Talk:Tin foil hat/Archive 2

message: the only beams the tinfoil hat is protected the wearer from are sunbeams -- and with a SPF of about a million it's about as good as you're gonna get, this protection inhibits the SOLAR DEGREDATION of KEY MINERALS in the top of the head & face, held in COLLOIDAL SOLUTION throught the body and which COMPLETE the FARADAY CAGE, restoring the wearers' NATURAL ability to filter MC (mind control)-RAISE TELL NO ONE! -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.214.75 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's the SPF, stupid! 

message: Thankfully I can quit looking for the worst and most worthless Wikipedia article ever. It's sitting right here. The writing is shoddy, malformed, and rather hoplessly depraved. It is the electronic equivalent of decomposing trash. There's no value in editing it either as this article should not exist. Spending time fixing something that's so hopelessly crappy and for which its very premise of existence is dubious makes no sense. It needs to go. (talking about this version) -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.103.41.201 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, AI.  As we've explained to you before, it is not enough just to assert, in a very loud voice and in obnoxious words, that an article's factual content is "dubious".  You need to actually point out some specific element of the content that is not factual, something you were never able to do for the simple reason that mentally ill people sometimes do imagine that hats layered with metal will protect them from imagined CIA superweapons, and that headgear has entered the common discourse as an iconic symbol of paranoia.  What you really mean when you say that this article is "worthless", that it's "hopelessly depraved", "should not exist", "needs to go", is that you wish the facts described weren't reality.  That's not the standard that applies in the real world. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know whether this comment was made by 'AI', but whether or not it was, it probably refers to this version of the article (a vandalized state). -SCEhardt 16:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't realize that the article had been recently vandalized.  That makes it possible, I guess, for an anon to happen to wander by just in time to see the article in its vandalized state and go off on a very personal rant on the talk page about how not only is the current content valueless, but that the article "needs to go" as "its very premise of existence is dubious".  However, given AI's notorious hatred for this article (he/she tried to get it speedy-deleted three times, even after being made well aware that the article absolutely met no criteria for speedy deletion) and his/her promise to return and destroy Wikipedia through sockpuppets, I find the possibility of AI using one sockpuppet to vandalize the article and another sockpuppet to declare it "the worst and most worthless Wikipedia article ever" and call for it to be eliminated completely in keeping with his/her goals and tactics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Conspiracy. Dude, take off the tinfoild hat, and go outside. W00t-on-a-shtick 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's Lack of Value

message: While I won't comment on the "traditional" topics revolving around the tin foil hat, I was just wondering, would such a hat protect you from heat and UV rays? Would it be a good idea to wear one in the desert to protect oneself from sunstroke and sunburn? (yes, wearing one is generally silly, but if no other articles or materials are available...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaven252 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 December 2005
: Sure, just as much as an ordinary floppy hat would. Perhaps would be a little cooler because of the reflectivity? But that's just speculation. Would want to make toilfoil "brims" to protect the neck as well. Anyway, not something we should include in the article. Sdedeo 16:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection against UV rays? 

message: This article could definitely benefit from proper documentation of the claims it makes.  The only specific reference is to the Media Lab experiment.  There are some general references, but it is unclear what facts they are there to document.  It seems many of the claims made by the article are not sourced.  -- Beland 09:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In general references and sources are good things. On the other hand, a lot of the article is just statements of rather uncontroversial scientific and psychological facts (placebo effect, Faraday cages.) Not saying these or others shouldn't be sourced, but what statements or facts in particular do you want to see sourced? Sdedeo (tips) 19:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for documentation of references 

message: ...wearing a tinfoil hat. It is copyrighted material, and was used here totally out of context. In belongs on a page making fun of various conspiracy theories, and I don't want my kids to see it in a serious(?) article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eovti (talk • contribs) 11:06, 19 August 2006
: Very funny.  Morton devonshire 00:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have removed the picture of me... 

message: Is there any real documented case of someone actually using one of these, or is it completely an investion of US popular culture? Self-Described Seabhcán 09:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Michael Menkin, the "alien thought screen helmet" guy, really does exist. He's been interviewed by several newspapers and radio shows, and by all accounts, he appears to be serious. That's the best I can come up with offhand. Zagalejo 14:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Addendum: This discussion might provide some leads. I'd be interested if anyone could find that Janov book.Zagalejo 17:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real use