2015 Fundraiser

##  Extra credit with Bible Project

I'm not to sure what to make of this extra credit. Andy basically asks his students for reinsurance after the wide criticism of his project on the web? I particularily like the afterthought "Oh, and it would be nice if you could find a connection to economics. Like, you know, hum...somehow." --Ireon 15:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess he could sell the translation once he's finished it. That would be... economics...stuff. X Stickman 15:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It has just struck me that what Andy's doing with his free-market translation of the Bible is "being economical with the truth" (to use the immortal words of Sir Robert Armstrong). ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 16:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see someone argue option C: that the translation should be "made illegal". Stu the Foo' 16:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Any student trying this option would very quickly face the cold harsh truth of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" and be cleansed from the homeschooled pool. Adapt or die! --Ireon 16:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
WTF? Discouraged, encouraged or made illegal by who exactly? The only bodies I can think of with the power to make it illegal ought to have no opinion at all on the existence of any particular private enterprise, neither encouraging it or discouraging it. Now a reasonably question would be, should anyone who wants to write a conservative bible be scoffed at, ridiculed or burnt at the stake? There's a question we can all enjoy. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I updated the WIGO, but Andy deleted the question and locked the lecture, declaring it complete. Maybe he decided that using his lectures as a way to get his students to praise the glorious Conservative Bible Project was a little much. MDB 12:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Andy on Liberaland

Did anyone else catch this Tuesday night? Intellectually it was what you might expect--Andy would get backed into a corner due to his indefensible positions, Colmes would back off and grab another sword, a couple minutes later Andy would be backed into a different corner. Colmes picked up right away on Andy's raving anti-liberal tendencies, and there was a great moment when Andy talked about how the people writing the liberal translations of the bible are the same ones voting for Obama--Colmes called him out on it and asked Andy if he had investigated the voting record of every bible translator. Back into the corner went Andy, claiming that professors translated the bible and professors voted for Obama.

Anyway, I think the most significant thing from the whole interview is that Andy said the translation would be done in about a year. I hadn't seen any commitment language from Andy as to a timeline beyond "if we translate X verses of B book every Y days we'll finish in Z months!!" There has to be some way this can be used to make him look like a fool, because he's obviously going to fail at it. Andy has never been able to maintain a long-term project (remember his one-time goal to make Conservapedia the world's leading free constitutional law resource?). Sandman 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It all depends... I think it's high time to do everything we can to thrust CP into the limelight. Troll, spam, tell your friends and neighbors. Get your right wing grandparents to take a look, you know it's been a while since you've spoken to them. With any luck, we can get fundies from all corners to make this one of the greatest Christian clusterfucks of the twenty-first century. Imagine, Christians from all over the country, coming together, marring their tome, disagreeing on everything...for the world to see! — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
What? where did this interview occur? Linky? Me!Sheesh!Mine! 16:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Linky. I haven't listened to the whole thing, but Alan fucking killed it... "Anyway, uh, Phyllis Schlafly's straight son is, uh, doin' a uh..." Fuck it's not on there... — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't have the interview, that's a preview clip. You need to pay (bah!) to listen to the actual interview. No way is anyone getting 5 dollah out of me in order to listen to the Assfly drone on. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Rupert Murdoch is fucking crazy with his pay for news ideas. I have a theory that the ratings for other networks are lower than fox because you can go to the websites and watch full episodes. You have to watch Bill O at these specific times in the day, but you can watch Olberman any time you want. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha, pwned. I found the MP3 of the interview fur free. Here, inflict pain upon yourself:

--JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I added this clip to "pwned" at Andrew Layton Schlafly. If it gets transcribed that can be changed to a link to the transcription page. ħuman 21:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It actually hurts to listen to him. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hah, awesome. Alan really fucks the Arsefly in the arse right there. I think I'm in love. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Man. He really comes off as more of an idiot when he can't simply ban someone. All that giggling too, WTF? I love how he quips when he has no answer. "Tyranny" is a synonym for "Government." HarHarHarHarHar! Also, he jumps around from one unsupportable dickhead idea to another unsupportable dickhead idea. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 18:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
...I knew the 'Fly was crazy on the internet, but I thought it ended there. Now I see that he's crazy in reality too. It was great to see him be wholly unable to backup his viewpoints with anything other than wild assumptions and sweeping statements. EddyP 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
When he said government with disdain (and then repeated it with more disdain and laughed) I lol'ed hard. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yuh huh. This audio is crying out for a video of Beavis and Butthead overlaid with the Assfly's "HurHurHurHur! Government!" He's just got that perfect Butthead lilt on the last syllable there, like it's a dirty word. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It is painful, but I'm going to write up a transcript. Any thoughts on how we could use the transcript? I'm sure we could use it in some way to illustrate how much of a flailing buffoon Andy is when he doesn't have ye trusty banhammer to save him from awkward questions. I'll pop a post here once it's up.Ask me about your mother 18:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not something you can do. -- Nx / talk 18:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I know it isn't going to happen, but please, if the universe is listening, lets see AndyPandy trying that crap with Jeremy Paxman, please, just once.--AndyPandy - because paranoia and abject failure doesn't hold you back, although it should. 18:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It's only happened a few times, but I love when Andy goes out into the real world and gets his ass kicked. It happened when he was on the news to debate vaccines and now with Colmes. Ps, when did he find a backbone? I never heard any of this humor (that's right, HUMOR) and intelligent argument during his whole tenor with Hannity. SirChuckBCall the FBI 18:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it sounds like he really did his homework, too. I'd even suggest that he may have read some of our work. ħuman 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Scrub what I said about posting the transcript. I suspect that Nx is thinking of copyright implications, and he's probably right that it can't be posted in its full form. Ta for the warning. Ask me about your mother 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Transcripts can be posted for purposes of critism and commentary, how do you think blogs get away with it? Plus, I seriously doubt that Colmes and his people are gonna come down on us. SirChuckBCall the FBI 19:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think Nx is severely overreacting here. First, you can't violate copyright without distributing a copy of an original work. We're not doing that. Second, the work in question is the audio. If you write a transcript of an interview, that's a whole other and different work. The interview itself is not eligable for oopyright, only the particular audio master of it being distributed. If you were in the studio, and weren't under contract to Fox to do otherwise, you could perfectly legally tape your own copy of it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
EC x too many -- Nx, I completely disagree with your analysis so far in this thread. If Fox fails at securing its property, why has it not waived any claim to a right to payment? Why do you believe a transcript of the interview with our corresponding talk page commentary or a side by side analysis would not be permissible to the extent Fox would even have any intellectual property right in such a transcript (I'm not sure it would)? I think you're wrong, but I'd like to know what you're thinking since you didn't explain yourself and no answer is immediately self-evident to me. 19:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
They're asking money from you so that you can listen to the interview. You are depriving them from that profit by linking to the interview without paying. As for the transcript, is it okay if I post a transcript of Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth audiobook? -- Nx / talk 19:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No, because that's a spoken version of a literary work, something which IS eligible for copyright. Conversations do not form a copyrightable work. Plus, they are asking money for the whole 3 hour thing. As far as I know this clip is something they mean to distribute for free. And even if they didn't mean to distribute it for free, at least in the UK under the misuse of computers act, they've forfeited any right to getting money for it by having no security to bypass. Copyright doesn't enter in to it, since as I point out we're not making a copy. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Without getting my lawyerly hat on I think Nx is correct. A transcript becomes a derivative work and would need the original copyrightholder's permission. Also a conversation is copyrightable if it is broadcast solely in a copyrightable medium. Even if it was freely available that doesn't mean it is exempt from copyright, also deprivation of income is not a necessary condition for copyright infringement. However, as this is not a lengthy piece, it's not like a one hour programme, I would think that use for comment and criticism with attribution to the original source would be acceptable. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll eat Darwin's hat if we can't use a transcript of a radio broadcast for commentary. Plus, not a god damned thing about that url is copyrighted. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure you can, just slap {{fairuse}} on it and problem solved. For extra points, criticize CP when they do the same. -- Nx / talk 20:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Seing as how that's the nature of fair use (and you're a fucken vulcan), I don't know if you're joking... — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Eh... but if we were critisising it in a side-by-side, it WOULD be fair use, if it's even a derivative of a copyrighted work at all which I'm not sure it is. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It's personal commentary on a freely available excerpt of a publicly broadcast interview. Am I taking crazy pills? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No, you ain't. It ticks all three boxes for fair use: not commercial, doesn't affect the value of the original work, used for one of the prescribed purposes ("commentary/criticism") --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Who said anything about posting a transcript without commentary? About what I said concerning the copyright of a URL (if we're talking about the same thing - which I don't think we are), I don't think it's even possible. It's like copyrighting your mailing address. Sure, what's in the mailbox is subject to all sorts of laws and regulations, but the address can't be. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, Concerned Resident suggested just writing up transcript and perhaps I misunderstood your comment about the URL when you said "Plus, not a god damned thing about that url is copyrighted". No the URL itself is not copyrighted but any content on that page is copyrighted. So what do you plan to do with just the URL? Make anagrams? ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
CR suggested writing it up, but for the purpose of commentary (I presumed). I can't fathom not commenting, or uploading it for any other purpose. About the URL, I was defending posting the URL itself. True, any content on the page it points to is copyrighted, but none of that content is actually here. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
How about paraphrasing what they said and writing it up in the form of a story? I mean if it is for critical analysis, doing this is pretty much what scholars do all the damn time. --Crazyswordsman 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Gentlemen, this isn't a pay-per-listen clip. Fox are streaming it for free on their website (you might have to pay for the whole show, but the interview with Andy is available. So nobody's being deprived of legitimate earnings by putting it here. Johann 11:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

### Non-negative review

You know, it's easy to sneer, but I thought Andy actually did OK considering. The interviewer had him on the defensive, sure, but he made a lot of his main points and some listeners, not you people obviously, but some, might actually think there's something in what he's saying. Plus, credit where it's due, it took some courage to go on a programme that he must have known would be sceptical if not mocking of the whole enterprise.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 19:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Though I only saw the preview clip, I thought the interviewer wasn't really playing fair with the whole 'Where is Hell, if it's a spiritual place it doesn't exist' and Andy did quite well in comparison to his usual CP style. Broccoli 19:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. A good speaker should be able to deabte well, even in hostile situations, Andy looked like a complete idiot. I understand that he was on the defensive and was kinda attacked, but he just looked stupid... All bible translators voted for Obama... How do I know? Well, the bible is translated by professors, professors are all liberal, all liberals voted for Obama.... I WIN!!!!! SirChuckBCall the FBI 19:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I haven't heard the whole thing. Also, Andy is not a good speaker at all and did better than I would have, and expected. Broccoli 19:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a mixed opinion on this interview. I agree with Roolz, in what Andy did surprisingly well. It was a very hostile interview and yet he managed to get most of his points across. Furthermore, it is very easy to mock the project when you announce that it's a "conservative" Bible, but harder to denounce its main points. On the surface, they look quite nice, and you have to dig a bit to uncover all the layers of crazy. That said, it may also be that constant exposure to the wackiness of conservapedia has somehow reduced my WTF level. This interview (and the part about liberals and professors) may well sound batshit crazy to a naive listener! --80.7.149.89 19:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was surprised Andy would dare go to liberaland. Anything for the cause, I suppose. He kept himself composed and took a few of Alan's jokes on the chin. In all honesty, I can see the logic of what Andy is trying to do, as poorly as he is executing it. A lot of people have run pretty wild with this to make it out to be something else. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
To make it out to be something else? Andy is rewriting the Bible because he thinks it teaches economic truths and the groundbreaking 17th century KJV contains socialistic language. Now, I have little to no respect for "liberal" and feminist translations, as they strike me as exercises in incredible cognitive dissonance and rationalization, but this guy is just changing passages so that God agrees with him, allthewhile butchering the language and content. Edit: Need I mention that it's all based in his wingnut pseudolinguistics, where his magical conservative language illuminates biblical conservative concepts which only he can see (since, logically, they can't exist in the inferior greek, latin, hebrew books) 19:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
But the actual idea that words have changed in meaning and new words could better reflect the original intent of the Bible isn't crazy. 'Free market parables' is though. Broccoli 20:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely true, and that's the basis of most all translations. But Andy isn't looking at original intent, since he can't possibly read the originals. 20:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
More importantly, some of the passages he mentions are legitimately disputed. And yes, they are some of the ones that liberals love to cite. Not that it makes a difference, because Jesus seems pretty librul anyway. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
So, think FOX is done with Andy?--Thanatos 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Nah, with the proper shade of rose-colored glasses, Andy did pretty well last time. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Waiting for the other shoe to drop

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop: pretty soon the media will be done with Andy's little pet project, and he will be clamoring for attention like he was after the Lenski affair. That, I think, is going to be funnier than all of this media buzz. I give it a week until everyone stops caring--I don't see how the Bible project will stay in the media for much longer. It would, however, be great if Andy makes it to the MSM before this thing blows over. Tetronian 21:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy on the Daily Show or Colbert would be perfect. ħuman 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'd like to hear Thom Hartmann rip Andy apart. That'd be funny.AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 22:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Andy on Colbert would be heavenly. Andy himself probably wouldn't know he was being parodied. Tetronian 22:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, as I've said, it's never going to happen, but AndyPandy being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman would be worth seeing. Come to think of it, AndyPandy being interviewed by Boris Johnson would also be deeply satisfying (trust me, Boris is a conservative through and through, yet is also one of the most educated, verbiose and clownish men you'll ever listen to).--AndyPandy - because paranoia and abject failure doesn't hold you back, although it should. 23:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Andy being interviewed by anyone that's not a right-wing nut would probably be entertaining. But yeah, Colbert would be amazing. I wonder if Colbert is even aware of Andy's existence. Anyway, here is my shameless plug for the latest Conservastan --Composure1 00:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Andy would never go on Colbert (despite how much we want to see the two of them in a fistfight). For me, O'Reilly is way to go. Bill calling Andy a pinhead and Andy telling Bill to open his mind. Andy, keep using those statistics during interviews!--Thanatos 01:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Lol, nice comic. I like Ed's hat. But an O'Reilly interview would be great. Of course, Andy wouldn't be able to bear being away from his precious Conservapedia for that long, even to promote his Bible project. Btw, if (and it is a very big if) he somehow does get an interview, what are the odds he ends up calling the interviewer a liberal? (Even on Fox News) Tetronian you're clueless 02:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Depends. The have to be right-wing yet reasonable. Hannity and Beck are out right away. They would gush and Beck would start contributing (a Beck version of the Book of Mormon). Someone harsh and would attack Andy as a far-right conservative nutjob is basically what we need, with a lot of viewers to spread the lulz.--Thanatos 02:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Also we need to get Andy on a talk show where he would be socially awkward, like maybe The View. Tetronian you're clueless 13:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

##  omigod (The Report tips its hat to CP)

COLBERT that is all. ħuman 03:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? No kidding? RaoulDuke 03:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Adding Stephen Colbert to the conservative bible would be brilliant, but sadly won't last ten seconds. Z3rotalk 03:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Prepare for CP to be unreachable for the next 36 hours. Can an interview be next? Pleeeeeeease? PS, why do these people miss the Schlafly connection?! ħuman 03:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
What and when? AceMcWicked 03:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Explain(503s already)--Thanatos 03:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Whaaaaa? Andy's going on Colbert? Zelmerszoetrop 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Didn't see it, but there's already been a user Colbertbomb123456 registered... --Lesjohn 03:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The intro was something along the lines of "does the Bible have a liberal bias", which made me jump. Tip of the hat to Conservapedia, some quotes of the project description, and a call to include Colbert as a Biblical figure. /spoilers ~ Kupochama[1][2] 03:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"503"

What the hell? Is it the server load? I imagine more people are checking out CP than ever before, maybe they just can't handle it. Zelmerszoetrop 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the above? Colbert just told his viewers to go to CP and wreak havoc. The only time the place will be accessible now is when editing/account creation is turned off. ħuman 04:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The above didn't much sense however, bahahahaha, Andy is getting all he attention he craved! AceMcWicked 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Andy with attention is like a great writing team with a prime-time TV slot. Endless source of teh funny. When he has to leave CP and his fake doctor group he has to walk in the real world like back at talk.origins, and makes an utter ass of himself. ħuman 05:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
MarkGall (Talk | contribs) blocked Sixsixtysix (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial: just kidding! please leave forever!) I lolled. RaoulDuke 04:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Colbert being reported to the FBI in 3...2...1... Seriously, I can see it happening any moment now. -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Moar: Should someone go over to the Colbert forums and tell them they might be reported to the FBI? I don't see why we can't at least warn them.
Of course I'm working the night Colbert mentions Conservapedia on the air. Dammit.--EcheNegraMente I can't drive straight counting your fake frowns 04:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It gets repeated like six times over the next day. Also, someone linked above to what is probably the segment it will probably be available on line. ħuman 05:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
To those in Australia, Colbert is starting on FoxTel right now and its carrying the story. Rad McCool 08:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Andy goes worldwide eh Andr.....Rad! AceMcWicked 09:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It does but it was a blink and you missed it segment. Rad McCool 09:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(arthurdent)Wikipedia protects its CP article due to "Colbert-inspired vandalism" [9]

If you missed it, look on google. There's links on his page and on hulu. His change to the money lender story is good. - CodyH 11:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Conservapedia is #5 on Google trends. Sterile loser 12:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody know if that Colbert video is available anywhere besides the main website? They seem to have stopped streaming the videos for both the Colbert Report and the Daily Show to the UK...I need my colbert fix! Jammy 12:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
@Rad - Damn it, why did you wait until after I was out of the hospital to mention that? I could have just suffered a little bit longer - at least TiVo'd it if nothing else. Wah! Now I need to wait until it's on the net. -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 12:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Oh wait, I didn't see the latest wigo, I retract my "damn you" and replace it with a "why hello, good sir!"
HOLY SHIT. Most amazing thing I have ever seen. Tetronian you're clueless 12:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
@jammy - just use an American proxy - you can sort them by country on proxy.org. 13:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Did anyone see Andy's message to Colbert viewers? He plastered it right up on the CP main page... Tetronian you're clueless 13:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. Hey Andypants, I would like to read a bible , honestly I would. Unfortunately, I can't find one that's not full of liberal bias, can you help me? Heh. -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 13:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Also look at Recent Changes - he's blocking people for "watching too much television." Tetronian you're clueless 13:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
But wait, if Colbert viewers picked up any current Bible, wouldn't they be indoctrinated with all the liberal additions that have crept in over the years? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right! no-one should read the Bible until the conservative version is finished and distributed to all churches. Totnesmartin 17:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody think that there's even a slight chance that somewhere in a dark corner of Andy's mind, the thought might be - "hell, the entire internet is laughing at me, maybe I should tone things down a bit." Or is this more likely to drive Andy to even greater excesses. I wonder what Mother S thinks about having the family name dragged through the librul media again. --PsygremlinParla! 17:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
An online link doesn't appear to have been posted yet, so here it is. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 17:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I would say no, Andy has flippin' clue about who is laughing at him (apart from Colbert of course). And even if he did, I doubt he would care. Remember, the MSM is a bunch of deceitful libruls that no one listens to, and you can count on Fox to set you free with the truth. Tetronian you're clueless 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(ui) Did anybody else notice when Colbert used the term "liberal claptrap?" Corry 00:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How could you miss it? I was wondering about that actually; is that a common term, or did someone working for Colbert actually peruse the site enough to see it somewhere? I've never heard it outside of CP.EcheNegraMente I can't drive straight counting your fake frowns 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't either, but Colbert is very good at spoofing conservatives, so he might have heard it elsewhere. Tetronian you're clueless 00:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

##  CONGRATULATIONS JINX!!!

To help stem the recent influx of reality into CP, JINX HAS GOT HIS BLOCK RIGHTS BACK!!

(No link yet because the site keeps going down).

Woooooooo!

CONGRATULATIONS JINXY BOY

-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 12:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Way to go Jinx hi Jinx!! Tetronian you're clueless 12:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[[Image:Partytime.png|thumb|200px|left|Congratulations {{jinx}}!!!!!]] 13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I like how all the other demotees got a "well deserved" but Jinxy only got a stony silence. Perhaps the inquiry only returned a murky "not proven" verdict on master McHue's parodist status? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I wish I could see Jinx hi Jinx!'s horrified expression after viewing Nutty's picture, lol. Tetronian you're clueless 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Too many dancing bananas!-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm gay, and even I didn't enjoy seeing that. Well done to Jinxypoos, enjoy your new/old power to silence those who disagree with you - also known as the power of "la la la, I can't hear you!" -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 13:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You don't need block rights to get that power, but yeah, have fun Jinxie. Tetronian you're clueless 13:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Erm. Why the cocks? StarFish 14:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Another cock!
Because we had a very low spending limit and it was all we could afford. -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 14:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh heh heh. Also ew. Tetronian you're clueless 15:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

jinx only received his banhammer back because of the rash of new accounts being formed cos of colbert. andy might take it back away when teh flood waters recede. Zelmerszoetrop 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting Andy's limited attention span, he may well forget it ever happened. All Jinxy has to do is stay out of trouble and he should be ok. Totnesmartin 17:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
@StarFish - because Jinx has a well-known cock bias. 17:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dude! NSFW NSFW!!!! Stile4aly 17:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that the ad where the picture was taken from CNN's news tower? Tetronian you're clueless 15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it might have been from a slightly different angle. I'm sure Fox had a tower...it was their protest, after all. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
No, CNN stole that footage from the trusworthy Fox News, but the liberal media just don't want you to know that Fox is the truth. Just Like the Conservative Bible Project will be the truth once it is published in lieu of the liberal King James Version. You liberals and your deceit are what cause people to think Fox stole footage from CNN when it was the other way around.Conservative Punk 22:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Where is the religious reaction to the gospel according to Schlafly?

Since the Arsefly has once again shown that no stupidity is bad publicity, has anyone seen what any religious figures have to say about the conservative bible project? One would have thought they'd be lining up to beat him with the ceremonial clue crosier, but I haven't seen anything as yet. One can only hope the priest of Schlafly's regular house of worship is a regular Colbert report watcher, and will deliver a stirring sermon this Sunday about the Hubris of twisting religion to meet your own expectations. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Real theologians will not touch this for the same reason that real scientists do not touch creationism. ListenerXTalkerX 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a (Baptist) Professor of OT criticising the project. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the AFA has just done an article on this (if you don't know about the AFA they are arch-conservative). Have a look at the comments left, and if you think liberal vandals then you are in for a shock, all comments are moderated and liberals or new commentators rarely have thier comments published.--AndyPandy - because paranoia and abject failure doesn't hold you back, although it should. 17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Fred Clark is a Christian, though an admittedly liberal one. You should definitely read his take on it, but here's a choice pull-quote: "It's ridiculous and extreme and brazenly blasphemous and colossally illiterate, but this is the future of the religious right." --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 18:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the religious right, but the netroots have responded with the lolcat Bible.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 05:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hate to rain on your parade, but the lolcat bible has been up for a few years now. - π 05:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Pi stole my thunder, but if you like that and are a programmer you might like [10] YorickDoing public school work 05:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Tee hee, I like their version of Hello world!. Is there no language in existence that can't be explained with a HW script? Thanks very much for linking that, it already has a place in my bookmarks menu. -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 05:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Liberal Pharisees

I love it. First of all Andy ponders having the "intellectuals" be behind the killing of Jeshua, now he's just gone the whole hog and will blame it on Liberals. It's clear the idiot doesn't even have a clue what a Pharisee was. Once again Andy manages - all on his own - make a complete stuff-up of yet another project. --Psygremlin話しなさい 18:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Are liberals the new Jews then? First they came for the environmentalists, but I did not speak out because I drive an SUV.... --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Jewish high priests are now Liberals? Well, Shalom to you my friends, pass the Bagels. SirChuckBCall the FBI 18:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The Pharisees were liberals when compared with the Sadducees, who were such law-and-order types that the anniversary of their downfall was celebrated annually. ListenerXTalkerX 18:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
But what Andypandy's doing is comparing a sect to a mindset. Next thing he'll be renaming the Catholic Church (or more likely the Holy Rollers) the Conservative Church and the Anglicans will become Liberals. After all, in Andyland, it's all black and white, no grey anywhere. --Psygremlin講話 18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There's no way Andypandy will ever call the Catholic Church the Conservative Church. After all they hold ultra-liberal views such as social justice and opposition to capital punishment, plus, of course, they repeatedly and deliberately refuse to move the seat of the Catholic Church to the United States which must mean that they are liberal as they deliberately choose to live in Liberal European Vatican City.--AndyPandy - because paranoia and abject failure doesn't hold you back, although it should. 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Then Andy should just start his own church and call it the Conservative Church. Right next to the cross on the altar he can put a picture of Reagan. Of course, he'll have to watch out for parodists... Tetronian you're clueless 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Eh, why not cut out the middle man and promote saint Ronnie to deity? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I can see Andy now: "Hmm, I think this sentence translates to "tear down this wall." Tetronian you're clueless 20:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I love how this is actually entering media: Salon notes that their parody couldn't match the true crazy[11] 21:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Publius, who says the particular crazy they talk about in that article is true?

##  Conservative Bible Project talk page

Has anyone seen this? It's like the Lenski talk page all over again. I've yet to see any blatant censorship, but it's basically the same typical Andyish justifications. Very amusing. Tetronian you're clueless 20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been checking that page every day. Broccoli 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well yeah, I know there are a bunch of WIGOs about it, but I mean the page as a whole is pretty damn funny. And 12,000+ views! The page is growing rapidly! Tetronian you're clueless 21:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
My "favourite" part is the whole slavery bit. The Arsefly seems genuinely unable to see how horribly immoral it is for one human being to own another. He seems to think modern revulsion of slavery is purely the racism factor. I wonder if he thinks it's OK to own someone, as long as they're white. I guess just another example of how fundamentalist religion warps your brain. If you are forced to defend injustice as divine righteousness, then you get in these warped patterns of thought. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Warped doesn't even begin to describe it. He actually thinks that he is preserving the original intent of whoever wrote the Bible. Can anyone really be that thick? Tetronian you're clueless 21:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
"Every day is a new revelation in this project. Actually it's a dozen new revelations." Yes, and we thank you for the entertainment, Andy. And, yeah, Andy on slavery is just weird and creepy. ħuman 21:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Weird and creepy, but not surprising. Actually, it's typical apologetics: find something horribly troubling in the bible, and assuming a priori that the bible is not only true but good, sleaze your way to a poorly cobbled together workaround. Viola! Inerrancy is maintained. Corry 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Jesus must be facepalming and Buddha must be laughing his ass off. The FSM and Cthulhu are placing bets how long this will last--Thanatos 01:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I love the beginning of the page with Addison nearly calling Andy on his shit and even suggesting that conservatism may not be compatible with Christianity.--EcheNegraMente I can't drive straight counting your fake frowns 01:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Gay Penguins

So apparently some kind of blogger wrote a spoof mocking liberal activist Wayne Besen [12], and conservapedia sysops jump on that like starving dogs on a bone, genuinely believing these are the rantings of an actual homosexual activist...man, do I love these guys! --Ireon 13:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess they got confused because his satire isn't much different from his usual rants: "Make no mistake; the sin of homosexuality is the bunker-buster bomb in this war against morality." --Sid 14:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's not forget that Evilution predicts that all animals will be gay always. The Darwinists will be running for cover from the non-gay penguin that topples the evolutionary paradigm and proves the creation paradigm that the grand canyon formed in a few non-gay hours. Kalliumtalk 14:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
True, but what really blows my mind is that Kendoll appears to BELIEVE the quotes are from an activist homosexual... One who would say "Harry's as gay today as he's ever been. Mark my words. It's just a matter of time until he ends up slinking around some back alley gay bar in the Castro District, strung out on meth.". Poe's Law indeed.--Ireon 14:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought that looked suspicious. A gay penguin flap was the plot of the first episode of that Amy Pollard show, 'Parks and Recreation.' Czolgolz 13:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

### Gay swans

Andy won't like this, these swans are satannic black, gay and unchivalrous! I suppose Andy thinks God made them that way. Proxima Centauri 12:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Natural selection made the swans that way, they rear cygnets that one or both have fathered and their cygnets tend to survive. Proxima Centauri 08:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

##  What is happening with cp traffic?

Alexa shows a lazy trajectory even with the media attention, and quantcast seems to think they died in the end of august and gave up on statistics about them, any ideas? --129.19.139.172 14:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Alexa lags a few days behind, and the Diggrush etc. pretty much started yesterday? ħuman 19:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if RW traffic will increase as well? Tetronian 21:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
We got a few after the Cracked article, so a few people should drift our way. Keep an eye on RationalWiki:How I found RationalWiki to see if this brought anyone here, perhaps? Totnesmartin 17:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Alexa tends to update on Thursdays. Last week it was about as high as the Cracked article. After Colbert I actual expect to see this as CP largest ever spike in traffic, in a few weeks it will probably drop back around 65,000. - π 08:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not suprised at the number of hits CP is getting, YouTube insight says my vids (link in case someone hasn't seen them) have gotten a larger number of views over the last few days. Not an incredibly high number, but larger than average. For some reason, the top vid is still the Lenski Affair, probably because it's the top result for Conservapedia.

With any luck it'll have a carry-on effect, as I always place this site's address somewhere in my vids and the description. If people see my vids and decide to come here and laugh at CP, that's great - if they decide to stay and contribute, that's just gravy. GreatAtheismo 08:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Fretful porpentine

It's good to see him out and about. EddyP 14:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not me, sadly. Fretfulporpentine 12:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Whoever he is, he's doing well. He's got Andy eating out of his hand. StarFish 15:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you kidding? A bot that automatically blocks liberals? I bet Andy would give one of his children for such a thing. Z3rotalk 16:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Daniel1212 roundly pwns Assfly

For some reason, Andy takes Daniel's exegesis out of archive to dismissively respond. Funny, considering Daniel runs circles around Andy biblically. He tears apart Andy's armchair exegesis one by one. Andy really doesn't like to be proven wrong (I know!), so he's being extremely rude ("WAAHHH!!! This is supposed to be easy...and concise!!"). It's very funny. I think I'm feeling a parthian from Daniel coming on. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 02:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I love how Andy responds to his huge block comment with a few sentences, and then ends by saying "go fuck yourself Godspeed." You're right, there's no way Daniel's patience is going to last much longer. Tetronian you're clueless 02:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It reminds me of PJR, who thumbs his nose at any sort of organized theology in favor of picking up a Bible and reading it, acting as if the meaning is obvious. ListenerXTalkerX 02:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that depends on what you mean by meaning. Though I would think that the meaning of meaning that you mean is OBVIOUS to everyone. HumanisticJones 12:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see you're back. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 02:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
As this goes on, I suspect more and more Cthulhudiddit--Thanatos 02:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, someone's a smarmy bastard, aren't they? I can't remember, is Jacob a homeschooler or a parodist? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 06:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
And we are supposed to keep track of that? Isn't that TK's job? ħuman 07:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(UD) Andy reminds me of senior management, straight out of Dilbert but also in the real world a well. Really he wants everything presented as Powerpoint slides with no more than three bullet points each, otherwise he can't comprehend the message. If an argument can be put in just one sentence the most likely it is just sloganeering and is pretty much what Andy does himself all the time. He can't sit down, read a piece, comprehend the nuances of the arguments and draw up a rebuttal. Which is why his amicus curae briefs are so crap. His desire for conciseness is really some sort of attention deficit disorder. The more I know about this guy, the more disdain I have for him. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 09:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice comparison. You were thinking of something like this? Replace "technical jargon" with "liberal claptrap" and we have a perfect match! -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 12:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
That's certainly the sort of thing I was thinking of. Nice find, I don't remember that one but my memory isn't ...
To be fair, Daniel does go on a bit, and Jacob's response is priceless. All we need now is for Andy to change the title to "Another liberal rant".-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 10:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, it is a subject worth going on about (to a Christian, let alone a Biblical scholar). Andy's intellectual laziness is priceless. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 12:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Schlafly citation challenge

I'll give 1000% internets to the user who is able to determine the last time Andrew Schlafly actually cited the Bible in a talk page response. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 02:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone help with a script to process a user's contribution lists? It'd be really easy to make (a fucking ugly beast of) a regex to find a bible citation. I'd really like to figure out how often Pope Andy uses the bible. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 02:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I win! From the archived Conservapedia Bible Project talk page: "Language is never 100% precise. Sometimes it is obvious what was meant, despite the inartful articulation provided by the best terminology available. Mark 6:22 has an example of this, and we improved on the Greek word for "girl". See Gospel of Mark (Translated).--Andy Schlafly 23:31, 5 October 2009 (EDT)" Ha ha! Tetronian you're clueless 02:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, that was anti-climactic. *tosses half-baked script in the trash, hands over the internets to Tetronian, grabs coat, leaves* — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 02:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Really this ought to be a part of the liberalism formula... hasn't Andy criticized people for not citing the Bible enough? Maybe MarkGall will share his scripts with you... --Pyfgcr 02:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, a Bible searching script isn't a bad idea (although I have no idea how to write one). And if MarkGall got wind of such an idea, the possibilities would be endless! With all the Colbert-inspired vandalism, I bet Andy us desperate for a way to stop wandals. (Hopefully desperate enough to try Mark's equation) But anyways, I have 1000 internets!! That's over 9000!! Ok, maybe not that many. Tetronian you're clueless 02:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to try and ignore the CBP, as it deals so directly with the subject of the Bible. I want to know, in the course of discussion, how often Andy really cites the Bible. I need the perl practice anyway... — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 02:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't a bot that just searched for anything in the format of x:x (with the x being a number) make finding bible citations fairly easy, since the only time anyone uses x:x is referring to a bible passage (at least, the x:x matches that aren't the bible are going to be fairly rare)? I hope my astonishing insight into making bots has been useful, because I'm going back to not knowing anything about any form of coding now. X Stickman 06:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
REGEX matching-wise you could look for /[A-Z][a-z]+\s[0-9]+:[0-9]+(-[0-9])?/ This would match any string that started in a capitalized string and ends in number:number or optionally number:number-number. That should catch things like "Lev 11:9-12" or "John 3:16". HumanisticJones 12:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

##  So who the hell is

"Scott Schlafly" anyway? Where did they get that from? --127․0․0․1 10:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Scott of Conservapedia tried to build an encyclopaedia using only homskollars, and ended up freezing to death on the vast tundra of neglected blog while his rivals streaked past and were back at base camp enjoying bacon butties. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
And most importantly, are they really insinuating that getting Schlafly's name wrong was the only sin and biggest flaw in the article? If so, that's brilliant. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking they may have got confused with one of his brothers, but there's not Scott anywhere. Obviously a crossed wire while rehashing the blogs. moral 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I just thought the funniest part of it was that Andy took that as proof that the article was full of librul deceit. It reminded me of him correcting people's spelling. Tetronian you're clueless 00:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Would have been funny if they confused Andy with his brother John.--Thanatos 02:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Massive WIGO breakdown

The last dozen or so wigos have been numbered wrong. It is poll=wigo#### not poll=####. Could we please watch this in the future? - π 10:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Shit. That's partially my bad. Tetronian you're clueless 11:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

##  wtf?

[13]. What the hell does Jacob think he's doing? He's not going to last long with that kind of attitude. Zob 14:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, hasty prosecution of Acorn is just the kind of thing that will earn him his stripes. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, come on. There was far too much liberal-speak there: "I have [...]read what you said"? "I overreacted"? "I owe you an apology"!?!?!?? Someone has to put a stop to this madness. Zob 14:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh...that attitude. I am willing to open my mind and I owe you a lengthy ban. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

##  I guess they really ARE having a meltdown over the Obama/Nobel news...

When they use Al Jazeera instead of Newsbusters or Fox as their front-page headline source to question the reasoning behind the award. Way to embrace multiculturalism, Joaquin. --SpinyNorman 15:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hellhell, it's better than WorldNutDaily. Tetronian you're clueless 15:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The committee has sole responsibility to decides who deserves it. If they chose him, then he deserves it as a matter of fact. Asking does he really deserve it is meaningless, because whoever is asking really isn't on the selection committee (and probably for a good reason). — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the best they can hope for by saying "does he deserve the award?" For the Nobel Peace Prize to be revoked? That'd be a fucking sight.

Nobel Committee Head: Gentlemen, I have bad news! Since awarding the Nobel Peace Price of 2009 to the current President of the United States of America, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, a two-bit, far right, Christian, conservative, American wiki-based website had the following to post on their Homepage "News Feed:" After less than a year in office does the US president deserve the award? Is the decision a clever political move by the Nobel committee? Will it help or hinder Obama's presidency? After these remarks, I move we strip Mr Hussein-Obama of his Prize and give it to a far more suitable candidate, such as George W Bush!

I don't think so. SJ Debaser 16:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know....even some rather prominent people are being critical. But I don't think it would be enough to merit taking it away. Tetronian you're clueless 19:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

More salt rubbed into an already mortally wounded Assfly ego. After being elected Prez, I thought it would take Obama way longer to pwn Andy's shitty post-HLR career curve still further. But, nope, a motherfucking Nobel Peace Prize to add to the list just ten months in. Sweetness. :) --Robledo 19:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully that will mean more batshit crazy conspiracy theories about Obama (on CP), which will mean more controversy, which will mean many, many more lulz. Tetronian you're clueless 00:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I like TK's rewrite to the "news". Oodon 01:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Conservapedia web comic

I stumbled upon a website that lets you easily make your own web comics and as an experiment made one about Conservapedia. The premise is that Andy is ruler of a fictional land called Conservastan. Unless I get very lazy I hope to make more, but here is the first one. --Composure1 02:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No no no, Andy is leader of Andyland, not this liberal "Conservastan" you speak of - sorry, just having fun. Well done, I quite enjoyed it. It has a pretty believable ending too, which is unfortunate but funny. -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 03:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice work, I like it. --EcheNegraMente I can't drive straight counting your fake frowns 04:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good. But shouldn't "Andy come down for dinner" have a thought balloony series of dots indicating that it comes from Heaven above? ħuman 05:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Come to think of it, why are the speech bubbles coming out of his mouth? Everyone knows he talks out of his ass. Tetronian 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Why does Conservastan look like a mashup of Auckland and Wellington?Beastiepaws 00:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I second this query. You are implying that New Zealand, a nation which, if I remember correctly, has been IP blocked in its entirety, is Conservastan.WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 16:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The Google automatic translation to Finnish is hilarious. This is the linguistic equivalent of uncanny valley: machine translation that actually looks like someone who has rudimentary knowledge of the language and is translating the stuff badly using a dictionary that doesn't show the words being used in real contexts. "Deep <Conservastan>'s presidential to palace" "Joaquin, how could you?" "This painting was made, a liberal!" "It is a gun - I thought it was healthy." "[it is] that the weapon is 'security' to initiate." "I am sorry, dear leader." "Andy! Go down <for dinner>" "sigh..." "[It is] coming, mother!" --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

##  TK's got our goat!

ONOZ!img --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 01:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, "I know what to do with those." Can you WIGO it? Tetronian you're clueless 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's face it, it's not even "us", it's the Colbert Nation. They are wiki-savvy, and they are legion. ħuman 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
But we have Ace... --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 03:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but he can't insert pickled sausage pictures where they belong on CP, he can only freak people out on RW who are at work... ħuman 07:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ui) Is TK spoofing Andy with this? It seems like he's mocking Andy's style. Tetronian you're clueless 13:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he is. TK's a parodist. The bloody best there ever was. He didn't say "get your goat" by accident, and starting a sentence with "It is a well known fact that liberals..." is just showing how stupid Andy is. SJ Debaser 20:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That prick is a blocking machine! I had a nice little account going, was slipping some good parody under the radar, then BANG!. Looks like I made the mistake of logging in from an IP address that had previously been blocked. Are there scripts that check for this, or does this little man sit there checking everyone's IP address? (Incidentally, they've not reverted any of my edits yet!) DeltaStar 13:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Typical. They still haven't reverted some of the edits that obvious parodists like Bugler and RodWeathers made. And right now Pope Andy is too busy to focus on anything but his precious little project. Tetronian you're clueless 13:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

##  CBP mentioned on Jay Leno!!

CBP was mentioned (briefly) on the Jay Leno Show. It was literally 8 minutes ago (the show just started, it was mentioned in the first 4 minutes.) After it ends, can someone try to find a link? (Also: countdown to CP response in 3...2...1... ) Tetronian you're clueless 02:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, he is not three days late to the party or anything. No wonder everyone criticises Leno, he has a nightly show and he can only cover this a few days after Colbert. - π 02:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
And it was right after a joke about South Carolina governor Mark Sanford. (paraphrase: they caught him doing 85 miles per hour on a 65 mph road, like the time they caught him doing 69 in Argentina...) Still, it's better than nothing. Tetronian you're clueless 02:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This summarises Leno's humour. - π 02:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if Andy is going to replace John as the untalked about member of the family.--Thanatos 02:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, come now, you know they won't talk about John either... Stu the Foo' 02:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Andy and John are the only ones willing to show up to Phyllis' idiot convention. - π 02:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Just you wait 'til Roger gets his unabomber on, then we'll see who the black sheep really is. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(ui) Here's the link! (It takes a while to load, though....) Tetronian you're clueless 13:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Conservapedia is picking up speed on YouTube! But not for the reasons they were hoping

Sorry, I know I should be above posting YouTube vids "just coz dere funny lol" but, um... lol. What he does at the end is just priceless. Childish, but priceless. I wonder who (if anyone) monitors that address. hope this hasn't already been posted somewhere -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 14:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I like this video better.The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 18:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This one is also really good.Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 18:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

##  It should be fun...

.... to see Conservapedia's response to Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. And actually, there's at least one valid point that can be made, and not from frothing Obama-hate -- it is far too early in Obama's career for a move like this. MDB 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing more premature than this award is the clown who WIGOed it before Conservapedia had even said a word about it.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 10:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
No shit. It is 4 in the morning on the server clock, nobody that can edit the front page would be awake and we have a WIGO already. - π 10:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I actually like it.... It's kind of a before and after... We all know it's gonna happen, so we start the countdown and wait for the explosion to come. SirChuckBCall the FBI 10:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Never mind the Conservapedia reaction, my reaction was WTF? Shouldn't you get the nobel peace prize for what you've done rather than who you are? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so concerned with whether he's 'earned' it but with the the fact that this may well make things more difficult for him back him the US, making the wingnuts even more nutty in the healthcare shouting match. I wouldn't be too surprised if Obama is rather wishing they hadn't picked him. Jammy 10:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, apart from the whole "why wigo when it hasn't even happened" thing, I also agree that it should not have been awarded to Obama. I mean, he hasn't really done anything to earn it (not from lack of effort or intention). Maybe it would have been a teeny bit more sensible to wait and see how his plans work out. If Andy throws a mental over this, I think it would be rather justified - and unless he really goes apeshit which is always a probability with Andy, I won't be joining in making fun of him about this issue. -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 11:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it is ironic. How many wars has Obama started then? - π 11:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Started? None? Escalated/helped to expand beyond its borders? One. RaoulDuke 13:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Mh, well, at least Andy isn't pissing on anything new. The Nobel Prize has always been one of his targets (if I recall, because Gore won one and because this Hoyle fellow didn't win one or something). --Sid 12:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
"The Nobel Prize is an often-politicized award that is criticized for increasing evidence of bias and possibly even corruption....As an unwritten rule, the award is not given to a conservative (such as Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II), and it is not given to anyone who challenges the scientific establishment on the issues of the theory of evolution or theory of relativity." Nothing new to add to that really. - π 12:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
But simultaneously in Conservathink the fact that Einstein didn't get a Nobel Prize for Relativity proves that relativity = teh evil. Cantabrigian 12:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
TK, darling, I... don't get the irony, sorry. Am I too tired to see it, or are you using big boy words without understanding their definition? Be careful, misuse of the word irony is more Ed's thing. Speaking of which, has Ed been around lately? I've been sort of in and out for the last few weeks; I haven't seen any creepy Uncle Ed rants pop up in wigo lately.
That aside, I kinda have to agree, the Nobel is more of a political stunt than anything else. That doesn't mean former Nobel Prize holders weren't worthy, it just means that... well, if politics had nothing to do with Obama receiving it, I don't know what did. I mean, he hasn't done anything worth a Nobel yet - give him a bit more time and I trust that'll change. Ugh, I feel dirty now. -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 12:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
You don't get the irony because it's not ironic. TK's just a lying grievance collector who has to invent controversy to get lathered up about. He's admitted to me that some of his news posts are just lightning rods put out to draw unsuspecting fodder to the blocking block. This should have been ignored. 20:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my reaction when I heard it on the radio last night was "what the fuck did he get it for?" I guess it's for promoting international diplomacy and working to reduce nuclear arms or something. Maybe it's just for not being King Bush II? ħuman 20:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost everyone I've spoken to has expressed the same opinion. According to the BBC web site Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve". To me that does seem quite a political stance but I suspect it's largely because of what he has replaced. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 21:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Orwell was right about memory. Please to read his Cairo speech in full and then tell me he's not worthy of this year's prize. --Robledo 22:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose (if I were Andy) I would argue that the speech in question hasn't led to anything monumental. (It is a damn good speech though, which of course Andy would never, ever admit.) Tetronian you're clueless 00:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a great speech - among several other great speeches (we host the text of one here on this site, the one about race in America). But truly "great" speeches are measured in hindsight by the results achieved. ħuman 01:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
ONE SPEECH? A speech that has led to no real changes in policy? Instead of speeches, let's count Afghani and Pakistani civilians killed in aerial bombardments (152 in the first three months of the Obama administration according to one Pakistani news source). Let's count men held in indefinite detention at the Baghram air base in Afghanistan. This award is total bullshit. RaoulDuke 01:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Besides that, the speech doesn't count--it came months after nominations were closed. One doesn't get nominated for a prize for something that hasn't happened. RaoulDuke 01:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the judging was done recently, and would include it. ħuman 01:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The Nobel Prize vote is usually conducted on the day or the day before it is announced. Last year a stalemate pushed the literature prize announcement back nearly a week. As for nominations, our own article shows that nearly anyone can be nominated including such luminaries as Stalin, Mussolini and Rush Limbaugh. What actually is important is the vote and that took place this week. - π 01:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually once nominated you can never be unnominated, for all we know he may have been nominated 2 or 3 years ago. - π 01:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe all of the other nominees were just absolutely terrible.X Stickman 10:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not even sure who the other nominees were, except for Morgan Tsvangirai and I was kinda rooting for him. We had a commentator on the radio here saying Obama won it for aspirational purposes, rather than for actual achievements. Still came as a huge surprise though. Andy must be having kittens. No doubt in his mind, if he'd been HLR Pres, then he would be US Pres and a Nobel laureate today, instead of lurking in some dingy church basement. --PsygremlinPraat! 11:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
According to the nobel prize site, "The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later." I didn't know that. Anyway, I wonder if Andy really is taking this personally somehow. Poor dear. X Stickman 14:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I gotta say; elected in (late) January and nominated by the end of the same month. Wow. In effect he got the prize for winning an election. I can imagine previous recipients demoting theirs from the pool room to the throne room. Tricksy 01:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

He potentially could have been nominated 20 years ago when he was a community organiser in Chicago for all we know. How about instead of running your mouth you find out how the actual process works? Also, I suspect you are being metaphoric and trying to show how aussie you are with the now done to death pool room line (I hate that fucking movie now everyone discovered it about 5 years later), but I doubt any one leave a 200 gram chunk of gold lying around their house - π 02:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, hair trigger. Yes I suppose he could have, but the committee chose to mention "international diplomacy", so I was assuming it was a recent nomination. I don't know how on earth some suspects someone else of being metaphoric. Nevertheless, the only reason the line worked in the movie (which was still not well known the first time I saw it, btw) is because it is a real line. I admit that I aimed my phrasing at the Aussies here, but what of it? I was in fact toning down my instinctive occerism a little, for which you seem to be accusing me of being faux-Aussie (and "throne room" flowed better than "dunny" anyway). (I do recall reading somewhere that Qld as a state retains more "occerisms" in normal usage than NSW and VIC, but I thought that WA and SA did as well). I was simply expressing my thought that if the Peace Prize can be awarded for not actually achieving anything (yet) then other recipients could well see their own prizes as having less value - thus the metaphor (yes metaphor, but what else would it be?) of moving it from publicly displayed with pride to somewhere not much short of putting it away altogether. I am not, by the way, faulting Obama for this. He didn't award himself the prize, and I think his self-deprecation in this respect is come by honestly. Tricksy 02:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
For some fullblown mock-Aussie, here is an occerisation of said previous recipients imagined reaction. "Sufferin dooley, I was flat out like a lizard drinkin for years before I got one, and I thought it was better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but if a bloke can get one just for bumpin his gums then I reckon it's about as much use to me as a bucket under a bull and I'll chuck it in the long grass." Tricksy 03:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(EC)Whilst I am baffled by Obama receiving the award myself, the "twelve day" Republican party convenient lie talking point is starting to shit me of because it is a simplification of the process in an attempt to discredit Obama. We don't speak Ocker where I live, we prefer English. - π 03:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not aware of the "12 day talking point", but on the face of it I assume it means the period from the US election to PP close of nominations. I can see why you would think I was repeating that, but I was not. I think I already addressed the point about dicrediting Obama, but to be clear; I was criticising the prize committee, not Obama. Although now I am curious about when he was nominated and who nominated him. Some friends of ours moved from our city to yours, and when we went for a visit they did comment on getting a little bit of a reaction to their choice of slang (not a big reaction, just a sort of "do people really stay that?" kind of thing). Although nobody I know would string so much together as in my example, any one of those phrases could be used in casual conversation without being greatly noticed (even 2 or maybe 3 in a sentence if someone was a little bit "exercised"), and I do have one or two friends who would come close to that sentence above when they get worked up. Oh well, I believe even other Aussies consider us Queenslanders a little odd. Come the secession, none of it will matter. Tricksy 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not an Aussie and I know Queenslanders are weird, queer looking folks. AceMcWicked 03:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Aah, speaking of mock-Aussies how goes the land of the long white cloud? :) We had the big red cloud a couple of weeks ago. Weird fact - our constitution lists NZ as a state of the Australian Federation. Apparently any time NZ wants to join up, you can. No need to ask permission of anyone but New Zealenders. I thought the constitution thing was a bit condescending, but actually it's empowering. It's like a country being able to join the EU without applying (not that I am saying we are like the EU). Tricksy 04:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Queensland is Australia's equivalent to the South in so many ways. - π 03:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Better climate, better food, better looking. Tricksy 04:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
He was referring to the U.S. South, which is altogether too hot, swarming with alligators and mosquitoes, and has more than its share of inbred hillbillies, voodoo practitioners, and creationists. ListenerXTalkerX 04:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Replace alligators with crocodiles, hillbillies with bogans and do away with the voodoo business and yer, that's pretty much it. -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 04:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Replace voodoo with astrologers. The Gold Coast is basically mini-Miami, full of old people and drunk barely legals once a year. - π 04:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

##  shut up and depart from him

http://conservapedia.com/Mark_1-8_(Translated) Mark 1:25: "Jesus then rebuked the evil spirit, "Shut up and depart from him."

Come on, they missed a wonderful opportunity to use powerful new conservative words. This should be translated: "Jesus Christ (Talk | contribs) blocked Evil Spirit (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) (Vandalism / Liberal vandalism. Bye!)" Secret Squirrel 13:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is about the first time I remember seeing you make a CP related post and it is by far the most sublimely funny thing posted on this page. - π 13:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh I make a CP related post now and then... Secret Squirrel 13:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I smell a LOLcat Bible type spoof of the CP Bible coming soon. Just a hunch. :) Secret Squirrel 14:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
We could start a "Rational Bible Project"...just make it redirect to the atheism article. Tetronian you're clueless 14:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Rational Bible Project might be fun, but there's already the S.A.B. where most of the hard work has been done. Who had the decent parody one again? moral 11:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
A project of that scope would probably get about as far as Andy's version is going to. Sure, Mark and Philemon are easy, but let's see him wade through the Pentateuch. He'll have a blast with Leviticus, if he ever gets past the instructions for the tabernacle in Exodus. Corry 14:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
That was my Torah portion for my bar mitzvah! I can still chant it in Hebrew. If only I had chanted it in Conservative. Oh the places I would have gone. 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Not WIGO-worthy, but...

...I found this very amusing for several reasons. First, the article in question is the first I've seen that does not blatantly portray Andy as a complete nutjob (other than those written by fundie loons, of course). They even gave him an interview. Second, Andy admits that he is "without sin," which I never would have expected. And finally, I can imagine him smirking as he plasters this up on the main page. Tetronian you're clueless 13:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"We're not without sin". - π 14:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that a double negative? Also, there already is a wiki without sin. Oodon 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, whoops, I meant "not without sin." But what is the wiki without sin? Tetronian you're clueless 18:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't tell you yet... because it doesn't even have 100 articles yet. But it is without sin because everything is on lockdown... all the time! Oh, and there's only one user too. Oodon 05:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
What's so unusual about Andy saying he's without sin? That's standard Christian belief. Totnesmartin 09:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The Christian position is that no one is without sin... ListenerXTalkerX 03:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

##  A proposal

A complete moratorium on WIGOs based entirely on the actions of un-noteworthy editors who have not been endorsed by Andy. For example, take the homeschoolers WIGO; it's by an unknown guy who has no rights; he could easily be pissing around. Someone making an account and saying something stupid isn't funny; what is funny is when the Assfly goes "BRILLIANT IDEA!!!". So I say no more WIGOs involving new editors saying stupid things until the fly himself endorses them. EddyP 14:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That is usual policy; I think people are getting too excited about the Bible Project, and are WIGOing anything related to it. Broccoli 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, anything that comes from a user with a red name or red talk page link gets an instant -1 from me. I think most regulars understand that redlinks are usually newbies or parodists, and don't usually represent the Andychrist's views. Probably just as well you brought it up, people (and newcomers, who are also a type of people) are just getting a bit carried away with the extraordinarily large amount of crazy that's going on at the moment and could do with a reminder. -Redbacklurking around Matt's dustbin 15:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. Tetronian you're clueless 15:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above. Anyway, it looks like this WIGO is being voted down, so the system works. --Ireon 17:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. That being said, if Andy ends up agreeing that "homeschooler" is an appropriate replacement for "disciple", I might not stop laughing for the rest of the day.--EcheNegraMente I can't drive straight counting your fake frowns 17:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the proposed moratorium is already covered by our guideline not to out parody. ListenerXTalkerX 17:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
In his response to the "homeschoolers = disciples" comment, Andy says that translating the bible is "not hard". I found this more amusing than the original wigo. X Stickman 21:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
A random Aschlafly edit would probably have been funnier than the "original wigo". ħuman 00:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Colbert's influx

new accounts created at CP

larronsicut fur in nocte 15:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The 9th has low account creation as account creation was shut off for a majority of the day. Aboriginal Noise What the ... 15:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting that only slightly more than half of the accounts have been blocked. Hopefully there are many potential parodists... Tetronian you're clueless 17:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you whip up a version of that showing the week previous to the Nation's call to battle? ħuman 00:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
new accounts at CP
Something like this? larronsicut fur in nocte 05:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice, thank you. It makes it all clearer. Thank you again! ħuman 06:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Econ homework

Re: "(because 10+8+5+6+5 =/= 10+8+6+5+5)", doesn't the activity's reward reset? That is, the third hour of hiking in a row is only 5 points, but if it comes after a two hour reading break, it ought to be good for more? Of course, then the best course would score 10+8+6+10+8 = 42! (2 two hour hikes separated by one hour of reading porn). Maybe I'd better go re-read the question... ħuman 20:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Charity and Free Market: WTF?

Could someone please enlighten me on this one? The student's answer exposed by the wigo is scary, scary stuff. But I can not make sense of the question itself anyway, and the model answers here are just baffling, not to mention mutually exclusive. So, what is exactly Andy's point? --Ireon 18:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See cp:Liberals and uncharitableness. ListenerXTalkerX 18:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the read, but it's more a general statement about liberals and uncharitableness, no mention of free market there. Has Andy tried to explain himself? BTW, great job on the wigo.--Ireon 18:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
He thinks that "liberal" and "socialist" are synonyms. ListenerXTalkerX 18:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course, but to put that as a question for his lectures, surely he has some way of justifying his position? It's kind of a big leap from 'liberal = socialists' to 'free market causes charity'. --Ireon 18:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess Andy never stops to think about how most liberals are effing poor! And the ones who aren't, so-called "Elitists", do donate. You just don't hear about it because they aren't famous. Oodon 18:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Most liberals are poor? I think that's false. This doesn't exactly prove the opposite, but it's worth noting that the ten poorest states by median income all voted red in the last election. Also, of the ten highest income states only one (Alaska) didn't go blue.--EcheNegraMente I can't drive straight counting your fake frowns 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
There is something to the points that (1) a free market allows for the freest operation of organized charities; (2) less people will donate to charity if they think the State is taking at least halfway proper care of those who would otherwise be its recipients; (3) those who squawk the loudest about the conditions of the poor are usually too busy squawking to donate any time in direct aid of altering these conditions. ListenerXTalkerX 19:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. The model answers, on the other hand, make none whatsoever. I have the feeling Andy just picked the one saying 'Free market, gooooood' --Ireon 20:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
...That's pretty much what all his contributions boils down to? conservative=free market=faith=open-mindedness=homeschooling=prayer=charity=good! liberalism=socialism=obama=public schools=vaccines=evolution=atheism=bad. It's all interchangeable, you can just pick and choose and create a random answer with it and it'll be 10/10 will use as model answer. --GTac 15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

##  WIGO worthy?

Not sure if thisimg is WIGO worthy, so I'm just going to put it here and let everyone comment. Tetronian you're clueless 01:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

...They finally realize not all press is good press. YAY, my homeland is now officially atheist according to CP. No wonder it's so peaceful--Thanatos 02:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
(EC)I dunno if it is, but at least you didn't add one more lame wigo to the list. I like the word "panic", though. I also really love the "sentence" "Panic sweeps liberals about our Conservative Bible Project." Back when wigo CP was a mere babe (mid 2007?), Sid used to accumulate these edits and make them tell a story. Nowadays, everything on recent changes at CP gets wigoed nine seconds after it happens. Don't let the +40 votes fool you, we just have more readers these days. Oh, Sid's "best ofs" used to be so droll, so perfect, so considered and polished. Sorry for yelling at the kids to get off my lawn ;) ħuman 02:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. There are a lot of short and dumb wigos nowadays. I suppose we kiddies are the reason. *gingerly steps off Human's lawn* Tetronian you're clueless 02:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah well, what's wrong with completely rewriting a WIGO (or several) to attempt to capture that great Sid style? I completely agree with you Human. Sid's WIGO's captivated me for the first month I read this site before I realized the Best of Conservapedia was different than regular WIGOs. The stories told themselves through simple setups. We've gotten ahead of ourselves with editorializing rather than letting the crazy and wicked speak for itself. I'm guilty too. I wish I was there back in the day. 03:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should all collaborate and write a policy on how to write good wigos? Tetronian you're clueless 03:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a guide already, but I doubt too many people read it. We don't do policy as such. - π 03:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I know, Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?/Instructions. But it doesn't include all of what Human was talking about. But perhaps instead of policy we can just informally agree to be funnier? Tetronian you're clueless 03:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem, I think (if there is one), is that posting wigoes has a fairly competitive and possessive aspect. Meaning that 1) the slightest blips get posted the instant they are on RC as individual wigoes, and 2) people tend not to rewrite them as much as one would expect on a wiki. The "race to the bottom" effect means that some stories never get told as well as they might be, since their segments are already spread over 3 or 4 wigoes. Sometimes the stories are told best in non-chronological order, after they have unfolded, and the way we "do" this nowadays doesn't lend itself to that style. I don't think there's a solution other than people being bold and bundling wigoes or carefully rewriting them when they have five "UPDATE" sentence fragments appended. ħuman 19:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

###  Moar not WIGO-worthy stuff

I don't know what's funnier, Daniel's comment or Andy's responseimg Tetronian you're clueless 02:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Already WIGO'd. ListenerXTalkerX 02:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Dammit. Human, I agree with you completely. (and I suppose I should actually look at WIGOCP next time before commenting....silly me.) Tetronian you're clueless 03:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)