Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?
m (Reverted edits by 67.135.49.198 (Talk); changed back to last version by HMcTavitch) |
(→Why I love you guys: - One good turn deserves another (and more), especially around you hypocrites.) |
||
| Line 257: | Line 257: | ||
== Why I love you guys == | == Why I love you guys == | ||
| − | I love you guys | + | == Why I love you guys == |
| − | + | I'm physically attracted to little girls. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace McWicked]][[User_Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>Interesting</sup>]] 21:44, 5 August 2008 (EDT) | |
| − | + | :Me, too.--[[User:Damo2353|Damo2353]] 21:48, 5 August 2008 (EDT) | |
| − | : | + | :Me, too. [[User:3.14159|<math>\approx</math>]][[User_Talk:3.14159|<math>\pi</math>]] 21:47, 5 August 2008 (EDT) |
| − | : | + | :Me, too. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 22:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT) |
| − | : | + | :Me, too. [[User:NightFlare|NightFlare]]<sup>[[User talk: NightFlare|This is a talk page.]]</sup> 22:06, 5 August 2008 (EDT) |
| − | : | + | :Me, too. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 22:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT) |
| − | : | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
==OK, covered to death, but...== | ==OK, covered to death, but...== | ||
Revision as of 03:05, 6 August 2008
Andy vs. PZ Myers debate?
Andy says he would be willing to debate PZ Myers. Does anyone know how to get ahold of him? Lets set this up and get the ball rolling![1]--Franklin 06:07, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Don't know tho why PZ would want to debate Andy. Timppeli 07:38, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm sure PZ has no interest in debating Andy, for two reasons. 1) Andy is a nobody. 2) PZ knows that to debate a nobody like Andy only draws attention to Conservapedia, even though he would undoubtedly own Andy (you can't block somebody in a debate for "talk talk talk"!) And so it may go like this:
- Andy will puff up with the idea of debating PZ Meyers and have his ego massaged by the parodists on CP like Bugler.
- Andy will issue a "public" challenge to PZ on the main page at CP
- PZ ignores it. Life goes on
- Andy will claim that PZ refused to debate with him because he was scared of loosing
- Conservapedia continues to be ignored.
- Bondurant 07:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Drawing any attention to Conservapedia at this point is obviously to fuel the lulz of white-collared workers during their smoke break. Lenski owned him, everyone laughed at him (except socks like Bugler), and that was just through letters/email. PZ Myers in a debate with voices, maybe even video? Oh man, who the hell cares about Conservapedia's traffic, that would embarrass Andy so bad. NorsemanWassail! 09:56, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Of course PZ's afraid of debating with him - because people might think that he (PZ) believed that Andy was worth debating and that'd be like arguing with a baboon. e wouldn't want to be brought down to that level.
ContribsTalk 12:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Speaking of baboons, PZ has expressed some embarrassment that he is going to debate Ray Comfort (you know, the "bananas are an atheist's worse nightmare" guy).--Franklin 13:41, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Of course PZ's afraid of debating with him - because people might think that he (PZ) believed that Andy was worth debating and that'd be like arguing with a baboon. e wouldn't want to be brought down to that level.
- Drawing any attention to Conservapedia at this point is obviously to fuel the lulz of white-collared workers during their smoke break. Lenski owned him, everyone laughed at him (except socks like Bugler), and that was just through letters/email. PZ Myers in a debate with voices, maybe even video? Oh man, who the hell cares about Conservapedia's traffic, that would embarrass Andy so bad. NorsemanWassail! 09:56, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
All so quiet
Am I the only one getting the feeling that it's all dust and echoes now? It does seem to just be sysops arguing with socks over there, in a rather futile battle over the site. I mean, there's hardly anything coming up on wigo anymore. Hmm. Maybe it's just the weekend.— Unsigned, by: 86.158.221.125 / talk / contribs
- Smeg Ed has just crawled out of the
sewerwoodwork, to kiss Andy's ass. Maybe we'll get another slew of one-sentence "articles" soon. IIJM, or has PJR thrown in the towel? Haven't seen him on there in ages. Maybe he finally saw the light. --PsyGremlinWhut? 08:44, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
PWNED!
Kenservative's comprehensively pwned by JohnyGoodman. Suck on that Kenny boy!
ContribsTalk 13:42, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Too late. MH. Ajkgordon 13:44, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Er, not yet.
GenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 13:51, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- He really is out of his depth, isn't he? Ajkgordon 14:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Of course, you can't be owned if you don't understand it. Ajkgordon 14:07, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Since when have they understood anything they post? In a matter of hours, *all* of those "great minds" will be dismissed along one so-called reason or another. Course, I do have a bone to pick about DeBeauvour not being a philosopher--Waiting for Godot 14:24, 4 August 2008 (EDT) or Feminism not a philosophy. hehe.
- Er, not yet.
This was predictable. What a freaking moron. Ace McWicked (unsigned in)
- "Well gosh, Solomon isn't in there, and umm... ummm.. Plato, and you know, that other dude, what's his name... well, he's the greatest and he was a christian... August or something..." Wonder what *would* be considered "demonstrate" that they are great, then.--Waiting for Godot 18:11, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Looks like Conservatives decided to go with an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. --Gulik 06:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- I dunno about that, but his rant surely deserves to be quoted here:
- Looks like Conservatives decided to go with an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. --Gulik 06:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
"You mentioned Dennett. Have you read Daniel Dennett's commentary on Stalin located here: http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/07/boba-digest-part-2-daniel-dennetts.html I believe Dennett is acting quite illogical for a so called "great philosopher". Dennett has quite the penchant for using the favorite fallacious modus operandi of a great deal of atheists and that is the exclusionary fallacy. I do intend on creating an atheists and logic section for the CP atheism article."
- As if that is a response? ħuman
06:14, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- As if that is a response? ħuman
PNAS letter
The letter to PNAS has (allegedly) been sent. So we now wait for publication.
ContribsTalk 14:51, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Which of course, it will be, since it's such an amazingly well written, well researched, and well argued reply, do'n'cah know.--Waiting for Godot 15:40, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm going to reiterate my previous statement on this though. While part of me would enjoy a public smack-down, the fact is that PNAS will not and should not publish this letter. They have standards to maintain, and to indulge a random internet fantasist would be an insult to the many thousands of genuine researchers like myself who would love to have their professional material published. The joke is over, Andy is irrelevant even to other Creationists, and it's not the job of a serious journal to indulge random internet cranks. The Lay Scientist 15:44, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- What he said, double.
ContribsTalk 15:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- My guess is, they will send him a letter which they follow Lenski by saying 1) you don't know what you are talking about 2) you have no idea how to be a scientists or work within scientific framwork, but if you'd like to learn, here's a university near you, 3) you don't know what you are talking about, 4) here are a few arguments to let your READERS know about the facts. Then they may publish said reply on their page in some link, or provide the letter to such sites as NCSe if they wish to use it in furthering the goal of science in the classroom. just a hunch, of course. They may simply ignore it all.--Waiting for Godot 16:31, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- What WaitingforGodot said much better than me and in less time (damn edit conflict) :-D I can just imagine what happens if they DON'T publish the letter: "Liberal censorship!!!" (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 16:37, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm hoping they publish something too, not because cranks should be taken seriously, but because every once in a while you need to make an example out of someone, and this is prime material to work with. It also serves a purpose in educating people as to how science really works, especially when legitimate science is constantly being attacked by fundies. --SpinyNorman 16:43, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I am guessing that they will just send a form letter rejection. If they were to personally reply to every crank letter they received, they would never publish an issue... I would be really surprised if they sent any form of a rebuttal, surely that is not the editor's job.
- Well, Lenski took the time to interact with Conservapedia. And I don't really know how many crank letters they get, it's not that PNAS is read by as many crank people as Reader's Digest. So there is still hope for either publication or a private answer. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 17:22, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I was mostly responding to WfG's hope that they would send him a crushing reply, a la Lenski. I don't think this will happen as it is not really the place of editors to rebut attacks on papers written by their authors. As I understand it, if they feel the letter is worth a rebuttal, they will print it and give Lenski et al a chance to respond. As to how many crank letters they get it's anyone's guess.-Antifly 18:03, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not sure that any reply wouldn't present pretty much the same information already brought up in the talk pages. However, I wouldn't mind if Blount et al. did reply. I just wonder whether the letter will be forwarded to them (They didn't cc Lenski or any of the other authors).--Neon 19:48, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I was mostly responding to WfG's hope that they would send him a crushing reply, a la Lenski. I don't think this will happen as it is not really the place of editors to rebut attacks on papers written by their authors. As I understand it, if they feel the letter is worth a rebuttal, they will print it and give Lenski et al a chance to respond. As to how many crank letters they get it's anyone's guess.-Antifly 18:03, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well, Lenski took the time to interact with Conservapedia. And I don't really know how many crank letters they get, it's not that PNAS is read by as many crank people as Reader's Digest. So there is still hope for either publication or a private answer. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 17:22, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Also, does anyone know what the response time is like for letters. For articles it can be up to a year or so, can we expect lulz sooner?-Antifly 16:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I am guessing that they will just send a form letter rejection. If they were to personally reply to every crank letter they received, they would never publish an issue... I would be really surprised if they sent any form of a rebuttal, surely that is not the editor's job.
- I'm hoping they publish something too, not because cranks should be taken seriously, but because every once in a while you need to make an example out of someone, and this is prime material to work with. It also serves a purpose in educating people as to how science really works, especially when legitimate science is constantly being attacked by fundies. --SpinyNorman 16:43, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- What WaitingforGodot said much better than me and in less time (damn edit conflict) :-D I can just imagine what happens if they DON'T publish the letter: "Liberal censorship!!!" (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 16:37, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- My guess is, they will send him a letter which they follow Lenski by saying 1) you don't know what you are talking about 2) you have no idea how to be a scientists or work within scientific framwork, but if you'd like to learn, here's a university near you, 3) you don't know what you are talking about, 4) here are a few arguments to let your READERS know about the facts. Then they may publish said reply on their page in some link, or provide the letter to such sites as NCSe if they wish to use it in furthering the goal of science in the classroom. just a hunch, of course. They may simply ignore it all.--Waiting for Godot 16:31, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- What he said, double.
I updated Lenski affair to show the current revision of the letter and to indicate that it was mailed today. ħuman
17:07, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I normally ignore this page but the whole letter saga has fascinated me. It's like Thomas Hardy done for laughs (looming tragedy, or in this case, looming lulz). Totnesmartin 17:27, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I was doubly amused by the "cc" list. Judicial watch???? ookkaayyyyy...--Waiting for Godot 18:19, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Random plug - I've blogged about the letter here. The Lay Scientist 21:06, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Lay Scientist you are a kind of less creepy reverse Ken. Go over to CP and try to slip your blog in as references and see what happens, tell them it is a creationist blog.

05:23, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Haha @ the pi guy, and that is a very good idea. Although, how much do you like wasting your time? ħuman
05:26, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- ROFLMAO at Pi, I'm going to assume that was a compliment! Funnily enough, I just put up a post about China oppressing a Church leader. I was tempted to link to it on CP, and see if they noticed what the wider site was about, and that the previous article calls Schlafly a moron. The Lay Scientist 07:19, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Haha @ the pi guy, and that is a very good idea. Although, how much do you like wasting your time? ħuman
CC List
The moron has sent 3 copies to PNAS, and 2 to the PNAS editor.. WTF? Also, Judicial Watch, fascinating choice, and Brian Baird, who last time I checked is a Democrat? The Lay Scientist 19:49, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- The editor one is amusing, I suspect Andy is trying make sure he does not use the excuse he never received it to not publish it. (Like saying is letter is a poorly argued pile of crap is not enough reason not to publish it). Judicial Watch is probably his favorite right-wing lobby group. You have to try to see this from inside Andy's mind. As far as he is concerned there is a wide spread conspiracy going on trying to publish inflated results for evolution and censoring dissent. Like the left-wing groups when you can't get your opinion through the normal channels, in the case of same-sex marriage for example legislatively, they go fight it in the courts. Andy and his creationist crowd can't get their pseudo-science published in journals or taught in universities, they try to get the legislators and high-school boards to teach it at lower grades of schooling. It of course stinks of hypocrisy as Andy would be the first to claim "Activist Judges". I wounder what term we could invent for a legislator who wants to legislate his opinion as a scientific fact?

05:17, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- "A politician"? It's really, REALLY common for them to try to get their half-baked opinions about testable hypotheses enshrined in law. Everything from Lysenkoism to second-hand smoke scares qualifies. --Gulik 06:14, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well yes... but he's writing to a democrat?! The Lay Scientist 07:20, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well that is not surprising as the Democrats have control of both houses so I should imagine they would chair every committee. Maybe he thought it looked impartial sending it to the head of the committee concerned regardless of affiliation. You have to think Andy like. He is sure that the legislators are ignorant of the fact that bodies they fund are biased and once it is brought to their attention there will be a mass legislation spree creating "academic freedom" (read teach creationism).Or maybe he is hoping that the Democrat guy tells him to piss off as well so he can say "look how high this conspiracy of liberal evolutionist deceit goes".

07:37, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well that is not surprising as the Democrats have control of both houses so I should imagine they would chair every committee. Maybe he thought it looked impartial sending it to the head of the committee concerned regardless of affiliation. You have to think Andy like. He is sure that the legislators are ignorant of the fact that bodies they fund are biased and once it is brought to their attention there will be a mass legislation spree creating "academic freedom" (read teach creationism).Or maybe he is hoping that the Democrat guy tells him to piss off as well so he can say "look how high this conspiracy of liberal evolutionist deceit goes".
- Well yes... but he's writing to a democrat?! The Lay Scientist 07:20, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- "A politician"? It's really, REALLY common for them to try to get their half-baked opinions about testable hypotheses enshrined in law. Everything from Lysenkoism to second-hand smoke scares qualifies. --Gulik 06:14, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Another possible factor: The evils of word counting methods
I would love to see the organization replying with "Your letter is too long!". The official limit is 250 words, and as a disclaimer, I didn't check their site for special guidelines. I just copied Andy's text (including the references, of course) into my editor, cropped some indents and replaced the URLs with a dummy string ("URL") to be on the safe side. The result with the editor I use to count words in my fics (Tex-Edit Plus for OSX): 257 if you also erase the list numbering, 254 if you also remove the commas in the numbers, and 262 if you leave everything in. Removing the "+" from the "Cit+" words doesn't change the count.
I'm very sure that this number will change slightly depending on editor and counting method, but it seems that Andy went with a very optimistic counting method there. Not terribly wise when you're working with strict limits. --Sid 17:28, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- The word count is fine. I don't think I've ever submitted a paper that didn't try and cheat the word limit a little. It's just there so you don't take the piss basically, and they can fit it into X pages or Xth of a page. If it was a few words over in a letter, they'd probably just edit it slightly. There are bigger reasons to reject it. Like the fact that it's a letter from an internet crank. The Lay Scientist 19:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Andy would have been better writing two letters, one on the statistical problems and one on the procedural problems, he would have more chance of getting one published.

05:19, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- People tried to tell him not to just cc:spray it, but to write separate letters... but you mean something different. You are assuming, dangerously, that he could have cobbled together two coherent letters on a topic he is woefully mis/uninformed about? I wish I had your faith ;) ħuman
05:22, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- People tried to tell him not to just cc:spray it, but to write separate letters... but you mean something different. You are assuming, dangerously, that he could have cobbled together two coherent letters on a topic he is woefully mis/uninformed about? I wish I had your faith ;) ħuman
- Andy would have been better writing two letters, one on the statistical problems and one on the procedural problems, he would have more chance of getting one published.
Revisionist History revised
I loved Andy's line that "only tiny things have been found, small enough to carry". 1) I'm not sure how 8 buildings are portable, unless I suppose, they are tipis...2)if an anthropologist found a nail that proves Jesus was crucified just like the bible said (nail holes in his hands, and all), you know that little artifact would be enough! portable and all!--Waiting for Godot 14:57, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- The whole discussion is a gold mine. Another thing I noted is Andy's point about "artifacts being used by Norse women". Whereas my immediate conclusion would be something like "Okay! So maybe either they did have women along or it wasn't just women who used those", his is "Okay! Then they can't be authentic because there were no women there." An interesting small insight into his views on gender roles, perhaps? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 15:06, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Hey, which one of you bundles of wood was Jinxy94?
If you really want to cover my "knob" with peanut butter and lick it, just come out of that closet and say so. Stop trying to project your fantasies on my non-existent dog. 67.135.49.198 15:13, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Duh, Jinx. It was AmesG, wasn't it? --JeevesMkII 15:28, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- 1) The vandal suggested YOU cover your "knob" in peanut butter.
- 2) The vandal said "I let a dog", not your (possessive) dog.
- 3) From 1 and 2, sounds like you distorted the statement to make it look like you want us to...
- 4) Did you try it yet? :D (no, that vandal wasn't me) NorsemanWassail! 15:31, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, because it's a proven fact that nobody other than us ever wandalize CP, right? Maybe it was someone from the Something Awful forums. Why don't you run over there and ask if anyone wants you to cover your knob with peanut butter? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 15:35, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- This wazzock has offspring? Poor little sod(s)!
ContribsTalk 16:56, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Sorry Jinx - I missed your wandalism 'cause I was laughing so much about your Pwnation. Which happened, ironically, while you were stuffing your tongue so far up Schlafly's rectum that he'd be able to feel you tickling his throat. Still, Trent wiped up your faeces, so no harm done.
ContribsTalk 21:12, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Jesusshit, Susan! Some of us want to have an appetite sometime in the next century, and don't need such images in their heads! Christ, I want to pour Drano into my ears to try to clean that out!--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 07:13, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Sorry Jinx - I missed your wandalism 'cause I was laughing so much about your Pwnation. Which happened, ironically, while you were stuffing your tongue so far up Schlafly's rectum that he'd be able to feel you tickling his throat. Still, Trent wiped up your faeces, so no harm done.
- This wazzock has offspring? Poor little sod(s)!
Fox comes clean
"I do not drink alcohol habitually. Sadly, as a consequence, when I do, it, has a greater effect upon me than one would expect. I wish to apologise to Andrew and the greater CP community for my lapses in behaviour when I've "had a few". Alcohol disinhibits my behaviour and I am sad to say it makes me more aggressive towards CPs detractors than they deserve or would normally expect. I'm sorry about this; it normally only happens every 6 months, and I again apologise for this." [2]
I guess at least some of our theories were correct. Fox, it was big of you to apologize (ok, on CP, but the red telephone is a dedicated line to our teletype), and we all have lapses. Some of us much more often than ye ;) ħuman
16:53, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Always good to have clarity, and yeah, apologizing was a cool move. :) Now, will you sign the "Differences with Wikipedia"? ;) --Sid 17:09, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Leave it to Jinx to fuck up the one nice moment on CP in what feels like an eternity... --Sid 17:50, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Either Jinx considers himself one of CP's detractors or his reading comprehension (or mine!) is not very good. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 18:03, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I think it's less a matter of reading comprehension and more one of context. Jinx apparently thinks this is about the whole clash where Fox brought up Jinx's WP history (plus the speculation about that WP user with the odd name), but I think it's pretty clear that Fox was talking about the recent ban orgy on CP (and of course, the very weird exchanges here on T:WIGO). --Sid 18:10, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Either Jinx considers himself one of CP's detractors or his reading comprehension (or mine!) is not very good. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 18:03, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Leave it to Jinx to fuck up the one nice moment on CP in what feels like an eternity... --Sid 17:50, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- But Fox is up the the challenge of Jinx--Toffeeman 18:11, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Writing assignments: Conservative Karajou vs. Ed Poor
When I read the latest WIGO item, my first thought was "no way!". But the diff link is a strong case in favour of Conservative Karajou winning an eventual writing assignment war. Now, this is the first Conservative Karajou's writing assignment I know of, but if his standard stays the same, will he be "better" than Ed Poor in this special race? (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 17:18, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- ...you mean Karajou, right? (Feel free to erase this message if you correct the initial post or at least tell me where Conservative dished out an assignment if I missed something.) --Sid 17:32, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Argh! Karajou, I publicly apologize here for my mistake! If it is of any help, let me tell you: it was just an error on my part. Don't worry, I really know what you're worth of. I'm sure that my error won't hamper your race for The Biggest Idiot at CP version 2.0. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 17:52, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- This is actually the second case for Kara I can remember. The first (I can remember) was with TomMoore about the "Kool-Aid vs. Flavor Aid" thing. That one actually had a deadline of just a few hours. --Sid 18:13, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Oh right, how could I forget that! Yep, Ed Poor shows quantity, but Kara wins with quality. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 18:28, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
References to THAT SITE!
Is it just me, or have CP references to us increased almost exponentially recently, even without Jinxy's contribs?
ContribsTalk 18:16, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- What I'm wondering is, how do you finish a peach without getting all the juices on your hands? o.O The real sock of a sock... known as Chaosfish 18:37, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Bloody colonial: you eat it with a knife and fork after the butler's taken the stone out.
ContribsTalk 18:44, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Innuendo: Ur doing it wrong.... Or are you??-Antifly 19:51, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I could eat a peach for hours... and sometimes it is just right to get the juices all over. The idea of taking a fork and knife to a peach is an abomination. --Shagie 19:15, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- With some things, it's better to just immerse yourself in the experience and clean up later. Ah, summer.--SpinyNorman 19:30, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I believe those are the words that open the serial killer's manifesto. --JeevesMkII 19:38, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Actually, eating the peach has ... err ... how shall I put it .... connotations? Well, I know it begins with 'C' ... what was that word ....?
ContribsTalk 20:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- I assure you that was fully intended on my part... and I hope you were referring to the flesh of the fruit instead in your comment. Otherwise... well, thats kinky. I'm still wondering if the sock was aware of the implications of what he said/suggested. --Shagie 00:22, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Actually, eating the peach has ... err ... how shall I put it .... connotations? Well, I know it begins with 'C' ... what was that word ....?
- I believe those are the words that open the serial killer's manifesto. --JeevesMkII 19:38, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- With some things, it's better to just immerse yourself in the experience and clean up later. Ah, summer.--SpinyNorman 19:30, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Bloody colonial: you eat it with a knife and fork after the butler's taken the stone out.
hahaha great
Nice one! Ace McWickedInteresting 19:54, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- "earn't?" lulz! Frickin' morons. 67.135.49.198 12:44, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- You had to look on this talk page to find it. Frickin' moron. :P NorsemanWassail! 12:47, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Only because your nitwits dishonestly like to hide your vandalisms in other edits. 67.135.49.198 14:27, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- "your nitwits"? Lulz! Frickin' moron.
GenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 14:51, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- "...nitwits dishonestly like to hide your vandalisms..." Like you did? lulz! NorsemanWassail! 17:22, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- It took the wandal a whole six minutes to correct the error. I usually let Schlafly's typos live for a couple of days before I fix them... ħuman
19:12, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- "Like you did?" Okay, now rub your two brain cells together and try to put one and one together. You can do it. Come on. Oh, no! Your head burst into flame. Sorry. 67.135.49.198 21:33, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- It took the wandal a whole six minutes to correct the error. I usually let Schlafly's typos live for a couple of days before I fix them... ħuman
- "...nitwits dishonestly like to hide your vandalisms..." Like you did? lulz! NorsemanWassail! 17:22, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- "your nitwits"? Lulz! Frickin' moron.
- Only because your nitwits dishonestly like to hide your vandalisms in other edits. 67.135.49.198 14:27, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- You had to look on this talk page to find it. Frickin' moron. :P NorsemanWassail! 12:47, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- "earn't?" lulz! Frickin' morons. 67.135.49.198 12:44, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Bob Jones University
Why is Andy so upset that people are writing the truth about redneck Harvard, they were/are a racist organization and should not be recognized! SockofCPuser 21:08, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Hehe... I restored it, though I'd guess I'll be following it out the door in a bit.
For someone who blocks...
For someone who has block rights, it's pretty big to say that liberals get out of arguments they can't win because there's another guy. --
Gen. S.T. Shrink GET TO THA CHOPPER 21:12, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Dear god Andy, aren't you supposed to be a History teacher? Democrats used to support slavery. NO SHIT SHERLOCK. Back when they were..... Republicans. --
Gen. S.T. Shrink GET TO THA CHOPPER 21:15, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- @SST, Ames turned up and accepted the challenge. Now Andy wants a deposit to ensure Ames turns up... I am so glad I invested in the new RW 3.0 heavy duty irony meter (for sale in the back of this issue!), its special protection circuits stop it from blowing up or otherwise failing when overloaded. ħuman
21:47, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- @SST, Ames turned up and accepted the challenge. Now Andy wants a deposit to ensure Ames turns up... I am so glad I invested in the new RW 3.0 heavy duty irony meter (for sale in the back of this issue!), its special protection circuits stop it from blowing up or otherwise failing when overloaded. ħuman
- Of course, this being Conservapedia, they'd probably have bouncers to exclude him from the venue and then claim he'd forfeited his deposit. --JeevesMkII 10:17, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Debate Topics
Has Andy specified which topic he wants to debate about? Because if not, I'm sure we can suggest a few:
- Relativity: Communist Plot?
- Liberals: Deliberate Traitors, Or Just Blithering Idiots?
- Evolutionary Biologists: Deliberate Satan-Worshippers, or Accidental Ones?
- Openmindedness: Either You Agree With Me About Everything, or You're A Deluded Fool
- Which Parts of The Bible are Liberal Forgeries?
- Ben Franklin Was NOT a Deist, and I'll Ban Anyone Who Disagrees
- Science: Threat or Menace?
- Ronald Reagan: Great President, or GREATEST President?
- Liberals: Shooting or Hanging?
- Conservapedia: Alternative to Wikipedia, or a hypocritical, abusively POV-pushing project?
- Gay marriage: Wrong because it's in the bible, or wrong because I think it's just kinda creepy.
- Humans: Descended from monkeys, or descended from two humans made out of dust who weren't allowed to commit incest?
- Is George W. Bush as great a President as Ronald Reagan?
Add your own! --Gulik 06:01, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- I think you pretty much nailed it, Gulik. ħuman
06:37, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Hows "Has a conservative ever been guilty of wrong doing? This is of course a trick question designed to show how clueless the debatee is. Ace McWickedInteresting 06:44, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Conservapedia: Alternative to Wikipedia, or a hypocritical, abusively POV-pushing project? - I added this one, though it sounds a bit biased ;). All those uncomfortable questions where Andy never replied (and used his infamous rearguard to save him) or answered with insults, "liberal" this and that, or simply responded that broke so many of his own commandments/policies in one go. There's so much he simply can't respond to without lashing out with some "LIBERALS ATE MY BABY!" claptrap. NorsemanWassail! 09:21, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Hows "Has a conservative ever been guilty of wrong doing? This is of course a trick question designed to show how clueless the debatee is. Ace McWickedInteresting 06:44, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- I like this one: "Is George W. Bush as great a President as Ronald Reagan?" On the one hand, Reagan must be affirmed as the greatest President of all time; on the other hand, nothing even remotely critical of George W. Bush can be uttered. It'll create a feedback loop which will cause Andy's head to explode. --Phentari 17:02, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Added a line about dust & adam. "monkeys, hell no. but yes, i'm descended from dust!"
- Good one, Phentar. Added. --Gulik 17:30, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- I like this one: "Is George W. Bush as great a President as Ronald Reagan?" On the one hand, Reagan must be affirmed as the greatest President of all time; on the other hand, nothing even remotely critical of George W. Bush can be uttered. It'll create a feedback loop which will cause Andy's head to explode. --Phentari 17:02, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Technical re:article itself!
I just added a couple of subheaders to make editing easier. Once in a while we should move the "section end" one up. Now that the WIGO voting isn't one huge tagged thing, we can use these little buttons to make adding items/correcting typos much easier, since only a small section gets edited. If anyone thinks up better names for the edit buttons, just improve them. PS, whoever did the 0807 archive, thanks! ħuman
21:57, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Hooray for buttonz! Yay! *pushes* -Master Bra'tacKree! 21:59, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Ummm....How about for edit "Interupt". Kinda funny, amrite? --
Gen. S.T. Shrink GET TO THA CHOPPER 21:59, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Kinda funny, but it should be reasonably intuitive to people what it's for? I dunno, I guess there's only you, me, and AmesG anyway... One could say poop and the other pee for all it matters! "Interrupt"... hmmmm... hmmm.... hekk, it's not up to me ;) Anyone here can improve this rapidly growing internet resource! ħuman
22:16, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
- Kinda funny, but it should be reasonably intuitive to people what it's for? I dunno, I guess there's only you, me, and AmesG anyway... One could say poop and the other pee for all it matters! "Interrupt"... hmmmm... hmmm.... hekk, it's not up to me ;) Anyone here can improve this rapidly growing internet resource! ħuman
- Ummm....How about for edit "Interupt". Kinda funny, amrite? --
Obama picture on "Featured Article"
The CP article for McCain has the official portrait, whereas Obama's has a less flattering one. Andy has a great explanation of how this isn't photo bias. I would like to point out how much I love that the Obama article, with it's "affirmative action president" racist nonsense, is on the front page. "Welcome to Conservapedia. We're racist!" CorryTalk 13:55, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- The left and right side of the main page seem to be competing who can smear Obama the most. Just look at how many of the current news items are anti-Obama. And while the image swap in the Obama article had been way in the past (along with interesting discussions on the talk page), Andy actually overrode Croco's image choice on the main page. I'm actually mildly surprised that the caption wasn't changed to "Obama's obvious anti-American stance" or something. --Sid 14:05, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- What's with the "alegedly born in Honolulu" bit? Is there actually controversy over his place of birth, or is that just the usual CP stupidity? Smyth 14:36, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Maybe they they think the word should be "spawned"?--Bobbing up 14:57, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- I love it, "welcome we are racist" as Corry put it. Just makes more people roll thier heads at the lunitics, other than the "tried and true", but those people will vote the same way no matter what facts are presented. If nothing else the "allegedly" makes it priceless, when even teh most conservative of politicians admit he was born in the US.--Waiting for Godot 15:03, 5 August 2008 (EDT) PS. Smyth, if you didn't know, there was a big "to do" in the consev-o-sphere about how Obama's BC is a fake, and why won't they release it, and yadda yadda....
- See this talk page section for a brief rundown of the "allegedly born in Honolulu" part. --Sid 15:40, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Oh for crying out loud. This line is awesome: "If he was not born in the United States, he cannot be the President. That is in the Constitution." I suppose it's probably a good sign that so many are so scarred of him. Still, the weirdness is almost too much to believe. Smyth 15:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- I don't know if you noticed, but if you live out side of the US for more than 10 years (or 5, if you were under 18 at teh time) makes you NOT a US citizen! rotflmao. These guys are a riot.--Waiting for Godot 16:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- To add to the hilarity, John McCain, the Great Really White Hope of the conservatives, was born in Panama. --Gulik 17:34, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Oh for crying out loud. This line is awesome: "If he was not born in the United States, he cannot be the President. That is in the Constitution." I suppose it's probably a good sign that so many are so scarred of him. Still, the weirdness is almost too much to believe. Smyth 15:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Maybe they they think the word should be "spawned"?--Bobbing up 14:57, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- What's with the "alegedly born in Honolulu" bit? Is there actually controversy over his place of birth, or is that just the usual CP stupidity? Smyth 14:36, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Interesting: "...Obama enrolled at Harvard Law School. He became a member of the liberal Harvard Law Review in 1989, which used racial quotas for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990." Schlafly was a member of the Law Review as well. I wonder if it was less liberal when he was in? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 18:20, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- The photo is also mis-captioned. They were singing the Stars and Bangles when it was taken. ħuman
18:55, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- The photo is also mis-captioned. They were singing the Stars and Bangles when it was taken. ħuman
Escher
It pains me greatly to see Escher's work on that pile of crap. Why can't they just leave the good stuff alone, and stick with the vitriol? Smyth 14:36, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm terrified
Andy threatens a user with being reported to law enforcment. What did he do? Harrass? Threaten to kill? No. He offerered to give him a blowjob. --
Gen. S.T. Shrink GET TO THA CHOPPER 14:51, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well, once the cops stop wasting time on all those feminist-inspired restraining orders, they'll get right on this one. --SpinyNorman 14:56, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- So is the message here "wife beating good, BJs bad?" CorryTalk 15:13, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Kind of. What's interesting about PS's views is that beating your wife is bad, but forcing her to have sex against her will is not, because you consent to that when you get married. (And this is the special tradition they want to deny to gays?) --SpinyNorman 16:02, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- I think Phil sees it another way. It's okay to beat them in order to show you place as man of the house, should she decide to not make you a sammich. It's also a great way to show the world how strong and awesome you are than you can beat your wife. So go ahead. When they mouth off, just smack them a little bit. God says so. It's actually disgusting really. --
Gen. S.T. Shrink GET TO THA CHOPPER 16:12, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- She basically wants a greater burden of proof to take out a restraining order than there was to carry out the Iraq war. CorryTalk 17:51, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- She also wants people actually convicted of DV to have ready access to firearms... bright, really bright. Also, she is being sexist about laws that are not gender-specific. ħuman
19:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- She also wants people actually convicted of DV to have ready access to firearms... bright, really bright. Also, she is being sexist about laws that are not gender-specific. ħuman
- She basically wants a greater burden of proof to take out a restraining order than there was to carry out the Iraq war. CorryTalk 17:51, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- I think Phil sees it another way. It's okay to beat them in order to show you place as man of the house, should she decide to not make you a sammich. It's also a great way to show the world how strong and awesome you are than you can beat your wife. So go ahead. When they mouth off, just smack them a little bit. God says so. It's actually disgusting really. --
- Kind of. What's interesting about PS's views is that beating your wife is bad, but forcing her to have sex against her will is not, because you consent to that when you get married. (And this is the special tradition they want to deny to gays?) --SpinyNorman 16:02, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- In the interest of clarity, he offered to give Jinxy a b.j. Smyth 15:47, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- So is the message here "wife beating good, BJs bad?" CorryTalk 15:13, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Probably because Jinxy reiterated that we're "mouth-breathers with a morbid fetish" about CP. Next time, I'll offer Ed Poor and Karajou a ménage à trois. Yuck. JayJay4ever??? 16:42, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- As if those two knew enough French to figure that out. They'll probably figure its some dish with snails in it.--Waiting for Godot 17:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Correction: the offer was of a PBBJ! Um, yum? ħuman
19:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Correction: the offer was of a PBBJ! Um, yum? ħuman
- As if those two knew enough French to figure that out. They'll probably figure its some dish with snails in it.--Waiting for Godot 17:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Probably because Jinxy reiterated that we're "mouth-breathers with a morbid fetish" about CP. Next time, I'll offer Ed Poor and Karajou a ménage à trois. Yuck. JayJay4ever??? 16:42, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
This is a thing of beauty...
It would be a shame not to preserve itfrom the deletion that will inevitably follow. --Phentari 18:58, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- See here.
ContribsTalk 19:21, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- I suggested that the discussion be moved to its own page (like we often do here), in order that it can be continued with hassling Schlafly with boxen d'orange every time he loads a page. I hope someone there picks up on the idea. ħuman
19:41, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- So, I read the comments, and what flabbergasted me is that Jinx insists that Obama's goal is to play magical trick of "don't look at my hand, look at the pretty girl". WHAT THE HECK IS SO WRONG with trying to both reduce consumption as well as deal with the supply? Dear lord in heaven (or lordess, as the case may be) this guy and other conservatives simply do not live in the real world where oil really is disappearing and we need long term solutions. Does he not understand the idea that drilling takes time?--Waiting for Godot 20:39, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- I loved when he tried to steer the discussion back to his idea of what we were supposed to be discussing. I really like my "free air" idea, I actually had it a few weeks ago while listening to some PSA on my college radio. Also ignored is that we need new refineries if we are to process more oil... right? Oh, and WFG, isn't a female "lord" a "lady"? ħuman
20:59, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yup! H, it's about time you Murcans caught up with us (taint compulsory - it just happens, mostly).
ContribsTalk 21:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- I'm not an American, I just live here... ħuman
21:57, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yeah, sorry, I thought that as soon as I'd closed the tab. :-(
ContribsTalk 21:59, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- "lady" sounds so weak and impotent. Like french "femme" for both wife and woman. ;-) Course, i'm sure "ess" means "little" so goddess and lordess are likely to be denegrative anyhow. heheh. You made good points with the free air... and I had no idea that accidents could be caused by too low air pressure, so maybe it's as good a thing to "push" state wide as "seat belts". --Waiting for Godot 22:21, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Yeah, sorry, I thought that as soon as I'd closed the tab. :-(
- I'm not an American, I just live here... ħuman
- Yup! H, it's about time you Murcans caught up with us (taint compulsory - it just happens, mostly).
- I loved when he tried to steer the discussion back to his idea of what we were supposed to be discussing. I really like my "free air" idea, I actually had it a few weeks ago while listening to some PSA on my college radio. Also ignored is that we need new refineries if we are to process more oil... right? Oh, and WFG, isn't a female "lord" a "lady"? ħuman
- So, I read the comments, and what flabbergasted me is that Jinx insists that Obama's goal is to play magical trick of "don't look at my hand, look at the pretty girl". WHAT THE HECK IS SO WRONG with trying to both reduce consumption as well as deal with the supply? Dear lord in heaven (or lordess, as the case may be) this guy and other conservatives simply do not live in the real world where oil really is disappearing and we need long term solutions. Does he not understand the idea that drilling takes time?--Waiting for Godot 20:39, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- I suggested that the discussion be moved to its own page (like we often do here), in order that it can be continued with hassling Schlafly with boxen d'orange every time he loads a page. I hope someone there picks up on the idea. ħuman
There is no such thing as a Jewish religious right
According to page 8 of 23 of http://www.ujc.org/local_includes/downloads/4983.pdf about 40% of Orthodox Jews are under 18. According to http://www.rjchq.org/news.asp?FormMode=Detail&id=1187 about 30% of Jews under 55 are Republicans, 40% of Orthodox Jews are Republicans, and older Jews tend to vote Democrat. Therefore Orthodox Jews are just as likely to vote Republican as other Jews, when they are compared to their corresponding age groups in the Jewish population. --Jellyfish 19:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Among many of the Chassidic groups, they vote for whoever their Rebbe tells them to, thus, in many neighborhoods in NY, there are large voting blocs for whichever politician can "buy" their vote. (Before you write off all Chasids, remember that my group doesn't work like that (at least in American politics)...) אנדי שלאפלי איז א פאץ What, you can't read it? Learn how to speak Yiddish 21:19, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Why I love you guys
Why I love you guys
I'm physically attracted to little girls. Ace McWickedInteresting 21:44, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Me, too.--Damo2353 21:48, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Me, too.

21:47, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Me, too. Stile4aly 22:04, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Me, too. NightFlareThis is a talk page. 22:06, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Me, too. Stile4aly 22:08, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
OK, covered to death, but...
I was looking at the archived bit about how touchy Andy gets when you mention any connection between him and Eagle forum, specifically his denial of being in their employ. Then I remembered how he was introduced on the video clip where he debates someone over the HPV vaccines during a news broadcast. He was introduced there as "Andy Schlafly, counsel for Eagle Forum". Interesting how that retainer was left out of his "affiliations" on the PNAS letter. -SpinyNorman 22:48, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Hello!
I've been reading you guys and Conservapedia for Lulz for a while now and finally got up the nerve to edit conservapedia. So, what happens? I get blocked as a 'sock.' Lame. Can someone add Dinsdale's story to the Marry a Conservative page? HMcTavitch 22:52, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- Welcome HMcTavitch. They are sure everyone is one of about 4 people. It is even funnier when Jinx comes around here accusing us of being someone who has never been a user of this site (we can only assume this happen as we can't be everyone laughing at them). I was trolling and vandalising CP before I knew this place existed. I have since given it up as it is not really funny to laugh at things you intentionally did. Oh well welcome any way. 3.14159 (not signed in)
- You have offended me sir. My edit was, in fact, hilarious. HMcTavitch 23:02, 5 August 2008 (EDT)