Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive120

This is an archive page, last updated 27 November 2009. Please do not make edits to this page.

 This Site is Stagnating Rapidly

Sigh... CP is suffering from epic lull rather than epic lulz. Ed's doing his best, but everyone just ignores him. I say bring back Bugler.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 16:30, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Don't worry. It's only a matter of time before another Bugler comes along. Have you forgotten how quickly Schlafly forgets about the errors of his ways? The problem is TK... it's going to be a lot harder for anyone to be a parodist with him snooping around again.-- JArneal 18:35, 28 February 2009 (EST)
I thought Fret managed to get blocking rights back with another user, just by kissing Andy's arse, but TK banhammered him via his not-creepy-at-all checkuser function. Or was that someone else and not Fret? Anyway, TK is a big problem, but it's only a matter of time before the power goes to his head and he tries to commit regicide...again. --YossieSpring in Fialta 18:46, 28 February 2009 (EST)
I just hopes it's soon. CP is a lot more fun without TK scaring away everyone.--Nate River 20:12, 28 February 2009 (EST)
It's amazing the effect that a person who 1) is capable of complex thought and 2) isn't ignored by Andy has on Conservapedia. It just ruins everything. -- JArneal 21:19, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Hang in there guys, Andy's next Sunday Sermonette is less than 24 hours away. --SpinyNorman 21:27, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Yeah, I also disagree that TK is bad for lulz. He's bad for short-term lulz at CP's expense, but in the long-term, huh boy!-Diadochus 21:51, 28 February 2009 (EST)
I thought Fret managed to get blocking rights back with another user, just by kissing Andy's arse, but TK banhammered him via his not-creepy-at-all checkuser function. Or was that someone else and not Fret? Yes, it was my MikeSalter sock, if memory serves. I'm not sure if I even had enough time to ban anyone. <sigh> Fretfulporpentine 09:28, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I think Mike Salter got un-demoted / deleted / banhammered when Andy borked CP for a week last month. Bondurant 13:49, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Ah yes, that was the one. That really speaks to Andy's idiocy, doesn't it? All you have to do is say how great he is, and bam, Bugler's back. Hmm...where did he get un-demoted? It only says he got banned... --YossieSpring in Fialta 17:51, 1 March 2009 (EST)

 Long Blocks at CP

Any chance you could do one of how many people with long blocks ever bother to come back after they expire? Sorry if you don't do requests...--Kriss AkabusiAAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1 05:29, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Now, I found some time to look into this question:

 6 months and longer

So, only few find back their way to CP after a harsh punishment expired. And even fewer can stay on:

min. 6 month total unblocked today blocked today
pardoned 50 42 8
returned 5 2 3
stayed away 178 164 14

larronsicut fur in nocte 18:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Chartman saves the day once again. ENorman 21:33, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Yeah, but 6 months is obviously "forever" in Internet time. I'd be much more interested in a chart of how people reacted to a block lasting two weeks, one week, 24 hours, 2 hours, etc., possibly further broken down by how long the user had been registered before being blocked. The idea that most people can't even remember the name of a Web site they visited six months ago, let alone their username and password there, is not surprising to me at all. --Marty 22:53, 28 February 2009 (EST) EDIT: Okay, it's still good to have the data to back up even unsurprising theories. I don't mean to sound ungrateful. :) --Marty 22:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)
Your question ignores the problem of separating "real new people" from veteran trollers. The stats at CP will always be deeply warped by that divide. ħuman 00:36, 1 March 2009 (EST)
The number of people who have been blocked for periods of 2 weeks or less is probably statistically insignificant. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 05:36, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Judge for yourself :-)

at least one hour,but less than one day at least one day, but less than one week at least one week, but less than one month at least one month, but less than six month at least six months
total blocked now unblocked now total blocked now unblocked now total blocked now unblocked now total blocked now unblocked now total blocked now unblocked now
pardoned 0 0 0 225 92 133 175 64 111 130 35 95 50 8 42
returned 256 131 125 439 209 230 149 67 82 52 20 32 5 3 2
stayed away 142 41 100 496 128 368 382 65 317 325 43 282 178 14 164

BTW, pardoned just means that the user made an edit during the period he was originally blocked for, returned implies that the user didn't edit during his block (whether this block was lifted or not), but made an edit afterward. Stayed away counts those for whom no entry could be found after the initiation of the block: Due to conservative deception this doesn't imply that they didn't made a few posts thereafter - only, that these posts can't be found anymore. larronsicut fur in nocte 06:56, 1 March 2009 (EST)

 visualization block periods
• I divided the blocks into classes according to the most favourite block periods (these can be seen in the right pic above).
• Though, the table above doesn't reveal surprising insights (gosh, you get blocked forever, you stay away), the percentages are amusing to look at:
1. The probability to get pardoned seems to be independent from the length of the block (if the block is longer than one day, at least...)
2. the chosen bins lead to a linear increase of those who just stayed away after being blocked...

larronsicut fur in nocte 06:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)

 Andy demonstrates his command of statistics; again

 “”RobertWDP, I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and stopped there. I'll be honest: I don't have time to explain simple statistics to you. If the expected rate of lung cancer among the general non-smoking public is 1 in 10,000, and you observe a rate of 20% in a sample size of 20 smokers, then that is statistically significant and should be the cause for great alarm. Deny it, as tobacco companies did for decades, and you can have a good job for a tobacco company but you're not helping any of the potential victims.--Andy Schlafly 23:32, 28 February 2009 (EST) —[1]5=Hollywood breast cancer crap
and marmite 00:25, 1 March 2009 (EST)

$Insert formula here$

And yet again Andy manages to sound exactly like his virtual facsimile. --YossieSpring in Fialta 00:29, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Is his hypothetical situation even statistically significant? I tried to work it out and I found it not to be. But I'm only taking an intro course to statistics so I could be wrong... FernoKlumpMr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition! 01:12, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Don't forget that Andy the Expert includes factors such as if the artist's touring schedule isn't tight enough for the disease to be an issue, or if she keeps it a secret to look sexy [2]. Etc 01:42, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Though it pains me greatly to say so, at least part of Andy's statistics is correct: for a binomial distribution with p=0.0001, the probability of getting 4 (or more) hits from a sample of 20 is, well, effectively zero (to something like 12 or 13 decimal places). Though one part that sounds very wrong is using 1/10000 in the first place; I can't immediately find the statistics for probability of lung cancer for smokers and non-smokers, but suspect it's a couple of orders of magnitudes bigger than Andy's probability. alt 13:42, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Oh, I see my mistake. I used percentages instead of number of hits. I know less about statistics than Schlafly =P FernoKlumpMr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition! 14:03, 1 March 2009 (EST)
His core problem here, is selective sampling. He chooses women who have come out as +, and counts them. The only real effective way to see if hollywood effects BC, is to take the first 10 - 20 movies on IMDB, compile a list of all the women actors (and director or whatever his criteria are) until you get to 100. Then research those 100 and see how many of them have breast cancer. When all you do is include the high profile cases, you are highlighting people who come out, specifically because they have a forum to say "here we go".--En attendant Godot"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov» 11:58, 2 March 2009 (EST)

 Skimming

Skimming I: I did skim Lenski's paper, and saw that on multiple occasions he says the data are not shown. In addition, his figures and tables are oddly uninformative. I recall that one figure is complete speculation. After skimming his paper the need for public disclosure of the data became even more apparent.

What would I do with the raw data? I don't propose that access to it be limited based on education or credentials. I would expect many people, including folks just as bright as Lenski, to examine it and possibly identify flaws or make suggestions.

I repeat: does anyone here really think Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge???--Aschlafly 19:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Skimming II: Instead of having "only skimmed parts of it," how about actually reading it before spewing nonsense about it? It's not long and I don't think it uses any big words: [1].--Andy Schlafly 11:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Sigh, larronsicut fur in nocte 01:23, 1 March 2009 (EST)

"LArron", your edit has no bearing on the conversation. Typical of liberals, you...
I can't do it. I just can't imitate him any longer. Just knowing that someone like him exists makes me lose faith in humanity. -- JArneal 02:39, 1 March 2009 (EST)
That's okay, that's what we have Assquote for! --YossieSpring in Fialta 04:48, 1 March 2009 (EST)
"JArneal" (your insulting name is getting tiresome), you're doing everything except basing your analysis on translating, analyzing and quoting the Bible. I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and you are unlike 99% of evolutionists, who avoid the Bible like the plague and even discourage others from reading it, so whether you admit it or not, I can tell you're a liberal troll. Your atheistic worldview has led you to deny that that affirmative action causes rather than reduces research into gravitons. Whatever the mainstream media might say, in merely a few spare minutes or hours, the participants in this project have learned more than they could have after spending 10x or 100x many hours in any other medium. You have a free will to reject logic, but you're not persuading anyone who respects logic. Go elsewhere if you seek to be deceitful.--Aschlafly 04:48, 1 March 2009 (EST)

 Volcano of stupid, redux

PJR thinks Ed's "hide" template is silly. Too bad, after a helpful editor *cough* went to all the trouble of de-redlinking Ed's bowdlerized version. --Marty 01:30, 1 March 2009 (EST)

 PJR Again

"See my entry on the dinosaur page for a strong argument against evolution!" 'e sez. Well, Philip, I've seen and not been exakkly convinced. No doubt you can demonstrate the exact points on that page which aren't either 1) wrong or 2) quote mined; that back up your assertion. and marmite 09:08, 1 March 2009 (EST)

DinoGeebus=PJR? [No it was a parodist. Mea Culpa: (Just followed diffs without checking - slap hand - ouch) and marmite] Though the dinosaur page cracks me up:
Descriptions of dragons are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs. Dragons appear in the flag of Wales, in traditional Chinese New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese calendar. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
Yep, I'm convinced! --RonyB 09:28, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Aint it the bestest though? and marmite 09:31, 1 March 2009 (EST)
So what's he talking about, "his" entry? The only thing I can find that he did on the page aside from reversions since August was this, and all that says is that if you squint at a cave painting in low light, it kinda looks like a dinosaur. Maybe. --Kels 10:22, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Repeat:[No it was a parodist. Mea Culpa: (Just followed diffs without checking - slap hand - ouch)and marmite]

Seems funny when alcohol is involved. Hopefully DinoGeebus will return after his 3-month block. Teabag 02:19, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Since it was the FBI Incident that originally brought me here to our lovely blog of right-thinking stupidosity and caused my first multiple blockings at CP, as I argued with Andy on the fact that the law didn't even remotely cover his stupid fucking little blog, may I say how delighted I am that Ed and PJR are both bringing up the central issue in the debate again. It remains one of the all-time-best moments of self-aggrandizing fuckwittedness that ever spewed out of that nincompoops head, and I'm just thrilled it's back on the table again. That is all. We now return you to your normal service. DogP 12:58, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I'm with you.... the FBI incident is probably my favorite moment in CP history (even ahead of the Lenski Affair) SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 14:01, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I'm just LOVING this new burnage by TK. That's the way to resolve controversy - BOOK BURNING! Yes! DogP 16:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)
ANNNNND, it's on again, DING DING! Jeez guys, time to get a room. DogP 22:12, 2 March 2009 (EST)

(continued below: #Hey PJR - 18 USC section 1030) and marmite 02:27, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 Commenting out lame WIGOs

Why do this? Just 'cause they get voted down is no reason to hide them...TheoryOfPractice 14:05, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Well, it gets voted down if people don't find it too noteworthy, so I commented it out as more of an "Eh, might as well" thing. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ would rather be hated for who he is than loved for who he is not
I disagree: people--especially newcomers--need to see what's a good WIGO and what's a bad one; this provides handy examples of both...TheoryOfPractice 14:11, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Fair enough, I have no reason at all to disagree. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ would rather be hated for who he is than loved for who he is not

 Wot No Insights?

It's Sunday, Andy's been to Mass - where is the latest piece of blithering imbecility? Fretfulporpentine 18:09, 1 March 2009 (EST)

He's even slacking on the grading. He extended the first deadline by an hour and a half, it's now past the second deadline and he has only graded two papers... Hitting the scotch early?-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 18:36, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I'm guessing he's been at CPAC. MDB 19:34, 1 March 2009 (EST)

 How long can we take it?

File:CheetahMan.jpg
Is it possible for CUR to be *more* insane?

How long until Andy finally causes us to go insane and die of exasperation? --"C, U Rthe melodramatic, buttfucking dog. 18:14, 1 March 2009 (EST)

How long until puppykitten finally causes us to go insane and die of exasperation? ħuman 22:48, 1 March 2009 (EST)

 Gentlemen Ken

Usually I dont pay much attention to your "messages" or to you yourself as you seem to be an attention seeking drone with shit for brains however, in this instance, I would like you to know that, yes - I look forward to seeing your latest operation, Operation Fuck-knucke or whatever, topple the sacred cow of Atheism. Best of luck - I predict very little but you may surprise me. Ace McWickedRevolt 19:32, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Say, didn't he have something major that was supposed to have already happened by now? Where's the results, Ken? Oh say, where's the results from LAST YEAR'S Ides of March announcements you made such a big deal of? --Kels 19:41, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Let me guess - will the announcment consist of you telling that someone, somewhere, from some organisation might be saying something soon that might be about evolution and charity? Or will you announce that one of your joke articles went to number 9 on a certain search engine beginning with G only to drop to 12 again? Ace McWickedRevolt 20:13, 1 March 2009 (EST)
There's a possibility that likely may be an option, per chance, Gentleman Ace. *Links irrelevant video.* 20:22, 1 March 2009 (EST)
My guess it'll be some religious group doing the exact same thing they've already doing, but maybe they'll keep on doing it. But that's only a guess for now. --Kels 20:24, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Dearest Ken, create your own fucking poll. Ace McWickedRevolt 21:03, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Er what's a "scewering"? and marmite 21:16, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Heh!

== Gentlemen ==

Um...Conservative, not to interfere, but "scewering" is not the proper spelling of "skewering." You might want to fix that here. [[User:DuncanB|Duncan]]<sup>[[User talk:DuncanB|Channel 16]]</sup> 21:44, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I have no idea, I think he like bull fighting. Ken do you want me to give you that list of logical fallacies you still have not fixed 8 months after I gave them to you? I will look through the archive if you like. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 21:20, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Congratulations, Ken, on getting your page so high up the Google ratings that now many more people will be able to laugh hysterically at your command of the English language and your quote mining prowess. Thanks for spreading the lulz. and marmite 21:24, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Ken gets a wee little stiffy when people hurt animals. He's always on about injuring cats, too. --Kels 21:24, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Wait, that was it? The much-ballyhooed "Ides of March" was just you pimping your humour article about Atheism? That's supposed to hurt atheism somehow? And WTF does a dolphin (who probably doesn't believe in God and never goes to church) have to do with atheism? Are you retarded? --Kels 21:24, 1 March 2009 (EST)

It's endlessly amusing how Ken thinks he's somehow convincing people with his incomprehensible joke of a webpage, and that the war on atheism and evilution is won via google pagerankings. "If it's higher ranked on a search engine, it is truer!" "Every person who views my articles rejects liberal secular sacred cow paradigm ideologies... perhaps likely." 21:29, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Kels inadvertently brings up a pretty good point here. I am starting to think we should make fun of Ken less, as it seems more and more clear that he is at least mildly retarded. Making fun of the mentally challenged is mean, even if they are, in this case, douchebags. DickTurpis 22:01, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I have to completely disagree with you. I have just spent half an hour looking through the history of this page and my sides now hurt from laughing at all the good times we have had with Ken. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:06, 1 March 2009 (EST)
It can be amusing, no doubt, but it's also like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it? "Look, we out-witted someone with the mind of a 13 year old!" Andy, at least, is allegedly smart, though so deluded that he's lost touch with reality completely. But even the shitbag dumbasses at CP see Ken as what he is, and don't take him seriously. Sometimes I feel like we're like a teenager beating on a 8 year old paraplegic. DickTurpis 22:16, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Then are we allowed to make fun of CP at all? Andy is allegedly smart, as you say, but he's a childish bully. Ken is also allegedly smart, and he's bragged about his IQ in the past. So given that, are we allowed to make fun of Andy? Or a sociopath like TK? Or Karajou and his brainless mindless authoritarianism? Or PJR who's so nice when he's not advocating the gutting of science and installation of a theocracy (so long as it's biblical literalist Christian, because they're right after all)? Face it, everyone over there who's not an obvious parodist has some "out", so if we give Ken a pass, we have to give them all a pass. --Kels 22:20, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Well, I'm not saying we shouldn't make fun of Ken, I'm just saying that you have to cut the mentally developmentally disabled some slack. That's different from being a bully, or a general asshole, or any such thing. Andy has 2 degrees from prestigious universities, which at least says something. Ken making up a number and saying it's his IQ means less than nothing, so, no, he isn't allegedly smart. It's clear that no one even at CP respects him or his intelligence. Think Blaster from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. When that helmet came off and Max saw who he was fighting he had to reflect on what he was doing (I will use Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome as an analogy for just about anything). We should consider the same thing. Hey, I've made fun of Ken as much as anyone, but when I think of a mentally retarded guy as the butt of our jokes it just doesn't feel right. DickTurpis 22:29, 1 March 2009 (EST)
As long as CP give him licence to air his views, his undoubted lack of mental development cannot excuse him frpm receiving our mockery. and marmite 22:37, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I'd beat up an 8 year old paraplegic if he was a big enough asshole. Neveruse513 08:51, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Ken, your latest post, where you accuse us of jealousy is the poorest bullshit you have ever typed. If I were jealous of stupid, thick headed, homosexual obsessed ignoramus bigot like yourself I would surely kill myself. Ace McWickedRevolt 23:21, 1 March 2009 (EST)
He probably cries himself to sleep every night because of you. -- JArneal 02:46, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Bah, no need for tears - I expect he's on thorazine or something of a similar nature. Ace McWickedRevolt 05:59, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Evolution article

Why did he just delete it destroying its page count? Also has anyone looked at the talkpage where after having 6 errors pointed out in the article, he says they couldn't find one error. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 00:03, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Well, they couldn't find one, so I guess he's technically right. --Kels 00:21, 2 March 2009 (EST)
If one wanted to be snarky, one could point out that Ken failed to point out a single factual error in the "rant" and that his response is less than persuasive. Also, I guess deleting the evolution page cannily disguises the fact he has been the only (and obsessive) editor of article for a year now, and that he's flagrantly disobeying the decision of the long-defunct, and presumably now liberal after being corrupted by university life, Conservapedia Panel. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:31, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Wait, there actually WAS a "panel"? I always just figured it was the voices in Andy's head. --Gulik 03:46, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Yeah, I'm open to that interpretation. It's just kinder to assume there were actually some other people involved in the mysterious, shadowy Conservapedia Cabal. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Andy doesn't actually have any students. They're all the creations of his (limited) imagination, to while away the lonely hours in his basement, screaming obscenities about deceit and liberals... --YossieSpring in Fialta 05:54, 2 March 2009 (EST) Now I can't stop laughing...
LOL! Btw I see ken has hijacked the mainpage again, now the pesky weekly article is once again buried beneath article of the year and highlighted article. --PsyGremlinWhut? 06:33, 2 March 2009 (EST)
It isn't buried, it's valiantly resisting the liberal temptations to get the mainpage tidied up censored! larronsicut fur in nocte 06:57, 2 March 2009 (EST)
And it wasn't Ken that moved it down, it was Joaquin. Weird.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 07:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Wow, Ken reset his page view count for Evolution? Maybe he wants to see how many page views it really gets rather than the artificially inflated figure. Ken if you have the cojones and any sort of integrity you would do the same for Atheism and Homosexuality. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 11:05, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Et tu, Bethany? --Kels 17:07, 2 March 2009 (EST)

WTF he's done it again! ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 03:11, 3 March 2009 (EST)

For or Against? (It's the SAEM thing!!!)

Check out this edit from 10-ish days ago. Ken has limited abilities when it comes to answering questions and relies on standard "pat" answers...he uses this one when someone points out glaring deficiencies in POV. He assumes that when someone asks a question the "proof" for the query has to be made before the question is valid. Yes, Virginia, there are no stupid questions...but for stupid responses see Ken. 14:25, 2 March 2009 (EST) CЯacke®

 Discuss

 “”6. Current events question: What about the decline of the Roman empire reminds you of the United States today? (Possibilities could be: in-fighting for government positions like the Illinois Senate seat, moral decay, economic decline, weakness to attack by foreign enemies, etc.) As the Roman Empire, the United States starts to deteriorate due to moral decay and the controversy for positions with power. The United States is forgetting why foreigners came to settle this world. They came here to worship God freely without someone commanding them to do otherwise. This country was made up of the outcasts and the poor searching for a better life. They came here to be free from the corruption of morals and government in their own country, but now we have caught the disease and are contaminated with jealousy and hunger for power and not for God. The Roman Empire started with a group of outcasts who were willing to create a new empire so that they may have a new start, but as time went on the people engulfed themselves in their own spoils and not in work that results in progress. People are now looking for the easiest way to do things even though it may take less work from you it is more work in the end. (Veronika) Many elements that caused the fall of Rome are, in some way or another, present in our country now. Most notably is economic crisis. Rome’s economic state declined as inflation occurred and money was sent to the East in trade, depleting the West of precious metal coinage. This situation is roughly comparable to a combination of the current economic crisis and the huge amount of trade with China, creating large amounts of debt. Related to this is the rising unemployment rate and the collapse of business. And when more people are out of work, less productive work gets done and the culture begins to devolve. Immoral entertainment, harsh taxes, unrest over foreign invasion, and other sentiments were both a cause and an effect in the decline of Rome, and to a lesser degree these sentiments may lead to decline in our country too. (However, while these similarities undeniably exist, I don’t believe that the United States will actually decline very much. I actually believe it will be greatly improved, see cp:Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America) (Addison) —Model answer
and marmite 20:23, 1 March 2009 (EST)
 “”Fantastic answer, one of the best in the class all year. May use this as a model answer. You're making it difficult for me to choose the best! -- Teh Assfly
Taken from here.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 20:29, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Have we got the model answers recorded somewhere? If not, should we have? and marmite 20:37, 1 March 2009 (EST)

"The Roman Empire started with a group of outcasts who were willing to create a new empire so that they may have a new start." Uhhh... what outcasts had what new start when and how? Caesar and Octavian? Aeneas? 20:59, 1 March 2009 (EST)

Romulus and Remus, silly. :) and marmite 21:04, 1 March 2009 (EST)
But they didn't found the empire, or even the republic. Just the city/kingdom. 21:22, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Don't let mere facts stand in the way of truthiness! Jammy 21:56, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Just saw this: if Andy's teaching Livy's story of Romulus & Remus as fact, I weep even harder for these kids. Not even Livy took that literally.-Diadochus 11:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Panic not, that was just my little bit of snark. Even Andy couldn ... he couldn't ... could he? and marmite 11:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Hey Ya ! Perhaps they mean Outkast ? Actually Aeneas and co had no choice but to leave Troy as it was a pile of ash and the Greeks were not keen to rebuild the place either. So hardly 'outcasts' - more like refugees.

I await to see if anyone on the course starts talking about Dido in Carthage and her recording 'Here With Me'. Rovander 05:27, 2 March 2009 (EST)

They're the same thing, right? TK seems to be saying they aren't. It's also worth noting that they were promoted at the same time, unless the new history is that TK never was never defrocked and left in a prissy huff. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:57, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Sysop=Admin, except for TK, who wanders around calling himself a senior admin. Which just goes to show what a monumental prick he is. And given the way Andy welcomed him back, one wonders if Andy even remembers TKs attempts to dethrone him. --PsyGremlinWhut? 06:29, 2 March 2009 (EST)
TK implicitly played the seniority card the moment Andy also promoted those other guys on January 1. The new sysops may have exactly the same rights as TK, but compared to senior administrators (something that magically doesn't include Evil Liberals like PJR who actually stayed sysop the entire time), they are still just John Doe users with no rights at all. Long story short: TK is at the top, no matter what actual rights he has. --Sid 11:42, 2 March 2009 (EST)
It goes to show: power is what other people let you steal. He takes the Number Two position & the others let him. "Fat accomplice" as my mother used to say. and marmite 12:08, 2 March 2009 (EST)

 TK takes his master's word

A "Final answer" (= code for STFU) from TK. and marmite 07:45, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Is it just me, or has TK swung into hyper suck-up mode just lately? He's even copying Andy's stock phrases verbatim. Maybe he's heard rumours of a new 'crat in the offing. Either way, he's becoming a proper little Renfield. And oh dear. Umlaut commits wiki suicide.--PsyGremlinWhut? 07:57, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Does anyone else think we should be rather reluctant to WIGO TK stuff? If it's true that his whole Bugler-like power-mad schtick is just an act, and he's actively trying to damage Conservapedia, that makes him rather different to idiots like Andy and Ed Poor; i.e. he is a fake and thus not actually funny. seventhrib 08:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I agree, giving him attention here just eggs him on to be meaner and meaner. If WIGO didn't exist, he'd probably lose interest, as there's not enough happening at CP alone to justify the many, many hours this sad fellow spends shouting at people there. Rule 1 of the internet should be: Do not have anything to do with TK.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 08:42, 2 March 2009 (EST)
However, the very fact that he's allowed to operate as he does on CP, with Andy's (and the other sysop's) blessing, speaks volumes of the people running CP. TK might be a troll, or just a wacko who gets off on destroying online communities, but he's certainly right at home on CP - and he will be until he tries to usurp Andy again. Look at the way he changes the rules and blocks and drives away editors (the latest being CPalmer it seems - unless he hasn't edited because of the weekend) - if the rest of the admins didn't like it, surely they would be able to take him down? Unfortunately, TK is merely a symptom of the whole underlying nastiness of CP. --PsyGremlinWhut? 08:54, 2 March 2009 (EST)
(EC) Don't think that we have anything to do with his actions. He's just naturally nasty and gets his kicks from sowing discontent and destruction. He needs no appreciation but his own powertrippery. and marmite 08:57, 2 March 2009 (EST)
The worst part is that he's in almost constant violation of the rules he so gleefully "enforces." Look at his edits, they've got "90/10 block for talk, talk, talk" written all over them. I don't know how he does his thing where the other CP denizens think he's some sort of valuable contributor. I guess, as with kendoll, once you're entrenched enough you can do pretty much anything without fear of challenge or contradiction. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:03, 2 March 2009 (EST)
When you're a cop, you can break the law? and marmite 09:14, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Sysops don't have to contribute content if they just show enough Enforcer presence. Guarding the wiki against anybody who might become a problem later on is just as good as posting anti-Obama rants. --Sid 11:14, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Better. People don't get to be Sysops by posting content; they get to be Sysops by agreeing with Andy and attacking deceitful atheistic public school educated posters. --Phentari 13:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I like that he took a paragraph out of Ed Poor's post and decided to attribute it to Umlaut, because it was vaguely negative of the assfly. That's just genius. Insidious, but genius. 194.6.79.200 09:08, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I'd disagree that he has "the other sysops'" blessing - PJR clearly hates him, JM and Ken are only interested in their own little projects, and most of the others are too new to challenge him. That more or less only leaves Ed and Andy; why they trust him is anyone's guess.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 09:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)
JM and I think Geo (and/or Dean - can't fully remember) also stand behind TK. Whenever TK got into hot water, JM was there to vouch for him. Whenever TK left because of the liberal bullies like PJR, it was JM who went all "Oh no! Please stay! We don't know what to do without you! Philip, please reconsider!". Whenever TK came back, JM was among the first to post the "Welcome back, my good friend!" note. And whenever TK was placed under parole, Geo was the parole officer - and promptly kept both eyes closed to any abuse TK did. --Sid 11:14, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I totally disagree with "Rule 1 of the internet" about not having anything to do with TK. For example, his recent stuff about 18USC1030 is exactly the sort of thing we should WIGO, since it shows brutish, hypocritical, and destructive behavior of the powers that be. (That's the main thing WIGO is about, right?) I'm tempted to WIGO it myself, but, if there's some kind of consensus, unknown to me, that we aren't supposed to, I'll hold off. But we should be WIGOing TK. If it makes him all the more extreme, and leads him to harm CP even more, so much the better.

In contrast, I think we should not discuss Ken. I never read anything he writes, and skip over discussions of him. His stuff is just too far below the minimum standards for making sense—all he does is delete and re-create files. Why read something if he's just going to delete it tomorrow? We should make known to him (red telephone, or whatever it is!) that no one at RW will ever read anything he writes unless (1) that page has persisted, undeleted and untampered-with, for six months, and (2) his last edit to it is at least one week old. (That last clause is because he makes 40 edits to something while writing one sentence; why should I read something in the middle of one of his editing frenzies? Wait until he's done.) Gauss 10:03, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I don't think that if TK is doing harm to Conservapedia, it is 'so much the better'. The reason I read WIGO is to get that sense of amused incredulity - the best WIGOs (my favourite, at least) are not the most 'brutish, hypocritical, and destructive' ones, but the funniest ones, like the Lenski affair and that 'Jesus invented comedy' business. Any harm done to Conservapedia is irrelevant, and (if anything) to be regretted. Since TK does what he does with at least partial knowledge of what a bellend he is being, it's unfunny and uninteresting. Also, it might be worth mentioning that when we take notice, it gives a little bit more ammunition to those who want to accuse RW of endorsing and encouraging CP vandals. seventhrib 12:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
wigo TK, I say! larronsicut fur in nocte 10:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Fair enough, and I realise an actual ban wouldn't be very Rationalwiki. But I consider him to be in the same category as parodists, so I may well vote down his WIGOs (by one point).-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 10:21, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I agree with Gauss. Arguing with the mentally handicapped doesn't reflect well on us.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 11:03, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I agree to an extent, but until CP realises, and acts on, his mental ineptitude, he's got to be treated as if he had a fully functioning brain. It's not him per se we're going after - it's CP for using him - they're putting him in the line of fire, so to speak, & shouldn't be allowed to use him as a shield. and marmite 11:51, 2 March 2009 (EST)
MOER TK: Dave Williams is a sock of .... Dave Williams! and marmite 14:00, 2 March 2009 (EST)

 Fractals

Foxtrot gets it exactly wrong: "evolutionists can't explain complex fractal behaviour in nature. God did it!" DinsdaleP (Dinsdale?.. Dinsdale?) attempts to set him straight: "err, fractals have minimal complexity." The inevitable riposte: "Exactly. God did it!" Sometimes *facepalm* just isn't enough...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 11:16, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Err ... AAAAAAARRRGH. and marmite 11:28, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Sorry: but: "How would nature know ...?" I paraphrase from memory, I can't bear to look again. and marmite 11:30, 2 March 2009 (EST)

The EmperorKneel before Zod! 11:32, 2 March 2009 (EST)

So, they're actually claiming that god did snowflakes now? Individually, in a little angel staffed workshop? Each one a cherubim-crafted work of art? We're all agreed, foxtrot is a parodist right? My head couldn't take it if he was for real. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:56, 2 March 2009 (EST)
C'mon, the answer's as obvious as 2+2=4. Rain is the angels crying, thunder is the angels bowling, and snow is the angels having a pillowfight (according to my grandma, anyway). --SpinyNorman 12:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)
There are two people on CP who are hopefully, but unlikely parodists: Foxtrot and Jpatt. :( --Sid 11:58, 2 March 2009 (EST)
EC Regrettably, I think he's for real. Ouch. The EmperorKneel before Zod!
EC EC )Think he's the real thing: I have a background in mathematics, sez he. You'd never guess. and marmite 12:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)
E effin' C) Although he's got a userbox that Andy don't like: This user believes guns harm more people than they help. and marmite 12:05, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Can I put the gif back? GO ADD! The EmperorKneel before Zod! 12:04, 2 March 2009 (EST)
You can have it back on the condition you tell me what your IP address is, so that I can add global javascript to make that very same gif appear every time you come here and randomly jump around the screen. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:05, 2 March 2009 (EST)
English please. I don't speak programmese, any more than I speak Legalese. The EmperorKneel before Zod! 12:13, 2 March 2009 (EST)
You know, back in the '80s, we thought everyone would get computers but you'd all have to learn to be programmers to use them. You know, you'd have to learn LISP to use your text editor, postscript to make your windowing system work, that kind of thing. Good times, good times. Then that arsehat Steve Jobs had to ruin it for all of us. Also, we were going to get flying cars. When do I get my flying car? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:22, 2 March 2009 (EST)

(unindent) I know it sounds funny, but since the early 1900's, there have been over a hundred patents granted for flying cars. SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 12:39, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Including this one most recently. I totally want one. Also, if I had the kind of money to blow on these frivolities, there's a \$10,000 personal helicopter that you can learn to fly in about an hour which I totally want too. I had a go at learning to fly a proper helicopter, but you have to spend about that much just to clock the flight hours to get your licence. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:55, 2 March 2009 (EST)
While you guys have fun up there, gimme one of these nifty cars! --Sid 13:22, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Sorry to bust up the sewing circle, but back on topic... It actually FRUSTRATES me that responsibilities deny me the time I would have to devote to sock up, get in their good graces with factual edits, and avoid the 90/10 to take the fight to them and dispute their stupidity on their home turf... Kids, job, school, deployments, lulz on RW, etc. Woe is me. The Foxhole Atheist 13:48, 2 March 2009 (EST)
You wouldn't be able to... TK is ubervigilant right now for any new editors..... If you agree with the CP viewpoint, Parodist, if you don't agree, Vandal. If you do nothing but make factual edits, he'll find some way to block you for whatever reason he pulls out of his ass (See CP:User:StephenK) TK wants to bring CP down and since there is no real accountability for the admins, he can do whatever the fuck he wants. SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 13:53, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Yep. Also, there is no way to escape 90/10. You can make 99 good contribs, followed by one challenging talk post that's hard/impossible to refute, and you will have violated 90/10 (or maybe 90/10 Lite - "trolling/vandalism"). And making factual edits is harder than it looks because anything some sysops don't like or understand will be labeled as vandalism. --Sid 14:10, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Screw hovercars, I want my jetpack!-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 14:40, 2 March 2009 (EST)

In other news, Foxtrot replied to Dinsdale again: "[...] But the wide complexity of shapes and structures found in nature cannot have such a simple principle as natural selection to explain them! It cannot have another explanation than that of being designed by an Intelligent Being." Lovely. --Sid 16:52, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Sounds like an excuse to post this.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 17:05, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Foxtrot (The Mathematician) Asks Jessica (The Linguist?) about fractals (the piccy's here). and marmite 03:08, 3 March 2009 (EST)

god I just love that they actually use the argument "THIS SEEMS REALLY COMPLEX SO I CANT IMAGINE A SIMPLE PROCESS CAN DO IT HENCE GOD!". It just perfectly illuminates their idiocy. There are a ton of examples where complexity arises from really simple algorhytms, and though I do not know that much about fractals, they really seem to be a good example of it. All you need is a bit of recursion, and THAT isn't that weird to see in nature. --GTac 04:11, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 Ed's CP tricks don't work on WP

In thwe Wp:Richard Dawkins article Ed adds a comment with a plea: "Creationists who have debated him suggest the real reason he avoids debates is because he is the one who gets beaten - according to audience polls. < !-- Please help me find the link for this, instead of just deleting info you 'do not like to see'. Thanks. -- > " - It gets reverted in 45 minutes (a bit slow that!) with the lovely comment: (remove POV and weaselish additions). and marmite 11:45, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Ed apparently listened too much to CP's "People who delete my unsourced crap only do it to censor criticism!" argument. And why didn't Ed just use CP as a source for sources? I'm sure Ken jizzed all over CP's Dawkins article with links. Oh, wait, those links are quite likely to non-notable and/or blatantly POV-pushing sites. Hmmmmm... --Sid 11:55, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Typical Ed, he expects other people to do the work of justifying his own bigoted preconceptions. What an arse. Find your own effin' refs you loonie Moonie! ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 12:56, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Imagine if everybody did that. Wikipedia would go downhill pretty damn fast. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 14:26, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Imagine? Conservapedia, yo. QED. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:30, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Oh. OH, SNAP.DSFARGEG 15:07, 2 March 2009 (EST)

 Doesn't time fly when you're enjoying yourself?

And initially gave himself a deadline of 5pm Sunday for the homework grading. [3] What d'you mean: "it's Monday afternoon already and only 3 done still?" That'd mean detention for a pupil. and marmite 13:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I like how for student 3 he compares the "truth" of eastern religions being the work of the devil with the truth of 2+2=4. It seems that whenever faced with a semblance of intelligence, even from an evangikid, Andy degenerates immediatly into "I am 95% certain that you also deny that abstinence prevents socialism and school prayer is necessary for humour" mode. Bil08 14:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I 'spose, in a way, abstinence does prevent socialism. I also laugh at people who pray, but I guess that's sufficient rather than necessary. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:16, 2 March 2009 (EST)
LOL Yeah abstinence prevents everything. It's one hell of a collective action problem though...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 14:35, 2 March 2009 (EST)
After a cursory glance: Student 4, despite being an honors student, doesn't understand line breaks; Student 8 can't count to 7; Student 12 dropped out; and Student 18 takes 1st place in the "Shortest Answer Possible Competition". The Foxhole Atheist 16:46, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Maybe all of the parodists and fakes have gotten to him. How long till Andy leaves CP?--Nate River 20:34, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I think he should give it to Ed. It'd be so much funnier than if TK or someone took it. --Kels 21:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)
http://www.acapela.tv/good-old-times-bc9b0f325105e.html NightFlare 21:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)

 Edit Count at CP

Would it be possible for anyone to compare the total number of edits per hour/day on CP during the first weeks of December '08 and February '09 respectively? It could just be me, but the number of edits has decreased dramatically (now that Bugler, Rod and TimS, along with BRichtgen and JArneal, are gone). I call upon someone to step forth and show just how rapidly CP is growing. I'd do it myself, but I'm too ignorant and lazy. EddyP 15:30, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I've been observing the same trend, (though with an almost certain bias, since I've ceased editing). cp:Talk:Main_Page seems to have ground to a halt, with only SpinyNorman and Hsmom raising concerns here and there, and little is occurring outside of Andy's weekly insights and the World History Lectures. Most notably, the number of vandals and blocks/day appears to have dropped significantly. Is it possible that TK's checkuser/banning spree has turned most parodists and more contributors off the site, showing just how large a part we play at CP? 15:47, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Here's the graph which is often used. February is a significant slump since November/December, but seemingly not unusual in CP history. However, I wish the chart could differentiate edit size. 15:58, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Cheers. I'm actually surprised by that, I thought there would be a bigger difference. What caused the big spike early last year? EddyP 16:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Was that when ScienceBlogs got hold of Ken's obsession with teh homosex? As I recall, the initial blogburst when a pile of mainstream and political blogs got hold of it (early '07?) was much bigger, and they will never regain that level of traffic again. --Kels 23:38, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Not the edit count, but the count of page views. The data is retrieved from A. Schlafly's announcements at the main page of CP (wow, over 3.3 M page views...) larronsicut fur in nocte 03:03, 4 March 2009 (EST)

 Poop

Someone has to say this: Naked man defecating on a cross shuts down La Brea. I wonder, why do I immediately associate this kind of article with CP? Andy, I'm sure you can put some anti-liberal spin on this and showcase it on the front page news. Etc 19:48, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Heh... I misread the name of the web site as "Jonathan Anal Corn"... Addressiedolia? Subliminal message? I dunno. The Foxhole Atheist 20:08, 2 March 2009 (EST)

 Stagnation

CP has been really fucking stagnant and boring in recent weeks. I blame TK as its impossible to parody or have an Andy-gument without the banhammer coming squarely down and heavily at that. Perhaps thats why Andy took TK back into the fold? Ace McWickedRevolt 21:54, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Indeed so. Dullness reigns. We are left dangling at the end of our fun chain, and no-one's wiggling the top of it. Come on Andy - we at least deserve a new insight, another campaign against an established scientist, or perhaps a new competition? It's not fair. DogP 22:08, 2 March 2009 (EST)
On the other hand, if you're relatively busy like me, the stagnation isn't too bad. I can set it to previous 500 edits, and literally see to 21:10 yesterday. Hell, even 100 edits back gives me like four hours during "peak" editing time, so there's no way of missing that one gem every day. --CWaddell 23:42, 2 March 2009 (EST)
I smell a revolution. Either TK vs. Andy again or everyone else vs. TK.--Nate River 00:00, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I've got a proposal: ignore TK. TK's ego is massive, so he enjoys us talking about him like he's important ("TK vs. Andy" is a good example of exaggerating his importance). If we ignore him, he may get bored of being a hyperactive-crazy-paranoid-wackjob, thus making CP more interesting. Just a thought.(And now I'm a hypocrite, because it looks like I brought him up in the first place at the top of the page!)-- JArneal 00:41, 3 March 2009 (EST)
\$10 says that behind the scenes TK is pounding his chest and saying, "See, see, I haz skared of all the ebil libruls. Andy, I kan haz 'crat now?" --PsyGremlinWhut? 02:53, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Well hasn't that been the whole basis of him giving Andy a lingual enema? ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 03:16, 3 March 2009 (EST)
\$20 says TK is reading this to see if someone mentioned his name and OH HI TK YOU ARE KIND OF A SAD INDIVIDUAL AREN'T YOU? --GTac 04:27, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I don't know how good TK's chances are, looking through the user rights log all I can see is Admin\PhilipB\CPWebmaster playing with himself and when he 'crated Aschlafly and SharonS on 27th of February 2007, other than Andy changing one users right 3 times in a minute no one else seems to have ever become a 'crate. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 04:57, 3 March 2009 (EST)

I just compared our recent changes with theirs - 500 back for us goes to 17:32 GMT, 2 March. 500 back for CP is 00:06 GMT, 2 March. Hooray for night mode! Totnesmartin 04:57, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 Precocious or what?

Jonathan Krohn: reminds me of William Hague (for teh Murkans; he was for a short while leader of the UK's Conservative Party & is now Oppo Foreign Sec(?) - he made a speech at a Conservative party conference @ the ripe old age of 15). These poor little brainwashed (homeschooled) bastards. and marmite 00:48, 3 March 2009 (EST)

--JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:56, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Ya know, what with all his talk of abstinence, moderation, temperance, and Christian morality, I bet this Jonathan kid is gonna land ALL the ladies, and totally not fizzle out at 13 like a child actor.-Diadochus 02:07, 3 March 2009 (EST)

BTW: he's 14 (Birthday 1 March) so CP needs updating. Volunteers?and marmite 02:16, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I don't see what's special about this Jonathan? A lot of kids make speeches, and this one seems awfully uninspired, it's just regurgitating the stuff they pounded into him since he was young, no original thing in there. Like diadochus mentioned, he talks about abstinence as a 14yo.. --GTac 04:32, 3 March 2009 (EST)
@Diadochus & Toast. While Hague's speech as a 15 year old was toe curling, and despite the fact he's a Tory boy with a weird voice and is pug ugly, he has at least got a hot missus. Bondurant 06:10, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 Hey PJR - 18 USC section 1030

If you were to glance at http://conservapedia.com/Talk:18_USC_§_1030 you would see my previous discussion on this. The key thing for the \$5000 costs is the machines that are covered. You are citing

i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least \$ 5,000 in value;

And mentioning the lack that it isn't \$5k. However, if you read up one level (B) says it has to be an action covered in Ai, Aii, or Aiii. Those are only about protected computers. If you go down to e.2 you will see the definition of a protected machine. That is a question of "is conservapedia a computer used in "interstate or foreign commerce or communication." Don't think CP qualifies there. --Shagie 01:16, 3 March 2009 (EST)

TK had a comment (brilliant, as usual) relating to that: "And a wiki isn't used in international communication?" Sure, TK. If it's on a network it is used in "commerce or communication" as defined by 18 USC 1030. Try arguing that in court. Here's a hint to help your thinking: The processor communicates with the memory, and the motherboard communicates with the disk drive. Gauss 01:30, 3 March 2009 (EST)
If that's a criminal statute, I would pay money to see Andy try to get a DA interested in prosecuting it.-Diadochus 02:05, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Oh dear, them facts do have a liberal bias. Don't they? Sweep it under the carpet TK - nobody will notice the lump. and marmite 02:22, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 NEWS: Andy's brain found!

Oldest fossil brain found and marmite 04:11, 3 March 2009 (EST)

No, that one's too well preserved. Totnesmartin 04:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Besides, don't you have to actually *possess* a brain, before it can be preserved?--En attendant Godot"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov» 11:04, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Not only that, but Andy's brain would refuse to exist further back than 6000 years. ENorman 18:03, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 Hooray for Ken

It is very likely possibly good news that one of Ken's operation may likely possibly come to fruition and he will have his chance to likely skewer sacred liberal cows with regards to atheism [4]. Good for him. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 05:30, 3 March 2009 (EST)

And the hard-hitting new article is a lame editorial/quote mine rehashing the same old stuff. Way to transport yourself with regards to a forward direction! Totnesmartin 05:45, 3 March 2009 (EST)
See here, I wrote that before reading this thread and marmite 05:55, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I read their page on atheism which turns out to be just a one page editorial about Darwin's birthday celebration. The author did some hard hitting investigating (without any actual investigating ofc) on why Darwin's bday was celebrated. Turns out, some atheists said that Evolution makes god redundant, which is bad, so the celebration of Darwin's birthday turns out to be part of the atheist agenda to get rid off god! I was surprised on how he needed an entire page to make that obvious creationist argument. Also nice, the only shown reader's comment thanking the author on pointing out what the REAL cause behind Darwin day is. Uh-huh.. So in short, idiocy, ignorance, hatred and zero scientific sourcing on their page on atheism. What a surprise. --GTac 06:23, 3 March 2009 (EST)

gentlemen *yawn*

Doesn't really seems to be noteworthy, but I guess if I can tell you not to bother checking out Ken's new gentlemen. Seems like he can't do anything new. His big news is that his article is still on some google page, and added some shitty youtubes. *yawn* --GTac 08:57, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Google should use his pages as a test for how good their search algorithms are (if they go up a place, there must be a loophole that needs closing).-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 09:06, 3 March 2009 (EST)
It is back to 17. Was it not 11 at one stage? Not impressed. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 09:26, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Ignore the infant. If you must look, use the recent changes RSS feed, that way it won't up his page views. and marmite 09:58, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 Looking about some homosexuality articles

cp:Outing (homosexuality): “False outings can sometimes do as much damage as the outing of an actual homosexual and can ruin the reputation of an innocent, respectable person.”

Innocent ? Oh, yeah, homosexuals are guilt. Sorry, I forgot.

cp:Harvey Milk: honnestly, not conservative enough. Harvey Milk is not accused of electoral fraud. The article should clearly state that:

1. Dan White didn't kill anyone.
2. It was not his fault, his judgement was misleaded.
3. Anyway, he was right to kill Harvey.

And nothing about the theory according to the gay community putted drugs in Twinkie to make heterosexuals appear as violent... Please, if someone from Conservapedia reads me, this article needs more bias. Barraki 07:07, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Like most people, they got the Twinkie defense wrong. Wikipedia is about the only place I've seen actualy explain it correctly. DickTurpis 07:46, 3 March 2009 (EST)
WTF, someone please tell me we noticed this at the time. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 07:44, 3 March 2009 (EST) Worse news it has been there since the beginning unchallenged.
What a shame they can't add Hitler pictures. Unless Hitler killing homosexuals was part of the homosexual agenda, by making them apparate as victims ? Barraki 08:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Actually, you've pretty much nailed the CP theory on that... see here and here SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 11:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 Sjay's name

Has anyone over there picked up on the parodic nature of his name? Bluefish 08:22, 3 March 2009 (EST)

No, but now that you've outed him, care to elaborate? --PsyGremlinWhut? 08:28, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Bump the letters in TK's name up one each... TK, SJ. Sjay? A cryptographer am I! The Foxhole Atheist 09:07, 3 March 2009 (EST)
In my eyes, it sounds more like a reference to Essjay, Wikipedia's famous contributor. Barraki 11:03, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Roll up! Roll up1 Meet the man who hears with his eyes! Yes, that's what occurred to me too. (shouldn't it be infamous?) and marmite 11:18, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Haha.. SJ is one letter away from TK.. it reminds me of our RationalWiki User:UL Refugeetalk page 12:20, 3 March 2009 (EST)
@Toast. No, I'm one of those who think Essjay did a great job, no matter what his true diplomas were. Barraki 15:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 Face, meet Palm...

How can you tell when a student is one of Andy's favorites? When in an "honors" answer (H6), he discusses how "A confederation of Romans and Goths defeated the Romans at the Battle of Chalons", and Andy still gives full credit and a "100/100 - perfect again!" grade even after mentioning that they defeated the Huns, not the Romans. [5] Yeah, this is the quality of homeschooling raising the bar compared to those evil public schools... --SpinyNorman 11:23, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Or when they score perfect despite giving one sentence answers. Great insights! I'm still waiting for student 16's time to come...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 11:28, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Or when they score 70/70 while only answering six questions.

 Alacrity

This describes Ken oh so well. I can just see him at home (does this man even have a job?) cooking up a meal whilst his mind jumps from topic to topic: Atheism. Homosexuality. Evolution. Aha! Another brilliant rebuttal! Dropping his pot of boiled hotdogs, he sprints to the computer, alters the caption of a Hitler picture, and checks the google rankings and most recent page view numbers. Buoyant, even exuberant, a wild grin across his face, he deletes and recreates his communication page, taunting his mortal foes, the Liberal Gentleman Club, with a witty appraisal of their failed attempts to vanquish him and a demure announcement of devastating operations soon to be unfurled. To provide them with too much information would be dangerous; he's no fool. Yet he knows his announcements will throw their forces into disarray. Indeed, if he throws in the term "likely," they'll be unsure if the danger is sincere or merely a bluff. An emergency meeting of the top Gentlemen will invariably be called to rattle together a feeble defense against his next move and, in the confusion, he will have free reign to force the Homosexuality article up another place on Yahoo, a devastating blow to the Secular Paradigm, a secret society meeting in west London.

With glee, he opens up tabs showing the pages which host the central Gentlemen communications and begins refreshing with great alacrity. As fast as his fingers can fly, he switches tab, refreshes. WIGO, Talk, WIGO, Talk. Months of practice and the installation of a T1 line have imbued him with an almost superhuman response speed, a vital edge in the everpresent battle with the Atheists' Sacred Cow, an Indian mystic trained since before birth to seek out Creationist communications at lightning speed.

Every ten seconds, he checks the page-rankings again. Damn, no change. Something must be awry. He had been assured in recent communications with Duane Gish that Flying Fortress would be underway. Perhaps he has been captured by Homosexual Terrorists. No matter. He takes pause to make a series of minute changes to his messages. The foolish Gentlemen have thus far failed to realize that those changes are used to convey coded information of vital importance to undercover agents around the world. Suddenly, he halts. The smell of something burning, but how?! He's set up cameras, traps, and paid the apartment's doorman to keep watch for Liberal Vandals.... The answer flashes through his mind: of course, the doorman is a parodist! Running to the kitchen, he sees that his hotdogs are burnt, the water boiled away. Damned liberals! Nevermatter; he will win the war.

11:38, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Brilliant! I think we should use the winter doldrums to have a RW contest for the best Ken fan-fiction. Bronze, silver and Goat medals for the best entries - thoughts? --SpinyNorman 11:43, 3 March 2009 (EST)
@Publius: Brilliant.
@Hedgehog: I can see this spiralling into a homosexual erotica competition fairly quickly...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 11:46, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Yeah, Ken held in bondage gear in the dungeon of the League of Extraordinarily Liberal Gentlemen, being flogged for his secrets of SEO... --SpinyNorman 12:08, 3 March 2009 (EST)
HA! The Foxhole Atheist 12:25, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I was just thinking about what to have for dinner. Now you've put me right off my food. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:33, 3 March 2009 (EST)
God damn that was bloody awesome. Him boiling a pot of hotdogs just created a perfect image of him in my head. I wish I could vote this post up. --GTac 13:52, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Are you sure he can open a tin of hotdogs? Totnesmartin 13:58, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Not to mention : is he allowed near hot things - people of his mental abilities are usually kept away from things like boiling water and knives. and marmite 14:01, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Good point. Is CP written in crayon, I wonder? Totnesmartin 14:18, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Well done, Gentleman Publius. Although.....I know Ken has an obsession with homosexuality, but do I really have to go round for the rest of the day imagining him sucking on a long sausage? Also, might he not cut himself on the can lid? EddyP 14:27, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Definitely. I lolled several times, thank you! That post has to be "best of something", although I'm not sure what. perhaps copy it to an essay: or fun: and include it in cat:best of amusement, with a link to the original post for context? Please to not let it drift into the mist of eighty-odd archives of talk:wigo. ħuman 22:39, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I already created Fun:Ken's Gentlemen or: A Likely Story and linked it on my userpage as one of my silly abortions. 16:07, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Tinned hot dogs? You limeys are weird...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 14:54, 3 March 2009 (EST)
They're good :D. Limey man to the rescue! EddyP 15:05, 3 March 2009 (EST)
What's weird is the hot dogs come in tins of 10 and hot dog rolls come in packs of 8. Work that one out. Totnesmartin 15:12, 3 March 2009 (EST)

What's weird about that? Hotdogsa are sold by the pound like any meat and hot dog buns by the tray as is sensible and proper for bread products. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 22:16, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Real men like Ken would eat the hot dogs directly from the tin! Especially because putting a hotdog between 2 buns gives him weird confusing feelings, which often results in another CP article on homosexuality. --GTac 05:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)
GTac wins in the plausibility category. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 10:33, 4 March 2009 (EST)

 CP image discussion, part 763

Ok, talking about this image First, I will disregard the obvious error of using the Communist Soviet Hammer and Sickle to represent Socialism. We all know that two are interchangable for the right, in fact they love to do so because it intentionally combines the two.... Anyway, I was just thinking... Considering the AP is actively suing the artist who made it, do they think it's a good idea to plaster that photo over their main page? Someone remind me how Andy passed his bar exams? Bribe money? trist with the proctor? SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 11:54, 3 March 2009 (EST)

You can thank his mom, Phyllis. Little Andy Schlafly got into Harvard Law because he was a legacy. Neveruse513 15:25, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Err..the Bar Exam? Fuck...I don't know... Perhaps he hadn't started drinking? Neveruse513 15:25, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Wow, I thought of copyright when I saw it, but then there's "fair use" (mockery)... Oh, I see, it's not even the version on CP, it goes back to the original photo. As I recall reading, the photog was never paid or credited by the campaign or whoever promoted that image. It's a clusterfuck of copyright, viral sharing, and gfdl-abuse (not that it was ever gfdl, but teh kids and many others today think anything they can get on the 'tubes is free to play with). One thing I find hilarious about the image: it's a mirror-image, and so it doesn't quite look "just like" BHO44. ħuman 22:48, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 Andy's Lecture Five

Andy's ADD in full effect. His lecture reads more like the answers a third or fourth-grader would provide on essays. He jumps from topic to topic without any correlation between the ideas. Much of his information is wrong because of how ambiguous his explanation is.

 “”The world's first psychological novel, "The Tale of Genji," was written in the 1000s by Lady Murasaki about Japanese culture during the Heian period (794-1185). This was a period of great style in Japan with its center at the capital at Heian, where Kyoto is today. In 1997, Kyoto became known as the place where many nations attempted to limit the alleged global warming through the "Kyoto Treaty" for reducing factory and car emissions, which the United States never ratified.

Psychological novel? He goes from the first novel in Japanese history, to the Heian, to Kyoto exists where Heian once was, to the Kyoto treaty... How can people learn like this? And Kyoto is Heian. Just like Tokyo is Edo.

 “”Seppuku was practiced when a warrior faced the prospect of dishonor, to avoid disloyalty, or to display protest.

Seppuku isn't a method to display protest. I have no idea where he got this notion.

 “”Even more than in Western Europe, strict loyalty to one's lord was emphasized in Japan. About a thousand years later this code would make the Japanese extremely tenacious fighters against Americans in World War II. The bushido required the samurai never to retreat or surrender. Family values were part of the bushido also. A version of Buddhism developed that ensured salvation and heaven for those who lived upright lives.

If you can follow that without a problem, you'll do well in Andy's classes.

 “”The national religion of Japan is Shinto, which considers the emperor to be a living god. Shinto is more like a code of conduct than a religion. Shinto has no afterlife. Instead, it demands loyalty and obedience of all to the emperor, who is divine.

So much wrong with that. Where to begin?

I'm surprised JessicaT hasn't objected to how Japan is depicted in the lessons. --Irrational Atheist 11:55, 3 March 2009 (EST)

One could be charitable and assume that they are intended purely as notes to reinforce the actual (verbal) lecture - but somehow I don't think so. and marmite 12:01, 3 March 2009 (EST)
You know if RJJensen has enough sense to stay well away from Andy's "history" lessons, JessicaT probably has too. It would be an epic battle to get him to correct even the most trivial detail, more or less impossible to actually get him to teach anything to an acceptable standard. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:17, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Critiquing Andy's lectures brings to mind the words "Shoot", "Fish" and "Barrel". The man's working from a combination of what he learned in primary school and what he's picked up talking to other ignorami as long as it fits his world view. If the facts disagree, it's because they're 'liberal facts. and marmite 12:26, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I hate Andy Schlafly so much, I would rather send my kids off to Dr. Kent Hovind and Harun Yahya's Holy Dayze Travelling Creation Science and Tax Law Compliance Revival than let them anywhere NEAR anything that teh Assfly has TOUCHED, let alone written. What a stupid, stupid man... The Foxhole Atheist 12:34, 3 March 2009 (EST)

From what I know of seppuku, it has been used by samurai protesting their master's decisions. Just throwing that out there.--Gishin 15:04, 3 March 2009 (EST)

I thought that the first novel was 'Tale of the Bamboo Cutter'. Where does Andy get his info, wikipedia?--Nate River 22:37, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 Featured Article?

CP is proposed for featured article at WP. What'll our friends think of that? and marmite 12:14, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Quite a dilemma. On the one hand, they're so attention-whorish that they brag when some obscure Russian source mentions them briefly in a not-so-positive way. On the other, they hate Wikipedia, and Andy has often tried to change the CP article, which is far too kind as is. 12:25, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Pity WP won't allow us to be used as a reliable source. :) and marmite 12:28, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I'm relatively wiki-illiterate, but can you trace that proposition back to the user who brought it up initially? If you can, my money is on that user is Andy's sooper-seekrit covert-ops sock to manipulate his mortal enemy into becoming his unwitting ally and asset... The Foxhole Atheist 14:06, 3 March 2009 (EST)
It was "Idag", As he don't reckon Ayn Rand greatly I think not. and marmite 14:18, 3 March 2009 (EST)

 Fall Leaf Colors

I don't know how many of you have access, but there is what looks like a very interesting review of the state of knowledge regarding the evolution of Fall foliage colors in the latest issue of Trends in Ecology and Evolution (Archetti et al (2009). Unraveling the evolution of autumn colors: an interdisciplinary approach. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24: 166-173.). I can't help but to wonder what Andy's reaction would be were he to notice and "skim" it. Kaalis 13:17 3 March, 2009

"Damn liberals and their lies to remove the Beauty of God. godditit!"--En attendant Godot"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov» 13:51, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Kaalis (unsuitable username), autumn foliage IS beautiful and it DOES disprove evilution. *sticks fingers in ears* la la la la...
...is this some sort of RW in-joke? Or is it something that was suggested by the Great Wise Men on CP? ...and why do I get the feeling that I'll regret asking this? --RonyB 16:07, 3 March 2009 (EST)
It's one of Andy's sure signs of "Creation". That Autumn leaves are beautiful - couldn't possibly be just evolution. Someone'll dig up the link for you, no doubt. and marmite 16:30, 3 March 2009 (EST)
@Rony: Seeing as it was my cryptic comment I might as well give an explanation. Toast is more or less right. This is a classic Schlaflyism going wayyyy back to October 2008. There was a bunch of editing done to an "article" entitled "Counterexamples to Evolution." Naturally there were objections, which were discussed on the talk page. The phrase "autumn foliage is beautiful, and it disproves evolution" was taken from this exchange between Andy and PatWillis. It contains truely epic lulz, and is well worth a read. The inanity of the comment is actually somewhat secondary to the fact that Andy's entire argument is based on repeating it ad nauseum and mixing in some Schlafly statistics for good measure. Enjoy!-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 16:42, 3 March 2009 (EST)
...I'd be absolutely horrified if I wasn't so busy laughing. --RonyB 17:00, 3 March 2009 (EST)
It became especially funny as PJR was arguing against Andy, so for months Andy would bring it up arbitrarily to show how PJR holds liberal and atheistic positions. 18:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Aw man, it seemed they changed that article a bit, it used to be a lot more ridiculous. It used to be one of my favorites (together with their article on the unseen which claimed that materialists deny radiation. Also, the counterexamples article had about the only vandalism which actually made me laugh, cause it was just so perfect. --GTac 05:19, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Any guess as to why Student 14's homework was deleted "to grade privately"? If the answer would be intrusive or compromise the kid's privacy, let's let this one drop, though. This is about commenting on Andy, not the students. --SpinyNorman 14:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Saw that. Didn't read it, was it very bad or something? and marmite 14:46, 3 March 2009 (EST)
As of now the WIGO is wrong, the score is 70/70 and in the history there's no 60/70. Jrssr5 15:07, 3 March 2009 (EST)
That's kinda the point; the kid only answered six questions, yet Andy gave him a 70/70. If each question is only worth 10...Z3rotalk 15:13, 3 March 2009 (EST)
FWIW, my guess about Student 14 is that he/she has noticed the comments about the quality of these responses and the grades they get, and doesn't want the entire Internet to be looking at what's submitted. I have to admit that there's been some top-shelf lulz regarding what Andy considers to be "superb" homework, but I continue to feel bad for these kids - they look at their ridiculously high grades and feel good about themselves, but at some point they'll find out how little they actually got for their time and parents' money. --SpinyNorman 15:26, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Isn't there some sort of cache we can look into? I seem to remember something like that. EddyP 15:34, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I'd leave the kid alone if he wants privacy. Also, did anyone else notice how Andy, being way past his grading deadline, is giving out a higher-than-usual number of perfect grades for this week. Could it be because it's far easier to cut-and-paste "terrific" and "superb" instead of actually critiquing answers like the, uhm, "powerful" response to question 4 in this paper? --SpinyNorman 15:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)
If the kids wants privacy he could not be in a worse place. Isn't it funny? Public school ain't this public... Neveruse513 15:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Given how often TK and other admins pack geographical CheckUser info into their comments and block messages, it's surprising that they still dare to even link to their Privacy Policy. Privacy is a joke on CP. Or maybe they simply defined "private information" as "anything we don't feel like sharing with the world"? --RonyB 16:56, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Yeah... anyway, it was sure a funny Andy moment (I managed to see it, I think), but as far as the poor kid... I hope we don't find a cache and that imagebot didn't get it. ħuman 22:59, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Many thanks for making me more curious. EddyP 14:42, 4 March 2009 (EST)
It was pretty simple really. S14 only answered 6 questions (there are supposed to be 7), and since Andy grades on a "10 point must" system (deducting points rather than giving them), and the student got no "minuses", Andy gave S14 a 70/70, not noticing that it was shy one question. Deleting was the only way to kill/hide the history of Shclafly's screw-up. ħuman 16:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Only that? I thought it was because the work was monumentously crap or something. EddyP 16:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

 Student 16

Romans: Didn't build any great philosophers.

...got missed out. But Andy, I don't think it contained any big words. EddyP 15:33, 3 March 2009 (EST) Done now. A valiant attempt, Gentleman Publius. EddyP 16:21, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Awesome grading from the Arsefly there... I don't know where to start with this statement: "...there wasn't any Roman philosophy of great significance. Romans built great roads, not great philosophers or mathematicians." I'll let you add your own joke as you see fit. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:30, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Jesus, he accuses the student of LIBRUL DECEITS!!!!" Ace McWickedRevolt 16:32, 3 March 2009 (EST)
"OK otherwise but a bit more depth in analysis is needed. (Minus 1) "??? Compared to other "perfect" answers that were sentence fragments? You remind me of a calculus teacher I had in college, Andy - once he decided you were bright or not in his opinion, every math assignments and exam was graded on a curve based on that bias. How pathetic. --SpinyNorman 16:35, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Forget the SES - these homework comments should be sent to the NJ Better Business Bureau with a fraud complaint. --SpinyNorman 16:37, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I love the delicious, plump, juicy hypocrisy of "A closed-minded answer, but I don't deduct points for opinion." The very next question, a question of pure opinion prefixed "do you agree with..." and he deducts two points. Does it ever occur to him that he probably ought not to be asking questions that require the student purely to express an opinion? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:42, 3 March 2009 (EST)
(EC)I wonder if Andy's ever actually studied Latin. In my experience it's rather fun, but insanely complex; I can't even translate a simple English sentence into Latin without having to consult the vocab and grammar sections at the back of the textbook for every word. Wisest bastard Hoover! 16:44, 3 March 2009 (EST)
(EC)Andy owes me a new irony meter for this: "A closed-minded answer, but I don't deduct points for opinion." -- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 16:45, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I did 2 years of Latin and three years of classical studies, fascinating stuff. Ace McWickedRevolt 16:48, 3 March 2009 (EST)
No prizes are given for falling short of one's potential; yeah, no prizes, just A's. He's like the Homer Simpson of teaching; "I give this paper my lowest grade ever, 90/100". Z3rotalk 16:50, 3 March 2009 (EST)
You're missing the grating irony. "No prizes are given for falling short of one's potential." says failed engineer, failed lawyer, failed homskoll teacher Andrew Schlafly. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:54, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I'm pretty sure that's not irony; Andy's statement has nothing to do with his own failures, thus relegating it to the realm of coincidence, not irony. Z3rotalk 16:57, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I'm just shocked he's even grading it. It's obviously one of Ken's gentlemen. It's probably for "See, the libbbbbbbruls can't score as high as the homskollars!"....but an "excellent" and an "OK"?...wow.
Maybe he starts the kids off lower and gives them higher and higher grades to show himself that he's improving them? Neveruse513 16:56, 3 March 2009 (EST)
It's telling that Andy can't resist taking a potshot at his "underachieving" student...-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 16:58, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I imagine that this is the lowest grade he could bring himself to give. Neveruse513 17:01, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Nay. Twas an 88/100 last week, with a 5/10 for a "non-answer" to a non-question. 18:41, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Phantom, from what I can gather (specifically his references to Caveat emptor he truly thinks his "study" of law, that contains many Latin phrases, has given him "insight" to Latin equal to (or above?) that of the linguist. to this day, I think he believes that latin is just English with Latin words which express more, and more succinctly. --En attendant Godot"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov» 16:59, 3 March 2009 (EST) (edit conflict)

Contrasting the marking of student sixteen with eighteen, he clearly applies different standards for his homskollars as he does for gentlemen. You have to wonder what it says about his opinion of his students that he is actually capable of trying to scrutinise the submitted work for inaccuracies and omissions but only does so when he thinks he is dealing with "liberals." Perhaps he sees education simply as an exercise in indoctrination, and marking as a way to filter the ideologically pure wheat from the chaff. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:12, 3 March 2009 (EST)

This is all too hilarious. Andy has higher expectations of outsiders, regardless of any knowledge of their age, education, or language, than any of his homskolars. You're an outsider? Cite sources lest ye be accused of liberal deceit. Challenge my bat-shit insane pet theories? I shall deduct 2 points! And since when is American Exceptionalism obscure?! It's been around since de Tocqueville and is an absolute favourite of neoconservatives and the religious right in various forms. 18:36, 3 March 2009 (EST)

• "OK otherwise but a bit more depth in analysis is needed." Is this the same guy who prefers one or two sentence answers--Nate River 21:16, 3 March 2009 (EST)
What gets me most with hilarious WIGO's like this is whether Andy realises himself how obviously he's using double standards. On the one hand, he must, it's too friggin obvious. On the other hand, he can't, it would mean he has to realise what a shallow douche he really is. --GTac 05:31, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Oh, dear. S16: "The Pax Romana also known as “The Roman Peace” was a period of about 200 years where there was no civil war in Rome," is OK, but S18: "The Pax Romana, or Roman Peace, was an extended period of relative peace on the Mediterranean in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. It corresponded with the height of Roman military might and political hegemony, and saw great strides in trade and infrastructure development," is minus 1. Whatever. Sterilewalkie-talkie 11:40, 4 March 2009 (EST)

 TK's Getting Too Obvious...

Did I read that right? Did he really have the chutzpah to take Dinsdale to task for quote mining? --Phentari 17:53, 3 March 2009 (EST) I'll never understand how Andy doesn't see he's one clever troll. More fun for us though. I wish I was TK.DSFARGEG 18:08, 3 March 2009 (EST)

I'm lucky I was just chided and not blocked for calling "The Iconic One" a hypocrite. I suppose the reason is that when I was asked to put up some proof of Limbaugh being one, and did, TK was man enough to admit that "Limbaugh was technically a hypocrite". (Is that like being a technical virgin?)
Unfortunately, he shorted out the flux capacitor in my irony meter with the follow up: "You added items, not in context, and without any explanation or more of one than to make the subject look bad. That is animosity." As I read that, I had the mental image of liberal edits to CP, "not in context, and without any explanation or more of one than to make the subject look bad", being written next to the same parts of the server database where their Obama article is stored, and canceling each other out in a flash of light and gamma ray burst. --SpinyNorman 18:36, 3 March 2009 (EST)
If you shunt the flux capacitor in your irony meter with an appropriately valued Conservapedia Underground Inductor, it should damp out the spikes nicely.
Bloxored! CorryI think hallucinations are a side effect of Teamocil. 22:16, 3 March 2009 (EST)
And I was about to say how amazed I am, again, that Dinsy is was still alive on CP... How come it took TK so long? ħuman 23:03, 3 March 2009 (EST)
At last! Congrats on your noble death, SpinyNorman. Now we'll see news objections halved. 23:29, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Ah yes, the TK method of meaningful debate. "What?! You won't drink the Koolaid??" *bang* Still it was a good run while it lasted. --PsyGremlinWhut? 05:31, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Awww, I loved Dinsdale. The refusal to be distracted by Andy's shenanigans and remain respectful while pointing out the errors and biases in articles made him a great read. What kind of block is that anyways, "It's not that you disagree, it's that you mentioned posting on CP on another site". Yeh yeh, I know, it's TK, it doesn't have to make sense. Also, wasn't that about the last editor they had left who didn't conform to mindless groupthink (not including PJR's dubious double standards)? --GTac 05:34, 4 March 2009 (EST)
You can say what you like about Dinsdale, but he knew how to treat a female impersonator. seventhrib 08:54, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Bravo, seventhrib! --SpinyNorman 19:32, 4 March 2009 (EST)

 Latin Language

Reading 16's answers, and more importantly, Andy's reply, I'm re-restruck by Andy's duplicity or stupidity or both. If Latin is such a godly language, better than the rest, why is it there are no Roman philosophers only roman roads - which need MATH, not language.--En attendant Godot"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov» 17:57, 3 March 2009 (EST)

I like the model answer to question 5: Pax Romana was a period of peace under the 5 good Emperors from 27BC to 180 AD. Sorry kid, but the 5 good emperors did not rule for 153 years. The first of them didn't even reign until 96 AD. I might not give Andy a hard time for this, but he subtracted points from our Gentleman for saying Pax Romana was in the 1st and 2nd centuries, when it apparently really started 27 years earlier, while making this a model answer when it has a clear error. Almost as bad as saying his comaprison of the East and West Empires didn't go into enough depth, while giving a perfect score to someone who simply said that the East lasted longer. Whoever Student 16 is (Publius???), next time you have to give a few of the same answers word for word as one of his li'l cretins, and watch him give identical answers different scores. DickTurpis 18:33, 3 March 2009 (EST)
27 BC to 180 AD = 207 years. --Horace 19:04, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Oops, you're right. Counted 27 AD instead of BC. DickTurpis 19:05, 3 March 2009 (EST)
I suggest we always use CE and BCE since it annoys Andy so much. --Simple 22:46, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Wow, talk about biased, I've been in academics so long, I didn't even know anyone even used "ad" "bc" any more.--En attendant Godot"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov» 10:27, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Seconded. (Not that I have any pull or anything.) The Foxhole Atheist 09:00, 5 March 2009 (EST)

 Judging people? not CP!

Kajagoogoo removes a slightly weaselish phrase with the comment: "removed redundant phrase, suggesting we're judging them". CP, of course never judges people. What? Barack Hussein Obama? Ah, but that's factual, not judgmental. and marmite 01:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Is it really judgmental when it's "common sense?" I mean, young people generally *do* up load things *because* they are naive to the dangers of the world. This isn't like saying they do it cause they are racist, or cause they are retarded, or cause they are liberals...--En attendant Godot"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov» 10:54, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Prezactly. and marmite 11:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

 Jpatt declaims his nuttyness

 “”...you can't just throw seven apples on the floor, all at once, perfectly spaced. Yet, God aligned the planets in our system that way. God controls the destiny of Earth, not man. God tells us it is a sin to worry. Leave mother nature for God to decide. As said in 'Platoon', "We all gotta die sometime." —"Global warming" talk

HELP!! and marmite 01:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

From Jpatt's user page (among other insanity) :I support Jeb Bush for President 2012. LOL!!!!!! and marmite 01:59, 4 March 2009 (EST)
At the end of his rant he had "Bot capture guys what do you say?" Was that a shout-out to us? - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 01:45, 5 March 2009 (EST)

 Can TK "deep burn" pages?

I am presumably the person responsible for this issue, as the author of the relevant WIGO and of the "burning" page. So I need to know whether an apology is needed. TK claims in the edit comment here that he doesn't have "oversight" powers, and therefore can't "deep burn" (outright delete) a page. I implied in this edit comment that he could. A check of CP shows that he does not have "oversight" powers, though he is an "administrator". And it says that administrators can delete pages. Conservative is also administrator but not oversight, and he seems to be able to delete pages. In fact, he's probably deleted/recreated his user page and several "gentlemen" pages 12 times since I started typing this. So, is TK lying when he says "there is no such thing as me "deep burning" anything, unlike the vandal site you belong to."? Do I need to apologize to him???? I feel so bad about the possibility that I may have hurt his sensitive feelings! Gauss 08:41, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Admin/sysop on any wiki can delete a page but all revisions remain visible to them. Rights log says he doesn't have oversight. Oversight allows you to remove individual edits without a trace (no record it ever happened). We don't have this. We have hide/show. A clear marked gap is left in the fossil record showing where the removed edit was. Unless someone ticks "hide from sysops" it is visible to all with sysop powers, otherwise Trent has to go find it in the database. I have offered TK once before to tell him what is missing if he is interested, he can look through the delete log to find it. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 08:59, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I don't understand what the difference is between burning the evidence and "deep burning" the evidence. A simple delete is enough to vaporize edits, as long as you don't "recreate" through the wiki software, and just copy/paste the old edits, minus whatever you want deleted. Conservative does this with his user and talk pages all the time. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 09:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)
A delete leaves the edit/article still in the database & available for recreation. Deep burning (using oversight) removes the item completely from the database, rendering it unrecoverable. 09:36, 4 March 2009 (EST)
IMO TK is splitting hairs, deleting pages etc is still cowardly and deceitful. As is archiving pages and "accidentally" losing some edits. Jrssr5 09:46, 4 March 2009 (EST)
If the article is deleted and a new article is created in its place (not "recreated," but created again), doesn't that make the old edits unrecoverable? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 09:55, 4 March 2009 (EST)
See here. You can pick up old versions. and marmite 10:07, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Quick glossary:

"Shallow burning" means simply editing a page in a way that deletes stuff. Any user can do that (during the day, that is), and anyone can see what was deleted by looking in the edit history, and anyone can bring the material back by reverting the deletion.
"Deep burning" means deleting the page itself, and presumably re-creating it without the old material. The burned material is inaccessible to ordinary folks. Anyone with administrator privileges (that's you, TK!) can do that. In fact, KenDoll is probably doing that to his user page as I write this. BUT: People with sufficient powers can apparently bring the deleted page back when they choose to. That's what Andy did after Ed Poor deep-burned the "axiom of choice" page. Gotta love it. However, the ability of oversighters to undo a deletion doesn't do the public any good—it is rendered invisible to the public. I call such a page "deep burned".
Oversighters can apparently go a step further and remove a page so thoroughly that even they can't bring it back. (Why does God trying to lift a rock come to mind here?) This is apparently what TK can't do. But he can still "deep burn", that is, make it impossible for an ordinary person to see the deleted material.

Archiving pages and "accidentally" losing some edits is, of course, "deep burning" if the original page is then deleted and then re-created. That last step has not (yet) happened to the "commandments" page.

So, yes, TK. You can "deep burn".

Gauss 10:31, 4 March 2009 (EST)

The problem is that there are so few sysops and fewer are willing to intervene. Ed selectively quotes his talkpage to the archive (we have picture of him doing it). Andy's page has been deleted so many times we have to rely on the archives now and hope he didn't remove anything important. Mainpage right's history is missing so Andy could hide a smutty comment he made in an edit summary. Ken after deleting and restoring with all revisions decided to delete and restore the Evolution article with none (putting a crimp in my plans to write a little history on it). Only once have I ever seen a sysop over rule, another PJR when Ken deleted half the website, and restore the histories of a deleted page. Seriously TK, fuck you at least we have a policy of keeping page histories you just do what ever you feel like. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 18:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

 That legal training (sic) really shows

 “”...rejected three-dimensional statutes. The Eastern Orthodox Church also allowed its priests to marry, and permitted divorce. The Roman Catholic Church took the opposite position on all three issues by allowing statutes ... —cp:World History Lecture Six
How many times has he confused statues/statutes? and marmite 10:38, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Question: is 2500 miles (4000km) close?
 “”The New Zealand population, which is close to Australia,... —World Hist 6
It's pretty distant in my book. and marmite 11:03, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Well with Andy's grasp of English we can probably assume he just forgot to type "that of."-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 11:04, 4 March 2009 (EST)
To many Mercans Australia and New Zealand are on the same page of the atlas (SE Pacific Ocean) so they must be close. Silver Sloth 11:56, 4 March 2009 (EST)
'sides, all y'all are all upsidesdown. Which just makes you beneath our notice.--En attendant Godot"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov» 12:18, 4 March 2009 (EST)
And Greenland is approx. the same size as Russia SirChuckBI brake for Schukky 12:26, 4 March 2009 (EST)
That may be, but according to MY atlas, Russia is about four inches closer to the equator than Greenland. The Foxhole Atheist 13:18, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I have had trouble trying to convince some Yanks that NZ isnt actually a state of Australia. Particularly resistant to the idea of NZ being an actual country were the staff at the ticket desk of Bahamas Air at Miami International. Ace McWickedRevolt 15:15, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Of course we know NZ isn't a state of Australia -- it's a province! And a reliably conservative one at that because they don't let the Hobbits vote.--Simple 15:40, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I think New Zealand is some sort of dominion or dependency of Australia. But I believe that the New Zealanders aspire to become one of the Australian states in the not too distant future. Certainly New Zealand is mentioned in paragraph 6 of the preamble to the Australian Constitution as a potential future state. --Horace 17:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Hot damn, Horace! If you started ranting that sort of thing in the streets here they would set upon you. I know of no New Zealander that would even flirt with idea. Most NZer's veiw Australians as shifty low-brows and no-brows due to their convict heritage. Ace McWickedRevolt 17:12, 4 March 2009 (EST)
The closest political link between the govts of NZ and Oz is QE2. IE, none, really. ħuman 17:14, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Hey, Canada was setup to be a state in the Articles of Confederation, if they desired. They ended up sacking Washington with the British 35 years later. Just sayin'. --Irrational Atheist 17:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)
(EC) No, I think you are mistaken Ace and Human. I hear that those New Zealanders love Australia and flock there in large numbers, clogging up the Australian beaches, film festivals and Social Security offices. It wouldn't surpise me at all if they were very keen to become an Australian state. --Horace 17:34, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Er, Horace, New Zealanders are not eligible for social security in Australia. At least not for a few years. Ace McWickedRevolt 17:37, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Actually, as I understand it, since 2001 New Zealanders must acheive permanent resident status to qualify. But having done so they do qualify. However, the the then 400,000 New Zealanders already in Australia did not have their rights affected. But I am sure that social security plays but a small part in the love that New Zealanders have for Australia. I understand that they generally regard Australia as a sort of big brother which they look up to and admire (and even try to emulate). Apparently this is particularly so in the sporting arena where the New Zealand rugby team aspire to play as well as the Australians. --Horace 17:48, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Bahahahahahahahahahahaha what garbage! Ace McWickedRevolt 17:53, 4 March 2009 (EST)
It's just what I hear. --Horace 17:55, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Lies, Horace, what you hear are filthy, unctuous lies. Ace McWickedRevolt 18:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Well, I also hear that there can be a dark side to the trans-Tasman relationship and sometimes naughty Australians will mercilessly tease simple New Zealanders for fun and amusement. But again, it’s just what I hear. --Horace 18:10, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I think I hear a dingo eating your baby. Ace McWickedRevolt 19:03, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Ace for your entertainment. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 20:16, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Its so true. Hahahahaha. Ace McWickedRevolt 01:07, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I've never been to Australia, just New Zealand. While there I spotted a shirt labeling the three islands of NZ: north, south and west. Just thought I'd mention that Australia isn't the only one with territorial delusions. Hactar 14:42, 5 March 2009 (EST)

 Dinsdale, Foxtrot and TK

Fascinating:

March 1:

March 3:

March 4:

Not saying that they necessarily/explicitly negotiated a deal or anything, but I find it quite interesting to see Foxtrot all of a sudden doing a 180° turn and rewriting history in TK's favor just after one of the last remaining science-interested people (who kept slapping Foxtrot around) was banned. --Sid 13:43, 4 March 2009 (EST)

The parallels with Animal Farm are UNCANNY. The Foxhole Atheist 15:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

 Yo, Dinsdale!

In a few minutes, Hsmom will think you're Nazi cyberterrorist who swore on Darwin's grave that he would destroy anything Christian on this planet. Or something. --Sid 16:14, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Nah, I'm thinking Whatshisname will likely invite Hsmom to MYOFB!!!11! She'll soon be off on spring break and may never return. 17:12, 4 March 2009 (EST) CЯacke®
You mean the "Retired - Good riddance!" sort of "spring break"? --Sid 18:26, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Let's just say a "5 year ban for inactivity" sort of "spring break."-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 18:32, 4 March 2009 (EST)