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

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 308: Line 308:
 
:Douglas Moo on the CBP: "''Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it''". Andy, please give him reason to elaborate in a less kind fashion! 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 
:Douglas Moo on the CBP: "''Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it''". Andy, please give him reason to elaborate in a less kind fashion! 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 
:: Poor lamb, he doesn't even have PJR to restrain him from his craziness this time. His hubris is once again unleashed, and he's surrounded only by parodists and trolls egging him on to further heights of idiocy. This is going to be fun. --{{:User:JeevesMkII/sig}} 09:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 
:: Poor lamb, he doesn't even have PJR to restrain him from his craziness this time. His hubris is once again unleashed, and he's surrounded only by parodists and trolls egging him on to further heights of idiocy. This is going to be fun. --{{:User:JeevesMkII/sig}} 09:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
:And as another Lenski mess is about to begin, I feel reminded of these words: [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F&diff=551814&oldid=551773 "As Director of Internal Counterintelligence, I felt deeply remorseful for what transpired in my absence. Namely the Hit List, Lenski affairs, and infiltration into the Zuegledon group. These Ne-ev-er would have happened had I been around. Ne-eev-er."] Your move, Rob. Go ahead and tell Andy that this is a bad idea. *grabs the popcorn* ;) --[[User:Sid|Sid]] ([[User talk:Sid|talk]]) 10:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  
 
== This is too rich ==
 
== This is too rich ==

Revision as of 10:07, 7 June 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

RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard

Plagiarism

Note Ed's denouncing of plagiarism hereimg, and the reply (which points to RW!) here. - Cuckoo (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh, Ed. --Sid (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It's also interesting that user #188 didn't mention Wikipedia... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ed, you may be a senior editor at Conservapedia but we are not bullied by your credentials! Please either contribute substantially or go back to writing your obviously original gossip stubs. --ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 22:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope none none of the more respectable members of the wiki were involved in that RW whoring that went on that comment board... I mean, yes, CP is a house of plagiarism but was it necessary to string it out that far? I assume the anon comments are our usual trolls or possibly CP editors venting anonymously (though I wish they'd have the decency to put it under their handles if it was them). Scarlet A.pngnarchist 13:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The force is strong with this one

TK and his new BFF. Almost the exact same signatures plus JacobB veiled request to give TK 'cratship. Acei9 01:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Troll, troll, troll your boatimg. - π 08:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Whut? Is TK calling Jacob out on being a parodist? mb 10:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Did he just admit that there isn't enough work on conservapedia to occupy more than 3-4 'crats? So that's a tacit admission that the site is dying? Awsome. X Stickman (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
CP has only one crat - he who does not trust. Aschlafly. ħumanUser talk:Human 13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A "super-sized" TK? There's plenty of shit pouring out of you TK, please don't get any bigger. SJ Debaser 11:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
TK? is that you? --Kels (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Spoken by somebody who insists on being called a senior admin... even tho no such thing exists on CP. And we all know that cratship is all that stands between TK and his finally taking off his mask and shutting CP down from within. Plus he's been hinting at getting crat since before Justine left. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Andy is the only of the 4 crats active and two of them are the same person. Given the number of rights and sub-rights, a second crat wouldn't hurt. - π 12:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I call for a new user right! "Rename". ħumanUser talk:Human 13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't realized there is only 1 active bureaucrat, but then again, there are so many piecemeal steps between "block" and "bureaucrat" that I guess all the Señor Admins have crat-like powers already. Is rename the only thing they can't do? Well, it is pretty clear Andy doesn't trust anyone enough to give them the final powers unless he knows them personally (hence Sharon), so if Andy did suddenly decide maybe a second crat would be a good idea, who would he choose? So few choices. Is he dumb enough to go with TK? Would User188's Wikipedia-honed computer-mastery make him the front-runner? Obviously the "newbies" (ie, people who have been there less than 2 years) wouldn't be in the running, nor would Ken. Karajou? Rob's disappearance for a year and a half would probably be a point against him; who knows when he might disappear back to the institution for a year or two. I would think it would be one of his homeschoolers, but they tend to disappear when class is over. Is BenjaminS one? He might have to be the default winner. Damn, I wish Andy was smart enough to realize this dearth existed, then he could announce an imminent promotion and we could start a pool. I love pools. DickTurpis (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that given that rats can change user rights, there's no way Andy's going to promote somebody so they have the same rights as Brother Leader. After all, it'll deprive him of his little game of asking his fellow sysops for suggestions for new sysops, then promoting Terry over their objections. Besides, the first thing Terry Koeckritz would do, is demote everybody, block them and leave CP as an empty hulk on the net. --PsyGremlin講話 13:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, user rights is the biggie. Rename is "mostly harmless", that's why I suggested splitting it out as a special right. Renaming is basically grunt work and Andy should delegate it. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy and freshwater lakes

In a recent pairimg of exchanges aboutimg freshwater lakes and ice ages, Andy rattles off some crazy shit that I'm still trying to wrap my brain around. He really just seems to be thrashing around at random here. There are so many statements that aren't even wrong that I can't see what sort of internal logic would hold them together. Where do you think he gets the idea that young freshwater lakes disprove an old Earth? I didn't get pubes until I was thirteen or so; does that disprove my claims to be 38 years old? Even my oldest pube is probably no more than a year old, so how old am I? One? 25? 38? As far as the 'old water' thing goes, again I have to just shake my head in wonder. "None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary." Except, of course, for the ones that were cited, like the African Great Lakes, or even Lake Baikal. Andy claims that there is no fresh water older than 10,000 years - apparently because he thinks that all the water in a lake gets in there at the moment of the lake's creation, and no 'new' water enters the lake after that point. There's no such thing as turnover in Andy's limnology.

Plus there's the bizarre bit about the glaciers carving the features of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River bluffs (!). Not only that, but the implication that the pro-Icers are hiding the weakness of their models by not running any simulations. How would you, even in theory, run a simulation to prove how a particular coastline shape came to be, or simulate a river's course over geologic time? It's just too chaotic. It just makes me woozy. I have to say that this makes even less sense to me than Andy's flailing about Lenski's statistics, and that's setting the bar pretty high. It's almost a Chewbacca Defense level of WTF.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WTF does Andy know about freshwater lakes? I come from the land of 10,000 lakes, and I know that, based on carbon dating and other research, many of them are to be waaaaay older than 10,000 years. Especially Lake Superior. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 03:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Your pro-icer denial will not be tolerated here. Please open you minds and realize that freshwater lakes are one of God's subtle clues to mankind that He created the earth very recently. Nobody seriously denies this. PACODOGwoof, bitches 03:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
But there still exists much glacial evidence to support that Lake Superior was created around 10,000 years ago, and that Glacial Lake Minong existed in its place before it was formed. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 03:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Now this is saying something, but that article is my favourite example of CP's ignorance to science. It is a masterpiece, most of the "counterexamples" are so absurd that even the likes of Kent Hovind would be embarrassed to use them. Top notch stuff. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 04:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This is one of the supidest Schlafly arguments ever IMO...he truly resides in his own little crazy reality. Sad, really. But funny. PACODOGwoof, bitches 04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You all fail to get it. The world is less than 10,000 years old, since we know this we also know that the lakes are less than 10,000 years old. Since the lakes are less than 10,000 years old wecan use that as proof that the earth is relatively young. QED.--Opcn (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an interesting point hinted at with the idea that "all the water got into the lake at the same time" is Andy's way of thinking. This is quite typical of YEC and many neo-conservative beliefs. Things happen, in the minds of these people, as single events. It's very black and white. Life started at a single magical point. The lakes formed at this exact moment. Reality somewhat different, with no hard boundaries, and this is difficult for certain people to grasp. When did the lakes form... well, how do you know that they're not still forming now? Where does something stop being a very wide, very slow moving river and starts becoming a lake? Reality is complicated and doesn't always bend to suit our way of thinking - and the people who don't understand this become YECers. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 13:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else find it amusing how illiterate Andy was in this discussion? (I had to choose "grammar" to pick on, since "content" was sorely lacking) ħumanUser talk:Human 13:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I love the way Andy manages to hold utterly contradictory ideas. Freshwater lakes have managed to always be fresh despite the global flood with salt water, which would of course have killed everything in them making Noah's aquarium loading even higher. 82.23.208.15 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
"Noah's Aquarium", I love it. I lolled. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just what's the point of this?

Check out this image upload from TK.

George Washington or John Adams (I can't tell which) crying, a flock of sheep entering Congress, Obama laughing, and Biden, Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton wearing Israeli flag pins (well, Hillary has an Israeli flag earring.)

And it's attached to an "In the News" piece about an FTC proposal to "reinvent journalism".

In short, WTF? MDB (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You should check out some of Dees' work. The guy's a lunatic conspiracy theorist (he seems to susbscribe to literally every conspiracy theory), but a hilarious one. ONE / TALK 11:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I did. I'm still not seeing the image's connection to anything at CP. In fact, it seems to go against CP's usual "Israel hurrah!" philosophy. MDB (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
And neither can I, since it's been deleted. Dang. Whodathunkit? ħumanUser talk:Human 13:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's the image at the original site. MDB Oh, and One's above post is right... the artist's site is a serious collection of conspiracy lunacy, including the always charming idea of Holocaust denial. (Excuse me.... "questioning'" the Holocaust. Because we all know the people who ask "Did six million really die?" are jsut seeking an honest debate.) MDB (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This one is pretty nice. Notice the cup with the "Fluoride Springs" label. I guess he's worried about the commies tampering with our precious fluids. Corry (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Obama's half-brother refused UK entry

Interestingly the BBC site now lists this 2009 article as its fifth most shared currently (as of 12.20GMT). I don't know what their algorithms say about over what period, but it's interesting nonetheless. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it means it's currently getting play amongst the American right. MDB (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You'd think that, wouldn't you? However, if it's filtered by geography, it doesn't appear in the North American top ten. Go here to see. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The story is now listed as the third most emailed. Is Kenny dusting it with some of his internetz magic? Ajkgordon (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it says its the tenth most popular story in North America. Which probably means someone in the ever-vigilant right wing blogosphere is pushing a year old story. (I checked Drudge; it's not there.) MDB (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There have been a number of very old stories appearing the recent most popular - amongst the ones I've spotted
I'll try searching down refs. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for old articles to basically get slashdotted to the point where they override current news. But tracking down the source often seems difficult - a site with a readership big enough to outclass the daily visitors or news.bbc.co.uk must be huge but the usual suspects never seem to have posted it! A bug, perhaps? But if that was the case, you'd expect it to happen to random articles, rather than amusing ones like the welsh road signs. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 12:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The Welsh road sign hit the Daily Fail mid March (ahead of the news as ever!) but I can't find anything more recent. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, the Obama half-brother story was the most popular between 0200 and 0600 GMT this morning - the quietest time of day for the site. Some sort of Kenbot? Ajkgordon (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Might be the quietest time of day for the site, but if it is indeed a North American phenomenon, 0200-0600 GMT = 2200-0200 EDT (GMT-4, New York/Boston/Miami) = 2100-0100 CDT (GMT-5, Chicago/Dallas) = 1900-2300 PDT (GMT-7, San Francisco/Los Angeles/Vancouver). We might be looking for something that happened prime time out on the west coast. TheMayor (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Openly speculating where the vast right wing conspiracy gets its talking points? Now you guys are revealing your amateur side. nobsdon't bother me 14:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Awww, he's trying so hard

Did you notice that Ken is now sending us little messages in his contribs? It seems a shame for his audience not to at least acknowledge his effort. Can you believe he's still going on about grassroots and flying fortresses, what is it, more than a year since his little operations failed to materialise? I guess he's totally given up on defeating atheism on the internets, and now is entirely dedicated to amusing atheists on the internets. In regards to this development, Jeeves was quoted as saying "Good job, kendoll." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. Did he delete it already? Damn, Jeeves, this is what capturebot is for. DickTurpis (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
He's been making irrelevant edits to the B-17 Flying Fortress and Grassroots articles. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
When has he ever done anything that seriously threatened atheists (or anyone else) on the internet? Far as I know, he's always been a source of amusement, or at worst pity. I mean seriously, he made a section called "Atheism Quotes" in an article composed entirely of quotes! How funny is that? --Kels (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but he wasn't consciously playing to the audience before. He actually seemed to be trying, in his own impotent way. Now he's parodying his former self. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ken, I see that Conservapedia lacks machismoimg. You know what to do. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

y JPatt tambien

Looks like JPatt has plenty of machismo, he has those hispanic ladies on the brain. MaxAlex Swimming pool 15:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Was that some veiled insult or does he not speak a lick of spanish? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't speak a lick of spanish, but I still know that's the wrong gender. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust

So Jinxy is finally hanging up his spurs as the exodus continues. Well, he hasn't been all that active anyway, so I guess it's no major loss, except that he was one of the few who we all knew wasn't a parodist. Hasn't he done this before? I suppose he might be back, but in conjunction with Taj's retirement this gets CP down to just 21 unbanned users rated "active" or better on our activity scale, as opposed to 50+ here (not counting bots). Well, good luck Jinxy, hope you can help out your church, lord know Westboro Baptist needs you. DickTurpis (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

He's finally going to get the power he so desperately wanted. If CP had promoted him, he would have probably told his church to fuck off. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I would have promoted him. Penisbone stuffed butts will sorely miss him. Nutty Roux/Señor Admin/¡Con más machismo! 16:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Didn't he have a strong sense that god was pushing him towards something last time he quit? Does anyone remember what it was? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
He was gettin' picked on and couldn't take it. NO MACHISMO! 16:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
You really don't think it was that WIGO that pushed him over the edge? User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 20:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The WiGO itself or the subject of the WiGO? It could be he's had enough of getting bossed around by an obvious parodist who outranks him even though he hasn't been editing nearly as long. DickTurpis (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
That was my take on this, too. Jacob getting away with unblocking an obvious parodist and then mildly slapping Jinx around likely made the latter realize that something has gone fundamentally wrong with CP. His "Maybe it's time..." comment was a fairly strong hint at this. --Sid (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I like how Jake protected the user/talk page so that Jinx could no longer edit it. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone pointed out to that cretinous boob Jpatt that he was calling Jinx a woman by fixing the edit, for which Jpatt reverted, infiniblocked, then fixed it himself. So of course JacobB has a great reason to protect the page. It's clearly a vandal magnet. Nutty Roux/Señor Admin/¡Con más machismo! 21:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
And by the way, I don't care what kind of fucking redneck you are; if you live in the United States and don't speak at least a little Spanish the people responsible for educating you should be tarred and feathered. Nutty Roux/Señor Admin/¡Con más machismo! 21:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I took six years of French :( Was anticipating the imminent Canadian invasion/annexation. But I know what "cuidado" means. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, TK, somewhat, undid JacobB's protection of Jinx's user and talkpages. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 22:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am betting TK is waiting to trash those pages. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think his last exodus was a combination of the lord's calling and offspring number 3 arriving. Have no fear, Jinxy will be back once he realises that without CP he's just a very, very small person. Just like Karajerk did with his "leaving and never coming back" escapades. At least Dean (why no parthian shot Dean?) and Dan meant it when they walked away. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 11:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Machismo Catagory

It keeps getting stranger and stranger, Ken now has a MA-CHEESE-MO Categoryimg on Conservapedia. Thus far, no surprise, the only link is that Essay of his about Dawkins. He tries so hard. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Internet: Keeping raving lunatics off of street corners since the 70's. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Good ole Ken. I love how he can take a completely subjective concept such as macheeeeeeeesmo and stick it on whatever the hell he wants. SJ Debaser 18:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Should try this (Unfortunately it's shareware & I'm not sending $5. 18:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I downloaded that font years ago. I get all my fun fonts from dafont.com. Didn't know I had to send someone $5. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from his strange obsession with the concept, the funniest thing as far as I'm concerned is that he has failed to comprehend its meaning. Virtually all the definitions for it use the phrase "excessive" masculinity or the like. Ken, that's not supposed to be a good thing. Jammy (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like someone is jealous... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ken, you'd be so much happier if you just embraced who you are! HoorayForSodomy (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Or if he embraced someone with MACHISMO! --Kels (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Still no actual article on machismo either.68.147.139.21 (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia debates the notability of Assfly:

Browsing Articles for Deletion, I had a chuckle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Schlafly_(5th_nomination) — Unsigned, by: Overlord / talk / contribs

An obligatory snide remark that I put here because it has nothing to do with the AfD: I'm all for covering critics of Wikipedia in a neutral fashion, but perhaps covering Conservapedia under "best-known WP critics" would be too harmful for them. I mean, putting Andy there might make people notice easier how weird these people are. (Wikipedia: "Here's a list of big Wikipedia critics. Take a look." The reader moves on to Andy, who says: "Wikipedia is evil because they use wrong date style and encourages the use of complex numbers." Larry Sanger interjects: "and PORN." Reader, now truly perplexed: "WTF?") --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Meh, it's just a new-ish guy (contribs just go back to March 2) jumping the gun after two people re-redirected the article he basically recreated. I guess/think/hope it'll just be closed to let people do some regular discussing first. --Sid (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, the "article" (except for some misspellings) looks like an edited-down copy of ours. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it...

You go Ken!

Coming soon: Is Richard Dawkins the anti-Christ?

When the Conservapedians go on about how the purpose of RationalWiki is to "destroy" their website because of a few vandal attacks organised by members and past members of RationalWiki over 3 years ago - before it was the site it is today - they really have no one to blame but themselves. Apart from opening themselves up for all kind of parody simply because of the nature of their project, they ignore the blatant parodists and let them chase off decent (well, genuine) editors. JacobB, a parodist outed publicly here, has succeeded in chasing away a genuine conservative editor, Jinx. And Andy is just letting his sysops run wild, doing whatever the fuck they want. Andy hasn't even given Conservative the time of day with his various anti-something pet projects, Ed Poor has been editing intermittently over the last couple of weeks in his usual stubbing style, Karajou is still there but seems to be editing half-heartedly at what's happened to the site, Jpatt's become a grey blur while TK is just being the good ole liability he always is. Looking at recent changes, the entire page reflects a Kendoll editing spree covering an hour and a half. I don't even know what my point is now... oh yeah, save for about 5 or 6, there's no genuine editors left. SJ Debaser 09:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

By hour and a half, you must mean EIGHT HOURS. Which, honestly, is not that long for Ken. He must not be hitting the meth as hard as usual tonight.
And I mean that sincerely. I honestly believe Ken's on crank, because nothing else explains 30 hour edit sprees, obsessive devotion to a single thing, dozens of edits to get things just right... it all basically screams tweaker. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Something. As I write this he's on a nine+ hour run.--WJThomas (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
ELEVEN HOUR RUN! Is this normal for him? Seriously, does he sleep? He's edited through the night. Senator Harrison (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I really wonder how Ken prepares homework and writes tests in pen/pencil and paper if he edits like this. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Given that Ken is only allowed crayons to write with and a spork to eat with, I'm sure his minders aren't too interested in what his submissions are, provided he at least colours within the lines most of the time.
@The Super One. It would actually be interesting to draw up a list of notable exits, or absentees and their replacements over the past 12 months. I see even Roger has given up on trying to educate Andy in the ways of science. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Coming up for 13 hours now. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know if I was a decent editor, but I was a sincere one, although it wasn't JacobB directly that made me decide to leave, it was amusing that on multiple occasions he would essentially announce he was watching every edit I did for "evolutionary snobbery" (I love that term, so hilarious). Still, yeah, the demand for ideological purity in every article was too much. What is weird is seeing how much futher down the rabbit hole the site has gone since then, it just doesn't seem to end. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

He's coming up on 19 hours now. He started at 6:30 yesterday and his last edit was 4 minutes ago. He hasn't taken any substantial break in the mean-time. Senator Harrison (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
He's stopped just shy of 19 hours. I show him making edits between Jun 4 22:45 and Jun 5 17:25img Conservapedia time. It's 17:59 Conservapedia time now, so no additional edits for more than half an hour now. mb 22:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Meh, I considered the 1845 edit his starting time because that's funnier. But I guess in the interest of honesty and that it's still absolutely insane, just short of 19 hours of editing on dawkins is good. He fricken edited through the night. Maybe he has an overnight job and he has a computer... or he's a methhead. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Never ascribe to recreational pharmaceuticals what can be adequately explained by sheer insanity. mb 22:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Was going to wigo this but

its to weird.img Acei9 11:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, I think Dawkins can get a bit shrill at times, as witnessed in the God Delusion. Also, I'm pretty sure he doesn't suffer fools easily, which is why IDers and creationists might find him "abrasive". Then again, maybe Ken doesn't use KY and likes it "abrasive". --PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I dislike Dawkins in many ways. The point though is that Ken feels he needs an article, some of which is the exact content of the main Richard Dawkins piece, for every perceived character flaw in Richard Dawkins. Next it'll be "Richard Dawkins and improper use of a knife and fork". Acei9 11:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Ken's got over 100 edits just from today. EddyP (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
...And tomorrow, he'll work on a second sentence.--WJThomas (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
That is sooo CP - the anti-abortion project is basically stillborn (or aborted), Ken is the only person working on the Dawkins stuff, the CBP is dead in the water. Besides Ken's manic editing the rest of tem are all, "Ok, today we're going to destroy abortion on the inern- ooh! let's ride bikes!" yet, they still trumpet their pages of red links on the main page. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm particularly impressed that Ken has quoted someone quoting Dawkins! I will however 100% defend Dawkins's 'abrasiveness', religionists don't like it because they are used to people beating around the bush and indulging them with their 'philosophical' arguments, whereas Richy just steams right in: "so you think a magic man in the sky literally made the first man out of dust 6000 years ago? You idiot." Dawkins is an educated and intelligent man, he feels passionate about the importance of science and reason, and religionists are exactly counter to this. Keep going Richy, don't pull any punches. DeltaStar's got your back... DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Dawkins can be abrasive rather often, but the fact that anyone needs to write an article about that single aspect of his personality shows an extremely unhealthy obsession. I wonder if Ken has pictures of Dawkins up in his room/den/office/wherever he types. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
See, I don't get where people get the idea that the God Delusion was shrill. Do they mistake honest opinion and British humour for vibrating with anger? PubliusTalk 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't get where people get the idea that Dawkins is shrill or abrasive. Sounds like ad hom to me. Exasperated maybe but only when he's dealing with YEC nutters. The God Delusion wasn't shrill at all. Not very convincing perhaps, but not shrill. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I met Dawkins at a dinner held in his honor when he came to give a talk at my university. He definitely is abrasive. Sure, its a mix of politeness and abrasiveness, but the man made it clear that he not only thinks very highly of himself, but is fine with being completely dismissive of anyone who doesn't agree with him 100%. I mean, during the course of the dinner conversation, he insulted E.O. Wilson, David Sloan Wilson, and Americans in general (he really doesn't know much about this country and its history). There was a law professor at the dinner with whom Dawkins was having a pleasant exchange, but as soon as he found out the professor was Christian, Dawkins terminated the conversation, and then proceeded to ignore him save for a couple of slighting remarks. And this is a professor whose entire field of research and work deals with the legal aspects of creationism and how to combat attempts to slip creationism into schools. And then there was a grad student whose research was based on some of Dawkins' ideas, and, when the student tried to talk to him about them, Dawkins just rudely brushed him off. Dawkins is a really smart man who has done some good work, and he is probably the best writer on basic evolution there is, but he is a bit of a jerk. I think the adulation he has gotten from the New Atheist community (one atheist at the dinner referred to Dawkins as his "lord and savior", jokingly, but still) has gone to his head, and that is part of the problem. It is a pity, really, because I think it dissuades a lot of people from his writing. I've noticed that since "The God Delusion" came out, it is a whole lot harder to get people to read "The Blind Watchmaker". Kaalis (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I love how the main article sections all start "For more information please see:" with a link to an "article" with identical content to what is in the main article. I know, we've seen this before at the H, A, and E articles, but it is so lame and stupid to do it I just had to bring it up again. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that informative post, Kaalis; I think I like Dawkins even more now. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad to be of service, DeltaStar. Kaalis (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, fess up

Who did this? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That has been there for at least a year and half. I'm surprised he hasn't seen it yet since it comes up when you google his name. Senator Harrison (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
He lacks the has too much machismo to google his own name. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Lol, and I see JPratt has decided that Andy doesn't need to know there's a parody bio of him on the inner tubes. Always good to see they have Brother Leader's best interests at heart. He'll probably mention it in their new soopah seekrit hideout and claim the credit. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

On a separate but somewhat related note, the vandals at CP are getting ever stupider (more stupid?). Does cp:User:BDodge actually think that TK won't see right through him? I mean, the blog that he blatantly advertises on his userpage is mainly written by someone with the username Dendodge (and written extremely poorly at that). cp:User:MegA is obviously advertising the blog as well. Keegscee (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Apparently capture tags don't work when used with direct CP links. Apparently RW admins (specifically me) are getting stupider as well. Keegscee (talk)
Apparently you haven't thought of the idea that that was done intentionally (like not to capture some of the CP links on the wigo page), have you? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No, actually it's because of the way the parser works (it strips internal and interwiki links, replacing them with placeholders, then reinserts them later. the capture tag is run in between, so it doesn't see internal or interwiki links.) -- Nx / talk 22:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone do something

CP may have more going on at it lately, but I think that's just because the regulars have shut up, so we aren't seeing as much from them. Douglas, Jacob, use your positions of power to generate some lulz please! — Unsigned, by: Opcn / talk / contribs

CP is kinda like the tides. There are phases of low lulz and phases of high lulz. Right now, we're in the "high to low" or "low" phase: Andy has appeared in front of that Supreme Court thingy and Ken generated some buzz with his Dawkins/Socialism/Whatever Projects and MAH-CHEEEEEES-MOH, but by now, those are old news, and the good folks at CP are in their cooldown phase again, idly poking older projects (conservative parables, best of the public) in search of inspiration. Just give them some time, they'll find something entertaining to do in a few days or weeks. --Sid (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Andy has been quite entertaining today, what with the deaf psychiatrist parable, footie-hating, and praising Red China's educational system. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
To say nothing of the letter to Prof. Moo... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Two Psychiatrists

I love the inference that Reagan is somehow better that JFK because he wasn't assassinated Iatrogenic (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I love that the entire parable in the context of this page grinds down to "Be a good conservative - never listen to criticism!" --Sid (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the moral is "be a good conservative, don't do your job." DickTurpis (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I read the whole thing and I couldn't figure out what the meaning is. I interpreted it the way Dick did but I hope thats wrong. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that's the only way it can be interpreted; "Take money from people who need help but then do fuck-all." (Or possible in a more economic sense; "Increase your profit margins by not delivering the service for which you have been paid") Nice, either way. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This is what happens when a quote is run through the editorial mill of too many people who don't understand it. If you read more contemporaneous versions you get the gist of it: the elder psychiatrist is talking about emotional detachment/professionalism, and it's a story about pressure, not "vision". MaxAlex Swimming pool 15:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
To me it sounds like Reagan was just making one of his jokes. A little self-deprecating humor poking fun at the public perception that he was a lazy president. Bluefish (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
RWR was noted for having an afternoon nappy time everyday, maybe he was moar European than we knew? C®ackeЯ
Why does this say, 'Rowland Evans, the famed columnist, was having lunch with Ronald Reagan in 1987, six years into his presidency, a milestone by which the previous five presidents had been defeated, resigned in disgrace, refused to consider reelection...' I'm not actually American, but I was under the impression that no president could serve more than two consecutive terms of office, each term being four years in length. If that's the case, then not only would the 'previous five presidents' refuse to consider re-election six years into their terms, Reagan wouldn't have been considering it then (unless, of course, his Alzheimer's was kicking in, even back then), and no president before or since would either. 92.22.161.18 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Good point BON, the key words here, though, are "by which [time]" indicating "before the six year mark". And Shame on Kennedy for allowing himself to get kilt, (no better than that Lincoln fella). C®ackeЯ
Clarification for BoN: it's no more than two 4-year terms, irrespective of whether or not they're consecutive (though only Cleveland has served two non-consecutive terms). alt (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
In 1987, the fact that the same man had managed to be president for six whole years must actually have felt like a real sign of stability, especially after the chaos of the 60s and 70s. Not so much that it was jfk's fault for getting killed, more a sign of the times.
I still don't see what makes this a "parable", though. Bluefish (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
A true conservative knows that psychiatry is a load of mumbo-jumbo & just uses common sense while making a lovely profit. Reagan knew he was a load of mumbo-jumbo & just used his advisors while making a lovely profit. 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Soccer.

Andy admits he's wrong. But points out that in his defense, soccer is good for "picnics and growing up." In other words, it lacks--wait for it--ma-cheees-mo. P-Foster (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"That is so pathetic!" Nice to see Andy's partial to a bit of valspeak. Webbtje (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Gah, the bs is incredible! Soccer's not good on TV? Only the entire planet disagrees. It's not good for "statistical number crunching" because it's got low scores... and baseball? Andy really is a specimen. Bluefish (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK-gUXl7usc&feature=related DickTurpis (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noOHdTQd6H8&feature=related Keegscee (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZGmCjbYa0w --ZooGuard (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Ravaged by atheism, England cannot even field a decent soccer team anymore." He's gone too far. If he wants to use it to justify uncharitableness, rapes and mass killings, then that's totally fine, but when he attacks the England national team, he's gone too far. SJ Debaser 19:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there a footy match or something on? 19:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Yeah. Before they play USA, dirty atheistic England are taking on the rest of the world in a charity match (socceraid). But I'm sure the NFL do that like every week after they go to church. MaxAlex Swimming pool 20:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I am speechless. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

USA do have a very good goalkeeper, though. And England rarely fail to disappoint. Oh well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2TicMbH4OY&feature=related Toffeeman (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Then there is the extra irony of CP praising Red China in the very next In The News itemimg, an atheist and commie regime no less. They really simply do not like Britain, did Andy get kicked out of a pub or something? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I almost fell out of my chair with that one. Surely China uses a taxpayer-funded public education system? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Britain =/= England. alt (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Britain ⊃ England. I don't recall him saying anything that was actually about Britain, though. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 22:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Andy fears the English because he doesn't know anything about us, or the fact that there are 2 other countries on Great Britain. If Andy walked into a pub anywhere in England he'd stick out like a Christian Evangelist in an unholy land of atheism. SJ Debaser 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt that Andy would have more positive feelings towards Northern Ireland, Wales, or Scotland even if he realizes they are separate from England. He most likely just sees Britain as all the same and just calls it "England", justifying in his mind those other entities don't really count, rather then admitting he was wrong equating England with the United Kingdom as a whole. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck kind of warped view of sports do you have to have to come by the perception that the chief thrill of being a spectator is the statistical number crunching? If you want that, become a fucking train spotter. I think the rest of the world might appreciate the action and the skill of the competitors producing exciting moments a little more. Nobody fucking cheers down the pub when they announce that What-ever-his-name-is is on his half millionth cap. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Andy is right about one thing in a way, in that Soccer isn't as suited to television as American Football, in the sense that it's not as conducive to constant commercial breaks. Football might as well have been designed for that. (At least, I think this is true; I've never really watched soccer, to be honest.) DickTurpis (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The emphasis on stats is because an intense and exciting 90 minutes of footie can result in a 0-0 tie and no particular statistics of interest or use. On the other hand, even a boring, low score American football or baseball game results in megabytes of data to process. Therefore, since soccer sucks and AF and AB rule, statistics must be vital to enjoyment. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, since Andy seems to highly value a little manly body contact, I wonder how he feels about rugby and MMA? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"I appreciate your analysis. But England -- atheistic as it is -- a bit weak on the all-important passion and faith necessary to prevail in the big games, don't you think?" Heh. The Vatican should put forward a team, they'd dominate any opposition. X Stickman (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, they should. Vulpius (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well god damn. X Stickman (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Soccer IS an incredibly dull sport to watch, so I've always found. Quite fun to play, but it's no hockey. 68.147.139.21 (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see Andy's take on cricket. Acei9 05:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
People who claim cricket is boring to watch don't understand how to watch cricket. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Would that be tanked up and hardly able to stand? SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 07:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Shut your fucking face Chuck, cricket is lord. 07:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Take no offence to my agression. Acei9 07:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
"What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?" -C.L.R. James. P-Foster (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you shut up for once Ace. Go fuck yourself you sheep fucker. If Cricket is so great, why is it named after an insect? Exactly. Fuck you Ace, fuck you and your whole upside down wanna-be Australian countrymen. (I hope my joking demeanor is obvious) SirChuckBBATHE THE WHALES!!!! 07:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
i think you'll find crickets are in fact named after the sport, stupid. Acei9 07:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the two seem to have no connection Take that you ignorant prick. SirChuckBPenguin Knight, First Class 07:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
So fucking predictable, wikipedia. You believe everything they tell you? Create the controversy! Acei9 08:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Cricket has lots of stats, and so many silly positions. But seriously, why is there no sport called "Beetles"???? ħumanUser talk:Human 08:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Clueless sighting!

" the clueless and lazy Obama tries to deflect criticism"

It's on main page right, and looks like Andy's work but might be TK sucking up. Anybody got the energy to find the diff? Signed, Ed Poor. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes. [1]img ħumanUser talk:Human 22:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 22:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Talking to yourself is the first sign of being Ken, you know. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Cool, someone already added it to the clueless article. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

CP on Hayworth

Has CP covered the McCain/Hayworth primary at all? I'm curious to see the angle they take, what with McCain being their infallible hero in '08. They have to support Hayworth, though, don't they -- him being the teatards' pick? We'll surely see the RINO tag being slapped back on McCain and some serious whitewashing soon, I imagine. DickTurpis (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall a few pro-Hayworth items in the Breaking Snooze column.--WJThomas (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy wastes the time of yet another expert

This time it's a professor working on translating the Bible. He's bragging about the speed at which the Conservative Bible was completed. Well, it's easy to get it done when all you're doing is rewording the KJV to say what you want it to say. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And people up above were complaining that CP is slow lately... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Damn. For the first time in a while Andy had me checking the page history to make sure it wasn't parody. That is indicative of a high level of whatthefuckery. DickTurpis (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
He was even drifting into a Kennish level of repetitiveness. Also, isn't "Biblical" supposed to be capitalized? Someone had better keep egging him on, or he's gonna forget about this now that he has vented. And why is he ccing Jerry Falwell Jr.? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
WOOOOT! That is hysfuckinsterical! Good old Andy! 01:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I like how JacobB pretend to know ancient Greek. Whoever is running this sock needs to start thinking about endgame. DickTurpis (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh! I may have discovered his endgame! DickTurpis (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Andy not understand how publication works? I wonder if he wrote a letter to J.K. Rowling asking her to release her first draft of book 7 to the public so that he could condemn all the evil witchcraft contained within. Jammy (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeeze, that blog must have stung: "ANDY SCHLAFLY’S CONSERVATIVE BIBLE PROJECT". Also: he's written the "letter" as a wiki page: does he expect Professor Moo to read it where it is, references and all. The man's an idiot (sorry, I know you all know that already) 02:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I'm sure he'll email it like he did with Lenski. DickTurpis (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Would be interesting if Professor Douglas (Moo?) responded with a copious amounts of links to RW. I loved how much shit Andy and others took for censoring Lenski's link to this site. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 02:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
We should drop a line to Dr. Moo and poke the whole situation with a stick give him a bit of a heads-up. P-Foster (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Even emailing it, he'll need to sort the references somehow. Probably the best bit's in the head: "scholarly significance"!!!! 02:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
You know what I love and we all know it....I "translated" some of the CBP and it literally took all of about 30 mins. if that per chapter and all I did was reword it into more modern English. Those parts that were a bit archaic I looked up in the NIV and just paraphrased from that version. I'll let you guess whether there was any discussion or whether it was sent through exactly how I wrote it. Can Andy really be so stupid or arrogant to think that his version is anywhere near as scholarly as one that probably took months per chapter and a hell of a lot of actual language knowledge? Of all the shit that I've heard Andy spew, this childish letter really, really, pisses me off for shear, absolute gall. This intellecual gnat with one of the biggest egos I've seen on the net is going to lecture an actual scholar based on what, the fact that he didn't rush his project through like a bad screenplay? He's going to make allusions to Moo's lack of integrity based on nothing but....well nothing. Oh wait, Moo had problems with Andy's steaming pile of shit and in Andyland any criticism must be the work of librulz!!!!!!!!!! What the hell is the letter anyway? It isn't a scholarly helpful letter, no references anywhere, just a bunch of accusations couched in "concern". No reason for concern cited by Andyroo I should point out. I'll stop now before I really go into a rant.NetharianCubicles are prisons! 03:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It's just another example of Andy's way of thinking; everything is a competition. Everything. Conservatives are better than liberals, full stop. Christianity is better than everything else. Not just to his opinion, mind you, in an objective way. So this is just another aspect of that; Andy's bible was done quicker and other people have read it, therefore he's won and is better. He's like that kid at school who saw every task as a race; he'd race you to finish a drawing, a piece of work, to the front of the lunch queue etc... X Stickman (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Andy should send him the machismo essay. Acei9 04:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Two thoughts - 1. Why would the Presbyterian Church of America care enough for him to cc them? 2. Note the references to the Lenski exchange. He really thinks that whole thing rebounded to his benefit! Andy's cluelessness is just epic. Kaalis (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Unintentional wisdom by Andy: "Christianity wouldn't exist if fear of ridicule were a concern." --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

[2] ħumanUser talk:Human 07:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Moo on the CBP: "Silly is probably as kind as I could be about it". Andy, please give him reason to elaborate in a less kind fashion! 08:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Poor lamb, he doesn't even have PJR to restrain him from his craziness this time. His hubris is once again unleashed, and he's surrounded only by parodists and trolls egging him on to further heights of idiocy. This is going to be fun. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
And as another Lenski mess is about to begin, I feel reminded of these words: "As Director of Internal Counterintelligence, I felt deeply remorseful for what transpired in my absence. Namely the Hit List, Lenski affairs, and infiltration into the Zuegledon group. These Ne-ev-er would have happened had I been around. Ne-eev-er." Your move, Rob. Go ahead and tell Andy that this is a bad idea. *grabs the popcorn* ;) --Sid (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is too rich

Obvious parodist ReligiousRight suggests that Andy's students scrawling bible verses on their face before tests to improve their performance[3]. JLatt comments on the post[4], pointing out the obvious parody, but TK objects[5], and warns him not to make any more personal attacks on ReligiousRight. Good lord! HoorayForSodomy (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's obivious that the Shadow Parodist Wing is quite powerful on CP. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
So have we changed the rules from not outing parody, to only non-obvious parody while shining a light on the really, really, really, obvious parody? :P NetharianCubicles are prisons! 03:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What did I out? My whole point is that not only did TK notice RR's suggestion that the homeskoolerz take tests with bible verses on their face, he DEFENDED it. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Was actually an honest question. What do we do in cases where the parody is obvious?NetharianCubicles are prisons! 03:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I ignore it. The greatest parody in the world is less than 1% as funny as Andy's collected insights and Ken's marathon editing sprees and MA-CHEEEEEEEEESE-MO speculations. --Kels (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the rules against outing parody only apply to new parodists on tenuous ground. RR, on the other hand, has been rebuked as a parodist on CP and no one seems to care. He's safe until TK gets his taste for blood back. Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊。商讨。 04:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think HFS, or anyone else here, violated any rules about outing stuff. People need to be less critical in this area. The rule was obviously intended to not help them find stupidities, so that they can fix same. We want all the long-standing parody and vandalism (like [never mind] and [never mind] and [never mind] ....) that is on CP to stay that way, so there will be more lulz for passers-by. Stupidity that the sysops currently know about is fair game. If Andy/TK/Jacob/etc don't think it's parody when it's pointed out to them, then it isn't parody; it's just lulz. Gauss (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I asked is because I personally made a WIGO awhile ago on obvious parody in the same vein as this and got called on it.NetharianCubicles are prisons! 05:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I love how JacobB hides Andy's earlier statement (This is superb! In reply to Ed, I agree that the statement this confirms the multiplication of the loaves is over-the-top, though funny. Thanks for deleting the comedy.) But he didn't oversight it - on purpose?
larronsicut fur in nocte 06:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus and the Axiom of Choice, take two

January: User claimsimg that Jesus used Banach-Tarski to duplicate the loaves ("it can also be viewed as a mathematical affirmation of the biblical story of the loaves and the fishes"). Ed Poor deletesimg it as comedy, and Andy agreesimg, opining that "[the claim that BT confirms the] multiplication of the loaves is over-the-top, though funny". June: Andy changes his tuneimg: "this paradox -- or insight -- bears a striking resemblance to the multiplication of the loaves, which is the only miracle described in all four Gospels." Not quite as strong a claim, I suppose, but pretty bad... --MarkGall (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And to think that, only hours ago people were (rightly) lamenting the boredom of CP, and Sid observed that the tides come and go. Well, the tide is coming in, folks! We have a new crop of parodists and suck-ups, like ReligiousRight, KevinO, and probably PhillipA. And math seems to be the place to be. Loaves and fishes and Banach-Tarski? That's as cool as faith healing disproving relativity. But remember, if Jesus can invent comedy, he can invent measure theory too. Who would have thought that the "feeding of the multitudes" involved tricks of measure theory? But, then, I haven't studied the Bible in the original Greek, unlike Jacob. Funny how no other biblical translator ever had that mathematical insight--it's certainly not in my KJV.
And another Lenski episode on the horizon!
And the math course is heating up, with Jacob and Andy falling all over each other with self-congratulation. It's going to be a fun summer, folks! Gauss (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Ken's gotta take his game up a notch or he'll get left behind! --Kels (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)