Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive188

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 22 July 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, (new)(back)

Contents

[edit] CP, you ruined my life, you bitch

Had another one of those moments again this morning. The Today programme on Radio 4 has a slot called Thought For The Day - a 150 second daily remnant of the BBC's religious broadcasting obligations.

Anyway, the earnest chap on today, a retired bishop called Richard Harries, was marvelling at various scientific discoveries and explorations including recent analysis of 100,000 year-old flint tools and the Planck observations of the universe's 13 billion year-old light.

Instead of being able to appreciate his message - something about our physical insignificance yet spiritual preciousness - I was once again struck by that very disagreeable sensation that I shall now call "being ceepeed".

I wish there was a pre-CP reset button in my head. I would like to be deceepeed. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I hate it when things in my every day life remind me of a particular insanity on CP. I commend you for giving this phenomenon a name. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
For me it goes further than CP. I can't see the lastest scientific discovery without first seeing it through a YEC lens and getting mad about how they'll distort it. AceLiquid Room 10:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who does that, Ace. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
aSK has done more for me than CP: mainly because we don't have quite the number of right wing nutjobs over here but do have a fair sprinkling of godbotherers who need savaging. Saying that though, I now see anything from the political right with a much more sceptical eye since CP came into my orbit. There's been this about the revised size of the proton and my first thought was "Oh no! the cretinists'll be all over saying how it proves science knows nothing or some such." 15:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

[edit] Soccer is unimportant in the USA

Or something like that was said on CP. Well:

Just sayin' --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TK says hi.img- π 13:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
dememoryholed. CS Miller (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The independently assessed global audience of the superbowl in 2006 was 98 million viewers. The world cup final that year? 260 million. Bondurant (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
How many are actually watching the Super Bowl? - π 13:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I love that whooshing sound TightKnickers makes as he completely misses the point. PS Terry sweetheart. How about pulling up some stats for those other sports you mentioned. Like cage fighting. (You like watching half-naked men grappling on the floor, do you?) --PsyGremlinTal! 13:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I can understand why it may have taken 16 years to beat the audience of Brazil vs Italy in the US. Anybody tuning into that match hoping for a display of exquisite, flowing, and artistic football would have been scarred for life. Bondurant (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this also shows Andy & TK's (well, more Andy's, we know TK's just trolling his nipples off) warped sense of patriotism. It's not a case of "well, they lost, better luck next time", but rather, "we lost, it's the liberals / feminists / god's fault and it's a crappy sport anyway, so who cares." --PsyGremlinTala! 14:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Four counts of attempted murder for two people?

I'm having difficulty putting two and two together here. (Pun not intended, but well appreciated.) So, how can he be charged with four counts of attempted murder, when there were only two people that were potential victims? (Note: there is still a victim in a justified homicide, just no criminal.) Is this DA honestly trying to say that each bullet fired is a separate chargeable act? So, if I shoot a full 25-round clip in the general direction of 4 people in his jurisdiction, is he going to charge me with 100 counts of attempted murder? There's a reason why DAs aren't allowed to break up a single continuous action into multiple charges... it is over punishing a criminal act.

So, I'm wondering. There are 12 felony counts involved in this... does anyone have any clue what the other charges are, or any further details? How the hell did this guy get charged with so much for the discharge of two bullets? I mean, 2 counts attempted murder, and 1 count grievous bodily injury, I can totally see, but 12? Seriously, what could he have done to piss off the system so much?

... is he black? --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 07:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

More details indicate that "Wallace repeatedly denied shooting at the thieves, but eventually handed over the gun he had hidden, saying 'here is what you are looking for,' according to an arrest warrant affidavit."
So, he was lying to police, because he likely knew he wasn't justified in shooting at the men. Good job. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 07:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Meh, really crappy wigo imho. Intersting case, reported on badly by CP and reported on even more stupidly by RW. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think the guy should be arrested. His life was not it danger, so he had no right to shoot a guy in the face. Homicide is only justifiable if your life or someone elses life is directly threatend. And I highly doubt the guy is facing the rest of his life in prison. Remember this is fox news, the don't really care about the truth--BenB (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The guy is 81 yo, probably gets scared when the census goons come calling, but only shoots at people looking to "do him dirt". What's he supposed to do, say "Oh I've lived a long life please come for to steal anything that you want!?" At most I'd take his gun(s) and maybe see about getting him into some sort of assisted living situation. 19:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
I agree the storry is interesting, and poorly reported, but likely only because the News agencies failed to state a lot of the critically important information, and thus allowing the righties to fly off the handle and run around going "ZOMG!" Nothing in the original article stated that one of the thieves was already in ICE custody, or the reasons why the DA had actually been bureaucratically unable to charge them with anything. It's like above, where people complain about how CP ruined their life. Now, journalists can't even partly report on facts, or CP is just going to make up the missing facts on their own.
Defending property like this is only justified in Texas. Note: this makes being a car repo man a very VERY hazardous job. Your killer may not even be charged with anything. I doubt he would get an attempted first-degree murder charge, it would be too hard to prove, and basically rely upon circumstantial evidence. Namely, he lied to the police, and the claims of shooting towards the vehicle fleeing the scene don't match up with a face wound. Especially, when he has a defense of property claim (in this case, only a mitigating circumstance, not a justification.) So, what I see, is his defense of property claim will face off against a claim of assault in the first degree (great bodily harm), and he'll likely make a deal as noted, to lose his firearms privileges, and maybe some community service. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
From the Denver post article (linked above), "Hospital employees noted a bullet hole in the truck," which refutes your assertion (that I've helpfully bolded above). He did lie to police...what we're dancing around here is the fact that the burglars both have Latino sounding surnames, whereas the shooter, Bob Wallace is not Latino (supposedly), therefore I'm going to guess that the charges agin Bob are "make-nice" charges to ward off charges from CO's Hispanic community that the DA is going easy on Bob because he is a Privileged White Man. My guess is he'll cop to a lesser charge and get a suspended sentence and probation. 20:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
Regarding the multiple charges, don't the authorities often file every imaginable charge, especially when some drift into the murder range? So he might have been charged with three different crimes for each of four bullets? As far as the scenario, the only thing that makes "sense" to me is that he got in front of the truck ("they almost ran me over") and popped a few caps through the windshield before getting out of the way. I think. The story is definitely "under-reported" and presents the scenario a bit out of order. "Sources say Torres is also under investigation for being part of a major auto theft ring." So maybe the reason for lack of charges at this point is that they are putting together a much bigger case against them? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
As previously referenced (but maybe not said) charges have been filed (in fact, were filed the same day as the overreacting reports) against them. The Denver paper points out that you're exactly right, a superior jurisdiction was investigating the major auto theft ring, and blocking the filing of charges. The superior jurisdiction eventually lifted the block, and charges were filed. One of them was even in ICE custody already. I think your analysis is pretty much entirely accurate in its entirety (although, I thought there were only two bullets fired), and everyone commenting about this have just been whining for irrational reasons. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, only two shots... ok, maybe if he was shooting at the driver, the theory is the passenger might also die as a result? I dunno. But now that I read your moar details article by a real journalist, the 7/7 Fox station piece comes across as even worse - whining about a 5 month old situation and not even telling the story clearly? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been reading a bit of law recently, so this whole story popped out as a bunch of raving idiots, especially more so on the CP side. I just couldn't understand why there was such a lack of information about it. No one wanted to say the real details of the case, because "82 man charged with 12 felonies for defending his property" has so much conservative sensationalism that it's bound to raise ratings... --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 22:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Stagnation

There were almost 12 hours between posts on this page. Have we had this long before and is it proof that CP is pretty much dead on its feet?  Lily Inspirate me. 08:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no, maybe, and sure. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It is quieter on the weekends around here, RW is more of a bludging off wok thing. Also people do sleep occasionally. - π 12:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Also when night editing is on, nobody can post on CP so there is nothing new to discuss here. - π 12:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Jpatt's quality sources

Talking about this 'Coldest since 1998' article of course. The data doesn't even match the article: it says 2010 was tied for the coldest since 1998. But the data clearly shows 1998 was warmer, and the cold snap was 2001 or something. What's also quite funny is that the 'actual temp' line seems to be wholly above the 'average temp' line, so even if it was cooling, it's still warmer than average.

The graph seems to be a pretty straight rip from the NCDC site, with the range set 1998-2010 and the data set 'Most recent 12 month period". It's a nice cherry-picked date range, open it up wider (I tried 1900, 1930, 1950 and 1970 to the present day) the trend is unambiguously one-way: upwards, constantly. On that note, I congratulate the author of the article for finding a specific data set that comes out with the answer he's looking for. MaxAlex Swimming pool 13:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just another day on CP, really. The parodists-in-residence don't even have to try that hard anymore. Besides, they probably think that people who do read the borked news (are there any?) don't click on the sources, but swallow the Kool-aid directly. After all, that's all Andy and his goons do. --PsyGremlin講話 13:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I never really got why AGW is a partisan political issue. But anyway, even more @ Alex, the data is US continental-only and the liar author just "guesses" that it can be extrapolated worldwide. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
What surprises me is their staggering incompetence to obfuscate the data-mangling - they even link directly to a source that shows June 2010 had higher-than average temperatures almost nationwide. But yeah, picking a strange time period like "12 years" is already a giveaway that something's fishy about it. Röstigraben (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Um, the party of money considers it a threat to their donors' money? Same in the UK - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
What I really like about that source is that it even openly says, 'Despite June 2010 being one of the warmest U.S. Junes since 1895...', yet still goes on to argue that a cold blip is 'proof' that global warming is a myth. 92.9.248.86 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
To look at Human#s question for a bit, it's a political issue not just because of money (although I agree that's a factor) it's because it's a collective problem that needs to be solved collectively. The only way to do that is by a combination of government legislation and international co-operation. As denialists (almost) invariably fall on the political right, trying to prove that climate change isn't occurring isn't just sticking one's head in the sand about the data, but about the only solution. As we're dealing with a problem and solution that stretches internationally, you can no longer be a closed-in, nationalistic, self-interested hoarder. Hence why you also get the camp that says it is happening but there's nothing we can do about it (except for preparing for it by going "every man for himself!!"). It's not just the world but an entire lifestyle and worldview that's threatened by climate change and its solutions. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 20:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Hand washing

I suppose, in the spirit of exposing kids to diseases to raise immunity levels (much better than vaccination!), there's a (very (very, very (very, very,very))) slight point. but really! 17:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

So illnesses do not come from the digestive system, eh? No point in washing hands after taking a shit then. Remind me never to shake hands with Andy. Not that I ever would. DickTurpis (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The meals porters in hospitals always seem to be doing that unnecessary hand washing, too,. Better tell them to stop: imagine the savings in time and soap. 17:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
What I'm wondering is, where did Jesus say this? - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
What I'm wondering is why, why oh why in the world, would someone choose THIS as evidence of alleged biblical scientific foreknowledge. I must be missing something. ÑR/Señor Admin/Talk 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Didn't scientists and/or doctors used to reject handwashing anyway, claiming it's some sort of insult to imply that their hands needed washing in the first place? I've read this somewhere but I'm almost certain it was at cracked, so the truthfulness is in doubt. X Stickman (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Ignaz Semmelweis. He noted the evidence that women who gave birth in hospitals were significantly more likely to die than when giving birth at home. Which honestly, let's face it... modern medicine shouldn't hurt your chances of survival. So, he looks through the details, and discovers that doctors were not washing their hands after autopsies, and sometimes going immediately over to deliver babies. He began pushing doctors to wash their hands after autopsies and before giving birth. And they responded back with exactly your stated criticism. His ideas were treated (like all new theories) like totally bogus pseudoscience, but unlike most pseudoscience the facts backed him up, and he eventually won. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
This one is truly bizarre indeed. Fast food restaurants nowadays go to great pains to make sure hands that touch money don't touch food. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It ain't called "filthy lucre" fer nothing! C®ackeЯ
First off, excellent example of a WIGO. Secondly, doesn't the OT have numerous examples of touch and food restrictions? Lastly, Andy makes it seem like science now says that food doesn't have harmful organisms and that handwashing is immaterial. I would really love to know where he gets this from. Is this a sign that Andy has now completely left the planet? NetharianCubicles are prisons! 21:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that they don't say that it's entirely immaterial, they just say it is "typically unnecessary". Locking my doors at home is typically unnecessary as well, but I think the average idiot should be able to put two and two together, and avoid doing it. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this sour grapes from Lenski?
"Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1,000,000,000) E. coli at this very moment? So remember to wash your hands after going to the toilet, as I hope your mother taught you. Simple calculations imply that there are something like 10^20 = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 E. coli alive on our planet at any moment. Even if they divide just once per day, and given a typical mutation rate of 10^-9 or 10^-10 per base-pair per generation, then pretty much every possible double mutation would occur every day or so. That’s a lot of opportunity for evolution." -- Richard Lenski
That or the fucking twit doesn't believe in the germ theory of disease, which would be pretty much par for the course. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 22:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec--where in the Bible does Jesus say not to wash one's hands before eating?--WJThomas (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I Googled it and found a forum discussion about it. It's apparently said in Matthew 15 (Here's a translation). Some people asked Jesus why his disciples don't wash their hands before eating, and he proceeds to say, "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean', but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean'." ~SuperHamster Talk 01:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
So Jesus was a swallower? --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I really don't fucking understand this. Is Andy really suggesting that you needn't wash your hands before eating, cooking or what have you? AceLiquid Room 03:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty much it by the looks of it. When I first read the Bible passage, I thought it was more of a parable, exposing that it is what someone believes, says, and does rather than what they hear that makes them who they are, rather than literally meaning that germs don't harm you when you swallow 'em; I would have though that Andy would think the same, considering that he loves parables so much. I guess I was wrong. It is apparently referring to its literal meaning and is "scientific knowledge" to Andy. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Also strange because Andy has previously endorsed germ theory as a scientific theory he actually believes. (This is the best diff I could find in a few minutes of searching but I'm sure I've seen it somewhere else too.) Random surfer (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
A few things, Firstly I love that Andy choose this as a place to make a stand for biblical prophecy. Secondly I love the whole article, especially the part about the lions, because people living in lion country couldn't possibly have seen lions kill anything before. Thirdly I think the CBP needs to be the official bible of RW. --Opcn (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Andy has no need for hand washing. He doesn't pick his nose, scratch his bum, or masturbate (keep that image in your head). He only uses a keyboard[1] which is filthier than a raw turd.--Brendiggg (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's hope he never cooks meat then, scary things can happen if you don't use good hygine practices. Worm(t | c) 11:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

So, based on Andy's referenceimg to the book of Mark, I've done a little research and it's from Chap 7 of Mark. However, it also shows that the man who translated the Bible has no clue what's going on there. The chapter starts:

And there assembled together unto him the Pharisees and some of the scribes, coming from Jerusalem. 2 And when they had seen some of his disciples eat bread with common, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews eat not without often washing their hands, holding the tradition of the ancients. 4 And when they come from the market, unless they be washed, they eat not: and many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe, the washings of cups and of pots and of brazen vessels and of beds. 5 And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not your disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but they eat bread with common hands? 6 But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.

Andy's missed the point that the Pharisees - or intellectuals as Andy would have it - are upset that Jesus and the disciples are eating with a bunch of Gentiles, with unclean hands, rather than with Jews, who wash their hands before eating. It's got nothing to do with cleanliness, but rather who they are eating with. Jesus is making a statement that it doesn't matter who he associates with. Pinching a bit from WP, we conclude by saying

He calls people to listen to them and explains that "Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.'" (15) Later his disciples (students) tell him they didn't understand him and he scolds them for being "dull". He explains to them that food can't make you unclean but "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'"

Not that I'm surprised, but one would think that for a person who's just translated the Bible would have a better idea of what's going on. Oh yes, Andy, Terry, the Bible link above also provides the Greek, so haul out your pocket dictionary and Google translate and away you go. --PsyGremlinSermā! 15:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And again the Bible contradicts itself by preferring washing with fresh water (although in the case of Leviticus 15 it is talking about post-fappage cleansing). Scarlet A.pnggnostic 15:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The talk pageimg is rather amusing. 22:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Including the oversighting of MarcoT2's "dump of links". Anyone screenshot it? 96.60.50.30 (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy sez: "Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias." And he's probably correct, at least if you're eating with utensils. The disease risk comes from the unclean hands of the person preparing the food. He's still an idiot, though.--WJThomas (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Is little Phi discovering something about her father from this, and posting at fmylife? DickTurpis (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait, the little shit didn't just revert Marco's links, he oversighted it? What a pathetic loser. Andrew, I punch you in the nose. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just classic fundamentalism -- taking what it clearly supposed to be a moral lesson ("you're 'unclean' because of your words and actions, not what you eat"), and turning it into a scientific principle. MDB (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I managed to take a look at some of Marco's links before his post was deleted, here they are from my browser history, in no particular order:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/4/445
http://www.tropicalmedandhygienejrnl.net/article/0035-9203%2882%2990266-8/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9165286
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/52/2/264
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/21/2547
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/21/2607/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8546820
I don't remember what he wrote exactly, but it was something along the lines of "There is extensive scientific documentation that handwashing can prevent several often life-threatening diseases", with each word being a link to a page, followed by "What are your scientific sources for claiming that the risk of having unclean hands at a meal is grossly exaggerated?" --Maquissar (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


[edit] Parasites anyone?

Andy would be right - though not aesthetically pleasing - if bacterial infections were the only thing to be afraid of. But there is the whole range of parasites, like flatworms or tapeworms. Granted, to prevent (self-) infection, it's more important to wash your hands after defecation, but washing your hands before meals, especially when eating from a common bowl, seems to be sensible if you don't want to disturb the whole dinner party... larronsicut fur in nocte 03:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Lenski Showed Foreknowledge!

Check out the second P.S. in Lenski's second reply. MDB (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"I hope that some readers might get a chuckle out of this story. The same Sunday (15 June 2008) that you and some of your acolytes were posting and promoting scurrilous attacks on me and our research (wasn’t that a bit disrespectful of the Sabbath?), I was in a church attending a wedding. And do you know what Old Testament lesson was read? It was Genesis 1:27-28[4], in which God created Man and Woman. It’s a very simple and lovely story, and I did not ask any questions, storm out, or demand the evidence that it happened as written at a time when science did not yet exist. I was there in the realm of spirituality and mutual respect, not confusing a house of religion for a science class or laboratory. And it was a beautiful wedding, too." ? I don't get it. Quaru (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
D'oh! Make that the first P.S.:
Did you know that your own bowels harbor something like a billion (1,000,000,000) E. coli at this very moment? So remember to wash your hands after going to the toilet, as I hope your mother taught you. Simple calculations imply that there are something like 10^20 = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 E. coli alive on our planet at any moment. Even if they divide just once per day, and given a typical mutation rate of 10^-9 or 10^-10 per base-pair per generation, then pretty much every possible double mutation would occur every day or so. That’s a lot of opportunity for evolution.
MDB (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Scrolling down...

So I just scrolled all the way down CP's main page to see if there was a new 'toon (there isn't, and the old one is gone) and noticed that they have so much cruft to the left side that it is finally as long as the borken news (about five screen high at my rez). ħumanUser talk:Human 22:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you used to own a business, Huw? It's like you're here an awful lot. (I hope you get some customers soon). I ain't been to CP main page forever. ('cept fer diffs). C®ackeЯ
Actually, I've been editing here less recently. And, yeah, the recession is taking its third dip from what I am seeing, and it's getting real old having to struggle. I blame the oil gusher (watching latest work on it right now). March was decent, April was actually pretty good, then the bottom fell out in the last week of April. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Human's employment status must always be cited as selfunemployed. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 17:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, right now I am fucked if I don't come up with a solution SOON. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Abandon your principles!Morals and ethics are for suckers! You have just the knowledge you need to make it big in ... audio woo! I suggest Inhumanica Dynamica as a company name - David Gerard (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Sedition

[2] (do not capture, it's on the WIGO CP page) Actually, reading the article referenced [3], I have long thought that the US should be decentralized, in the sense that geographically, culturally, and economically, it is more like a dozen or so separate nations. Which still should, I think, have a very strong alliance. The other part of the idea, straddling the borders, also makes sense in many ways due to the existence of many cross-border "sister cities". Only problem is, I see no viable path to achieving such a rearrangement of powers, politics, and perspectives. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem with is a split is not the gradious political issues, its those niggling economics of life issues. The new seminations will feel the need to compete with each other more strongly, and the competition will leave them all poorer than if there was none. People see the commerce clause as a minor thing that has been used to justify major government action; some of my fellow libertarians actually have called for it to be amended into the dust, but really its probably the most important thing the feds do. --Opcn (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
If the US were broken up into smaller regional parts, wouldn't that mean Andy would be stuck in a new state with all those Northeastern liberals? Röstigraben (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
New New JerseyYorkachusettsaniamont. Yeah. C®ackeЯ
Nah. There would be plenty of illegal immigration from the poorer parts of Appalachia and from the South in general. Mississippistans like Louisiana or Arkansas would be third-world shitholes without all those federal handouts. mb 08:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe not right away, but after a few hurricanes rolled through yes. --Opcn (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
There would also be a preponderance of fundamentalists just to dig their shit-pit deeper.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
No hurricanes required. I know Muricans hate to hear this, but in terms of indicators such as median income, literacy rate, infant mortality, maternal mortality, general life expectancy, or social mobility some of these places just barely qualify as developed world even now. Lots of anti-gummint zealots, very few people with the patience and intellectual curiosity you need to understand the subtleties of running a postindustrial economy. If they cut themselves off from the money the godless libruls in Boston, New York, and the Bay Area keep subsidizing them with they are reduced to abject destitution in about five weeks. mb 14:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I always think of this when I hear people talk about a new succession. - π 15:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
You mean "secession", don'tya?  Lily Inspirate me. 16:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Great fucking link, Pi. It kicked ass. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Pi's fuckin' link reminds me of this fuckin' rant about Starbucks. Bondurant (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Pi's link was a good rant although it would be nice to see what the most recent data are for the tax & spending beneficiaries (2004) and how current divorce rates stack up (1999).  Lily Inspirate me. 08:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Willing to bet real money that Louisiana is not subsidizing New Hampshire roads. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how many Southern Tea Partiers who rail about socialism are ready to quit letting the rest of the country subsidize their electric bills. Oh, wait, I forgot... it's only socialism if someone who isn't you benefits, especially if they have darker skin. MDB (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Studying? Pah.

Is Andy basically saying that liberal teachers are giving credit for made-up answersimg? That's kind of hard to believe when Andy gives full credit for less-than-three word answers that don't even answer the question one bit (well, perhaps by a second grader's standards they do). "His determination?" says one kid. "Good!" says Lord Andy. I had a far-leftist teacher last year (who would be considered a communist by Andy's standards), and she was the hardest grader I've met to date. Though she did give full credit for a totally made-up answer to the kid who sat next to me, but it'd be safe to say that it was just so he wouldn't fail the class; she (or anybody else for that matter) would hate to have to deal more with him than they had to. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Students studying less = more efficient students! But somehow this is a Bad Thing. Oh yeah, according to Assfly, human beings is getting dumber as time goes by, hence study time should be increasing. C®ackeЯ
It's astonishing how good he is at making dumb fuck assumptions that feed back around and patch over and protect his other dumbfuck assumptions. His fantasy world is at least 70% self consistent, which is astonishing given the extent of his world that is fantasy. --Opcn (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
For the other 30%, well He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past. CS Miller (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Quantifying order WIGO

I did not really liked the wigo, but I gave it thumbs up because it took me to the "quantifying order" essay. Really, I think it is one of Andy jewels. I even read it completely, something I never do with conservapedia essays. He is really saying that schools should stop teaching mechanics, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, relativity, quantum mechanics, ... and instead teach that all natural phenomena can be uderstood in terms of fight between order and disorder. I would love to see a conservapedia course in physics.--Tlaloc (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] It shouldn't surprise me anymore, but....

Does Andy ever read the articles he links to on mainpage right? He says Steele is thriving and is being touted for a Presidential run in 2012, but the article he links basically says "the guy is so nuts he must be running for President". It also says "And how 'serious' is politics today when people who believe Obama was born in Kenya, Indonesia or Transylvania are considered a real political movement?" That's a jab right at you, Andy. I really want to know how he can be this colossally stupid and still be considered a productive member of society. DickTurpis (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Andy reads the news article, closes his eyes, imagines what he would like it to say instead, and then posts that. - π 05:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, that's the same way he translates the Bible. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Boom! --GTac (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Andy begging for data WIGO lame...

Andy has been shoehorning the data openly for months, it's not WIGO it's WICTGO (continuing to). --Opcn (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

1:2:4:8 RULZORS !!!! ħumanUser talk:Human 09:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't the first conservative words be created around the time of jesus? Though if jesus created even a single conservative word in the 1st century, it would mean that this century we'd have to create 1048576 conservative words to adhere to schlafly's law... --GTac (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Jebus didn't invent conservatism until the USA USA USA was created. Along with humor. And whatever other shit is echoing around in Schlafly's noggin. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
And we would be producing new terms on average of about one an hour in this century. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 01:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] World Cup (final)

Despite the scorn heaped on the World Cup "championship" by Terry and Andy, and how uninterested the US is because of their superior all-American sports, CP seems to have given a lot of prominence to the competition on their main page over the last four weeks.  Lily Inspirate me.#

I think this might have been commented on above, but, yeah, I've never seen the CP borken news (etc) go so nuts over sports before. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] President Pro Tempore WIGO

So, according to CP, Robert Byrd is still alive, but Fidel Castro is probably dead. MDB (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup! ħumanUser talk:Human 11:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, the good old "Trusworthy Encyclopaedia"... yesterday's news tomorrow. (with apologies to Les Nessman). --PsyGremlinParla! 12:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Terry

I see your 106 millionimg and raise you 700 million. Oh yes, and more Americans watched the England v USA game, than watched the first four NBA finals. Bloody socialists, they're everywhere. --PsyGremlinFale! 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that first link goes where you want it to... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] That's not Castro!

That's Liam Neeson in old man makeup! --Opcn (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Or cp:Liberal Photoshopping (what, no article yet?) Cantabrigian (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Have those fucking retards not actually read their own Castro sharticle? ÑR/Señor Admin/Talk 17:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, I love that Castro is proudly wearing a Nike shirt in those photos. DogPMarmite Patrol 17:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
RaymondP risks allimg. Cantabrigian (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't wait for the "Weekend at Bernie's" style performance Castro's corpse is going to give Monday. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how else to say it other than to continue repeating that apparently even sysops, especially obnoxious bullies like TK, don't actually read their own articles. ÑR/Señor Admin/Talk 20:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
A farcically unsupportable lie = "actual fact to replace POV edits". And this guy talks about Alinksy like it's his favorite name to drop. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 21:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
And Raymond pays the priceimg. Cantabrigian (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Fidel Castro could actually go to the USA and prepare dinner for Andy and TK, and they still wouldn't acknowledge he's alive. What's the point of using your own brain, when you already know the truth? (this applies to everything else, too.) --Maquissar (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Would they insist that he washed his hands of socialism?  Lily Inspirate me. 21:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Mmmm, I rather think that Castro would go wash his hands before preparing dinner, and Andy would accuse him of communist godlessness. --Maquissar (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Lily wins 3.14159 internets --Opcn (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] WIGO worthy?

Andy is slowly losing his fragile grasp on reality. First, he calls some weird double standard because Jesse Jackson doesn't spend all his time complaining about abortion, even though he has spoken about it before. Then, only to top himself a few minutes later, Switzerland has Hollywood values? Check yourself into the home Andy. SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That's just par for the (rather bizarre) course that is the Assfly's CP empire. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and I've lost all my supermodel girlfriends, how do I get them back? --Opcn (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Send me $50,000 in unmarked small bills and they will be returned unharmed. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Best words again

Once again Andy feels the need to trumpet the fact that a random bunch of words he and his parodists pulled out of their collective arsesimg increases every century. Shame, are we need of a little self-affirmation, Andy-kins. Oh and if you're stuck for good conservative words for the 20th century, here's two for you: 'apartheid' and 'christian nationalism'. You're welcome. --PsyGremlinFale! 13:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That said, an easy little wrecker project would be to source up some 18th century Conservative words and add them in, just five or six with those dates would cause immediate issues with the "higher layers" (as Andy calls it). It would be quite amusing to see Andy attempting to swat away some obviously Conservative words just because they mess up his idealised statistics. MaxAlex Swimming pool 14:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it was when Andy decided 'transistor' was a conservative word that it became apparent that it was based on a "because I said so" principle. 100 internets to anybody who gets sausage and merkin added as conservative words. --PsyGremlinPrata! 14:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Apropos of CP's recent Teabagging fetish and it's general untrustworthiness add "ungovernable" to the list. ÑR/Señor Admin/Talk 14:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Funny thing is, here we have the ANC declaring that they'll make opposition-run cities and municipalities "ungovernable". Interesting to see the looney left here and the rabid right there adopting similar policies. --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Andy is barking mad and doesn't even realize how deeply into self-parody he has descended with his stupid "conservative words by century" folly. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe that would be the Dunning-Kruger Effect, or something close to that.--WJThomas (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I should add start adding words to it just for fun and see if they are caught... my guess is no. I'm thinking Mac and Cheese (1802 - Created by Thomas Jefferson which would be considered a conservative by today's standards), Automobile (Popularized by Henry Ford in 1914. Henry ford was also against labor unions like conservatives). Quazywabbit (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it as interesting. The left in your area noted how well obstructionist tactics are working here for the right. They went from the nearly universal hate just after Obama's election to intensely politicized anti-heroes. Think of what one could do if you didn't start from universally hated? --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Not Jefferson. They hate Jefferson over at CP; that whole separation of church and state thing. MDB (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Don Macelroy is a CP reader, too many memes make it from them to him. but on subject its hard to throw the numbers, because Andy not only inflates the later numbers he also suppresses the earlier ones. --Opcn (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Don MacElroy is an old friend of mine, and a Viet Vet ca '64. I suspect not the same person? Especially considering I have no idea what this section is about... ħumanUser talk:Human 09:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy: That is the new number of Best New Conservative Terms by century as we find the next layer. (…) Can any liberals disprove the pattern?img Umm, have a look here... larronsicut fur in nocte 20:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Um... Andy is right...

I have a degree in cellular and molecular biology, I love microbiology and infectious disease. Now that the argument from authority is over the digestive system defends beautifully against nearly everything that might make you sick. Try putting your food in your eye, or cutting a hole in your arm and putting it there, or in your lungs, and you will see what infection is like. The fact of the matter is that just a tiny tiny fraction of what you might possibly get sick off of actually makes you sick because the digestive system plunges bacteria into an unfriendly acidic environment and then and unfriendly basic environment, then they are met with a healthy variety of bacterial competition to prevent endospores from waking up with suppressive signals.

That said wash your fucking hands, that tiny minority of things that can get through will still fucking kill you; but as the WIGO is written it criticizes Andy for saying something that is true. --Opcn (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

^ What he said, minus having any relevant degrees. --GTac (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
As I said above: think about parasites... larronsicut fur in nocte 14:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
A short search:
Turkiye Parazitol Derg. 2008;32(2):130-3.

[The frequency of the presence of intestinal parasites in students of Arslanbey Primary School]

[Article in Turkish]

Tamer GS, Erdoğan S, Willke A.

Kocaeli Universitesi Tip Fakültesi, Mikrobiyoloji ve Klinik Mikrobiyoloji Anabilim Dali, Kocaeli, Turkey. guldensonmez@hotmail.com Abstract We investigated the frequency of the presence of intestinal parasites and the factors affecting this frequency in an elementary school. We tried to discover whether there was a relationship between the presence of intestinal parasites and sanitary habits such as hand washing, toilet flushing, and use of human manure, cleanness of drinking water and also the educational level of the parents. A total of 114 students participated in this study. Samples were collected using cellophane tape preparations. All fecal samples were examined using native-Lugol and the trichrome staining. Fecal samples taken from 111 students were examined, 37 (33.3%) of them contained one or more parasites. The parasites encountered most often were E. vermicularis 16 (14.4%), G. intestinalis 10 (9.0%), and E. coli 4 (3.6%). In addition children carrying intestinal parasites complained about abdominal pain (22 students), itchy nose and the accumulation of saliva around their mouths (9 students). Although no meaningful relationship was found between the use of human manure/toilet flushing with the presence of parasites, the educational level of the parents, cleanness of the drinking water and hand washing habits seem to be related to the presence of parasites. Our findings indicate that elementary students should be educated in the prevention of parasitic infections.

larronsicut fur in nocte 14:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
My point was not that washing your hands was not needed, my point was that in a census of all the organisms that would make you sick if put inside your body nearly all of them would be destroyed or deactivated by the digestive system, which is what the WIGO was complaining about Andy saying. --Opcn (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried to point out that his statement was so couched in weasel words that it's basically worthless. "Typically unnecessary" indicates no clarification of how dangerous or nondangerous it may be. No one ever argued that washing your hands was so absolutely necessary that you stood a high likelihood of dying without doing it. The idea that this is a unique insight of the Bible is also retarded, because guess what kind of hygiene the filthy unwashed savages follow? His whole argument is based on the same fallacy expressible in this xkcd comic... you're saying shit that was already true long ago, but act like it's some amazing piece of insight. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 01:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
this comic came first I think --Opcn (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I wonder if Andy would agree with Prof Dr Friedrich Bischinger on the benefits of picking your nose and eating it. --Shagie (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Fun times

fun times --Opcn (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OT: does anybody know if the Wayback Machine will ever be updated again? Currently there is no content newer than 2 years. --84.221.198.245 (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Just looking at that link brings back CP memories: Fox → Sysop; LA Times article; and, just for the laugh: "A good instruction as to what constitutes copyrighted images:[4]". As to the question, I have no idea. 03:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I remember the stuff on the left side about the LA times, but the rightside stuff is a bit different from what I remember the first time I visited. It looks positively normal and respectable compared to now. - π 03:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Not 'arf. How have the mighty fallen. From nuts to downright insane. The lack of Ken on the left & random "news" on the right is startling. 03:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Re the BON's question, this might explain why the Jul 5 2007's entry is there:

Thanks to a generous grant from the Mellon Foundation, Internet Archive completed a 2 billion page web crawl in 2007. This is the largest web crawl attempted by Internet Archive. The project was designed to take a global snapshot of the Web.
Please browse through the resulting collection.
Special thanks to the memory institutions who contributed URLs to the crawl. The crawl began with 18,000 websites from over 60 countries
from here 03:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Checking, the BON's right: last CP capture: 3 July 2008. 04:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

[edit] CP 12 December 2006

Main page
Suggested debate topics Worthy of copying to here? (copied)
04:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Recent changes is magic: Just Andy & 4 or 5 homeskollars. When it was all new & idealistic. Makes you want to cry. Whatever happened? 04:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Andy happened, when you start out trying to tile the world in pentagrams and crosses it works wonderfully, but as time goes on it becomes abundantly apparent that there are going to be times when the pentagrams overlap the crosses and there are going to be gaps between the tiles. His impending failure has made him bitter and pushed him to give over the reins to folks like TK and JB. --Opcn (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Like the four horsemen of the apocalypse, Terry, Ed, Ken and Karajerk happened, then laid waste to Andy's vision of a new Jerusalem a conservative, Christian, family-friendly alternative to Wikipedia.  Lily Inspirate me. 05:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
^^ This. Wrath, Ignorance, Insanity and Egotism took over and the place have not been the same since. - π 06:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I suppose the antichrist would have a messiah complex. --Opcn (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The interesting thing is that many of these archive versions read like parodies (Wikipedia uses ANTI CHRISTIAN CE instead of AD which is Liberal Bias) but I suppose 4 years ago that was the standard of parody. It's good to know that Schlafly has tempered himself, though, many of the early entries make him seem like a very, very angry man. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 16:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Does Karajou own a radio?

For the last few hours I've been hearing about an iranian scientist fiasco, but CP has nothing to say :( --Opcn (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've WIGOworld'd it. (more in Rob's sphere?) 10:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
If it doesn't connect Obama to Commies, then it has nothing to do with Rob. --Kels (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Everything connects Obama to commies! --GTac (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact Obama is not a communist connects him to the commies! It's all a very clever scheme from Moscow Beijing Hanoi Pyongyang Havana Keith Olbermann's office wherever International Red Menace HQ is nowadays. MDB (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Projects and other stuff

I love how CP is advertising three projects on their main page - Abortion, Socialism and Dawkins... and all three take you to a morass of red links (well, apart from Dawkins, where you have to get past Ken's crap before getting to the redlinks.--PsyGremlinHable! 11:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Who was the gentleman here who was working on a "Ken DeMyer project generator"? Did it ever get finished? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 12:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Tzoran again

The wiki-fu is strong in this one. How else can he identify and block IP addresses without the handy assistance of checkuser? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty damn impressive that right there. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It might have been a password reset request which would show the IP.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
But only to the person who owned the account. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Unless, of course, either: A) he emailed someone; or B) he's a sock of someone. 01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

[edit] Shame

So CP considers Switzerland to be shameful for not allowing extradition of Roman Polanski to the USA. Shame on them that they weren't so indignant about the US's refusal to extradite Warren Anderson to India for Union Carbide's Bhopal disaster. Compare and contrast that disaster with reaction to the current BP oil spill. Deaths attributable to the Bhopal disaster greatly exceed the loss of life from 9/11 and even after 26 years UC chemicals are polluting the local groundwater for millions of poor Indians. Now that's a fucking shame.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Er... Switzerland is shameful for not extraditing Polanski. Bondurant (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Didn't the girl (a grown woman now) kinda forgive him and express her desire that the whole thing go away? --Opcn (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Many victims of crime eventually forgive their attackers over time, even for serious offences. This doens't mean that the perpertrator shouldn't be tried, convicted and punished for the offence in the first place. Let's not forget the details of this case - she was 13 at the time, and he drugged and sodomised her, despite repeated pleas to stop. She forgave him much later, after he'd later settled out of court for over half a million dollars. Bondurant (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Polanski claims that the original judge said that the time Polanski served pre-trial in a mental asylum would count as time-served in his sentence. Polanski heard that the judge was going to renege on this, so Polanski the decided to flee.
Polannski told the Swiss extradition hearing of this, so the Swiss authorities asked the US authorities for the copies of the original court's transcripts. The US refused to provide the transcripts. Thus the Swiss decided the US filed an invalid extradition request, and refused it. This was reported in last night's Channel4 news. Here [5] is a link to a similar report, but doesn't go into so much detail. CS Miller (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
A better link. [6]
What happened after that is a subject of dispute. The defence says the now deceased judge, Laurence Rittenband, had agreed in meetings with attorneys to sentence Polanski to a 90-day diagnostic study and nothing more. The judge later changed his mind and summoned Polanski for further sentencing, at which time the director fled to his native France, his lawyers say.
CS Miller (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
My point is not about the guilt of Polanski nor the legal debates over the extradition warrant which the US failed validate for the Swiss authorities. There is a significant imbalance between what the US expects of other nations and what it is prepared to do, let alone the abjectfailure of the USA to recognise the authority of the International Criminal Court over the thousands of its soldiers who have raped women in Japan, Korea and Iraq.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. But on its own merits, there is nothing particularly wrong with CP's take on the news on Polanski. Bondurant (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup, the US tends to act like the school-yard bully in its dealing with other countries. International obligations shall be enforced when it's in the US's interests that they are. Otherwise it's the UN/ICC/NewWorldOrder/ICRC/AmnestyInternational interfering in the US's God-given rights to do what ever the US pleases. CS Miller (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

-

As I understand it the prosecutor tried to get Polanski on a list of 6 charges, 5 of which were to be dismissed in the plea bargain where in Polanski's time in the asylum would be counted as time served, but the Judge decided to renig on his plea agreement and so Polanski bolted, which meant that the other 5 charges were never cleared. Polanski would be facing a set of charges that he made a legitimate plea bargain to get out of. While having sex with a 13 is pretty scummy I don't really think that the punishment should be any greater for it being sodomy. In reality the 30 year exile (a film director who can't set foot in the country with a bigger film industry than any five other countries put together) is probably more severe than the punishment for his crime should have been. As I understand it there was some discrepancy over the amount of resistance and use of drugs in the case as well. --Opcn (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you are downplaying the severity of the crime. "Having sex with a 13 is pretty scummy" makes it almost sound consentual, when in fact, he drugged and then raped a child who was pleading with him to stop. As crimes go, there are hardly any worse crimes you can commit against a person, short of murder. He copped a plea bargain, and when it seemed that maybe he would be put away for longer than a month-and-a-half (for, and I repeat it again, raping a minor), he went on the lam. Spending 30 years, free in your home country is hardly "exile", nor "punishment." Bondurant (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm completely with Bondurant on this; the guy raped a thirteen year old child, we should not lose sight of that horrible, awful crime. What is amusing in all of this is the Assfly's claim that the Swiss refused to extradite him due to "Hollywood values". DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope we can just all agree that Polanski is an awful, awful excuse for a human being and committed an absolutely heinous act on an innocent child. Sadly I wish he could get the punishment that fits the crime, doesn't look like that will happen though. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, castration is too good him. That said, the press here are reporting that the Swiss turned down the application, because "the US Justice Department failed to provide records of a hearing in which Polanski claimed his case had been settled and sentence agreed."[7] So it seems as if it was purely red tape that buggered it up, not the Swiss protecting a rapist. Still, given Andy's mind, countdown to it being Obama's fault in 3... 2...
btw, isn't it liberal style (t-shirt and jeans for me) to cry "shame!"? As yes, point 41often declare that an adversary should be "ashamed of himself" --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You people. Polanski drugs and sodomises just one thirteen-year-old girl who's saying "no stop no please stop" as his artistic cock plunges into her anus, and you get all tetchy about it. Don't you respect genius? - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You might at least want to make sure your graphic descriptions/accusations are accurate. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(unDent) Summation: Polanski is slime and the Swiss are being jerks about this.

More seriously, I've seen speculation that this is connected with great Swiss tradition of neutrality. Which is all well and good in general, but really, do you have to be neutral about a guy who fucking raped a little kid? I mean, I'm a great believer in compromise and "meetings of the mind" and such, but there comes a time when you put your normal principles aside for the greater good. I'm the stereotypical bleeding heart soft-on-crime liberal, but I'd happily castrate Polanski with a rusty soup spoon. MDB (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think a number of we Rationawikians are letting our personal emotions cloud our rational thoughts. SirChuckBCall the FBI 19:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
We're humans. It happens. MDB (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

One can make all the arguments in the world about what happened, but he was supposed to have received a sentence for his crime. That you disagree with how much time he was sentenced to is immaterial, it is the prosecutor's job to ensure that things are handled properly. We can speculate all you want on the evidence, but due process demands that technical details be followed. The state has no right to violate the rules of ethics and law in order to hold a criminal accountable to a crime. Calling for castration is outright cruel and unusual punishment. IF what is claimed actually happened, then he's a horrible horrible person, and he should have to spend the time required by his sentence, or stay the fuck out of the US jurisdiction. The US asked the Swiss to arrest him and extradite him, and they arrested him and started the extradition process, but questions were raised as to if the order were valid. The Swiss requested various materials from the US that the US were unable to supply, as a result, the Swiss were unable to ensure that a prima facie fault existed in the order, and were COMPELLED to refuse the order.

I here these right-wingers calling out "there is a rule of law in this land, and we simply demand that they be enforced". Yeah, well Switzerland also has their own laws, and they "simply demand that they be enforced". The law lets criminals off as well as picking criminals up. It's called rights. Does it suck? Yeah, it does, but it's better than indiscriminate police power to round up people for invented, or trumped up charges. --21:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Eira omtg! The Goat be praised.

Nicel put, Eira. 21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Good luck trying to convince Conservapedia that a clenched law enforcement fist isn't the hallmark of freedom. --Opcn (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the Swiss found a convenient legal loophole to sink the extradition. The justice ministry admitted that "national interests" (read: pressure from France) were taken into account. I'm sure that a less celebrated paedophile rapist would not have benefitted from a judgement on the grounds of "national interests" Bondurant (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

Conservapedia 1279020081213.jpg

Ken, you're doing it wrong.--PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Give him a break, he's only been sysop on a wiki for three years! --Sid (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
A sysop of The Conservapedia, I see. --Kels (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
41/2 hours and still not fixed. --PsyGremlinTal! 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Still borken... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Still borken. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
And Terry Koeckritz isn't much better than Ken with this series (follow the diffs) which still ends up with a double horizontal line (not yet fixed).  Lily Inspirate me. 06:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Aw! Terry's all butt-hurtimg now. --PsyGremlinParla! 14:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ban storms!

"A half-billion trees are killed, not by Mann-made global warming, but by a storm. This natural event caused release of much stored carbon, which could cause more storms and more destruction of trees. [3img Ban storms to prevent this???"]

So wait they admit that .5 billion trees can have an affect on the climate but not >6billion humans? — Unsigned, by: Raging / talk / contribs

You just got your first lesson in Conservapedia Logic. Welcome to the rabbit hole. DickTurpis (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
"Mann-made"? It kind of resembles a joke yet lacks all the characteristics of a joke. Very zen. Vulpius (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Would like a word with Andy. – Nick Heer 07:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
That's Andy's very clever pun he's so proud of. He uses it pretty often. Of course, he had to defend the spelling against numerous users who wanted to fix the "typo". But nothing enhances the humor of a joke quite as much as explaining it, right? DickTurpis (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I was planning to point out what Raging said upon seeing it, but before I did, I thought about it and I've once again over-estimated AndyLogic™ by thinking "Nah! He can't be that stupid...I must be misunderstanding something here." Guess I wasn't. ~SuperHamster Talk 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This is nothing unusual for climate change deniers. For years, the argument put forth is, basically, that the global warming that isn't actually happening is entirely natural. Even though that is a clearly self-contradictory argument. 92.18.10.23 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Andy fails at confirmation bias

I wish someone would poke the bear and ask Andy why there are only half as many conservative terms from this century as would be predicted by Conservapedia's Law. 207.67.17.45 (talk)

Don't bother, it's Obama's fault. When President Palin takes over in 2013 we'll get enough new conservative words to make up for the dearth of the aughts. DickTurpis (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Case in point, looks what's missing: "tea party", "hockey mom", "mama grizzly"...c'mon Andy! Do we have to do everything for you? DickTurpis (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Ripe for a parodists picking, they are. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh please god that they put 'tea party' in this century. MaxAlex Swimming pool 20:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
"While there may have been a tea party further in the past, it's undeniable that its true, conservative meaning is only showing itself now." --Sid (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Brainwashing, more fact than I expected

I'm actually surprised that they got a number of facts straight. It did come from 洗腦, even the pronunciation is correct. It did originate (in pp adj form: "brainwashed") from 1953, and the PRC declared itself in 1949.

Of course, the nonsense that it takes people from faith to atheism, it's actually takes anyone from any rational point to an originally undesirable belief system. Anyone risk fixing it? It could be a shiny gem of truth in the cesspool! --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

On CP, "any rational point" means "God the Almighty" while "an originally undesirable belief system" means "atheism". --Sid (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be the subjectivity of rationality rearing its ugly head again. But I doubt many people with agendas to push would care to mention the more general, and arguably more correct, definition. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 01:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Surely it is not so much taking "anyone from any rational point to an originally undesirable belief system" (which may be a subjective opinion) but a psychologically coercive change of beliefs. Changing Andy from a conservo-christo-fascist borderline loony into a rational agnostic evolutionist social-democrat would also require brainwashing as his current worldview is too imprinted for it to be changed by reasoned discourse. (Human I ran out of commas can you get some more from WP?)  Lily Inspirate me. 09:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Use them with care! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] TK threatens to soap up DP?

fun stuffimg — Unsigned, by: Opcn / talk / contribs

<derail>TK and username policy - anyone see any conflict in TK's handling here?
  • 04:04 . . TK blocked Webmastermind01 with an expiry time of 5 years (e-mail blocked) (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)
  • New! User talk:Chandru46‎; 04:02 . . (+125) . . TK (Welcome! Please read the provided links before editing. Any questions? Please ask!  :P)
Or is it just me? Worm(t | c) 09:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Going down the Brian Ugler route, maybe he's called Chris Handru, and he's the 46th person with that name to register on CP? Bondurant (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The "real name" rule is as consistently enforced as all other rules on CP: "If a sysop decides you broke it, you broke it. If not, then not." --Sid (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course some of these (like Bugler and JPratt) are arse about face and use a first initial with a surname. Terry Koeckritz gets away with just initials (omitting the middle F) and ConservativeRepublican, Karajou, Croicite, Learntogether, Freedom777 are completely opposite to what you would get at WP (or here).  Lily Inspirate me. 09:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad this thread isn't about TK soaping up to double penetrate someone. SJ Debaser 09:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
It most certainly is about that, given the depraved atheistic minds that operate here.--Brendiggg (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what's going on, Josh. One orifice with the (very small) penis between his legs, another with the big fuck-off penis on his forehead. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 10:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Baffled of Blackpool

Can anyone explain this diff? I fail to understand why a minor piece of formatting is down to the intellectual achievements of the Brits - but then, as a Brit, I'm probably too stupid. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me, but perhaps it was a shoutout to you? ħumanUser talk:Human 11:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, see section above titled "Editing". ħumanUser talk:Human 11:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe that's a dig at me. OK, so TK claims he did it deliberately - in that case too bad that he has absolutely no sense of aesthetics and is boastful of it. But that is par for the course at CP. For them, internet design began and ended with Geocities.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You think they got that far? Kindest thing anyone has said about them all week! ħumanUser talk:Human 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You should know me by now Huw, sweetness and light in all things.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] We are cuming for you!

Tk's youtube link is really creepy. Additionally it's not very honest. For one thing the people who made the video never trusted or could have felt betrayed by or voted for the politicians targeted. It's the swing voters who made the decision to elect Obama and it's the swing voters who made the choice about electing Obama and the dedicated republicans who made the video. All its missing is some heavy breathing, and maybe a blood splatter on the screen at the end. --Opcn (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is political slash fiction. - π 22:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Reward: 20 internets

20 internets to the first person to come up with a convincing argument to Schlafly that John R. Pierce was a heavy liberal, and as the coiner of the term 'transistor", it is thus "difficult to classify". It doesn't sound difficult, the guy lead dinner parties discussing political issues, and he later went into academia working on music! --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 10:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

50 internets to anyone who can get a term coined by Turing on the list. :) --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 10:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hell, 'Big Brother', 'doublethink', 'newspeak' and 'Orwellian' are on there. But of course, Orwell was a secret conservative. --Night Jaguar (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, heck, if "transistor" is a conservative word, does that mean William Shockley's notoriously racist views are conservative? MDB (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm pushing for 'apartheid'. Hell, it couldn't have been conceived by a more conservative bunch, plus they tick all Andy's boxes - think they were on a God-given mission, protect the locals (i.e. whites) from illegal immigrants (i.e. everybody else), anti abortion, pro guns... --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a Dutch word and the Dutch are the worst liberals in the world. Then again, how can it be a Dutch loanword if American doesn't use any foreign loanwords (Andy stated this somewhere, I think it was one of his previous lectures). --GTac (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Re the loan word thing, Dubya famously said that the French don't have a word for entrepeneur which is of course a French word. So there is a very conservative loan word. However, I read (heard?) recently that the French meaning of entrepeneur is different to that used in English and that they don't have a word that means the same. Not sure what that is meant to prove but I thought it was interesting (at the time).  Lily Inspirate me. 17:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
According to Snopes, Bush never said that. Nor did he wave to get Stevie Wonder's attention. MDB (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
MDB, what exactly was 'racist' about Shockley's views? He found that the ratio of children born to unskilled vs skilled blacks was higher than that of unskilled vs skilled whites, and hypothesised that an overall reduction in the net intelligence of that demographic could potentially undo all the good work achieved by the civil rights movement. Or did you read it as "all niggers are dumb y'all"? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Did he account for the reason different groups might be in the "skilled" or "unskilled" categories? "Unskilled" =/= "unintelligent". ħumanUser talk:Human 02:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Minor lulz

Maybe it's just me, but seeing Andy block rationalconservative for "inappropriate name" made me smile. --PsyGremlin講話 10:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how he'd respond to "irrationalconservative" then?  Lily Inspirate me. 12:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Mad as Hatters, the lot of them...

Can liberals disprove the pattern?img crows Andy. Well, let's see. You mean besides the fact that most of these words you've pulled out of your ass (transistor?) and the fact that were anybody to disprove your little fantasy on CP, they'd be immediately held down and gang raped by Ed and Terry blocked and oversighted. Show me one conservative commentator who's picked up on your miraculous Conservapedia's law. Just one. Disprove to me that you aren't a sad, lonely, insane wanker. --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

larron once did a highly amusing statistical analysis proving, to 95% confidence, that Andy pulled the numbers out of his earhole. Perhaps we ought to move it mainspace. — Pietrow 16:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
By all means (or the "Coservapedia" space). Link? DickTurpis (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I concur. It would be cool if larron could update the analysis (or sign off on someone else doing it, e.g. me). Andy has added a fair number of words since then so we should get an even better confidence level now. mb 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
CPalmer tries his best, but CP and "logical, reasoned debate"img are not even on the same planet, never mind ballpark. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Someone did get Andy to drop a word from his list once.img Though when it was shown pretty conclusively that the word was coined by JFK's administration, Andy termed it "difficult to classify." MDB (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Andy seems more interested in "the pattern" than what the pattern means. If you were to disprove anything it would be the conclusions drawn from the pattern. — Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.80 / talk / contribs
Its funny how he asks liberals to disprove it but as soon as one would try to disprove it you would be banned for being a liberal. Even going by dates alone they are wrong. Apple pie being from 1589, Life vest coming from Life Jacket which dates from 1848 and 1819, Big brother from 1837, etc, etc. But as soon as they fix the dates it wouldn't fit there pattern so I don't see them ever fixing this let alone removing all the words that are just plain silly. Quazywabbit (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
andy uses his faith to defend his listimg you have to break his faith to damage his argument, when you have broken his faith it doesn't matter if his argument works, he is insulated from the truth.--Opcn (talk)
Andy:""Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer deceit or self-worship instead." Argh, he reads like a lazy parodist. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I like his recent "calls" on MPL for "new words" to fill out the "next layer". He is so dense he doesn't even realize the reason for the pattern is he is "maintaining" it intentionally. It would be fun to see a graph by decade or even by year of his "terms". ħumanUser talk:Human 20:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's already been done for 25 and 50 year intervals. Surprise: 'Conservapedia's Law' fails (so at least it's well-named). --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Like these pics?

Bcw-100.png
Bcw-ecdf.png
Bcwc-25.png
Bcw-50.png

More details: Essay:Best New Conservative Words

larronsicut fur in nocte 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful graphs, as ever. What I find funniest is that Andy's exponent of the geometric growth is exactly 2 per century. Why the hell would this historical progression exactly double in an arbitrary, round amount of time? PubliusTalk 21:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Duh! God's design, idiot! This is proof positive that not only is Conservapedia's Law 100% fact, it is also divinely inspired. DickTurpis (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
But surely power of 3 or power of 7 would be more theologically justifiable? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
But it's a two-party-system! larronsicut fur in nocte 07:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Andy's challenge

I just penned a little letter to Andy (aschlafly AT aol.com)

Conservapedia: Your challange for Best New Conservative Words - Can any liberals disprove the pattern?

Dear Andy Schlafly,

at the Main page of Conservapedia you write:

That is the new number of Best New Conservative Terms by century as we find the next layer. Liberals doubt our observed doubling per century for these words, yet every layer reproves the remarkable growth pattern. Still looking for 6 more. Can any liberals disprove the pattern?

Of course, there are difficulties to disprove such a pattern. But it can be shown quite easily that it is were unlikely that the selection of words you label as conservative is randomly taken from a population of words which follow your remarkable growth pattern.

As you asked for a liberal to disprove your pattern, you can find the analysis at a place you believe to be liberal:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia_Talk:Best_New_Conservative_Words

Summary:

  • if the creation of conservative words follows a geometric distribution, this should be true not only for centuries, but for smaller classes: more words should be created in the second half of a century than in the first half, etc.
  • statistical tests applied to the classification into decades, 20 years, 25 years, and 50 years show that it is very improbable that there is a geometric growth pattern
  • this implicates that the pattern which is observed for the centuries is indeed artificial, i.e., it is created by actively (though maybe subconsciously) searching for words to follow the very pattern.

Hope this helps.

Yours Di***** Eb**

Conservapedia: User:DiEb RationalWiki : User:LArron


Well he's not going to click that link - it mentions the unmentionable place. Also I fear that, given the recent edits I've made to that article, it's a bit too mocking and Andy won't even reach the statistics section! :( However I do hope he'll reply, even if it's just the usual assfly screed. ONE / TALK 10:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Larron. I skimmed your letter and found it long on words but short in substance. You have yet to disprove that what I say is a conservative is not a conservative word. Also, if less conservative words meant that people stopped reading the Bible, would you still deny that America is becoming more and more conservative, until we get that nig... President out of the White House? Godspeed. Andrew Schlafly
Link should be : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Best_New_Conservative_Words#Statistics No? 10:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Indeed, it should have been. But - alas - too late :-( larronsicut fur in nocte 11:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, Andy uses AOL? That's gonna be fun. K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 17:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I got a nice answer by Andy (of course, I won't publish it without his permission). He isn't impressed by my reasoning and said that I could raise objections on the talk page at Conservapedia. Which I can't. So I wrote:


Dear Andy,
no, I can't raise my objections - as I'm blocked (together with my IP 109.90.***.*** ). As everyone blocked at CP, I claim that my block(s) were not justified :-)
(but if you take the time to check my contributions http://conservapedia.com/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=DiEb&namespace=&year=&month=-1 , you may come to a similar evaluation)
Do you think that religious awakenings became more frequent over the centuries - or that these religious awakenings just result in more terms over time?
Is there a preference for religious awakenings for certain decades?
It would be very interesting to discuss such questions on Conservapedia - and I would like to contribute to such a discussion in a civil manner.
Yours
Di… Eb…

larronsicut fur in nocte 21:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Andy's reply

We have always been at war with Eurasiaimg. --PsyGremlin講話 12:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I love how Andy constantly uses the excuse of "trimming" to correct patently wrong statements, hide embarrassing comments, and brush Ken's shit under the rug. ONE / TALK 13:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The challenge is still there: Can any cp:liberals disprove the pattern? And the answer: Yes, we can.... larronsicut fur in nocte 13:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't quite think "reprove" quite means what he thinks it does, either:
1 : to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent
2 : to express disapproval of : censure <it is not for me to reprove popular taste — D. W. Brogan>
or is he just obsolete?
3 obsolete : disprove, refute
4 obsolete : convince, convict
18:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Yeah, that had struck me as odd ever since he posted it. Too lazy so far to look it up though. Thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 18:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ha! Nice one, especially when Andy's beloved Merriam-Webster tells us "reprove implies an often kindly intent to correct a fault." Which is exactly what we're trying to do. --PsyGremlinParlez! 19:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
He should prolly try "re-prove": –verb (used with object), verb (used without object),... to prove again. 19:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Hilarious. But I can't see much point in contacting him about it. I mean, they do often claim about how liberals or atheists can't do X, Y and Z and this makes them right. It's a fantasy that they maintain and they do it by reverting and blocking and oversighting everything that is dissentful, it allows the fantasy that they have meaningful and watertight arguments to continue. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 18:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wow... just wow.

So much wrongimg so early in the morning. Andy's thumb-sucked words are, of course, "high quality level" in his own modest opinion. Then *gasp* Maggie Thatcher isn't really conservative enough. Why? Because she "seemed fine with nationalized health care". And probably because she didn't want to be hanged from the lightpole outside number 10... by her own party. Seriously, the man has no clue about anything. (Actually, I'm reminded of a joke. Winnie Mandela goes to the UK and meets Maggie, whereupon she introduces herself as "the Iron Lady of South Africa." Maggie looks her up and down and says, "Oh, and who do you iron for?") Then again, she must have been a good conservative, because like Saint Ronnie, she supported the apartheid regime, if only because they were fighting those naughty Cubans in Angola.--PsyGremlin講話 08:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You can understand Andy Pandy's objection if you apply CP-logic to the situation. Mrs T made Britain a more conservative country by going as far as she could in a pragmatic way. Many readers of RW might not like what she did but in her own terms, she was successful. CP-logic, however, says that instead of celebrating the successes she did have (using the Pool Tax to squeeze the poor, crushing trade unions, provoking a war by sinking a troop ship sailing away from a potential conflict zone) she should have thrown a screaming paddy because she couldn't do everything she wanted to do - including privatising the NHS. In CP-land, it's better to be out of power throwing a childish tantrum than to be in power doing what you can. Just like Militant Tendency, really. The Real James Brown (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the same reason that the NHS was a pain to set up in the first place, or it would be almost impossible for to impliment full on communism if a government wanted to - the country has a certain amount of momentum, built in tradition and convenience as well as stuff that just works to be able to get rid of it on an ideological whim like that. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 21:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Does Karajou lack ma-cheese-mo?

It would seem as if Popeye just oversighted Ken's latest emission on the mainpage. Did anybody catch it? Ha! Now for a smackdown in the new sysop's space. Can't wait for Terry to e-mail me the details.

On the subject of Ken, I had a good laugh at the following: "Liberals are unable to find a single factual error in the Conservapedia evolution, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, atheism, and homosexuality articles and the current inactivity on the talk pages of these articles by liberals is no accident." Well, not unless you count the banhammer and oversight as accidents, of course. --PsyGremlinHable! 19:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

He's right, you know. It isn't due to an accident, it's due to intentional banhammering. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Tried to WIGO the Pol Pot reference, but Ken deleted it before I had a chance. At least, I assume it was Ken since he was attempting to delete his 7 edits to his latest "news" post.72.224.42.45 (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I simply love that. Liberals are inactive on the talk pages of said articles, because they can't find a single thing wrong with themimg. Pah. Liberals on Conservapedia are banned simply for being liberal, without them ever touching any article or an associated talk page. And when they do get the chance to point out anything wrong or to critique anything anywhere on Conservapedia, they get blocked and oversighted with a reason ranging from "last wordism" to "talk, talk, talk" to "deceit" to even "lack of machismo". Sorry to point out the obvious, Karajou Ken. Darned oversights. ~SuperHamster Talk 19:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
This oversight seems to have been done to Karajou's own edit. As amazingly stupid as he usually is, for his post to be so stupid as to be removed, it must have been epically stupid. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
He is exactly right in his own way. No one other then sysops can freely edit the Evolution, Homosexuality, or Atheism articles, as Ken keeps them locked up tighter then a drum as his own personal fiefdoms. He will never allow any facts that possibly disturb his worldview on these subjects past the talk pages. Anyone who does object with sound, logical counterarguments just gets the banhammer anyway using whatever flimsy excuse. The old Soviet Union could only dream of political censorship with such quick and tight totalitarian controls in order to enforce ideological purity. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It just wouldn't be Ken if he didn't constantly insist that no one has ever found flaws in his "arguments" no matter how many times flaws are pointed out. It's phase three of his master plan, where phase one is adopt a obvious cunning alias, and two is to quote mine the shit out of some hapless scientists. He's been at it for years. CP is just the only place that didn't ban him for it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, user:Jj98 at wikipedia seems to have an odd obsession with CP's Alexa rankings.... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Jj's a new user - he's probably just looking for something to help out with. I believe that Conservapedia is one of the few lower-ranking website-related articles on Wikipedia that even has an Alexa ranking listed; he probably stumbled upon it and thought it should be up to date as much as possible. He did also update the Alexa ranking for the Wikipedia article (of course, that doesn't need to be updated nearly as frequently). I myself update Conservapedia's ranking whenever I'm bored and I see that it has changed a bit, but not nearly as frequently as Jj in such a small time slot. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I make a habit of uploading a new screenshot of their mainpage when it's especially whacky. After all, they can't complain that I'm doing them harm, just because they turn the main page into something parodists can only dream about. PsyGremlinPraat! 09:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that the screenshot has been deleted, as of the result of this discussion. It was simply too large. Why? Because Conservapedia keeps an enormous, out-of-place news section on their homepage. All the other website screenshots on Wikipedia do just fine, as most other websites tend to actually know how to run a homepage. ~SuperHamster Talk 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] 72.224.42.45 FTW!!!!

That 1984 WIGO is spot on. 02:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

I think it's a pretty lame WIGO -- in the same vein, Wikipedia redirects wp:Academic honesty to wp:Academic dishonesty. Nothing to see here, folks. --Benod (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
A short-lived redirect created by a parodist? Meh... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Susan :-) 72.224.42.45 (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] What a fucking douche

ah yup.img AceX-102 06:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Par for the course for TightKnickers. Doing exactly what he did at Hot or Not, "I am the way, the lies and your blocking. Nobody gets to edit CP but through me."
But on the subject of douches, I love Ken's replyimg, along the lines of, "Tony they're MY articles and I'm not going to open them up for sane people to edit. If you have changes, put them on the talk page, but "current priorities and requests on my time may preclude me from responding to your postings on the talk pages promptly" which means I'll just ignore them until TK blocks you and I can delete the talk page. It's funny how these "current priorities and requests on my time" never stopped his marathon editing sprees before. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 07:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
At least TK's honest about it. Ed tried to make Conservapedia look like it is at least a little bit neutral. Conservapedia offers the best of both worlds? Nah, more like the best of one world, and the worst of the other. ~SuperHamster Talk 12:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No no, you dumb shits. I mean his pithy and heartfelt reference to HCM. Christ man the guy is runnier and more shit laden than a shut-ins anal seepage. AceX-102 12:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Go to bed so you can think about the raging hardon you've given TopKunt by talking about him. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 12:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "This is reason #978 that Obamageddon is getting closer every day."

According to TK, putting something about gay and lesbians into an immigration legislation is reason #978img that "Obamageddon" is getting closer every day. Are there another 977 reasons that I'm unaware of? Or is he going Andy-style and making the numbers fit to his preference - but without even including the reasons (at least Andy includes words and definitions when he's talking about Conservative words...)? ~SuperHamster Talk 12:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's just of the whimsical form "reason #979 TK is a twat". Doesn't belong in a news item, but then most of what they put on their main page doesn't belong either. ħumanUser talk:Human 12:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This is one of those moments when you can see right through the hate the sin, love the sinner bullshit. They just hate gay people, end of story. Or I suppose it could just be TightKnickers trolling again. Whichever. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Same old, same old

After being away from WIGO CP for a month, I'm amazed at two things: (a) exactly the same things are going on as when I left: Ed was making stubs about movies with young girls, Andy was messing with his dictionary, TK was doing his usual stuff, Ken was spamming illegible articles about Dawkins et al., and (b) how has this not gotten boring by now? (Also, whatever happened to JacobB? He was the only hope for excitement around these parts.) Tetronian you're clueless 13:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

JacobB and DouglasA are parodists. There's nothing for them to meddle in or corrupt - the legitimate sysops are doing a fine job of that by themselves - so they're not active. At the same time, they don't want to reveal themselves or try to take out TK because they put a lot of work into those accounts. So they do nothing. Personally I want them to try and take out TK. Let's have a return to the old days of late '08 before TK rose again. EddyP (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Night time mode?

Is it night time all the time now at CP? --Opcn (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it. When I tried to edit (not logged in) some random article, it gave me this:
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, edit.
It's never possible to edit CP as an IP (not logged in). ħumanUser talk:Human 22:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
That's not the point. When you try to edit CP as an IP, you see one of two different messages:
  • The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, Administrators, edit. -or:
  • The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, edit.
In the first case, night mode is off, in the second case, night mode is on.
larronsicut fur in nocte 22:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Normally (meaning when it's not Night Time), it should also have "users" or something like that in the list of groups. --Sid (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
night editing 2010
night editing 2008
Updated last week: Conservapedia:Night editing larronsicut fur in nocte 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
So is night editing just when Schlafly isn't personally online? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 21:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
My pet theory: it's the fault of Guard Dog, really. When it went mad (as far as I can see because MediaWiki changed the format of the dates), it was never replaced or repaired (perhaps out of fear that it could be abused by its former master PJR). So, every time there is an onslaught on Conservapedia of the more primitive kind, someone panics and turns off public editing.
Seemingly, the other sysops aren't informed about such a step, and there is no guideline how long the panic mode should be. As it doesn't bother the other sysops, public editing is only switched on again if the first sysop remembers to do so - or if another sysops checks why no ordinary editors are commenting.
larronsicut fur in nocte 21:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Ken blocked me a while ago, when ever I go to look at the history of MPR I click on the like to edit the template and see what is needed. --Opcn (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Why do they go to nightime edit mode instead of just shutting off new user registration? It seems to me that that typically works. --Opcn (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's editing that hurts, not users signing up. If a user signs up at noon, then waits until three in the morning to edit, the likelihood that someone is online at that time to undo that edit isn't as high as during the day time. ~SuperHamster Talk 00:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, I agree with night time at night, I was thinking about during the day though. If night time mode is on all of the smash and run editors stop and wait for editing to be turned on again, and then you have destructive editors when evder you have editing. If you shut off user registration then you only have the smash and run editors when you are willing to turn it on, but you can still have contributors at other times. --Opcn (talk)
Well, for one, you have he same problem since all the vandals will just wait until registration is switched back on and then go on a spree. And stopping multiple vandals right after you open the floodgate isn't exactly pretty. The second issue is that CP still claims to be a free-for-all, new-people-welcome wiki, so they limit the no-registration times to real emergencies such as a whole flood of vandal accounts being created faster than the sysops can ban. This is the same reason why Andy never went with an apply-to-register scheme (even though the suggestion has repeatedly come up in the secret discussion groups, if I recall correctly). --Sid (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] NAACP is racist

According to Mark Williams, chairman of the Tea Party Express, via DanielPulido. Of course, he left out other Mark Williams remarks about the NAACP, such as:

[T]hey make more money off of race than any slave trader ever.

And this mock letter from the NAACP leadership to Abe Lincoln:

Dear Mr. Lincoln, We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop! In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’. The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds. And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions! The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right. Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society? Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong. Sincerely, Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person

[8]

Wonder why Daniel didn't think those should be added as further evidence against the NAACP.72.224.42.45 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Three squares, room and board" someone doesn't know what "board" means... ħumanUser talk:Human 13:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Board, as in, "You don't get a bed, you have to sleep on this board" 72.224.42.45 (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Funny parody in the fact that it suddenly lurches from supposedly authentic terminology about "coloreds" right into modern rhetoric that's only recognisable to modern US conerservatives, the juxtaposition is pure art. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 21:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I remember reading about some porn artist using another artist as defense against obscenity charges. The other artist shits in a tin, and one of them sold for around $70,000 or something like that. So, yeah, I could definitely call this sort of a rant "pure art", given the precedent established by some artists.  :) --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 22:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Two girls, one cup is art?  Lily Inspirate me. 08:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Why yes! Scarlet A.pnggnostic 15:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Some more general purpose classic fail

Take a lookimg it still says that the publish or perish attitude in science leads to scientists throwing out things that don't support a theory, ignoring that the publish or perish mentality drives directly against that kind of thing (how do you publish what you've suppressed?) --Opcn (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The two things you assert are not actually mutually exclusive. You wouldn't publish what you've suppressed, you would publish stuff that ignores what you've suppressed. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 06:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Or you could publish and not bother to suppress, or you could publish and acknowledge. Yes it is still possible to publish and suppress, no suppressing does not speed the process up, yes it does slow the process down, and it's risky for your carrier. Suppression happens primarily when someone is emotionally invested in one outcome or another, not when they just want to put something out there to show that they have been doing real work not building E. coli that simulate pong for a lab wide elimination challenge. --Opcn (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not risky for your career when everyone is suppressing it during the great AGW hoax. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Red Phone

Fucktard, UAF is in Alaska. --Opcn (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont't get it, who say it's not? — Unsigned, by: 98.232.106.244 / talk / contribs
Kenservativeimg--Opcn (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It's creepy that even Ken is routinely checkusering other editors.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
He's hoping to find some nice young conservative boy in Buffalo who he can share his fascination revulsion for homosexuality with. --Kels (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Also also, Dawkins was in Alaska this week indoctrinating children to his atheist dogma. Icewedge went and saw him, I read it here! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia Physics

Have you noticed that Andy has made a U-turn? Not very long ago he was suggesting that Liberals needed to open their minds to the idea that the force of gravity might not follow the inverse of the square law, and that the solar system might not be stable in the long term. I'm sure he can't see the contradictions in his position though! — Unsigned, by: 77.86.119.111 / talk / contribs

Actually, this is a good point. Hasn't Andy been arguing that carbon 14 dating is wrong, because decay rates could have changed, and the fact the speed of light was never constant explains the starlight problem. Suddenly, he's gone from wanting chaos to wanting order and it's the atheists' fault. I'm sure the man is losing his mind - he certainly seems to be losing track of which excuse to use this week. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Change is not necessarily a sign of disorder. If starlight speed decreased by 50% above the constant per 100 years I'll bet the schlafster would be fine with that. --Opcn (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, does anyone else remember Andy suggesting that gravitational relationships might be covered by an exponent that wasn't exactly two? --Opcn (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. See this. (Not capturing; assume they won't burn it; have saved it in case they do.) Note that SamHB traced Andy's delusion all the way back to the source—a proposal by Simon Newcomb that the exponent is 2.000000157, and proceeded to hand Andy his head. You see, that exponent gives the correct precession for Mercury, but gives the same precession (relative to that planet's own year) for everything that orbits something. So it was quickly (100 years ago) found that it doesn't work for the moon, which has a "year" (month) 1/7th that of Mercury, and would therefore show much larger precession. And now, with artificial satellites that orbit every 100 minutes, the precession would be gigantic. Gauss (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Precision or Precession? I only ask, because precession actually is an astronomy term. --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 01:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious that "precession" is what is meant. Considering the astronomy context. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Another election for CP to know nothing about

I don't know anyone who is expecting the Liberal-Nationals to winimg. - π 12:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I know who people are putting their money on. - π 12:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Sayeth the article, "Labor led the Liberal-National block 52%-48% in a Nielsen poll published this week, while 56% of respondents chose Gillard as their preferred prime minister, to 35% for Abbott. History is against Abbott's Liberal-National block defeating Labor after a single term in office: Australia's last one-term government was during the Great Depression of the 1930s. "We go into the election as underdogs," Abbott told reporters in Brisbane, but added that his coalition will make a "credible" alternative government." Clear evidence of another conservative landslide victory in the making. Röstigraben (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Should someone tell them that labour union is something more or less a communist concept, and therefore it's liberal versus the communists? That would be fun. K61824What is going on? 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The octopus has spoken: Gillard it is. Sorry, Andy. Röstigraben (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
But not The Octopus. CS Miller (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I think, with news agencies in such dire financial straits, they should all cut their investigative reporting staffs by 90% and each should get its own octopus. DickTurpis (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see the Conservapedians talking up the LIBERALS to win over Labour. That would cause such an identity crisis! (RagTop, not signed in.)

[edit] Whither Wither Conservapedia

based on a chat I'm having, I thought that seeing as CP is an on-line media, directed at a specific target audience, then surely a good measure of success (besides Ken's link-spammed Google ratings) would be you impact on your on-line target market. So just how have CP fared:

Just sayin'. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 17:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh God! Someone should post this somewhere on CP... with either honest, heartfelt exortations ("Come on guys! Let's get to work and in one month we'll be in the top 10!") or with accusations to www.rightwingnews.com, www.intellectualconservative.com, etc, that they have been biased by the liberal mainstream media ;) ...I doubt that such a post would last more than 15 minutes, though. --Maquissar (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Try Conservapedia:Supportive links. Auld Nick (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think CP's credibility with the rest of the Raving Right has been holed below the waterline by an iceberg of their own making, the Conservative Bible Project. (Incidentally, I don't see a reply yet from Professor Douglas Moo to Ignoramus Andy Schlafly. Is Prof Moo about to join the ranks of Liberal Panty-Waists Who Lack Ma-Cheese-Mo Because They're Afraid To Debate With Andy Schlafly?) The Real James Brown (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Right Wing News #37 http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/03/the_50_most_popular_websites_o.php
DBKP We missed Conservapedia. With a Alexa Rank of 62388, the site would have come in at #45 http://deathby1000papercuts.com/dbkpreport/ — Unsigned, by: 193.200.150.125 / talk / contribs
Good catch on DBKP, that's one month or so more recent. The RWN one is from March 09 though, guess CP have fallen off their radar. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Slightly off topic, but Right Wing News is one of the worst websites on the Internet. It's like CP, except they're all genuine. --IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!YossarianThe Man from the USSR 22:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Crikey. Some of the stuff on RWN makes CP look rational. Are these the sort of people who support Palin? The Real James Brown (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
As a devoted reader for the past five years or so (or however long it's been) I can emphatically say yes. I remember they once said something to the effect of "all Palestinians are terrorists and should be destroyed". This from people who would have been Nazis 60 years ago. --sloqɯʎs puɐ suƃısuɐɪɹɐssoʎ 23:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this represents a great failure on the part of Andy. In a nation where Fox News is considered a legitimate news source by a large part of the population a conservative encyclopedia could have done very well. However, it seems his ego and incompetence have alienated other Christian conservatives. Now it just seems a place for parodists and the mentally disturbed. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Right Wing News and Democratic Underground are the two ends of that same stick of crazy. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] I can't believe I found this first

cp:Conservapedia:The Unborn Child

Wow, another Andy brilliangasm! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that is gonna be lovely. Andy Schlafly MD now is it? 05:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I've been watching it for hours, just didn't think anyone else would care. The best part is the psychology of the fetus --Opcn (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, the best part is ALL OF IT! 06:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I can imagine his sales pitch for this one - "sign up now, or we'll have to abort this course..." Röstigraben (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Weeks 4 and 5 with guest lecturer Kenneth DeMyer? Vulpius (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Only if he's allowed to show his presentation to prove conclusively that latino women increasingly believe that babies lack machismo. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 11:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget creepy Uncle Ed, with his hands-on demonstration of how unborn children are made. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe he waits until week 9 before launching into his liberal-bashing. Btw, what's the purpose of this course, surely not for academic credit? --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Apropos of our conversation yesterday, Psy, I'm frankly not surprised that you don't know the answer to this . In the United States it goes without saying that of course you can get academic credit for taking a course consisting of the narrow-minded and poorly informed religious rants of a sometimes homeschool teacher on his blog. Duh. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 15:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Aw, now he changed the schedule and my comment makes no sense anymore. Vulpius (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a difflink to the version you commented on? ħumanUser talk:Human 15:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:The_Unborn_Child&diff=prev&oldid=795382 Vulpius (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 23:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Assuming that anything resembling biology isn't really going to be covered, we could be in for some pretty funny homework assignments here... --MarkGall (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a primer on Stork Theory is in order to get students ready to tackle this kind of subject? CPs articles on human reproduction would suggest that CP editors have managed to find a way to reproduce without the need for genitals. Leaves me wondering if when Andy and chums drop their pants do they see genitals or do they instead have smooth plastic surfaces of the kind Action Man used to have before they gave him underpants. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the article may still bear the gentle echoes of one of my clauses. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Block message wigo

I don't get it. The block reason is a "content was:" message, which is truncated by the software. The wigo makes it looks like Karaturd wrote it and is stupid for fucking it up. Am I missing something? ONE / TALK 20:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia:Parthian shot/Stryker --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC) If you're talking about the one I think you are, it's the deletion log, not a block reason. Based on the wigo, it looks like whoever wrote it was drawing attention to the assertion on the deleted page, rather than the deletion itself. This assertion (that all IPs of Ivy League universities are blocked from CP) might be interesting if it was backed up with examples &/or analysis, but as it doesn't appear to be. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The only IL uni currently listed at Conservapedia:Blocking the Planet#Americas is Brown. If anyone has further examples, please add. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added a link to our copy of the Parthian in the WIGO. 22:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Good idea, Susan. Silly wigo anyway, since the parthian was three years ago. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] They just need to learn to reframe is all

What do you mean the borders aren't closed? a whole truck load of people got the death penalty for trying to crossimg How much more closed could they be?--Opcn (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's spelled "dying", not "dieing" TK, you idiot.--Brendiggg (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
As someone who cannot spell but hopefully is not an idiot I respectfully request that you rethink your criticism. I don't have anything to show to indicate non-idiocy but this is the internet, so I'll make some shit up. I once cured cancer with only a toothpick, a satchel full of used kitty litter, an Armenian flag, and a bottle of nail polish remover, but I lost the formula to Steven Hawkings [Sic] in a game of texas holdem I had Q9 which gave me two pair but he ended up with a Queen high straight flush, so he rolled off with the pot, and the kitty, and the recipe. --Opcn (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Got enough messiahs as it is and then you come along with so many lucid truths! Might follow your dogma for a bit.--Brendiggg (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] A poor workman always blames his tools.

Sorry, Terry, but poor spelling isn't Firefox'simg problem. Mine knows that "dieing" is misspelled. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

See above. "Chief proof readers of Conservapedia" indeed. You're welcome, guys, glad to be of service! Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Really, you don't expect me to read stuff that's long in words but short on facts do you? Skimming works fine for that. I'm starting the count down until Terry copy/pastes an article on how evil Firefox and its creators are, when compared to saintly Bill Gates' IE (or wait, is Gates on their shitlist, or Steve Jobs? It's hard to keep up.) I'd love to see TK spin lolifox. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
IIRC Google Chrome has spell check built-in and therefore I think He's blaming firefox for not providing such feature in the windows (I think my linux box may have spellchecking tools that firefox utilizes in part of default installation, for the distro I am using anyways) default installation. K61824"6+18=24" 15:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
All the major browsers have spellchecking by default now, even in the Windows versions. Although the Opera one was a bit tricky to change the dictionary from US to UK until the more recent versions. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 15:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Firefox was the first to come standard with spell check, Back when I used IE in highschool I had to install a spell check add on. Chrome has spell check too, but it sucks majorly (sp?) because it can only correct one letter at a time and is missing a lot of words. --Opcn (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Chrome's spellcheck is pretty annoying, for two reasons. One, it marks words that aren't wrong as wrong (for example, the word "spellcheck" I just used in the last sentence has a lovely red line under it...), and number two, for some odd reason, it seems to fail to spellcheck on random occasions, most notably when I'm editing Wikipedia. I've spelling "participate" as "particpate" and it didn't catch it for some reason (though it did just now when it is least necessary). Ah well. I can't really blame it, as Chrome is a newer browser. ~SuperHamster Talk 20:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
FF spellchecks the edit box for me, but, amusingly, not the edit comment box. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
FF, by default, only spell-checks multi-line text boxes. Right-click in a single-line text box and and select "Check Spelling" if you want to enable it for the current text box. CS Miller (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a poor workman does blame his tools and using a spellchecker requires a bit of intelligence - fro is a common typo of for but still a correct word - you have to know the context. Dieing is a proper (if little used) word meaning cutting with a die, so it's not Firefox's fault if TK is just an ingorant twat.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Hey Terry, it was Brendiggg not Opcn who pointed out your spelling error.  Lily Inspirate me. 16:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I must admit, for The-Site-That_Shall-Not-Be-Named, we do get an awful lot of shout-outs from Terry-kins. Maybe he misses us. All in favour of unblocking TK say "kjdshkidsfkdsnvbgdf;bgvdfnbgvnhjbgvvaklll'o". --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 16:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
For Terry Koeckritz, CP is like one of those inflatable sex dolls. He's had his pleasure with it but now its been punctured by his little prick he's losing interest, it's only when somebody blows some more air into it that he has another poke. He certainly doesn't do much about fixing it himself. So in the meantime he hangs around here, hoping to get a wave from... well, anybody.  Lily Inspirate me. 19:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Accounting

is not a 'substantive course' in Andy's world.img Probably because it's very hard to put conservative spin on the double entry system. (No Uncle Ed jokes, please) Btw, is that an admission by Andy, that he's not teaching his homeschoolers, but indoctrinating them? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The homework could be fascinating. "You have been assigned to audit the financial transactions of Teaparty Inc. You notice they have terminated their contract with Gazetteer LLC, a US company who previously provided them with printing services. At the same time, they initiated a contract with Gutenburg Ltd., a wholly owned foreign subsidiary of Gazetteer who now provide Teaparty with substantially similar services. Is this, (a) An abusive and almost certainly illegal attempt to avoid paying various employment related taxes. (b) A perfectly acceptable cost cutting measure. (c) None of your business, you nosy fucking accountant scum. The federal government has no right to tax its citizens, I know because I once had a dinner conversation with someone who once read a letter of George Washington's." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I dunno. He's managed to twist some pretty solid physics theories around, and certainly his treatment of maths would suggest that he's not afraid to call a spade a small village in the Cotswolds. It's probably because he's just totally unfamiliar with that field, and it's kind of difficult to find controversial windmills he can tilt at. Mind you, he could try to blame the collapse of Worldcom on liberal bias in accounting. ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 20:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
"Focus on topics that are [...] more susceptible to liberal bias"? Much like how Conservapedia spends much more energy on slinging mud at Wikipedia and other "liberal" targets, rather than focusing on, you know, building all those boring encyclopaedia articles? This guy has a mindset. He's not an educator, he's trying to further his cause. If he were an educator, he'd spent time on - oh, I don't know - educating people. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone arguing that accounting isn't a substantive course has clearly never taken an accounting course... with so much raw information (definitions, basic analysis of the accounting equation, etc) it probably would make a halfway decent course to be taught through an online medium. Maybe not as fun and mind-opening as the unborn child... but regardless. Ricardo Altamirano Talk 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Good question, Ken

Why haven't the Obama's addressed the real and relevant issue of Obesity among lesbians. AceX-102 22:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Ken only dislikes fat lesbians. Are lesbians acceptable people if they're skinny and cute?--WJThomas (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm skinny, dunno about cute though (can you be cute at 66yo?). 02:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I am sure you were a heart breaker in your day Susan. AceX-102 02:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The general rule seems to be that if you can give a guy a boner all is forgiven. That is why you'll get conservative groups spending RNC money at a lesbian club to watch young svelte ladies make out topless but will simultaneously condemn fat dykes to hell. That's just how it goes. DickTurpis (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ken is a total mutant. He adds info here then suggest for further reading to go here and read the exact same thing. When I was 8 I had more going on than Ken does. AceX-102 03:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
8? Living on the bottom of the planet must get your blood pumping all wrong. Most of us had Ken beat by age 6. DickTurpis (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I was taking sips of sherry before my Saturday morning sports games which might explain it. AceX-102 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
And again...... AceX-102 03:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Post-Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. That explains it. DickTurpis (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I remember spilling brandy all down the front of my cricketing whites one morning when I was like 9. Got in a bit of trouble for that. AceX-102 03:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope that taught you never to mix brandy with blackcurrant. Also, Ken's "further reading" stupidity is a common trick of his. Just browse through his epic drivels on Evolution, Homosexuality and Atheism - he does it all the time in the belief that it enchances his pageview ma-cheese-homo.  Lily Inspirate me. 06:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick conservative guide to lesbians: acceptable; condemned to hell. (BTW, don't do an unfiltered google image search for "lesbians" unless you're prepared to be inundated with lots of NSFW pictures.) DickTurpis (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at the lady on left of the latter image, the funnier and more interesting it gets. She has a slight facial resemblance to a man, and by the look on her face, she seems to be thinking "is that a hotdog over there?" But maybe I'm being too harsh. She seems like a very nice lady, and as a matter of fact, she's not ugly at all, at least when compared to some people. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Or some other people. DickTurpis (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Great God! I just had breakfast, PLEASE, remove that thing or at least add some kind of warning! --Maquissar (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It annoys me that somehow only fat women can be dykes. I've seen many pretty nubile young lasses who were lesbians and also many, many, more (as there are more straights than gays anyway) grossly fat & ugly women who were not only heterosexual (and married) but from the Bible Belt. But the same applies to guys, there are good looking slim gay guys and fat & ugly gays. Basically, body appearance (other than dodgy facial hair) is no reliable indicator of sexuality.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I just found this piece about our own, lovely, svelte, Conservative, Catholic MP, Ms Ann Widdecombe who must obviously attract the cheesy latinos.  Lily Inspirate me.
When I asked to remove "that thing", I was of course referring to Ed's photo! Just in case it wasn't clear :) --Maquissar (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support