Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 319: Line 319:
 
== And so the indoctrination begins. ==
 
== And so the indoctrination begins. ==
  
Andy might be in favour of classroom prayer, but it seems brainwashing is high on his agenda too <capture>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Am_Govt_Homework_One_Answers_-_Student_Two.]</capture> Any bets on how many marks you'd receive for saying the Dems would win the Nov elections? --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 11:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
+
Andy might be in favour of classroom prayer, but it seems brainwashing is high on his agenda too <capture>[http://www.conservapedia.com/Am_Govt_Homework_One_Answers_-_Student_Two].</capture> Any bets on how many marks you'd receive for saying the Dems would win the Nov elections? --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 11:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:Might wanna check that link, Psy. 11:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC) [[File:TerrySmall.png|alt=SusanG|text-bottom|20px|link=User:SusanG]] [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 
:Might wanna check that link, Psy. 11:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC) [[File:TerrySmall.png|alt=SusanG|text-bottom|20px|link=User:SusanG]] [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 +
::I fixed it. [[User:TerrenceKoeckring|TerrenceKoeckring]] ([[User talk:TerrenceKoeckring|talk]]) 11:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:55, 4 September 2010

What is going on?

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

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

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

For non CP-related talk, please mosey on over to the saloon bar.

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

Socialist obama.jpg

Obamageddon Meter

RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard

I'm disentangling myself from this shit

Over the past few months I've been growing increasingly unhappy about the fact that I'm still following this freak show. Watching Schlaf and the Schlafettes, such as there remain, has become a sadder waste of life than most versions of Big Brother. People on my side of thirty should know better. Ken is sick. Andy can no longer be considered truly healthy either. Neither is tuned in to political and scientific consensus reality with any useful degree of resonance any more. Not many others are left. Two years ago laughing at the Schlaflyites falling over their own feet and bumping into things was like laughing at bunch of inebriated trailer dwellers. Now it's like laughing at a busload of spastics.

Three weeks from now, on September 19, I will mothball all my archive, graph generation, and KenBot scripts, and then permaban myself by adding dummy entries for conservapedia.com and rationalwiki.org to my /etc/hosts files. If anybody wants to keep updating the archive or run KenBot in my stead I'll be happy to hand over the sauce and the data it has accumulated so far. mb 01:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Lenski affair was observed by scientists, the Conservapedia Bible Project at least by Colbert, while the Counterexamples to Relativity stirred up a couple of bloggers at best: perhaps their next publicity stunt will be only reported by FSTDT.
When conservapedia started, there was the general sentiment that it could become important. They have proven otherwise.
So, I can agree with your sentiment: even today, the list of Conservapedia:Active users seems to be reduced to lunatics (including Andy and Ken), parodists (including TK) and a pompous idiot. In a couple of months, there may be no reason to update it...
The thing is: I don't think that you should permaban yourself from RationalWiki. At the moment, my favourite article on our site is Citizendium. Okay, it's a death-watch, too...
larronsicut fur in nocte 08:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not that I dislike Rationalwiki itself, it's that I dislike the way I've been using WIGO:CP as a humiliation porn TGP. Claiming to follow WIGO:CP for the discourse is like claiming to watch Jerry Springer for the set design and Facial Abuse for the sound editing. mb 10:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
So turn away, stop watching, enjoy other aspects of the RW? ħumanUser talk:Human 10:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The only bits of RW worth reading are the WIGO pages. The rest of it consists of badly-written rants that used to conform only to Human's point of view, and now only conform to David Gerard's. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Something of a generalisation, don't you think? Webbtje (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Not much of one. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't mind Neveruse (I'm sorry, "TerrenceKoeckring"), Webbtje. He's just cranky that he failed to make everyone hate David Gerard. Colonel of Squirrels禁止不是法西斯 17:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, uh...I'm everywhere? And legion? And most people do dislike Gerard, but that's not what it's about in the first place. Tool. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
[citation needed] I want to see the poll. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
what's the cool voting option template (besides {{vote}}? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually one of the ten users on this site who isn't a sock of Neveruse. But I can't stand Gerard either. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
That's what all my socks say. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to post better CP WIGOs - David Gerard (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Please to improve in this case. I find it difficult to argue with you, but you can make it better. We have the potential, everyone is just too obsessed with WIGO. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. The only purpose for RW is the WIGO pages. If you want information, go to Wikipedia or other sites. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There is value in being able to give a snarky sendup of pseudo-scientific topics, but to your point, it only serves to preach to the choir. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I was just going to point that out. I like the freedom to express my mind accurately without fear that I'm going to be reverted because I'm being far too sarcastic, and angry. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 18:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
There are many things we offer that no other place does user:tmtoulouse/niche, if the only place you hang out is wigo that is fine, but it also means that your opinion of the rest of the site is worthless. tmtoulouse 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
That's obviously untrue. WIGO being the only place people hang out very well may indicate that it's the rest of the site that's worthless. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
So, we have sentiments expressed that parellal what I've stated; RW & WIGO were created and exist for little other than to slander and harass living persons. nobsdon't bother me 23:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Lest anyone reading this section without care believes that Rob accurately characterizes the sentiments expressed here. ... Rob, I question your reading ability. Nutty Rouxnever mind 23:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes because that bastion of truth that is conservapedia would never dare slander anyone. AceX-102 23:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Rob, "slander" means "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report". "Harass" means "to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute". Everything on WIGO CP uses your own words to condemn you, so find better words or fuck off. And learn to spell "parallel".
Trent, I only hang out on the WIGO pages because I've read a lot of the other pages and come to my conclusions. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to interrupt Rob's trolling chime in, I would've stopped paying attention to RW by now if it were just the WIGOs and/or CP namespace. A few of the articles are just badly written essays, but most are good fun. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 03:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Robert, I know you're awfully thick at times, but try to follow. A: A defamatory statement is referred to as slanderous when it is not recorded in any form of permanent or semi-permanent media; if it is recorded, it is libel. This is not difficult to understand. You're (allegedly) an adult, so learn to pick your words carefully and stop happily raping legal terminology which you could not possibly hope to meaningfully comprehend. B: Accusing RW of 'slander' could well be construed as a libellous accusation in itself. Go back to your kennel. Webbtje (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Good faith accusations of legal violations are automatically exempted from defamation law (in the US at the very least). So, if someone accuses you of slander, but you actually committed libel, there are three options. A) they don't sue you, and no court in the world would allow you to hold this technicality up as a defamation suit. B) No lawyer actually bringing a suit against you would make the slander/libel mistake, and C) even if they did a small claims defamation suit, the best you could do is get a dismissal without prejudice, so that your opponent can refile under the correct terms. However, in a small claims court, they're actually more likely to overlook technicalities in the interest of justice, and the judge would simply amend the claim at the trial.
Some statements here on RW are clearly potentially defamatory. The reason that they're protected is usually because of truth, public stature of the individual, or simply it's a statement of opinion. (Note that obscene remarks about another person are typically automatically considered a statement of opinion. Apparently though, calling another girl a "slut" could be defamatory if her lack of sexual promiscuity is a moral character for her. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 17:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Shut up, you ignorant slut! ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 23:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
E1009.png

Update: August is over and the charting software would like to say goodbye godspeed to everyone as per the above announcement. As we can see in the pretty picture on the right Conservapedia has reached the point where but one android silly kid, with a single weapon completely trivial vandalbot, can casually double the number of edits and triple the number of article edits they get.

Of course doubling their edits and tripling their article edits just barely gets them back to the level of activity they had eight months ago. All together now, one more time, for old time's sake: the site is growing rapidly. mb 10:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Moar update: The archiver cronjob is history. Effective immediately, anything Terry oversights before somebody screencaps it is actually gone. The archive and the sorry mess of sloppy scripts behind it are available for the asking and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. mb 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To RobS

What the heck does thisimg mean? Please don't tell me you're praising Obama for leaving Iraq and blaming him for not finding bin Laden in the same paragraph. Tetronian you're clueless 00:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I like that it was somehow Bush's idea. AceX-102 00:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Bush actually did establish a timeline with the Iraqi government for a 2011 pull out of all our troops. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I know, but its just such a convoluted post. AceX-102 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Most certainly, however the statement "Obama is keeping Bush's promise to remove all troops from Iraq" is an accurate and truthful statement. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Que RoBS's pointing and laughing at the so called called Rational Ace....AceX-102 00:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
"Cue" and, rationality doesn't mean never making errors... it means admitting them when you're wrong. :) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 00:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Tetronian you're clueless 00:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
But yeah, where is Rob? This is an explanation I cannot wait to hear. Tetronian you're clueless 00:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Premise A: No person can make a promise for another person, with out having permission to speak on that persons behalf.
Premise B: Bush did not have Obama's permission to make promises on his behalf.
Conclusion 1: Bush cannot have made a promise for Obama.
Conclusion 2: Obama cannot uphold a promise by Bush.
Premise C: Saying that "Obama has upheld Bush's promise" necessarily relies on a promise being in place to uphold
Conclusion 3: The statement "Obama has upheld Bush's promise" is necessarily false.
Q.E.D.
In addition to that Bush announced a plan to be out nearly 3 years into the first term of his successor, which means a lot of stuff would happen in between him leaving office and the fruition of the plan. Obama revised the war plan and did away with many of the Bush era plans. Obama made his own promise, independent of Bush, and he came through on it. Bush set the bar really low, while bailing responsibility onto whomever came next. I am not a profound detractor of Bush, I have often risen to his defense, but he deserves exactly none of the credit for this development. Obama made set the goals, made the choices, and took the risks. After that it would be criminal to give Bush the credit. --Opcn (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Bush as Chief Executive Officer negotiated a deadline for withdraw of the entire US forces. Such a negotiation was entirely within his powers as an officer of the United States. Now, to put it more closely aligned with your statements: Bush made a promise on behalf of the United States. Bush was authorized and granted permission to give such promises on behalf of the United States. Thus, "Obama has upheld Bush's promise" relies upon Obama reaffirming (again on behalf of the United State) the promise that Bush made on behalf of the United States. Bush didn't make the promise for Obama, because Obama wasn't selected yet. We also have made numerous treaties and pacts as a nation, which later presidents are bound to conform to, even though they were made by their predecessors.
Obama deserves credit for bringing the troops home, and he deserves credit for upholding the promises that his predecessor made on behalf of the US public, in full accordance with law and tradition. Your argument that Bush was unable to make a promise that his successor would be bound to is unavailing. Obama has markedly declared that he will uphold the deadline established by Bush. The empirical facts are exactly as was stated, and no syllogism or logic is required. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 03:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Bush as POTUS can make exactly one kind of commitment on his own, an executive order, which expires when he leaves office. We are talking about Promises, and he is still bound by the logic outlines in my above argument when it comes to promises. Now he could have made something rather more permanent with the aid of the legislative branch but he did not, but still that would not have been a promise for Obama to upkeep. Lets also remember that Bush didn't even promise to get the troops out of Iraq by 2011 he outlined a plan by which he thought that they could be removed by 2011. The only promise made was Obama's campaign promise. First address my fairly well diagrammed argument, then if you can punch a hole in it try and make a case for your own position. Obama deserves full credit, not slighted credit. I think this cae is too complex to say that no logical argument is required, If bush came out and said "I promise that my successor will have troops out by aug 2010" and then Obama came out and said "I'm going to make good on Bush's promise" then that would be one thing, but just accepting the office doesn't mean he accepts the promises of those who had it before him, I'll bet bush made some promises that Obama is working straight against. The constitution mentions nothing about POTUS promises. --Opcn (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with opcn here. The POTUS cannot make a "promise" or a "deal" with a foreign power that has any meaning beyond their personal word. All treaties must be ratified by the Senate. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
"First address my fairly well diagrammed argument" Very well, your Premise B is not applicable. Bush made a promise on behalf of the US with the Iraqi government to make a deadline to withdraw our troops by 2011. This is not disputed. This is equivalent to him saying "I promise that the US will have all troops out by 2011." Obama withdrew all COMBAT troops in August 2010... we still have troops there in advisory positions. Obama in his address reiterated his intent to remove ALL troops by the deadline established by Bush. This is equivalent to him saying "I am going to make good on Bush's promise". --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
To quote President Barrack Obama: our withdraw of all US troops is "as promised and on schedule" --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I really hate their quote. "Obama keeps George W. Bush’s promise to end Iraq war." Dude, like, "I promise we will end this war." No, we're going to promise to continue this war until the end of time... wtf? Everyone involved seems to be reporting shit poorly. Obama has a lot of credit for meeting the Iraqi's deadline, and keeping things on schedule. Everyone in the government "promised to end the war". Seriously. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
A: Bush never made any promise B: Premise B still applies, had bush made a promise it would be a bush promise, not an obama promise, there is no POTUS promise. When bush made a promise it would be expanded to "I GWB promise to do XYZ while I GWB am POTUS".
Try thinking of it this way, could Obama break a Bush POTUS promise? Lets say that POTUSBush promised not to reinstate estate taxes, is POTUS Obama now a promise breaker/liar for letting them lapse back in at the start of next year? What if POTUSBush had promised not to allow a health care reform bill to get signed into law? Or not to nominate any prochoice supreme court justices? No POTUS would be able to perform their job if bound by the promises of all former POTUS. Obama was referring to his own schedule (which just so happened to be faster than GWB's, accidentally fulfilling the troops out of Iraq portion earlier than GWB had scheduled) and to his own campaign promise, something that GWB cannot be responsible for because it was issued by another person (BHO). --Opcn (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
OBAMA HAS ONLY WITHDRAWN COMBAT TROOPS. The Iraqi Government deadline that was setup with the Bush government is to have ALL US troops withdrawn by 2011. Oh look, doing a Google search for "Bush iraq 2011" turns up: this gem stating that a "Draft Accord" (yeah, that's an official sort of promise/treaty thing) was setup on or around August 21st, 2008 by the Bush government (look, it's Condie in the photo!) with Iraq to establish a 2011 withdraw of all US troops. So, no Bush can't make arbitrary promises that his successors must follow, but he can agree to pull out by 2011 in an official capacity. No less, Obama can revalidate the agreement made by Bush with the Iraqi government to recognize and be held to the pact. Why are people arguing this... I feel like the [Only Sane Man] around here right now.
Let's try this again. Bush uses official channels to establish a withdraw date with the Iraqi government. Obama states his intent to follow those timetables. Obama removes all combat troops just recently, someone notes that Bush setup the timetables, and we go nuts claiming that Bush doesn't deserve any credit, because Bush "can't make promises for his successor", of course, as noted above, unless he had followed official channels, which he did, and such agreement were either ratified by the US legislature, or Obama reaffirms the timetables, which he did. The US legislature's ratification hardly even being necessary, since the jurisdiction of the accord is on Iraqi sovereign soil, so unless we're going to barge in there again by force, we're bound to respect their sovereign rights.
All of this leaves me with the question: why is everyone here so ready to jump on truthiness answers like they do over at CP, rather than stop, and look at the evidence as it actually exists? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 07:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why people even call it a "promise". The relevant document here is the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, and that's a legally binding treaty between states, not individuals or particular administrations. Iraq has been a sovereign nation for several years now, and the US forces over there stay at the pleasure of their hosts. If Obama had wanted to extend the timetable, he would've had to renegotiate with the Iraqi government (not to mention get congress to approve additional funding). Röstigraben (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh Thank The GoatThe Goat be Praised., I'm not alone in my sanity. Thanks for actually providing the real evidence of my invisible pink unicorn, so people can actually witness my correctness, rather than slobber all over themselves............. ok, I've totally overstepped the line on arrogance here, and I apologize profusely. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 08:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Lol, you're welcome! But in any case, we shouldn't overstate Bush's importance in this, because it wasn't his decision alone. He was under immense pressure from both Congress and the Iraqi government to commit to a timetable, and he needed the consent of both - if they hadn't reached an agreement, the Iraqis could've just kicked the troops out whenever they wanted, and Congress could've cut funding for the mission. Röstigraben (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This is kind of what has been killing me... I couldn't do my standard Bush hate speech, because people had the facts wrong. Once we recognize that the Bush government set up a time table, we can actually talk about what kind of a shitty distorted reality that they're trying to pawn off on us at CP... "Conservapedia: We take a mustard seed of truth, and extrapolate the tree out of it!" --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 17:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
If you like GWB so much then why don't you go and live there? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 08:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The one and only relevant "Promise" is the BHO campaign promise, that was what was made, that was what was met. GWB never promised anything of the sort, his team made a treaty which is a state promise but that was the not "promise" BHO was referring to.--Opcn (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So, we're going to play semantics games now? Are you PJR, now? Or just channeling him? It is fact that Bush's government established a timetable and a deadline, and Obama is respecting it. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the bit about Afghanistan Osama bin Laden remains unquestionably Obama's fault... ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Obama piggybacked on a done dead. It was a promise made to the anti-war fringe of the Democratic coalition on the campaign trail. The Bush/Rice Status of Forces Agreement was left on autopilot after Obama took office.
The only problem now is, now tha Obama has declared Mission Accomplished, what will happen after the first combat death among the remaining 50,000? nobsdon't bother me 23:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Obama explicitly stated that this is not "Mission Accomplished" and that some US troops were still going to be put into danger's way... but they are now only advisors, not "combat troops". So, the real answer to your question? The right will get all hyped up about how Obama declared the war over, and be all "zomg, I thought we pulled out our troops!" and those people like me who are grounded in reality, will be facepalming the entire time because you based all your beliefs around the same retarded shit that the pundits are saying right now. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One blogger's opinion of CP's use of photos

"... the way Conservapedia (an American conservative's "encyclopedia" for morons) took the liberty of using a PZ Myers photo of mine on their PZ Myers page. PZ Myers is a person I greatly admire, yet my photo is being used for the purpose of defaming him!" [2]. 00:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC) ~~

Poor old PeeZee, maybe he can trademark his scruffy face. --193.200.150.82 (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Said blogger doesn't seem to understand Creative Commons in that section discussing the PZ photo. 1) If you don't want your work widely used, do not list it as CC. 2) The license is a "copyright" thing - all original works you create are automatically covered as copyright in most civilised countries - although I can give benefit of the doubt there as they did put it in similar quotes and 3) a CC license cannot be revoked; once under CC, always under CC. Conservative would still be right to upload and host the image on Conservapedia whether they set their blog or photos to private or otherwise. However, there are issues of "model rights" that CC doesn't touch, so in principle someone can refuse their likeness to appear in a defamatory attack article, although I'm not sure anyone could win that case easily. Scarlet A.pngpostate 08:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(Revamped) Palin WIGO

I know (or at least vaguely remember) that we were trying to get away from uber-long WIGOs, but I felt it was needed in this case because the entire sequence is just so full of lulz and fail. I do remember TK inserting this Skype highlighting nonsense before, but I forgot where it was, pity. --Sid (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It was on Wikipedia. It proves yet again that learning something new is something that is very hard for TK, among others. A while back, an editor fixed the exact same mistake of TK's, in which the Skype-thing appeared in Nuttish's message, but TK reverted it, saying "Please do not edit archives for any reason.." I brought it up on his talk page, but he was rather oblivious to it, and when I tried to explain it again, I got a nice "Go someplace else to argue." As if there's even anything to argue; it's blatantly obvious that the comment of someone else's should not be edited. ~SuperHamster Talk 00:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh God! Yes, that was it. Thanks for jogging my memory, this would've driven me bonkers tonight! --Sid (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
And why Palin's ISBN? And, what a lying fuck face. AceX-102 00:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It is a stupid skype toolbar he has installed, Nutty has the same problem as well. I like the fact that he thinks Australian phone numbers are 6 digits long, including area codes. - π 00:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have the toolbar thing on also but very rarely skype. AceX-102 00:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hope your bags are packed....img AceX-102 00:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining what causes this. Didn't even know Skype had a toolbar available, so I had some weird mental image where TK edits CP articles in a Skype chat window for SOME reason. XD --Sid (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the same problem because I don't have that toolbar. I think TK was inserting that gibberish for my contact tho, since removed with prejudice. Nutty Rouxnever mind 01:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, TK loads up on all the toys, but doesn't know how to use them. Hence his new nickname, TwinKle. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Clapping.gif ~SuperHamster Talk 02:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And the lying becomes obvious

TK declares:img "I don't have the Skype toolbar installed! It's all lies! And when you hover over the magically highlighted portion in your browser, it offers to call that number using Skype! Oh, and that highlighting had been there for months!"

I- Just what- Bwah- WHAT? HE DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO OVERSIGHT THE EVIDENCE OF HIS LYING. --Sid (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

*huff* *wheeze* Or maybe... maybe... he's not lying and just PLAIN FUCKING INCOMPETENT AND SO CONVINCED OF HIS OWN INFALLIBILITY THAT AJKFLDJSA FAFJDSKFLAJS-*dragged away from keyboard by helpful people offering a fancy white jacket* --Sid (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
If ever anyone wondered whether TK is a truthteller, let's just refer him to this. Nutty Rouxnever mind 01:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Uh Oh!img Someone smells a rat. Quick TK! Burn and ban! AceX-102 01:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Bye byeimg. AceX-102 02:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
This guy is really asking for it.img AceX-102 02:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
SILENCE PEON!img AceX-102 02:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Now Karajou gets in on the action.img AceX-102 02:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Another lie from TK.img Its not a .gov site. AceX-102 02:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Give him a break...it appeared to be a government site... So that's why he put the plagiarism back up. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanksimg for the rewrite!img Occasionaluse (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Is Karajou just gonna sit there and take it? Just ignore it, just like that?!?!?--CentimeterINCHES 02:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Karajou is a military man. He knows the drill and he knows that TK is his superior. Shit flows downhill, so expect him to order some peons (probably JacobB) around in 3...2...1 Occasionaluse (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
TK blocks Lyle for 3 days and JacobB suggest deleting his page.img AceX-102 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I only wish Ed were around to dismiss this. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Ed can't hear you, he conveniently fell back into one of his niches. And I bet nothing is happening behind the scenes, either. TK is likely keeping everybody in check through private 1-on-1 mails, convincing them that... oh, I dunno, RW is faking diffs or something. With magic. He got away with far more obvious bullshit, so yeah. Cue Karajou and Ed wondering why there are no waves of eager conservatives writing for CP. Must be those darn lib'ruls scaring away good people! Definitely got nothing to do with the attitude shown by CP sysops, no sir! --Sid (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, what in the world does Terry think he's doing? He's right about one thing: The Skype-thing has been in the article for months; it's been there since June. The thing it, against what his claim is, it was him who added it. Oh, and since you insist that we're the liars, TK, here's the link to your edit on Wikipedia in which your edit changed Nutty's message w/ the Skype-insertion. If you're gonna lie, at least do it sneakily so it isn't so blatantly clear. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Nope. That instance of TK inserting skype highlighting had already been cleaned up...Occasionaluse (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
...wow. That just makes it worse. For TK. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it's right here.img Nutty Rouxnever mind 02:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
That's where he put it in. My link was where it was removed. WTF is going on over there!? So much funny shit is happening right now. TK bald facing a mistake. TK plagarism, JacobB laying down the thinnest parody I've ever seen about RESPEKT TEH ADMIN, and now Karajou has reverted JacobB and removed TK plagarism!? Occasionaluse (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's face it - things are pretty slow over at CP these days, and Terry has to find some way of obtaining sexual gratification. Desperate times call for desperate measures. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 10:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest News Headline Seems a Little... Threatening

I don't know how to link to the diff to see who wrote it, but this one "Obama Bans Sale of Antique American Korean War Guns; Fears Patriotic Americans Will Buy Them. [9]". The article doesn't say anything about selling them to patriotic Americans, just about the weapons falling into the wrong hands. So what does the author mean by "patriotic" Americans? Senator Harrison (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Patriotic Americans = Americans who buy guns. QED Bluefish (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
What is QED? And what is so patriotic about buying a gun? Senator Harrison (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, something does seem a little weird about it not letting Americans buy those guns. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Quantum ElectroDynamics. Or quad erat demonstrandum. 'Twas our first fork page, but it got killed. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Quod erat demonstratum... but don't mind me... Blue (is useful) 03:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, yet another classic example of misreading/misleading by teh señor sysops on mainpageleft. Blue (is useful) 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to be part of that weird teabagger wet dream that one day "Patriotic Americans" are going to rise up and commit treason reassert their freedom. - π 10:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"One man's terrorist is another man's teabagging gun-nut patriotic American". DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 10:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I've always said that if they want guns for the purposes the Second Amendment was meant for, then they should be in a position do damn well follow through at some point (otherwise I will forever be convinced that the whole gun thing in the US is just a penis substitute). It's just a shame the ones who are batshit insane enough to do that are... by definition, batshit insane and certainly not the type of person you'd want to see take over the US in an armed coup. Scarlet A.pngpostate 11:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder...

... if Andy is going to use his huge Merkin Govt class as slave labour volunteers to work on his blog again?" After all, besides one or two (Addision and somebody), all the other students have studiously avoided CP, besides to write their homework answers. Then again, it could also be that the number of students exists only in Andy's head. After all, we haven't seen them in public for at least a year. Maybe they're all dead too! --PsyGremlinTala! 11:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

They don't all exist in his head. At least 30 of them are probably parodists. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
What a knobber. Do the parents of the real kids realise that they're paying money to this idiot for him to get kids to add content to his completely stalled 'encyclopaedia' project? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 12:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Remember, these are the same parents who sent their kids back to Schlafly, even after seeing test marks such as "Lincoln was open to new ideas like growing a beard." "Excellent answer! 10/10 Might use as model answer." Hopefully, being "taught" by Schlafly is the worst abuse they suffer. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm three of the students. First day of school!!! YAY!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Does he really have 59 in-person students? In the past the homeworks didn't come close to adding up to his alleged enrollment (though perhaps they didn't all do the work online). That's nearly $15,000 for a couple hours a week, isn't it? Are there really that many stupid parents in New Jersey? DickTurpis (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It's New Jersey. Question answered.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 15:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
As a New Jerseyan, I can't help but concur. *sigh* Tetronian you're clueless 15:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
59? Main page says 78... of course, only the in-person students pay for the "privilege". ħumanUser talk:Human 17:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The end is nigh!

Well, I know that we keep saying that. However, now that RW is getting close to 3x more active editors than CP (174 vs. 68 @ 02/09), I think it's just about time to draw the curtain on that little project. Between Andy's inanity and TK's trolling CP is essentially dead in the water. If there was a way to stop him home-schooling, then CP really would have no reason to exist, except as a home for Karajou's ego. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 12:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

...68 active editors? Seriously? I know I don't check CP that often nowadays, but I think I would've noticed so many people. Who counts as an active editor? --Sid (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it's anyone who's made an edit in the last week. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a useless figure then, as most of them are going to be vandals. Our active users charts are more useful, but even with them what constitutes an active user doesn't necessarily give an accurate picture. DickTurpis (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a very good point, Dick. Their edit count is pretty much irrelevant, as once you take out talkpage, borked news, Ken's 'essays', vandalism and subsequent reversal, the number of edits that actually contribute to the blog are vanishingly small. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of ends being nigh, is the Obamageddon meter registering its highest value since its inception? ONE / TALK 13:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It's probably safe to say that 'actual' editors to CP number around 10 (Andy, Kara, Jpratt, TK, Ken, TerryH, Tzoran and a few others). And as has been said, actual mainspace edits are negligible.
And how are we supposed to read the Obamameter? As far as I can see, every block is lit up. Am I missing something? --PsyGremlinTal! 13:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It's got 8 of 10 boxes lit (code orange), but by my count it's supposed to have 7. Perhaps it's counting the Obama/Wright picture (it's not a Fairey parody, so I don't think it's supposed to)? DickTurpis (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea where the implementation is, but it must be shitty. I've never seen the thing work. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
All the boxes are lit in mine, including red. Am I missing some fancy scripts somewhere? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
They all light up for me as the pages loads, then go down to whatever the (incorrect) count is after a couple seconds. Not sure what your issue is. I had an idea for a very low-tech, manual version, but it probably wouldn't pass muster with all these computer geeks. DickTurpis (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, it's Jeeves' baby and for some reason, he's not being forthcoming with the sauces. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Found it in MediaWiki:Common.js. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The metric is any picture that has "obama" in the name, so it's right as far as it goes. If it isn't, then you probably need to hit shift-refresh. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Must be a server block problem. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
If the metric is any picture with "Obama" in the title, then it should be changed, if we want to keep with the original measurement, which I believe was only adapted Shepard Fairey posters. Actual pictures of Obama are expected and commonplace, whereas extremely tired and redundant adaptations of the same image are much more indicative of Conservapedia mentality. DickTurpis (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"News" Sources

I see The Blaze and Newsbusters are replacing WND as reliable sources to bash Obama. Guess Andy still hasn't forgiven Farah. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, The Blaze is WND done by someone that has learnt webpage design in the last five years. Glen Beck is behind this site, right?- π 14:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
He is. - π 14:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Newsbusters has always been one of their favorites, as it seems just about any old idiot can write for them and say whatever they want. This is a site that attacked Katie Couric for using, of all things, hyperbole. And of course CP jumped on the bandwagon too (Couric said, referencing record high gas prices, that she needed a loan from the bank to fill her car. Newsbusters busted that news by pointing out that she doesn't really need to do that; it's still referenced at CP). DickTurpis (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
lol. good one. I love the McDonalds one below. "Lawyer sues Mc Donalds for reneging on promise to remove trans fat from foods. Lawyer eats a Big Mac...HYPOCRITE!!!" Couldn't make this shit up. Probably from Karajou, who has no idea what words mean. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Probably. Karajou is the one who recently attacked the Obamas because they were conducting an anti-obesity campaign and yet let their daughters eat *gasp* ice cream! Because, you know, the girls are just completely fucking obese. DickTurpis (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I read yesterday that Malia is 5ft 9in and still only 12 years old, while Michelle had commented that she had been "chubby" as a youngster, now she's like a beanpole. Redchuck.gif ГенгисGum disease 18:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Blaze is fucking loony. It's like Prison Planet meets WND. Also, if it were made by someone who has learned web design in the last 5 years, Arial should be after Helvetica in the font declaration. UGH. – Nick Heer 18:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense! I'm lot's of people don't have support for the arial family. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
For some reason people get really emotional about this, but unless the font is obviously garish, I have no real preference. Arial, Helvetica or Times are usually safe enough. - π 09:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
This is all types of crazy stupid. First it makes the same mistake PJR likes to latch on to by claiming the universe comes from nothing wherein nothing is actually a complex set of physical and quantum actions and secondly Hawking didn't state there was a creator in his first book, anyone who knew anything about would tell you he used the word "god" in a pantheist sense. I fucking hate people the rip through cosmology/astronomy/physics with such ignorance. AceX-102 20:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The comments section of that article is one of the most horrifyingly ignorant things I have ever read. Ugh. Tetronian you're clueless 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Which is why CP will latch onto this as well, because they don't know jack about any of those fields. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
"...they don't know jack about any of those fields" Fixed that for you. --Kels (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That super-bold font the Blaze uses was eye-catching at first but it gets annoying after seeing it used even for the names of the commenters. Junggai (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Professor Schlafly

Its Prof. Schlafly now.img AceX-102 22:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Professor "Shlafly" apparently. SJ Debaser 22:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that this will subconsciously be a great conflict for Andy: we know he hates professors, but at the same time it would be an enormous boost to his ego to be called that. Decisions, decisions. Tetronian you're clueless 23:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Parodist. Scarlet A.pngpostate 23:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, naturally. But Andy may not notice. Tetronian you're clueless 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a Brit, that has to increase the probability of bannination. --MarkGall (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
... or a promotion. --MarkGall (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I took the liberty of WIGOing it. One of the few people to get Edit rights without actually working on a single article ever. --Sid (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I read "Where do we post our answers for the American Government Curse" for a moment. It seemed fitting. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, "...the Writing course was cancelled..." Hmmm, we always wondered how Andy would handle grading "real" homework he had to read and comment on constructively. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
(Pedantry alert) I'd be willing to bet that the alleged "student" misspelled the word "canceled" on purpose. Tetronian you're clueless 03:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
How would you feel to know this student was someone you know well? Nutty Rouxnever mind 04:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Not even slightly surprised. Tetronian you're clueless 11:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Update: Andy fell for itimg. Tetronian you're clueless 03:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect the suspected "parodist"s parents' check cleared the bank. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
So the writing course did die a premature death (or was it aborted?). I wonder if Andy refunded the parents their $250. --PsyGremlin講話 10:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken

Ken hasn't made a single edit on over 16 hours; his longest break in documented history. I hope he's alright. mb 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit, that is actually frightening. Him editing that frequently in the first place, I mean. Tetronian you're clueless 23:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it finaly dawned on him that life is to short? --Thunderstruck (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, he's back. mb 08:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OMG

That guy is not healthy. At all. My guess is that he has been hospitalized or something. Actually, he seems to be editing a little. He's probably generating web traffic statistics for CP or spamming google or whatever else that sick man does. --Onion <talk> 02:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not ever use the internet slang "OMG." Please. It makes me ill. SJ Debaser 09:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Onion, please stop making people cry. ONE / TALK 10:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Your pun made me cry. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 12:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
@SuperJosh, I'd like to point you to my sig.... OMG! --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 22:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

nsTeam1RW

What does it mean?img Am I being a little vain in assuming that RW refers to us? I realise that "there are people out there who want to destroy us", so is this another super-secret CP cabal plotting our demise? (And is this the Assfly demoting DeanS for some reason?) Is that enough questions for one edit? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 10:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, it has to do with the old "copy/paste as much shit as you can to make new articles" competitions Andy used to run. Back in the days when CP still attracted genuine editors. --PsyGremlinSprich! 11:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
DS, you are being a little vain - I bet you think this song is about you - the RW stands for ReadWrite as opposed to RO which is ReadOnly. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, that's such a boring answer Jack! Oh well. I thought Arsefly would have called it WR to avoid even the initials of the vandal site. (Good Carly Simon reference though!) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 11:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
For further reading, check out Conservapedia:Team Contest --Sid (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the changes were made server-side so it wasn't Andy's doing. They should probably clean up all that crap at some point, but that would require the tech guy to have some kind of dedication. - π 11:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
*What* tech guy? CPAdmin or whatever his name is, hasn't been active on there for ages. I just can't wait for Andy to update the software again, so CP can lose another week. --PsyGremlinTala! 11:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
CPWebmaster (CPAdmin1 was... Tim, I think?), but yeah, he also doesn't seem to be very active. CP's technical side has been a mess since the start, though. Namespaces are a mess (no "essay", "lecture" or "homework" spaces, but they had the time for sysop and contest namespaces... which were then left to die), and most major suggestions rarely moved beyond "We should totally do this!" (not even in the secret discussion groups where the sysops had been able to discuss things without nasty mortals interfering). --Sid (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the funniest, which cropped up in TZB and main page talk, was having the admins declare themselves "curators" over certain parts of CP. Needless to say, it was stillborn - despite Terry Hurbut claiming himself to be professor of Biblical history and astronomy - because the others realised it would involve more more than just banning editors. --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Remind me again...

... but isn't it liberals who are always yelling and drawing attention to how awesome they are? Or is it conservatives like Andy? I can never remember these days. Oh yes, I feel like some more crazy, who wants to burn a sock and tell Andy small classes are better? Oh and I can't wait to see the irony of Andy teaching that discrimination is bad (assuming the course will cover that), and then setting different tests for boys and girls. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Even worse is the fact that he claims that his class is the "largest class for teenagers." See, Andy, there's this thing called college... Tetronian you're clueless 14:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Andy famously rejects the idea that small classes are better then large ones (while simultaneously propounding homeschooling, with a typical class size of one). He even has a piss-poor article about it (and we have an in-depth rebuttal). No sense in wasting a sock and stuff he's been through before. Though I wouldn't mind seeing someone bring up the "most of the world's greatest accomplishments were done by teenagers" bullshit, as he hardly even tried to defend that , beyond restating it again and again. DickTurpis (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Except Andypants doesn't think discrimination is bad, and doubtless won't teach that. After all, he learned at mommy dearest's knee that a constitutional amendment giving women equal rights was a Bad Thing. Hell, that was her entire life's work. She's still dining out on it now. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"It's time to move in for the kill."

The video that Ken links to uses incredibly gay music. Just sayin'. SJ Debaser 15:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he should have linked here (still a little gay, actually). DickTurpis (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Ah, Ken, you never cease to disappoint. Tetronian you're clueless 15:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I had to scrub my brain with bleach, after seeing Ken as links to "workout music" on his user page. Had an indellible image of him in spandex, that was not pretty. --PsyGremlinParla! 15:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Spandex, hm. I have it on good authority that Ken is a furry. mb 15:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
ARGH!! Curse you! /runs off to find the bleach again. --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
*shudder* Tetronian you're clueless 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Ken is secure and comfortable in his sexuality because he knows for a fact that it's actually the atheists who are going to yiff in he... aw why am I going there. mb 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Why indeed. As for that saying and associated cheetah graphic, he has been using those on his stats pages for a while now. I guess going in for the kill takes time. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No, he should have linked to this! Wrong cat, I know, but it's Ken we're talking about. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 23:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

CP Account Creation

I seem to be having trouble creating an account on CP. Did I just go retard or is something up? Jorge might get around to it 17:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC) ...and the weirdness is gone. Is acct creation disabled if you try to log in from the same IP? Jorge (don't believe a word he says) 18:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation

Protip: if you're making a new sock at CP, don't use a real person's name, even if they're vaguely famous. Mine got blocked for impersonation, even though I had no idea the guy was a (very minor) celebrity. – Nick Heer 21:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Was that the recent Travis Sullivan? Man, that really goes to show how much they really want to block every new user, and actively seek out reasons to do so. Travis Sullivan is hardly a celebrity, and it's entirely possible that name has no connection (I know of a couple somewhat famous people who share my name (my real name, not Dick Turpis)). Really, guys, you might as well just disable new account creation for ever. That reminds me of their early days when they blocked a Jack Daniels, I believe it was. I pointed out to them that while that was certainly a likely parody name, there are people who share names with famous people (I have known a Michael Jackson, a Neil Young, an Alexander Hamilton, and a few others), and it doesn't hurt to assume good faith. Needless to say that didn't go very far. DickTurpis (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It was Greg Palmer. I have no idea who he is. Wikipedia tells me he was a journalist who died last year, but it's just run by dirty lib-uh-rals. – Nick Heer 23:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
CP clearly does take the very opposite approach to assume good faith, in that ever new account is an assumed parodist/liberal troll until proven (somehow) otherwise. On a similar note I have worked with a Dave Stewart and a Gary Moore, neither of whom were musicians (and both were cocks as it happens) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The assumption is probably not entirely unreasonable. Parodists have a history of outnumbering genuine fellow cranks by two or three orders of magnitude. mb 22:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I concur. I think the amount of paranoia fostered by the CP admins has damaged the project far greater than any insertions of parody ever could. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
But, the paranoia was fertilized by the seed of parody (it's white, thick, milky seed). So, then, parody is the reason? Or was it just a catalyst, and the CP admins just executed it (by adding paranoia)? And what the fuck am I typing when I should be sleeping? Gah. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 04:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe it is much like Global Warming. Water vapor is actually the most significant green house gas in the atmosphere, but our CO2 emissions stimulate the increased evaporation, which results in an amplified warming. So, with this case, the parodists inspired paranoia in the sysop, and we play the game of "everyone is a parodist" so much that they actively start developing a paranoia complex that eventually becomes self-perpetuating. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and while I'm logged in, I'd like to state for the record I feel deeply humiliated by Ken's incisive, nay, devastating refutation of atheism. Never before have I felt so embarrassed. I am profoundly ashamed for what, looking back, I can only describe as my rank scientific illiteracy and consummate epistemological blindness. mb 23:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Do they even TRY to recruit anyone anyway? It's not paranoia anymore if they know they didn't get any sincere new editors in years... Everyone is going for the long socks (hat tip, JacobB!) Call me paranoid, but andy and TK keep what, maybe a hundred somewhat bright rationalwikians buzy and maybe 5-10-15 conservative kooks out of the serious internet.. They win? Alain (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And so the indoctrination begins.

Andy might be in favour of classroom prayer, but it seems brainwashing is high on his agenda too [1]img. Any bets on how many marks you'd receive for saying the Dems would win the Nov elections? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Might wanna check that link, Psy. 11:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I fixed it. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)