Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: Archive list


[edit] JPatt comes out for Trump

....because immigration. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] "Obama and Liberal Media...

force Boy Scouts to cave to the homosexual agenda!" - Not on CP yet, but they're slack in actually doing things, check back later. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 21:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] God Hates the Poor

For most bible commentators, Proverbs 14:20 is a warning about an unattractive human trait: The poor is disliked even by his neighbor; But the rich has many friends. But in Andy's Conservative Bible, it's a rule to live byimg. Yay, God. Whoover (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Andrew does any labour? I thought all he did was waffle, and waffle ineffectively at that. How's that proverb about taking the plank out of your own eye go? Sphincter (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was generally accepted that he was on retainers for one or two wingnut welfare agencies. The ones that he presented his laughable court case against various things for recently. He also seems to apparently still home school. How it works as 'home schooling' when what parents actually do is send their children to an unqualified 'teacher' like andy is something I've always wondered about. And I suspect, but do not know for sure, that he is on a retainer from the eagle forum as legal council. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] In which I read an article as Andy Schlafly would...

Give it up, evolutionists: Pluto has "a very young surface". Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Where you been?img Whoover (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Uncanny. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As always, you have to admire the cognitive dissonance required to write this article (by Terry H) which states "creation scientists consider Pluto and Charon only seven thousand years old [...] These new photographs should vindicate his Hydroplate Theory further." and then also go on to say "The science team guesses these mountains must have formed 100 million years ago.". So now a surface age of 100 million is somehow evidence in support of a Pluto only 7000 years old. Uh...yeah. Worm (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no cognitive disonance imo. Chuckie is an out and out liar and will distort and invent anything to try to make his idiotic points. Read the comments on this one and watch how he simply invents statements supposedly made by the person he is arguing with and when challenged to show where the comments had been made simply invents more bullshit. The guy is a dickhead of the highest order, one who thinks he posseses great rhetorical and intellectual skills but who in reality couldn't debate a dead pussy cat. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Dunning-Kruger_effect personified. Ruddager (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] CNAV: Taking Down the Confederate Flag is Racist!

To deny the Confederate Battle Flag is to deny the blacks of this county their rightful place in the history of this country.img Say, what? He also claims that taking down the Confederate flag is the moral equivalent of razing the pyramids. You know, because the Egyptians had slaves. Whoover (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, the pyramids weren't built by slaves, and the Confederate flag is not a symbol of the centuries of labor performed by slaves in the Americas. Is it just me, or do the wingnuts keep getting dumber? I mean, it used to be fun to argue with them. Now it's just predictable.--Umichcynic (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] In which Terry once again

Displays his stunning grasp of science. According to terry the only way carbon monoxide forms is partial burning of wood or coal. Seriously, how on earth did this fool ever manage to get a medical qualification? Oldusgitus (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Come on, NASA. You make all the scientific observations, and we'll make up explanations for the ones we can wedge into our narrative from armchairs in our dens. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Silly Terry. Coal is a by-product of the Flood. There was no coal to burn out in space...--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
God struck Pluto with a thunderbolt, which aggregated molecular carbon from the entire Kuiper belt into lumps of coal, split cometary water into hydrogen and oxygen, and thus provided the materials to make carbon monoxide. Bish bosh, job done. Cardinal Fang (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hydroplate theory ... seems like a bit of a Rube Goldberg approach from a god who can (presumably) conjure up rain just as easily. Ruddager (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
That's creation science in a nutshell. How did God do it? It doesn't take a miracle. It takes the release of a "subcrustal ocean" with enough force to blast enough of the planet out to trans-Neptunian orbit (as far as the Oort Cloud) to form all the minor planets, their moons, the comets and a bunch of asteroids. And splash a bunch of water on our moon and other planets, too. That's science. Whoover (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
It's always interesting the contortions people will do in order to fit evidence to a conclusion they already accepted as true. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I am always surprised that these people insist on trying to use science to explain their beliefs instead of just saying its all miracles. I am sure its some kind of blasphemy to reduce god to the mundane AMassiveGay (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly - why bother? Goddidit explains it sufficiently, but they're insistently disappearing up their own arses based on the term "fountains of the deep". Of course their explanation results in an event so violent it would sink the ark, so then they fall back on Goddidit to explain how that was protected, right? Sheesh. Ruddager (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and of course Goddidit when it came to rupturing the hydroplates anyway, but the rest is science bro ... erm ... bretheren! Ruddager (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I recall an old RE teacher of mine in Stockport who once tried to explain how a virgin birth could be a reality in humans. It basically consisted of him infering that joseph gave mary a damn good fingering after having met mr onan. The fact that this also breached his deities prohibitions against pre-marital fingering and onanism seemed to slip his notice. I was about 11 and it was at this time that I really began to fully understand that I was an atheist. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I think they are doing it for other people as his fans seem to believe that anyways. Since saying that god used magical powers makes them sound like superstitious uneducated weirdo's that didn't realize the age of enlightment has been over for a few centuries. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] A new Andy insight!!

The article formerly known as "Longest liberal hoaxes." Which is a handy collection of Andy's crazy toes. Piltdown Man (because that was totally a scheme dreamed up by the Global Evolutionist Army), global cooling (but strangely not global warming), population explosion (yeah, because adding 4 billion people in 30-odd years totally isn't an explosion.)

I look forward to more nuttiness being added to this list. PsyGremlinPrata! 14:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is "global cooling" conservative correctness for Global Warming?--Arisboch (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes it is, but it depends on the context. If you're trying to claim that global warming is a liberal hoax, you refer to the fringe scientific data from the '70s and '80s which suggested cooling (strangely you don't hear about all that data from the same period which said the opposite), and you use that as evidence of data tampering. However, when applied to the present day it's just as easy to claim cooling is a liberal hoax. The Daily Mail did a move when they reinterpreted some interesting scientific data on average global snow loss in mountain ranges to mean "the Himalayas didn't lose much snow, thus global warming isn't happening", using it later to back up claims that the world really must be getting colder and colder. Once left-leaning newspapers like The Guardian fell for it, the mail declared global cooling to be a hoax perpetuated by lefties; since Mail readers quickly forget articles that aren't intended to piss them off, they avoided flak.- Forerunner (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Daily Fail trolled The Guardian. Oh my, my Schadenfreude ist gerade über 9000 gestiegen und mein Scouter ist explodiert.--Arisboch (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... According to the table the so-called Hugo Chavez hoax has so far lasted 84 days. I can’t see any scripts running on the page so does Andy plan on manually updating it every day? Of course, he could have just put “since <date>”, but thinking ahead is for progressives. On the other hand, I don’t know why I even thought of this when the rest of the article is just another display of Andy brain dribble. JumboWhales (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It lasted 84 days from when Chavez went into the hospital until his death. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Still, I wonder if Andy's planning on popping into the page from time to time to update the other durations, such as for evolution. I’m not wondering too much and may just have my suspicions, if I’m honest. JumboWhales (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't figure out why Andy didn't add "Castro has been dead since 2006," one of his favorites. Another, ahem, editor couldn't take it either and added it for him. But its omission in the original list was as perplexing as global warming's. Whoover (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] CP-related cover articles could do with a polish-up

per RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Coverstory_cull - I think both should stay gold brained, but to be fair there's a lot of ancient feature articles that are looking not so good by our heightened standards of the modern day. If the deeply-familiar could look over the CP ones, that'd be an excellent thing - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it even worth keeping CP as a cover story? The site really has zero reference outside RW any more, it's not even being quoted as a "look at what batshit conservatives are doing now!" example. PsyGremlinPrata! 10:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Even on RW it makes up a very small percentage of recent content. I have not done the maths but saying that 1 in 100 posts relates to CP is being very generous. It is so predictable, if a mass shooting happens we all know what their response will be before it is posted, same for gay marriage etc. Ken's new articles are simply a cut/paste of his older content, and even he is less rabid than in the past. Andy pops up with the occasional insight we have all heard before and Karajou does nothing except ban people with snarky comments. Today it is little (nothing?) more than and extension of CNAV and Tea Party Crusaders. It's irrelevant and boring.--Mercian (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
CNaV? You mean those jokers?--Arisboch (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] On What Planet?

Andy's "liberals hate Christians" leitmotif has a new expression in Underrated Sport Starsimg. One of the first three is baseball Hall-of-Famer Stan Musial. Andy's own justification for calling him underrated is "Seven batting titles, three championships, and overall statistics better than nearly everyone; ESPN called him one of the five best players of all-time, and Bill James ranked him as #7 all-time." How the hell is Stan Musial underrated? And Serena Williams? His paranoid delusions seem to be getting stronger. Whoover (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

He answers this in his own dribbling. Where he says "(notice how none are on the list of Greatest Conservative Sports Stars):" So because he and the other loons at cp haven't included them on their arbitrary list of the greatest conservative sports stars they are underrated. QED. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I will give him Stan Musial, though he is consistently ranked as one of the best players ever by baseball historians, the casual fan does not appreciate how good he is, mostly because he played in St. Louis rather than New York or Boston. Tim Duncan and Serena Williams is pure lunacy though. Tim Duncan is almost universally ranked as the greatest power forward of all time, and Serena Williams is ranked in the top two or three female tennis players of all time. I wonder sometimes if this guy even follows sports or if his sports knowledge is derived from simply Googling "Christian sports stars". Snrub (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
To the extent that the casual fan knows anything about a player who retired over 50 years ago, he knows Stan the Man. ESPN's Hall of 100 has him just ahead of Mickey Mantle. Calling Musial "underrated," and pinning it on anti-Christian bigotry, is evidence of a disconnect from reality. Whoover (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] If you thought the CBP was bad...

It turns out that Andy isn't so sureimg about God being omniscient or omnibenevolent. No word on omnipotent at this point. To his credit, he does seem to recognize that an eternal Hell means that JHWH doesn't seem to have everyone's best interests at heart. That does rather simplify the Problem of Evil.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Bad? The Conservative Bible Project is the greatest Not the Onion on the entire internet. And I have given you dental hygiene in all your cities, and lack of bread in all your places: but you didn't return to me, said the LORD.img ("The Bible forewarns that "free" healthcare will come with famines.") It just can't get any better. Whoover (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Andy: "Several accounts in the Old Testament suggests that God did an investigation in order to learn the facts. All-knowing would be uninteresting, and my guess is that God has chosen not to be all-knowing. But he has the power to find out when He wants to." LMAO! First, I like the image of God doing an investigation. A tired God with a five o'clock shadow staring at papers scattered across his desk. Second, I heard something on NPR the other day about a new Broadway comedy, An Act of God. This comedy has God (played by Jim Parsons) saying pretty much what Andy said. Has he officially become indistinguishable from parody?--Night Jaguar (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
So, Andy's God isn't all powerful, isn't everywhere at once, doesn't know everything and doesn't love everybody. At least it's compatible with the God he's described all these years, who usually only interferes in human affairs to fix the outcome of sporting events and who freezes old people in Britain to death just for a laugh. Spud (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
No, the God of Andy's theology does have all those attributes. He just "chooses" not to use them, even if it would benefit the world. Coincidentally, this is similar to Andy's definition of a liberal (one who can do great things, but always chooses to do the opposite).-- Forerunner (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the previous problems with the website were not a divine intervention after all. Hclodge (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Omniscience has its drawbacks. (It's Oglaf, and more NSFW than most.) Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Andy and misogyny, part 2.55 e23

So StacyT pops by, and being her feminist self adds some actually informative content on underrated female sports stars.img Personally, I had only heard about Clara Hughes. Andy, sensing a crisis of...??... removes athletes promoted by the media,img while wisely retaining Serena Fucking Williams, the scrappy unknown tennis player dominating her sport for the last 10 years in obscurity. StacyT's error, of course, was adding material relevant to Underrated Sports Stars, and not having a psychic link to Andy's unwritten and arbitrary rules on content. Shakedangle (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

And no newspaper ever had a good thing to say about Stan Musial either. Whoover (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I love how when a page starts creeping into respectability Andy heroically flies in to remind us that it's all partisanship, all the time. Almost as much as I love how StacyT, through her interaction with Conservapedia, has turned into an independent thinking woman challenging authority, if not an outright feminist. Shakedangle (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Andy proves what a truly nasty little man he is there after StacyT puts them back with a reasonable explanation and he simply reverts without explanation. She should obviously not be expressing opinions, the cheeky minx! Sphincter (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
God, he's such a prick. I hear stories of how he's super personable or that he inspires loyalty, but that just makes it worse for me. Shakedangle (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Andy's killed the site again

It seem's he's done some update, the conservapedia logo is no longer there, and some pages simply won't work. Nice one Andy.

Some quality upgradingimg work there by andy Oldusgitus (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Really, at this point, Andy has to know that CP only exists for our amusement. What's his incentive to keep going?--Umichcynic (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It's fixed now. And andy keeps cp going because he has nothing else and to stop now would be to admit defeat and he will never do that imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I hope he never gives up. For me it's like the ant farm I had as a kid. It's fascinating watching them scurry around moving the little hate-filled eggs from one tunnel to another. Even though the behaviors are 100% predictable, it's very comforting to watch because you know they can't get out. Whoover (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The up-date was overdue: the last one happened in 2010! This one went quite smoothly, remember that previous up-dates had side-effects:

  • guard-dog was killed, as it was not able to parse a new version of Special:RecentChanges
  • Ed Poor wasn't able to cope with a new level of security for automated editing, so EdBot died.
  • And then there are their problems with encoding (think of Joaquín Martínez and his pesky accents)

Though, the main reason that nothing broke this time is that there is nothing breakable left - EdBot was the most sophisticated toy at CP (*shudder*) --larron (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Didn't take the opportunity to install Ken's long-requested embed video extension. Snork. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
They 'still' haven't fixed the problem with special characters in page titles and image names. So if something has an "&" in it, you just can't get it to load. PsyGremlinPrata! 11:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Shurely you're not suggesting a campaign to fill the site with articles containing special characters? That would be a dreadful thing to do. Sphincter (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] More Relativity from Andy

Andy is attacking E=mc² with renewed vigor. Maybe Trump is inspiring him.

First he yanked some wikiversity lecture links that interfered with his narrative as "Wikipedia logic"img and yanked Einstein's name because "people don't own formulas."img

Then, we have a new article, "Attempts to prove E=mc²" with arguments of such strength as "A common defect to these "proofs" is an unjustified assumption that the energy and momentum of a physical system have a dependence on velocity akin to a moving participle."img Goodluck with your asparagus. Whoover (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

He's added "Nuclear-fission reactions, such as the transformation of hydrogen to helium, do not demonstrate any connection between the rest energy of a mass and the speed of light, as E=mc² asserts."img Start the countdown to AugustO sputtering the math of H2 atomic weight minus He atomic weight equaling released energy over c², followed by Andy going "la la la." Whoover (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I was about to say, what do you expect from someone who doesn't understand the difference between fusion and fission, but it's dumb on a much more deeper level than that. Asparagus, indeed. Shakedangle (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand this "asparagus"-thing here. Could you fill me in on that (English is my 3rd language, after all), please?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Most recently, it refers to a US Attorney General (Eric Holder) mocking what he may have thought was a verbal mis-step by Louie Gohmert on the floor of some legislative chamber or other. Turns out Mr. Gohmert may have been referring to earlier plays on the word "aspersions" by some comedian or other. SmartFeller (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The dumbest man in Congress says nonsense and later gets trolled for it. It was a brain fart, not an attempt at comedy. Kind of like "moving participle." Whoover (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I see August has just arrived and is slapping andy all over his idiotic 'article' about 'Einstein's formula'. Now to wqait for andy to wake up and start his reverting. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Andy and Free Speech

Andy rips Megyn Kelly onimg freeimg speechimg groundsimg for pointing out that Trump calls women names. I wonder how Trump became the Next Great True Conservative. But more interesting is Andy's notion that free speech is not about one having the right to say whatever crap one wants to (I don't recall any media outlet being bashful about quoting him) but apparently is about the right to have everyone agree with what you said. Kelly just asked if asking a game show contestant for a blowjob might strike some female voters as unpresidential. Does Andy really see that question as being a violation of Trumps constitutional rights? I guess he does. Whoover (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Political extremists seem to think that free speech = freedom from criticism and/or freedom to a platform. Blitz (Complaints Box) 20:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
More to do with Andrew's attitude to wimmin than a free speech issue. There must have been some odd things going on in his childhood. Sphincter (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
As I'm sure you know his mother is The Wicked Witch of the Midwest. Damn right there were some odd things going on during his childhood. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This Sunday's sermon from Andy: Democracy is Anti-Christian. We hear that democracy is inherently anti-Islam from extremists all the time, but I think this is new. Whoover (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Declaring themselves the guardians of democracy while at the same time damning it. Absolutely Orwellian.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, they do love to bang on the "America is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy" pan a lot.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh my, how I loveah, vraiment?!?? this manufactroversy!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
So what is surprising here? Andy holds misogynist views as indicated in his article. He defends the free speech rights of a fellow misogynist and venomously criticises a woman in the process. Nothing that odd here. Dimadick (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Nobody said this is surprising, but there isn't much "original" comedy at CP these days. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 06:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Oh please, PRETTY PLEASE, let them do this.

Andy now wants CP to host a GOP debateimg. That would be so much fun. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say, he's too crazy even for the present clown car (and, what's more important, not important enough).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 06:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It's nice that Andy and the CP crowd still have big dreams. The fact that there's no way those dreams will ever come true just makes it all sweeter. Spud (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude[1]!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 11:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The best part of that is Jpratt totally not understanding how a debate works: "Yeah, we'll give the people we like 6 minutes, and those we don't like, only 3." Jpratt - making Faux News look fair and balanced since 2007. But yeah, even in CP's heyday of 2007/08, not even the craziest of these candidates would go near them, and now... well, keep dreaming, boys. -PsyGremlinPrata! 12:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Complete fantasy. Hey, Andy, how does it feel to be too extreme and ridiculous for a party whose current leader in the polls is Donald Trump? --Night Jaguar (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

  1. German for "Schadenfreude is the best kind of joy!"

[edit] Teapartycrusaders? Anyone? ...Anyone?

So since CP has gone into the next phase of the long slow slide into oblivion by way of getting really boring, I've found myself some entertainment by going to the right-page links and measuring the degree to which the facts disagree with the headline. This sometimes points me to CNAV - which I actively avoid, due to me not wanting to provide ad-cash to the likes of Conservative - but lately something like half of the links are to tea party crusaders. Unlike CP, comments can actually be posted in their drivel 'articles'! Also unlike CP, they usually respond to actual thoughts and valid criticism with just killing the entire comment thread rather than selective deletion. Which is how I know I've won, I guess? Anyway, I found that there is no actual way to contact TPC or the myriad shadow entities who run the site. No e-mail, no names listed, no organizations other than TPC are mentioned. There is a link to their Facebook group, sucking hole of bile that it is, which has no more leads. Since I have the old, I'm no good at digging things up on the Interconnected Network, and maybe some of you just have keener eyes than me. So what is TPC? A clickbait front for one of CP's minions? A total stranger that they just glommed onto for right-page filler? A Koch-fueled cog in the vast Right Wing Machine? Or is it just Chinatown? --Semipenultimate (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Tea Party Crusaders makes me think Loyal White Knights of the Tea Party makes me think... well, you know. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
If anyone feels the need to visit the site make sure you have anti virus turned on as it does/did contained malware.--Mercian (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You sure, your firewall/antivirus/both ain't too paranoid (e.g. some weird-ass antivirus on a computer of a friend of mine wouldn't allow me to install µtorrent)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, and I did not get affected just by visiting the site but I clicked on a link that installed a variety of adware that would highlight certain words on sites that would lead to advertisements. I thought little of it until I visited the BBC site and saw it. The BBC does not use ad links, in fact it is not allowed to do so. Agreed this was 2 years ago when TPC was in it's infancy and they may well have cleaned up their act now.--Mercian (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
TPC is run by— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Funny, on his Facebook he lists nearly 500 websites in interests- guess which isn't one of them. (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there doesn't seem to be any indication that he runs the site except via the LinkedIn information. And I haven't found any ties between CP and TPC. Unless of course Santo Lippo doesn't even exist and is a legal fiction that allows one of CP's crew to rack up ad bucks from the click-happy... but there's already CNAV for that. Who at CP is capable of not just making a click-farm but also of not boasting about how awesome it is that they made it? A combination of greed and small ego? At Conservapedia?! Even as the evidence trickled in, we were no closer to cracking the case. And then I realized: I was voice-overing in my head as I typed. Was I cracking up - or getting too close? --Semipenultimate (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
See, I am now so used to reading reddit that when I read a comment like that I immediately feel the need to upvote it and then feel disappointed that I can't. --Horace (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You're seeing mystery that doesn't exist here. TPE is linked from the Facebook page (RH side); the site that isn't there is conservapedia. There is an interview with the man on YouTube which confirms he is a real person86.168.119.18 (talk)

Does TPC geolocate to Idaho or any of the "American Redoubt" locales? Hclodge (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Those Wacky Liberal Scientists Again

I'm always struck by how much misinformation Andy can cram in a couple of sentences. Today's article is Napa Valleyimg where he conflates "Napa Valley" (an informal designation of a viticultural region draining the Napa River), Napa County (whose population he ascribes to "Napa Valley") and the city of Napa (the county seat of Napa County and epicenter of a 2014 earthquake).

The point of the article is really, "It was struck in 2014 by a massive earthquake unexpected by liberal experts, who pretend that earthquakes are most likely to occur around major fault lines instead." This is vintage Andy. He dismisses the liberal theory that earthquakes have to do with faults, but doesn't offer his alternate theory. I assume it's "God is pissed off, probably because of gays." But he's too chicken to come out and assert it, so he snipes at stupid scientists and their earthquake faults instead. Compared to Andy, Conservative is valiant. We don't call out Andy's passive-aggressive bullshit often enough. Whoover (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hope he doesn't go for Nappa next.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Earthquakes are caused by Jesus hugging the Earth. When they kill people it's because Jesus wanted them to hang out with him in heaven. Unless they were atheist liberal sodomites, in which case Jesus was sending them to their just punishment in the lake of eternal fire. --Ymir (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Ken

It seems that the user:conservative collective has been quite, quite recently (pretty much since the update). Has Andy found a way to make Ken's edits invisible or is he know afraid of all his hiding of oversighting is now seen in the public logs so he can't really edit like he normally does. Ghost (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've also noticed that Andy and other editors seem to have been getting a lot of fucking shit written in kens abscence. Maybe Andy should make it permanent. Ghost (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a shame, really. Ken makes the place entertaining.--Umichcynic (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] TAR

It has been about five months since TAR has last graced the pages of Conservapedia. All of his spam farm remains in place to promote James Wesley Rawles and his wonderful books. Meanwhile, Messrs. Rawles and TAR have failed to make good on their promise of reciprocal promotion of CP. TAR had left the CP category structure in chaos, and nobody has step up to fix it. TAR has left numerous red links for articles that had promised to write. Finally TAR left a lot of material promoting the notion that true Conservatives should disengage from political life in the United States and immigrate to Idaho in order to focus upon the imminent collapse of the US. Implicit in the agreement to block all of TAR's critics was the promise that TAR would deliver the goods for CP; instead TAR has left CP a mess and has frozen out a number of productive editors in TAR's wake. Hclodge (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

IIRC kenny posted something about tar coming out of care and starting to post again sometime in September. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Why not make an account and clean up? Though polishing a turd can't hide the fact it is still a turd. You will not get any thanks for it though and Ken will still ban you on a whim.--Mercian (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] How utterly unsurprising

So someone went on to cp call them out on their rank hypocrisy over Duggar and his (repeated) hypocrisy. After much back and forthimg he was of course banned by andy. — Unsigned, by: Oldusgitus / talk / contribs

Best picture of Conservapedia ever! :D (talk) 09:23, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Why would CP not ban someone who came only to "call them out"? Sorry, but I don't see any problem at all with simply banning someone who came to a Wiki for no other reason than to start an argument. There's plenty to mock CP for, but banning trolls isn't really mockable. Phiwum (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Not really the point as I suspect you know. The point is that whoever it was, it wasn't me, asked them about their blatant hypocrisy and they essentially refused to address the point and then blocked the poster to prevent him further showing them up. If someone comes here to 'call out' they tend to be addressed, their points rebutted and only if they continue they are blocked. Wikipedia doesn't block people straight off, they tend to be warned and advised. CP simply wil not confront their own lies and hypocrisy, prefering instead to silence any 'opposition' before shouting about liberal censorship. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Eh, if you say so. I thought it was an obvious troll who generated some discussion and received the block he deserved. Yes, CP is hypocritical when it comes to the sins of conservatives vs. liberals. Not a brilliant insight there, just trying to throw a little tiff on a talk page.
Sorry, I was unimpressed with the troll or the noteworthiness of his eventual ban. Phiwum (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Have a look at our own block log - whatever right we had to be outraged about ideological blocks evaporated a long time ago. I guess it's true that it's inevitable - RW has become what it hated. Tielec01 (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Did CP just lose a week again?

They were down earlier today, and now the most recent edit appears to be from the 19th. Without any supporting evidence whatsoever, I blame Cons.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

YUP. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
And... More downtime, as of 07:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC). WalkerWalkerWalker
To those at CP who read this page, I have a copy of the database from the 24th, which you could restore too. All you need to do is unban DVergne, Markman and Brendan. Ghost (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Too? WalkerWalkerWalker 12:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of Andy wikilinking to "God." Ya know, in case anyone was confused about who he was talking about. AyzmoCheers 14:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User: "Man, that's the second time in a few years where you've lost an entire week's worth of contributions. I can't recall such a thing ever happening at Wikipedia -- to what do you ascribe the difference?"
Andy: "More of a spiritual focus here than at Wikipedia."img
Huh? Is he suggesting the devil is hacking them? Then he makes this bizarre edit.img Andy, are you feeling okay? --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Does The Week That Never Was II: Long Run Boogaloo mean that something actually happened in August that can go on the actual WIGO page? Spud (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus was a warmonger.

According to Andy at least.[2]--Mercian (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34. Christians differ as to the meaning of Jesus's words here. However, with this passage, the one Andy provides and various others, the interpretation that Jesus was not preaching world peace seems somewhat reasonable. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Jesus was a revolutionary but not a warmonger. (talk) 01:16, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
As if one can't be both. Damn, in most cases, they're both (although in case of Jesus, it's not really visible from the text, what he "really" was besides one of the many, many Jewish preachers roaming the Judean landscape (there's some, who said,there was no Jesus... Or that there was no Paulus, either, but let's not digress any more than we should, right?)).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm fairly puzzled by your reference to "false dichotomy". The IP address didn't say anything to suggest that revolutionary and warmonger are mutually exclusive. If he had thought that one could not be both, then his post would be pointless. Phiwum (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Come the apocalypse, Jesus is going to make war while riding a white horse, wearing a robe dipped in blood and using a sharp sword he pulled out of his mouth Revelation 19:11-16. That's actually one of the least fucked-up images in Revelation. --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC) --Night Jaguar (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Martin Luther (not MLK) wanted to chuck the Revelation into the Elbe[wp] river.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson described it as "merely the ravings of a maniac". I guess that would make it proto-Conservapedia.--Night Jaguar (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
How is "Jesus was a _____ but not a _____" both categories? They are presented as mutually exclusive. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect; that would require the absence of the "but". (talk) 16:08, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Emerald, they aren't presented as mutually exclusive. Here are two categories that are mutually exclusive: cheese and garden tools. Now, if I say, "This is a cheese, but not a garden tool," then the "but not" clause is utterly redundant -- because it is a cheese, it cannot be something that is mutually exclusive with being a cheese. I've added no information.
Here are too categories that are not mutually exclusive: cheese and orange things. If I say, "This is a cheese, but it is not orange," then I've said something meaningful. Only when two categories are not mutually exclusive does the "but not" clause add any information. If X is mutually exclusive with Y, then "This is X but not Y" is redundant.
A bit wordier than necessary, but pedantry is an occupational hazard. Phiwum (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
What if it was a trowel made of hard cheese?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Why Does Apache Choke?

Your browser is too slow.img Of course. Whoover (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I downloaded Comodo Icedragon. It's good, I may use it as my default browser. Thanks Ken.--Mercian (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As a Conservative commentator, I must consider conspiracies as a possible explanation for the 500 errors being thrown off by the CP server. For example, did Andy install an extension to MediaWiki to bounce anyone off the site if they are not one of the people operating the User:Conservative account? Of course, if Andy were operating in a transparent manner when discussing this issue, I am sure that the conspiracy theory would be rejected out of hand. [1]img Img We can be confident that User:Conservative is not lying about the 500 errors because, any logic deductions regarding his claims will be deleted from Andy's talk page without comment, thereby validating the conspiracy. Hclodge (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Debate challenge to atheist Kyle Kulinkski

[3] Ken, why don't you offer Kulinkski a large sum of money to go to charity to debate you? He would have to be a totally self absorbed coward if he refuses.--Mercian (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually more interesting on that is what was taken out of the Secular Talk article on CPimg in response to this video from Kyle. If you look at the page history ken has removed every entry that Kyle mocks as outright lies and modified the entries on Kyle's stance on abortion and gun control to actually be accurate. I wonder which members of the socialist co-operative known as User:Conservative made the changes? Oldusgitus (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed... Ken took a screenshot of his own blog rather than just download the image and reupload it to Conservapedia. He's a genius. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Vs. The NFL

Labour Day weekend must be hell in the company of the Schlafly clan, Andy has decided to start a campaign against the NFL in order to escape.

Even Rog has made his sixth contribution this year to avoid hearing the same old anecdotes.

Wonder if it's to avoid a bollocking over the trademark case... -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 18:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Funny how similar treatment of Michael Sam "by the NFL" doesn't prove they are a homophobic, Christian organization. Whoover (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the NFL ain't homophobic enough for Andy.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Good to see there's still some high-grade crazy left in Andy. If Ken starts posting animated gifs again and Uncle Ed makes an appearance it will be just like in the old days. Vulpius (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I was about to say, it's been a while since Andy positioned "Conservapedia" as some sort of actual collective voice doing something outside of itself. I am so looking forward to him either braying while taking credit for any dip in NFL ratings or moving the goalposts and memory-holing shit when the ratings stay the same or increase. It's a win-win. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Every organization needs an identity and needs leadership. Previously, CP was identified in terms of not being Wikipedia: seeing WP's bias and avoiding it. Leadership was involved in building a team and working toward a common goal: an encyclopedia without liberal bias. But leaders also try to lead by example. So, Andy jumped in and gave his personal spin on topics such as the number of conservative words growing exponentially; evolution and relativity. Now, most people are not experts on those topics, so with a little faith, unless the reader was diligent, one could accept the final work product. If there was any doubt, one could find at least other Christian conservatives who share Andy's views on Obamacare, birth certificates, evolution and relativity. At least Andy's cp:Essay:Best New Conservative Words is an essay and not an encyclopedia article.

The big problem with the unplug the NFL article is that it is 100% Andy's views and it is focused upon a major centerpiece of American life. Every homeschooled male student is already more of an expert on the NFL than Andy. There is a billion dollar per year propaganda machine already in place filling the public discourse with the exact opposite of Andy's new preaching. So, while John Oliver can take on the NFL on the narrow issue of public funding of stadiums,[4] nobody (not even Andy or Barack H. Obama combined) has the power to create daylight between the NFL and the American public. So, how many people did Andy consult before "Conservapedia" launched this campaign? How can we measure whether the CP community is behind it?

By the way, I should mention (although the Unplug the NFL article failed to do so) that there are no NFL teams playing in the cp:American Redoubt. Hclodge (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've done some traveling in those parts and can attest to the many rabid Seattle Seahawks fans in the area. Fine group of young Christian men. Whoover (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I actually have some sympathy with Tebow. Despite his wingnuttery he is obviously a talented player, but American Football being insular means you could be one of the top 30 quarterbacks in the world and never get a game. Andy is talking bullshit though. If Tebow were a top 10 quarterback he would play no matter what his views or background. The main goal of a professional sports team is to win and they will overlook almost anything if it helps them achieve this. Luis Suarez is a good example of this. He is a troubled individual but he in the top 5 strikers in the world and despite his record Barcelona payed £70 million for him. If Tebow was as good as Andy makes out he would be playing for a top NFL side week in week out. I am guessing that his wage demands for a back up player were too high for the Eagles so they went for the cheaper option. He was not rejected by the NFL but by the Eagles and if they were as Andy describes them they would not have given him a trial in the first place. --Mercian (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What I find hilarious is that Andrew doesn't seem to understand that these teams are run for profit which in his philosophy is an excellent thing, but he also wants the owners of the teams to select players simply because he likes the player's religious beliefs. Someone could produce some sort of spreadsheet thing that shows all the contradictions in the poor chap's statements over the years. Although if he read it he'd possibly not understand it. And it would be huge. Sphincter (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A fine piece of lulz. E.g. "actual attendance by fans at football stadiums has generally not grown" - because the stadiums are pretty much completely full already...? Duh. Cardinal Fang (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"There many alternatives for sports fans, including college football, professional baseball and cricket." Yeah cricket, as played by godless Englishmen, Kiwis, a bunch of Hindus and Muslims. I can just see how watching a 5-day Test would be the perfect alternative for somebody used to watching American "football." PsyGremlinPrata! 12:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I would LOVE to see andy's reaction to the dismissal of Strokes the other day by the unsporting aussie gits. Can you imagine him trying to understand 'obstructed field'. Or even better timed out. As for the nuances of LBW (like a left handed bowler coming round the wicket to a left handed batsman etc.), well that still sometimes confuses me and I've followed cricket for the best part of 43 years. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
You realize cricket was not Andy's, don't you? It was added by sincere-feminist-editor-or-possibly-parodist StacyT. Whoover (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, I'd given up rading that particualr piece of inspiration from mr S some time ago. I didn't even realise others were joining in the parody on it. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
More interestingly, the page now reads, "There many alternatives for sports fans, including college football, professional baseball, rugby league, NASCAR and cricket." - What has Conservapedia got against Rugby Union? -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 05:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Rugby League is played by conservative (former) coal miners and steel workers and supported by Arthur Scargill, a fine conservative figure.--Mercian (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In Tory strongholds like Wakefield and Hull. Cardinal Fang (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If CP advocates capitalism, it should realize that the NFL represents a marketplace which hires and pays players based on their value. If the Eagles release Tim, it frees up salary dollars that can be spent on hiring players in all positions. Although the next backup quarterback may not be as pious as Tim, God may be directing the salary dollars to some fine Christian lineman without Andy fully appreciating God's plan. Perhaps a full NFL boycott is not a part of God's plan. Hclodge (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You forget that Andy always knows God's plan. AyzmoCheers 14:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] God Hates Tennis

Best of the Publicimg prevails over Underrated Sports Starimg. I'm not really seeing it. Maybe truly underrated sports star prevails over not underrated sports star? I realize that doesn't exercise Andy's persecution complex, but a normal person would be saying, "Oh, that's what underrated means!" Whoover (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] CP stupidity knows no bounds -- Antipodean version.

Reality: In the Westminster system, parties may change leadership during their mandate, thereby changing who is the PM. CP: There has been a coup d'etatimg in Australia. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, it does seem that a lot of media views it that way. The BBC pretty much called it a coup in the article I read. I know the definition is technically that of a violent takeover, but in common usage a vote of no confidence, as it seems this was, and subsequent change of leadership could be seen as a coup. That being said, CP didn't actually call it a coup. They're seemingly angry that it was an entirely government/party affair. What's more interesting is that he has so little understanding of what the Liberal Party in Oz actually stands for and clearly thinks it is similar to in the US. AyzmoCheers 21:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
"The people who vote had no say in the matter" is where Jpatt went off the rails. He doesn't understand that the people who vote voted for a party and not a person. If they don't do it like we do it, there's no reason to understand it. Whoover (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
JPratt's a big fan of not giving voters the result they wanted, remember he openly advocated for a coup d'etat in the US. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 13:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
If people want to call it a coup, I'm fine with that. I like the idea of Abbott being led out of parliament after a last meal of onion soup ready for an appointment with Madame Guillotine... and all around the hysterical, baying crowd shrugs indifferently and quietly mutters "Probably had it coming..." TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 23:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] VargasMilan

Who is he and does anyone think he is genuine? From a brief look at his edits, it looks like a classic case of conservapedius parodicis Ghost (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a chance is he genuine. He parrots all the right phrases, tickles all the right ticklish buit and presses all the right buttons. Grade a parodist imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Unlike you liberals, I don't wreck wiki's, cause trouble or insert false information. If you're looking for a vandal, focus your attention on the troll SamHB. VargasMilan (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The real Vargas is an arselicker and a troll. He agrees with Ken, Andy and Karajou to obtain to obtain brownie points and he systematically bullied and belittled a 16 year old girl who dared to join and contribute to CP. A proud moment for him. SamHB has done none of those things. Look up the defintion of troll--Mercian (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The mere fact you have posted here confirms that you are quite frankly. In 5 years or so I've been a member here (and over at cp as it happens) I've not known a single good faith editor with your kind of edit record at cp come here to defend themselves. The saddest fact is that I'd worked you out within your first 20 days at cp but andy still seems to think you are good faith. It's sad how stupid and repeatedly gullible he and his cohorts are. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Given Andy's track record, being held in good faith by him is virtually proof positive that you're a parodist. The best example is how he let master troll TK undermine long-standing CP admins Tim & PJR within days of being reappointed admin. And then there's Bugler of course. PsyGremlinPrata! 12:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] The Pope and the Zombie

How's Andy going to play the latest photo-op with the Pope and Fidel, who's been dead since 2006? Will he continue with the body double? Or does tricking two Popes begin to cast too much doubt on the whole infallibility thing for Catholic Andy? Or is tricking this commie papal pretender evidence that Conservapedia is Proven Right yet again? Or does he just ignore it? Whoover (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Francis is too liberal for conservative American catholics like Andy; to him it wouldn't matter what Francis does. Hell, Catholicism accepted evolution and some form of the big bang theory but that doesn't change him.-- Forerunner (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. I don't think that includes saying hi to Castro, alive or dead. AyzmoCheers 05:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if Andy's inability to admit that he's ever made a mistake extends to all areas of his life. I can imagine him in court saying, "On the evening of May 24th, my client was in Chicago." His client saying that it was actually March 24th. Andy then insisting until he's blue in the face that, no, it was May 24th. He should know because he's always right and his client is a godless liberal for disagreeing with him. Spud (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like we're doubling down on the body double theory. They're using a guy the same age Fidel would have been had he not died a decade ago, who looks a lot like him. You can't have everything, though, so he's like a foot shorter. Nobody but Andy noticed that. It's most certainly NOT because Castro is in a chair while the Pope is standing. That's just what they want you to think. Whoover (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know he's seriously crazy, Andy also updated Fidel's time-of-death. Whoover (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] TAR

It has been six months since TAR has last graced the pages of Conservapedia. The time announced by User Conservative for his expected return has now passed. All of his spam farm remains in place to promote James Wesley Rawles and his wonderful books. Meanwhile, Messrs. Rawles and TAR have failed to make good on their promise of reciprocal promotion of CP. TAR had left the CP category structure in chaos, and nobody has step up to fix it. TAR has left numerous red links for articles that he had promised to write. Finally TAR left a lot of material promoting the notion that true conservatives should disengage from political life in the United States and immigrate to Idaho in order to focus upon the imminent collapse of the US. Implicit in the agreement to block all of TAR's critics was the promise that TAR would deliver the goods for CP; instead TAR has left CP a mess and has frozen out a number of productive editors in TAR's wake. A clean-up of the TAR residue is over due. Hclodge (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not make an account and clean up? Though polishing a turd can't hide the fact it is still a turd. You will not get any thanks for it though and Ken will still ban you on a whim.--Mercian (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Downtime?

For the last month or so I get a 403 error accessing any page on CP ("You don't have permission to access /index.php on this server."). But judging from this talk page, the site is working fine for other people...? Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like your IP is banned. It could be part of a block ban or they could have banned you explicitly. If you have another IP, like a cell phone, you can use, see if you can access the site with it. Whoover (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Quantifying perfection

We haven't gotten a good quantifying essay in a while and Andy now delivers with the ambitious Quantifying Perfectionimg.However, he notes the difficulty and then settles with discussing something far more specific: Quantifying Perfection in Golf. Seems to me like he finds the idea of a high score being bad confusing and wants to change it. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Classic Andy. Start out grandiose, with a universal insight of undeniable truth and power, then peter out to the mundane with a completely inappropriate example. Does Andy wish to treat the philosophical concept of perfection, comparing perfections like Cantor comparing infinities? Maybe that's what he means by quantifying perfection like height; some perfections are more perfect than others. Or maybe something can have a certain amount of perfection, like one can have a certain amount of height. Imagine that! A finite amount of perfection! "How infinite is that set, Georg?" "Oh, I'd say about an 8, maybe 8.5." Probably he wants to be able to say that Mrs. Schlafly's pancakes are perfect, and Mama Schlafly's pancakes are perfect too, but Mama Schlafly's pancakes are just a tiny bit perfecter.
Groping for a metaphor that might be understood by lesser men, and not knowing nothin' bout no math, Andy stretches for a sports metaphor. How about... golf? Golf has perfect games, right? They keep score in golf, don't they? Let's call a perfect golf game "100". Units are for menials, by the way. What is a perfect golf game, you ask? know, the best possible game. Where everything is perfect.
"So, is that like 18 holes-in-one? Or something better than that, like killing a terrorist with your follow-through each time?"
"Uh, the holes in one one, I guess."
"So each hole-in-one contributes 5.5555555.... to the total perfection score of 100?"
(fears a trap)"Maybe?"
"I guess I'm asking whether a hole-in-one on the rare par 6 contributes more than a hole-in-one on a par 3. How does the contribution scale?"
"All hole in ones are equal in the eyes of God"
"So a game with 17 holes-in-one and one double eagle on a par 5 gets a score of...what? Over 100? Less than 100?"
"Look, it's clear you lack openmindedness and deny that the best of the public are usually teenagers. Talk, talk, talk is not valued here."
Anyway, it reminds me of the damp squib of George Washington's letter to his nephew.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, come on Andy! Aren't you going to quantify the perfection of the English language? The US of States? The man from Bethlehem that my Dad used to call "Jerenus"? Get your finger out and improve on perfection by further editing your essay. Spud (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Mapping an 18 to 100 is the easy part. The problem is that I'm sure he wants the perfection scale to run from 0 to 100. So an infinitely bad game must be zero and an 18 must be 100. Since the Bible invented infinity the math is best revealed by Jesus. I suspect a 72 is so far from perfection that He will score it a zero, or maybe a one. Whoover (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It's really trivial to come up with some re-jiggering in golf scores. Here's a simple list of desiderata, followed by a sample solution.
(1) A score of 18 is mapped to 100.
(2) A score of par is mapped to 50.
(3) The function is decreasing on [18, infinity)
(4) The limit of the function as x goes to infinity is 0.
Truth be told, took me a bit longer than it should have to come up with the following solution.
f(x) = 100(p-18)/(p + 36 + x)
where p is par. Phiwum (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Ignoring anything about holes having different par, and thus weighting strokes differently depending on which hole they aim at, but using similar desiderata (on a scale of 0 to 1 instead of 0~100) I get something like
f(x) = \mathrm{e}^{-n(x-18)}
n = \frac{ln(0.5)}{18 - p}
which probably suffers from some degree of wrongness. Feel free to throw darts at it. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks nice. Has the advantage that it spreads the values out around par better than mine, which has already started to flatten. (The graphs to the right use p = 72.) Phiwum (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Simple-looking graphs, though, are a distraction from any sincere attempt to define the central term here; a monotonic decreasing scalar function is a deeply flawed proxy for what we call "perfection." Speaking of spherical frictionless golfers in a vacuum,[wp] there is a neat thing,[wp] often presented in freshman aerodynamics classes when introducing the Reynolds number, about how scarification of a golf ball, or imperfections in its surface, made for longer drives. Ball manufacturers soon introduced controllable imperfections in the form of dimples, so new balls would no longer have the disadvantage of being "too perfect." Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Was also thinking of an exponentially decreasing function of total score too. Looking at how a perfect round is defined as an average of one under par, this would be closer to the how a perfect round is conventionally defined in golf:
  f(x) = 100e^{(-18 +(p-x))ln(2)/18}
Of course, you can theoretically get over 100 under this definition, but as the Wikipedia article notes: "While the lowest possible score is 18, the term 'perfect round' is used for a 54 as the lowest score generally accepted as being in the realm of possibility among professional golfers on a par 72 course". Perhaps this is a more practical definition.
Taking different par for each hole into account and dropping the condition that a 50 be on par, you can try something like:
 f(x) = \frac{100}{18e} \sum_{i=1}^{18} e^{p_i-x_i}
where x_i and p_i are the score and par for the ith hole, respectively. With a 18 hole-in-one's being defined as perfect it would be
 f(x) = 100  \frac{ \sum_{i=1}^{18} e^{p_i-x_i }}{ \sum_{i=1}^{18} e^{p_i-1}}.
Note that under this system scoring 1 under par on one hole and 1 over par on the next would NOT be equivalent to scoring on par for both (e^{1} + e^{-1} > 2, so it would be better). Whether this is justifiable or not, I'll let the reader decide. The base cannot be changed so they are equal since the only solution to a +1/a = 2 is a = 1, which would make the score trivial. Maybe ou can try to change the base so they are equal to a certain tolerance, but we've already put way more thought into this than Andy has. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, aren't you both just so superior, with your ever-so-sophisticated exponential functions? Just go ahead and say it: only children reach for rational functions when they need a decreasing function with horizontal asymptote.
Snotty pigs. Rationals were good enough for my pappy, and they're good enough for me. Phiwum (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Oinkity as charged, m'lord. The sound you didn't hear was a loogie the size of a quahog, being snurfled back towards my bronchial passage. We could just as easily go with a linear function, if you were willing to accept negative values for perfection. Duffers gotta duff, you know. Speaking of asymptotes, I always look askance at a graph which crops out the part near the horizontal axis. Maybe RW needs an article on deception by graphic presentation, with references to my guru, Edward Tufte,[wp] out the wazoo. Have a nice view this evening... Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a regular gnuplot user. I haven't needed to graph functions in decades. Not my kind of mathematics, you Oinky McOinker, you! (And negative values for perfection? Even I am not that lazy.) Phiwum (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, Pantsy Bunchington, whatever you say. I don't expect you to splain why a perfection score can't take negative values. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Because it can't. It just can't. Duh. (To be honest, I'm a little shocked that Andy hasn't ranted about the unreality of negative numbers. Maybe it's because he's already claimed Biblical foreknowledge involving negative numbers, but he's happy to claim that fishes and loaves is foreknowledge of Banach-Tarski after claiming that Banach-Tarski is absurd.) Phiwum (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Erm, what? Seems to me like perfection is a pretty binary quality. Something is perfect or it isn't. Seems like attaching a quantity to perfection is a contradiction in terms. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

How, then, would you account for an idiom such as "almost perfect"? My favorite definition of "perfect" is still the one used by obstetricians attending a birth. "This is a perfect baby" means "it has the right number of fingers and toes (and a few other things.)" Andy's definition, which I have no intention of researching, probably has more to do with being in accord with God's wishes, e.g. a perfect football game being one where God helps Andy's favored team win. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
After this tangent, I promise to go quiet for a while: Another sporting event of Scottish origin is caber-tossing.[wp] Competitors are not judged by God, but by the appointed human referees; not on distance, but rather on how well the caber turns after hitting the ground, and whether it lands pointing away from the tosser. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Phrases like "almost perfect" would be in the same category as mathematical phrases like "almost always" which have unintuitive but completely rational explanations corresponding to infinities. For example, almost all integers are composite. The primes are infinite, but in proportion to the similarly infinite set of all integers they're dwarfed into insignificance by the composites. So it would be "almost perfect" if something was clearly not perfect in principle, and yet the measured difference from perfection was zero. Suppose you're cleaning the hypothetical infinite hotel, you mistakenly don't do rooms on prime numbered floors, but all the others are spotless. This makes your cleaning "almost perfect" even though infinite hotel guests are left with yesterday's towels and an unmade bed and will call the front desk to complain. Tialaramex (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm truly impressed by the mathematical work that's gone into these last couple of posts, but it seems that there are a couple of things that should be addressed before a function is defined for perfection in golf games. IMHO we should take Andy's historical statements into consideration, like Supreme Court justices parsing the meaning of ambiguous clauses in the Constitution. Clearly Andy himself favors this approach. So, please consider the following: what is the lowest score that Andy has ever assigned to a homework set from one of his online/inperson classes? Probably something in the 80s or 90s, right? I see no reason that Andy would ever score something lower than, say, 80 out of 100 if one of his students was doing it. So rather than 0 representing an infinitely bad golf round, it should be something like 80 or 85. Second, the scoring function clearly must be geometric rather than linear, because all good conservative functions (but I repeat myself) are geometric. I would expect that the resulting scoring would give just about everyone a score between 97 and 100, with it taking colossal clusterfuckery to approach that infinitely bad game of score 80. Just like Andy's usual grading, a really flat scoring curve near 100 over all likely real-world golf scores should be seen as a feature, not as a bug.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Golf perfection is not subject to grade inflation. Only Jesus could achieve that 18, but Kim Jong-Il had 11 holes-in-one in his first game. The Golf Perfection Algorithm has to insure a significant spread between these two cases. Very, very good (home-schooled students and Kim) is not Perfect (Jesus). I would suspect ln(2) should be ln(2.0000001) though. Whoover (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Only Jesus gets the 100, as He should. Grade inflation is only practiced by liberals, unlike at Conservapedia where zero editors have that mental illness. Good call on the 2.0000001, but remember that natural logs rely on the assumption that there is a unique limit to (1+1/n)^n as n goes to infinity that will yield consistent results.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, Andy doesn't like defining 18 hole-in-one's as perfect because it's impossible, so then he asks what would be a perfect game of football? For him, I guess it would be 11 Tim Tebow's vs. a team of evil libruls (Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hitler, etc.). The liberals lose 200-0, see the errors of their ways and repent. The Tebow's then invite Andy to the lockeroom for the after-party... for everyone's sake, I'll stop there. --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A perfect game of football would surely be where the perfect team scores a touchdown (or two point conversion) on every play. Something like: receive kickoff, run back for touchdown. Go for two-point conversion, turnover ball, recover ball and run in for touchdown (not 100% positive about that; maybe just counts as two points). Kickoff to defense; force turnover and run in for touchdown. Rinse, repeat. The actual score doesn't matter, just that every play is a scoring play for the 'perfect' team. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone should add "something unattainable would be a poor definition of perfection" to Liberal Denial. It's actually so mind-numbingly stupid it deserves an article. Whoover (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I kinda wonder what definition of "impossible" he has in mind. What makes 18 holes in one not merely extraordinarily unlikely but literally impossible? Phiwum (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I would think that it is "almost surely" impossible. Technically possible but the chances of it happening are zero.--Mercian (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Fuck it, let's call it 42. London Grump (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Andy apologies to AugustO

WTF did I just read? Have I woken up in some bizarro-world alternate universe of Andy actually apologizing to someone, or is it just a lame attempt at sarcasm? Then Ken, ready as always to stab anyone in the back who might actually try and make the site half-way usable, which makes me suspect Andys "humility" is all the more likely to be anything but. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 22:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Reads like sarcasm to me. Bit over the top, no? Phiwum (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Over the top and over sited[5]--Mercian (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
What did he say? Paraphrase if you can't remember it exactly. Spud (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Andy's comment is clearly sarcasmimg and is still there. Ken burned some followup comments of his. I don't know what they said.Whoover (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Ken had burned his replies by the time I woke up at 5.30 this morning UK time. And I saw andy's comment and immediately thought he was (badly) trolling augusto. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've read Andy's comments now and I could hear the sarcastic tone in his voice as I did so. Spud (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Soros Check

Anyone else get a nice little surprise in the check from Soros this month ? Ghost (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Nah. I'm way behind on my liberal shill duties. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 23:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm too busy wallowing in all my shill dollars from Big Pharma, I don't even bother to cash my Soros cheques anymore. PsyGremlinPrata! 09:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Where is Karajou?

His last post, including blocks, was on the 17th September, two weeks ago [6]. DO you think he has jumped ship?--Mercian (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful, he'll return when he gets bored and wants a power trip. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking in tongues

Bit confused here, is it good or bad no one translated ? linkimg. Also Ken what is the point at over sighting all your tiny edits, we can all see what you've done. Be a man, with Machismo (Ole Ole Ole) and don't oversight them. Ghost (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Andy and Ken are confusing the Jews for Jesus guy's Hebrew for speaking in tongues. There is no reference to speaking in tongues in the article. The fake Jewish prayers are probably what tripped up our religion mavens. Ken is burning revisions so he may be figuring out the blunder. But that video of Trump resisting the urge to get the bunch of loonies tossed is priceless. This primary season is the best ever. Whoover (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also when did conservapedia start have scheduled maintenance img  ? Ghost (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Cover for major history deletions, perhaps?-- Forerunner (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools