political party or certain side. It helps having a monarch who has no political affiliation able to represent ALL of the people. The Queen has far more support than a president does, and the Royal family as a brand has HUGE influence around the world which is great for Britain. An elected president for 4 years has no such influence. Then you have countries like the USA with one leader, Bush being head of state and head of government.. thats an awful system for so many reasons. The truth is monarchy has its flaws but i have yet to see a better system.
 * As for Charles, im hoping the Queen will live long enough for it to skip a generation ;). William is the saviour of the monarchy, not Charles. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid all this pledging alleigence to the flag in schools is just a form of brainwashing. Being proud of your country, flag and anthem are all good things, but forcing it down your childrens throats every day goes a bit too far for my liking. As for Bush, well, probably the least said the better. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree on it being brainwashing yes and in my view brainwashing towards a flag which can be made in China and burnt in the middle east which actually hurts many Americans is dangerous where as most here feel more strongly about a monarch who can be protected than a flag that can be mass produced. I support the monarchy but only in a democratic society where people are free not to support the monarchy and where they stay out of politics. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think its dangerous having a national anthem asking God to save someone or asking God to bless your country. I seem to recall George Bush remarking that God ordained him to become President, or words to that effect. Once you think you or your country have God on your side it can only mean trouble. You only have to look at the middle east. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that class has got nothing to do with one's accent, social standing, or bank account. It's how one treats others that shows whether they've got class or not. You definitely have class, Titch, seeing as you are very polite and I won't forget how you came to my defense more than once. I have heard from British people who have met Charles personally say that he is very courteous and gracious.--jeanne (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC

I'm an American, and I hate our national anthem. Hate. It. It's only redeeming quality is that it is about just barely winning a defensive battle rather than about taking over the world. The music is awful, the words are hard for most people to remember, and the voice part requires a wide vocal range, making it hard for most people to sing. But then why would they want to? It is such an ugly, ugly piece of music. I'd rather have God Bless America; I don't even care about all the "God" stuff. At least is sounds good and is accessible.

Oh, and I agree with BritishWatcher about the problem with one person as head of state and head of government. Having the trappings of a head of state give the head of government too much power. I don't know that a monarchy is the necessary answer, figurehead presidents seem to do well enough, but the US-style presidential system is flawed. -Rrius (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a republican & atheist, ya'll know my views on a god being mentioned in national anthems. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, I'm kind of 50/50 on God, keeping my options open. You are right of course, God should never be mentioned in anthems. If there is a God I'm sure he would rather concentrate on individuals (of course, I don't have any inside information). Titch Tucker (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, even Canada's national anthem refers to a god (God keep our land...), as does the ever so revered Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...). I'm agnostic myself, so I'm no promoter of mixing religion and government, but, on the other hand, I'm not sure it can ever be 100% purged from our institutions. Pretty much everything we do as societies has some element of faith to it. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's still hope (of removing religion), on account that we're still in the first decade of the 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, if you had your way and religion was removed, there'd be no priests left anywhere!!!!!!--jeanne (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bbbbbut GD, I happen to LIKE priests, thankyouverymuch.--jeanne (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nay! they gotta go. No exceptions. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But, not even the guys on my talk page? Can't they remain? Have they got to go as well? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!--jeanne (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, they can stay at your talkpage. Afterall, freedom of religion. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Inaugurations, Coronations & Investitures
This January 20, Americans will watch (again) as their President slaps athiest in the face, by ending his oath of office (unconstitutionally) with 'so help me god'. So much for seperation of Church & State. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts read lines from the oath and Barack Obama will repeat them. After Obama has uttered the last word of the oath and has therefore legally entered into the execution of his office, Roberts will say, "so help me God", and Obama will repeat it. If Obama were being forced to say it, that would be one thing, but it is his choice, just as it is his choice to swear on a bible (the one Abraham Lincoln took the oath on) and to swear rather than affirm. I also don't think there is a case that any of the people around them are being subjected to religious speech since no one has to participate other than Obama and someone qualified to administer oaths. -Rrius (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unconstitional was a strong discription (on my part). My point is, that so help me god or I afirm, is not mentioned in the US Presidential oath of office. It was merely a precedent. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont believe in God, i find it amazing that so many billions of people on this planet have fallen for such things for so long. For over 1000 years religions have discriminated against and oppressed people who are different. I look forward to a day when religions are extinct but i sometimes think atheists are now starting to do the very thing religious people did in the past, trying to push their will and opinions on to others and attempting to undermine and discriminate against those who are religious. Religion is fine aslong as it stays out of politics and schools. I wouldnt have a problem with Obama making the oath mentioning God, its his faith and hes entitled to it, Its his policies that count.
 * Having God in national anthems is one thing, forcing kids in American schools to make the full pledge of allegiance is the thing that really offends me. Especially as the GOD bit was added in the 1950s.
 * "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all." BritishWatcher (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In agreement, atheist shouldn't push their views on anyone. What got religions started? Fear of death. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was also fear that they would never see their loved ones again. I don't really believe in God, yet have no fear of death, it's the act of dying that concerns me. Slow and painfully is something I could do without. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It must be great to have faith and think that after death everyone lives happily ever after. I wish i could believe, ignorance is bliss. When ever you ask someone to actually explain how heaven works, they have no clue. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya'll want a good chuckle? See George Carlin's views on Religion, via YouTube. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * lmao very good BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also fear of the unknown and curiosity about the world around us. There is also, I think, a generic human need for spiritualism that manifests itself in different people to different degrees. On some level, it's really kinda scary. That intelligent, logical people feel that draw is a sign of its power. -Rrius (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know guys, religion can be a comfort, whether you believe it intellectually or not. I went to a funeral yesterday. The priest gave a really moving sermon and offered the bereaved hope which atheism does not.--jeanne (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)