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

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 372: Line 372:
 
:::::I can understand why it may have taken 16 years to beat the audience of Brazil vs Italy in the US. Anybody tuning into that match hoping for a display of exquisite, flowing, and artistic football would have been scarred for life. [[User:Bondurant|Bondurant]] ([[User talk:Bondurant|talk]]) 14:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::I can understand why it may have taken 16 years to beat the audience of Brazil vs Italy in the US. Anybody tuning into that match hoping for a display of exquisite, flowing, and artistic football would have been scarred for life. [[User:Bondurant|Bondurant]] ([[User talk:Bondurant|talk]]) 14:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::I think this also shows Andy & TK's (well, more Andy's, we know TK's just trolling his nipples off) warped sense of patriotism. It's not a case of "well, they lost, better luck next time", but rather, "we lost, it's the liberals / feminists / god's fault and it's a crappy sport anyway, so who cares." --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 14:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::I think this also shows Andy & TK's (well, more Andy's, we know TK's just trolling his nipples off) warped sense of patriotism. It's not a case of "well, they lost, better luck next time", but rather, "we lost, it's the liberals / feminists / god's fault and it's a crappy sport anyway, so who cares." --[[User:Psygremlin|<b><font color="blue">PsyGremlin</font></b>]]{{User:Psygremlin/sig|}} 14:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Four counts of attempted murder for two people? ==
 +
 +
I'm having difficulty putting two and two together here. (Pun not intended, but well appreciated.)  So, how can he be charged with four counts of attempted murder, when there were only two people that were potential victims? (Note: there is still a victim in a justified homicide, just no criminal.)  Is this DA honestly trying to say that each bullet fired is a separate chargeable act?  So, if I shoot a full 25-round clip in the general direction of 4 people in his jurisdiction, is he going to charge me with 100 counts of attempted murder?  There's a reason why DAs aren't allowed to break up a single continuous action into multiple charges... it is over punishing a criminal act.
 +
 +
So, I'm wondering.  There are 12 felony counts involved in this... does anyone have any clue what the other charges are, or any further details?  How the hell did this guy get charged with so much for the discharge of two bullets?  I mean, 2 counts attempted murder, and 1 count grievous bodily injury, I can totally see, but 12?  Seriously, what could he have done to piss off the system so much?
 +
 +
... is he black? --[[User:Eira|<b style="color:#FF4488">Eira</b>]] [[User Talk:Eira|<sup style="color: #220088">omtg!</sup>]] [[Goat|The Goat]] be [[LLama|praised.]] 07:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:15, 10 July 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

Socialist Soccer

Guess that means that socialism and liberalism are the most popular philosophies in the world with conservatism trailing a very distant last. Guess Numbnuts didn't think that one through. Whoops, no of course, he did think it through, it's just another sad attempt to make Andy look like a dribbling imbecile.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 16:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See also here (I beat TK to it, it seems) 17:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

The butthurt is strong with that one. (that ought to have been a WIGO's title). So, since I don't watch socialist football, I take it the US lost or something? Sen (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically every four years the Yanks get reminded that they suck at the world's most popular sport. Instead of admitting that they suck they pretend that it doesn't matter because it's a girly game and lacks macheesmo. Meanwhile Terry Koeckritz picked up the link that was posted in the Saloon Bar and used it as part of his CP Parody - he's getting almost as good as Bugler these days. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious why CP has such a downer on football (i.e. the ball game played with the feet). The USA has a pretty good team which almost always gets past the group stage at the World Cup. But the trouble is they then lose to homosexual-loving, dope-smoking Dutchmen or socialist-voting, nudity-tolerating Brazilians. True Murr'cns who play true Murr'cn sports - sports that no-one else plays - conservative sports - don't have the problem of meeting people from other countries who are not completely identical in every way to Murr'cns. The Real James Brown (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Soccer is a socalist sport until Heathen Germany imports Christians! AceLiquid Room 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the biggest star is muslim - Mesut Oezil - but somehow, CP is a little shy about mentioning that... The Real James Brown (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Look at who holds the (now defunct) Rugby Olympic title, where handling the ball is of course encouraged. 20:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
That proves it. Goddidit. In fact, Goddunnit so much he's cast a spell (or whatever it is he does) to prevent anyone else organising rugby at the Olympics and thus depriving the Murr'cns of their status as champion ball-handlers. The Real James Brown (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Atheistic, Socialist NZ holds the Rugby World Cup Next year. Hope Andy catches it. If not I am sure I can dangle some bait for TK. I would really like to see CP's take on Rugby which is far more brutal and replete with machismo than any American sport. AceLiquid Room 21:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Some time ago I saw a comparison between the max forces on the bodies of American footballers and Rugby footballers. The momentary forces on the American Footballers were higher, but, after allowing for the body armour, the actual stresses on the individuals were the same per tackle. having said that the rugger players stayed on the field for the whole game being involved in up to 40 tackles - not just in 4 - 5 minute patches and possibly only participating in two tackles per game (apparently?) The were all Americans btw - even the rugger players - from California somewhere.
Reasons why Rugby is not a conservative sport. 1. Throwing the ball forwards is illegal - an example of liberals making up rules as they go along. 2. Tackling players off the ball is illegal - i.e. people who play liberal sports are panty-waists. 3. Players don't wear padding - i.e. people who play liberal sports don't take good care of the bodies that God made for them. 4. You only get five points for a try (touch-down), not six - so liberals undervalue individual effort and initiative. 5. You get three points for a drop goal (field goal), not just one - so liberals overvalue sneaky ways of taking advantage of your opponents' lack of organisation. 6. All the players stay on the field for the whole game (more or less) - so who's on the bench praying for divine intervention????? Go on, have a go yourself. Try "why cricket is liberal and baseball is conservative" or "why it is more conservative to play hockey on ice than on grass". The Real James Brown (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Nearly forgot. 7. Rugby players can hold the ball with their hands even though the game is called Rugby football - an example of liberal deceit. The Real James Brown (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Correction: a field goal is USian Football is 3 points, it's the conversion after a touchdown that is worth 1. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Liberal denial; open your mind. Meanwhile, I'll be trying to figure out how the oversight function works again. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Correction to Human. In American football, a touchdown is worth 6 points (with an extra point conversion worth 1 for a kick, or 2 for running or throwing it in) and a field goal (kicking it through the uprights from the field of play is worth 3 points. SirChuckBBoom Goes the Dynamite 00:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind doing one myself: Why is tennis a liberal sport?
  • 1.) The scoring system, using words such as "love" and "deuce", is derived from French terms - a language spoken by a country plagued by universal healthcare and un-creationist beings.
  • 2.) Of the eight current Wimbledon champions, only two hail from the great US, and both of them happen to be female - there is clearly a liberal, anti-American conspiracy going on here. Not to mention that they are both women, who we all know to be intellectually inferior to men.
  • 3.) When a player makes a serve, it must land in the opposite service box without touching the net, all while the player uses correct footing - an example of strict and complicated rules held by the common power-hungry liberal.
  • 4.) The wacky and patternless scoring system (15-30-40) can only be the figment of a liberal mind - who else would make such a scoring system that has no math base whatsoever?
  • 5.) Conservative President Richard Nixon used "Ping Pong Diplomacy", with ping pong being a sport similar to tennis. The liberally-biased Wikipedia, however, censors this fact on their article regarding ping pong.
  • 6.) The server has the advantage of winning - an unfair setup, similar to one that a liberal would often use at the beginning of a debate to give himself an advantage, such as using liberal assumptions or statements that put the opponent in bad light. ~SuperHamster Talk 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Does Andy complain about the rules of Soccer? I mean, American Football has more convoluted rules than just about any other sport. For a guy who boasts that his wiki has only a few straightforward rules, he certainly isn't using the same criterion to judge his sports. DickTurpis (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that cricket is more convoluted, but given that the NFL rule book is 289 pages and the ICC rule book is a measly 116 pages, I have to take my hat of to the yanks, you are the owners of the most confusing sport in the world. - π 07:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Simon, you are guilty of the liberal trait of giving undue weight to the number of pages without regard to page, margin and font size. Also Cricket has 42 rules while NFL has only 18, therefore Cricket is more complicated! However, looking at the NFL rule book there are so many sub-sections, exeptions, penalties, official signals that gives me impression that it is intensely rule-bound. The paradox of course is that, for me, it is more liberal to have fewer rules. There was a dsicussion about the UK constitution on the radio yesterday and whether we should have a single codified document similar to the USA, but it was pointed out that the US constitution is not a single document with its 27 ammendments but also includes 270 volumes of case law.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The FIFA Laws of the Game] has only 17 rules and 140 pages, all available as a freely downloadable PDF file - now that's socialism.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The rule thing is Terry Koeckritz's parody.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The opening sentence of their article is a delicious combination of parodies, mocking CP's politicization of anything and incredibly poor writing/editing style: "Soccer is a popular Socialist football sport played with a round ball propelled mainly by kicks from a player's foot." ħumanUser talk:Human 09:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

JDWpianist's point

Actually I didn't notice early but he noted the effect of unionisation in the NFL. Next year there might not even be an NFL due to a players strike, but each year the best soccer players keep getting paid more and more in a open market where you can be traded freely between leagues. Also, I don't know the rules of soccer management, but in the NFl you can only sell a team with the agreement of all the other owners, seems very socialist to me. - π 12:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that most big UK (and I assume European) clubs are publicly listed companies and many others are propriety companies. Also, let's not forget that one of the most successful teams of the early days was that nasty bunch of Commies, the Old Etonians. Altho, let's not mention that to Andy; I couldn't stand explaining to that mental midget how an English public school is actually a private school. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Not in anyway true I'm afraid. The majority of clubs are private companies, and some of those that are listed are seeking to delist and go private again. That I can think of from the so called 'big' 5 Chelsea, Stretford Plc (man u), Moss side rovers (man shitty), Liverpool and Arsenal are all private companies. Going down further off the top of my head Fulham, Birmingham, Tottenham, Wigan and Newcastle are also private. I'm not sure about Everton, Bolton and West Brom but I think they are. I can't think of a single club listed on the main market. One or two may be listed on AIM but that's about it.
The sad truth is that almost all league football clubs in the UK, English and Scottish, are private companies wholly owned by a small number of shareholders.
There are a couple of supporters trust run clubs and a very small number in which supporters have some stake, normally through the auspices of a co-operative society or the like, but true listed companies or fans owned clubs are few and far between even down so far as the 7th level of the league.
The honourable exceptions including the wonderful AFC Wimbledon and clubs like Telford and Wrexham.Oldusgitus (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Two things. Firstly, I wish JDWP had mentioned the byzantine beurocracy involved in the football rulebook, and how damn wordy and petty it is.
Secondly, are the national teams really the big ones? Here we have multiple teirs of teams, and when it comes to an international competition (like the world cup, or the olympics) we cheer for the national team, it seems like TK couldn't possibly know what teams people cheer for outside of the world cup because he has a pretty lousy sample, i.e. what people are excited about during the world cup. --Opcn (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Vector Fields

I knew it would happen sooner or later. Andy's desperation to get the number of Conservative TermsTM to double every century has reached the point where a conservative vector fieldimg is now a conservative term, even though the article itself says "(not related to political conservatism)". He shows his usual scientific and mathematical ignorance of the whole subject, of course.

One hour later, he used this new "insight" to add crap about "Virtually all well-tested fundamental physical forces"img and points out that relativity fails this. He cites what seems to me to be a bullshit paper. The paper was apparently never published in a real ("peer-reviewed", i.e. "worst of the public" / "atheist" / "lamestream" / "driving-people-away-from-the-bible") journal, and no reputable scientist seems to have picked up on this person's discovery in the 30 years since the paper was published. Andy seems to scour the internet for crackpot papers that support his delusions, whether they be about relativity, cosmology, or Fermat's Last Theorem.

Is anyone else (Hi, MarkGall!) able to say whether the paper is bullshit? Yes, we know that Andy's conclusions from it are bullshit.

Gauss (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the paper is bullshit, but here's one by an actual physicist that says: "The work of Vera in no way refutes the account given above of energy conservation." [...] "The fact that this article has never been cited by journals indexed in the ISI Web of Science database tends to confirm that Vera has not made a strong case against any important part of standard physical theory." I think it's safe to say Andy's conclusions are bullshit. --MarkGall (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
A correction to Gauss's comment: the paper was actually published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, which is a proper peer-reviewed journal - not an incredibly well-known journal in the field by any means, but I've read some interesting papers from it. However, this is the only paper listed on the author's website as having been published (conference proceedings aside); there's a long list which are tellingly described as "Sent to <journal which rejected him>". Although that doesn't necessarily mean anything for this paper, I'm rather sceptical. If I can work up the courage I'll try reading it in the morning.. alt (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
By that logic perhaps they should make the word "numbers" as a conservative term as well because 1) it's a book in the Bible and 2) scalar field is a 1 dimensional vector field (There should be no rotation in an 1D vector field, right?) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, as long as they're not those nasty liberal complex numbers. Cantabrigian (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Homework Questions

Has then been mentioned before? What a pile of utter gibberish. AceLiquid Room 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw it a while ago. I like: "Teaching more people how to read: that benefit one political side more than the other?" - dunno, Andy, but you really ought to learn how to FUCKING WRITE! (sorry - he just gets me so mad- that thing pretends to teach!) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Also: "Students seeking to earn college credit can take the CLEP or AP exams upon successful completion of this course." Say No More! 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I like: "Why should it matter what the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution was?" Because Andy is attempting to (re)interpret the "Original" meaning of the Constitution from a letter by George Washington to use that to recall some NJ Senator. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
His first lecture is now up, along with some more "homework". First order of business: teach your students how to pull numbers out of their asses, Conservapedia-style. Röstigraben (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Politics is like icbergs
The midterm elections; what it affects, and what it does not affect
Andy Schlafly, the great miseducator.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind, these are his first draft lecture notes. He will IMPROVZZEZ them in due time. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget to make sure you count independents as democrats... I actually can't wait to see the turned in the homework and see Andy grade them just to see if he calls any of the "students" a liberal.Quazywabbit (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
There is one enormous trick question in the list - Define conservative and liberal.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
From Conservapedia: Liberal: One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative.
Now if I say Conservative is the to opposite of liberal do I get full marks? - π 09:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
These two have always seemed like good working definitions to me:
Liberal: Politically "Left", whatever that means.
Conservative: Usually mad at the Liberals.
From the Illuminati card-game's rules. --Gulik (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Defining 'Liberal' and 'Conservative'

I wish I could remember the exact wording a very politically astute friend of mine came up with some years ago, but...

Conservative: Favors what is proven and traditional, often attracted to candidates with strong background and experience.

Liberal: Favors bold new ideas, often attracted to candidates with a vision.

One of my more smart-ass friends responded with:

Liberal: Sexy, bright and witty. Generally favors candidates with brains.

Conservative: Mean, bitter and nasty. Often smells of steamed cabbage.

MDB (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Soccer denies intelligent use of the hands, while encouraging unintelligent use of the brain"

Amazing. You know something that denies intelligent use of the hands? Hotdog eating competitions. AceLiquid Room 00:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You know something that encourages intelligent use of hands? Pleasuring oneself. You know something that requires intelligent use of brains? Managing infidelity. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
"(By the way, I wonder if "rise to the bait" is a cp:mixed metaphor -- uh oh, we need an entry about that)" No Andy, it's not. It's just a metaphor. It's about fishing. Get it? Another sport many consider boring, but some enjoy. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, check out Andy's brilliang new article I just fixed link to! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't be stupid Human, fishing is clearly a conservative activity as people who fish can the sell to the free market. Jesus endorsed fishing himself on the Mount. AceLiquid Room 02:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yet all these activities, including Jesus's fishing ventures, deny the intelligent use of the appendix. I sense a socialistic takeover. ~SuperHamster Talk 02:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
You know, I never fully grasped the concept of sour grapes until I read the neoncon reaction to the US's performance in the World Cup. DickTurpis (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Really? Their reaction to Obama winning was sour grapes by the bushel. - π 05:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Soccer football actually requires restraint of the hands, conscious control over automatic reflexes. Surely that would make it a conservative trait? Use of the hands would be a filthy liberal tactic and bad-sportsmanship. Andy & TK's ridiculous posturing to score political points (more like own goals) is a just a gossamer veil for their naked xenophobia.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I play in goal, which pretty much requires use of the hands (unless I want to lose really, really badly) - does that make me a conservative football player? Worm(t | c) 09:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I deliberately left the goalie out because it's such an obvious, allowed exception. But yes, goalkeepers by nature are extremely conservative their role being to defend the status quo; there even used to be a saying as safe as the Banks of England.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins dislikes football. Doesn't that mean that those who don't like football are machismo-challenged?Toffeeman (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I would have thought that scum-sucking miserable excuse for a human Uruguayan piece of shit (no, I'm not bitter) using his hand to block a certain goal was a clear case of liberal deceit. But if he used his hand, then it must a conservative trait. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, one of my most conservative friends is rather disgusted by his fellow conservatives' loathing for soccer. Of course, his love of soccer is practically genetic -- his grandfather was a huge fan of the game, helped establish organized soccer in Maryland, and is in the American soccer hall of fame. MDB (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently Andy and TK are not the only ones to think that "soccer" is a socialist sport. Cantabrigian (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess Soccer doesn't require using the one real distinctive feature of humans in comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom, out large brains. Except of course, like all sports, it does, because it requires tactics and skill.
What I really do not understand is CP's weird obsession with the sport. They obviously follow the World Cup based on the repeated front page pronouncements about various national teams winning and losing, but for some reason, they hate the sport they loyally follow. I suspect it represents the hate-love schism thay have for themselves as individuals. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Capturing this gem from the pianist just in case TK doesn't think it's funny: Talk:Mainimg --MarkGall (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Epic. I'm very impressed. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 23:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
TK responds with a pretty weak, cut-and-paste comebackimg. "I rest my case" indeed. Junggai (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah didn't the moron say exactly the same thing a day or two ago? WTF, deja vu? ħumanUser talk:Human 13:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Not yet, though he's quoted just about every other dubious assertion from that blog. Junggai (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone remember if all of these nonsense 'Spirituality and political conservatism = Sports prowess' CP blog posts were going on during the Olympics, or is it just for the World Cup? Also, TK wrote "Soccer is the only sport in the world where you cannot use the one tool that distinguishes man from beast: opposable thumbs". Actually, most primates have opposable thumbs, as do pandas and some marsupials[1].--Leotardo (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz, I know you're reading this. Seriously, all you can do is quote the same dumb blog over and over? Some peple are unoriginal, but you're pathologically so. Get some ideas, little man. Junggai (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's Really hot in the N.E. USA, what is God punishing us NOW for Andru?

It's got be the gays, or liberals, or UK people, or "BCE". If I'm really really un-liberal, like telling Andru his Bible is awesome, do you think God will turn down the temp? Thanks. Jimaginator (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

is that a star trek reference to landru? 207.67.17.45 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, as a liberal, I'm probably lying, but Yes... Jimaginator (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It's because the Queen of atheistic Britain is visiting us in New York today. God is giving her a preview of the scorching fires of hell. --Composure1 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I knew there had to be a logical reason. Who says God works in mysterious ways. Once you say it, it's so obvious. Jimaginator (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
She's the head of a liberal, atheistic church after all. Webbtje (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Summer here is hot. And humid. Not unseasonal yet in my clime, although predictions were for crazy heat levels that never occurred. ħumanUser talk:Human 13:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It's effing hot here but I've been drunk on pre-mixed margaritas for 4 days and haven't noticed. ÑR/Señor Admin/Talk 22:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least we know it isn't global warming. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 23:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lanka?

Concerning that WIGO about CP's newsline on abortion-breastcancer research, what's meant with the bolded Sri Lanka part? Does the location of the research impact its validity, or am I missing some kind of joke or something? To me it just looks disgustingly racist in a way, it might as well say "How could those loons at CP use a source that's a study conducted by Asians?". --GTac (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say racist but certainly "Heh, those 2nd worlders! What do they know?" a bit of cultural superiority perhaps. Anyway, change yes. AceLiquid Room 08:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed. AceLiquid Room 08:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Sri Lanka specifically isn't known for their high academic standards. For instance you can get a mail ordered MD from Sri Lanka, that's what "Dr." Nick Begich MD did. It's also third world, second world is the soviet union and their allies. But it is war torn, and that always boosts the level of academic research right? --Opcn (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, right? How can anyone possibly trust their lying, liberal statistics?  Lily Inspirate me. 09:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, whatever. To use the parlance of our times, Sri Lanka is a developing nation. Still, the WIGO betrayed an unnecessary cultural superiority. AceLiquid Room 09:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like my irony was too subtle.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't even read your comment, Lily. AceLiquid Room 09:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

World Cup Germany

So now that Germany lost what is CP going to say about the World Cup and who do they expect to win. They first predicted Ghana for there religious nature but they are out, they then picked Germany since they have members from [what they consider] christian countries and they are out. So we have Netherlands with its legal soft-drug usage and red light district and considered to be very liberal and Spain. Quazywabbit (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain: Catholic country. Bondurant (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I predict one of two outcomes... 1) The winner will suddenly become the great bastion of Christendom, its articles whitewashed of liberal accusations, and its history declared Conservative™ in the defense of Andy's convictions that only Christian Conservatives can win at sports. 2) Soccer and the World Cup become liberal cesspools of deceit and treachery. No Christian could ever win because of liberal bias, everyone that lost early will now have lost from persecution by atheists. In either scenario, any insinuation that Conservapedia said anything different before will be met with swift banning. HumanisticJones (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
IIRC, Spain is laxer on personal use of drugs than The Netherlands, but can't find a ref. just now. CS Miller (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering that Andy does not like soccer he has spent quite a lot of time talking about it--Tlaloc (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Csmiller: Yup, in spain one can grow as much weed as one likes legally, as long as you don't smoke it in public or sell it[2]. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 23:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, Tlaloc, I don't remember the main page ever being as overrun by sports of any kind. Very strange. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Spain just liberalized its abortion law. A World Cup defeat would be a logical result of that. M the T (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
They will just declare Soccer a liberal, socialist sport, that is why leftist European nations are in the final, it won't matter wither Spain or the Netherlands wins. TK is already setting it up this way through his regular rants against the sport. This way they can attempt to claim they were "ahead of the curve". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Spain does have a longer history of Muslim-bashing than any other country. Santiago Matamoros and all that.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 09:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
"They will just declare Soccer a liberal, socialist sport" - already done!img. Cantabrigian (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The US did win women's world cup twice, and in the top 3 every time. Ergo, US is a liberal, Socialist country. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)On a related note, about TK's rant about 'soccer' only being popular where it doesn't 'compete' with other sports, if you bothered to simply check Google, TK, you'd see there's leagues for basketball, ice hockey, wrestling and even American football in just about every European country, including the UK, which many consider the 'home' of football (or 'soccer', as you'd call it), and Italy, who are famously mad for the sport - it's just they're nothing like as popular as football. So, no real surprise to note that you're just plain wrong about that. Oh, and, as for your comment about 'X Games', 'X Games' is an event set up by the American broadcaster ESPN, and, as such, is, of course, in America. Other places have similar things, like the annual Ekstremsportveko event in Norway, so, again, you appear to simply be wrong in your little rant. 92.6.214.109 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So much clueless

Andy might know all about the teams' religious views, but he's clueless about everything else. The "Trustworthy" blog proudly displays the "World Cup arena" where Spain will play the Netherlands.img Ok, Terry, now listen closely, because I'm only going to say this once.

  • It's not an "arena", it's a stadium.
  • The photo is of the Royal Bafokeng Stadium in Rustenburg and is captioned as such.
  • This stadium hosted it's last match on June 26.
  • The final is at Soccer City in Johannesburg on July 11.

Now, I know that when Andy was faced with all this socialistic sport and liberal multi-culturism he probably got a bit confused, so be a good lackey and run along and fix Andy's fuck-up on the main page, will you? Run along now. Good boy! After all, I'm sure that not even you want Andy's ignorance displayed for all to see. You're welcome. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.

  • It's not the World Cup championship.

 Lily Inspirate me. 07:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It would appear as if Jaoquin reads us too.img Now about that "championship"... --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Children preying on children

fun stuffimg courtesy of the Ken. --Opcn (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Egad, it is the equivalent of someone placing an "I am a moron" sticker on the back of your t-shirt and instead of taking it off, you wear it with pride. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Question evolution? Yes, of course, question everything. Don't forget to also question GOD. 00:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
If they were actually questioning it I'd be all for it, sadly what they are doing is denying it and saying that they are questioning, skipping past that whole pesky inquiry step. --Opcn (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
DING! Yes, they made up their minds quite a long time ago on evolution and it wasn't through rigorous scientific scrutiny. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what did Noah do with all the freshwater fish?82.23.208.15 (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a miracle! You see when you misunderstand Occams razor then "The toothfairy did it" always passes muster. --Opcn (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha. But two can play at this game. Using almost as much time as Collected Morons International did, Anti-Aliasing-What's-That? Productions proudly present The science vs. stupidity store. Gorge yourselves on its goodness. Or not. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeeves FTW!!!! 08:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Guns in church

Not only Andy's reaction, but the news itself shock me.

If I've understood correctly, as an American you do have the (constitutional) right to carry guns - however, the owner of any non-public place such as a workplace, a private property, a church etc, also has the right to forbid you from bringing the gun (or just about anything else) into these facilities.

And, as I see it, this bill somehow forces churches (and only churches) to allow anyone to enter carrying a gun. Or, is it some kind of previous ban of guns in churches (and only churches) that now has been lifted?

Either way, I cannot understand how Andy thinks this is a good thing. Etc 07:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. NH is a "will allow" concealed carry state and two techs next door, well, pack heat at work. And at least one of them has poor judgment in my opinion. The other one is just a redneck. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you know why? Are there lots of people who feel the need to wander about armed to the teeth? Broccoli (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
St. Gabriel Possenti approves of this bill! --TheEgyptiansig001.png 11:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I note the article CP links to says that the law says that it will allow guns in "“any church, synagogue, mosque or other similar place of worship.” (emphasis added.) Just wait till the "ZOMG! Muslims are coming for us!" crowd sees a Muslim heading into a New Orleans mosque packing heat. Their little brains will melt into oil and add to the Deepwater spill.
More seriously, I seem to remember this law was discussed earlier on RW, and one of our Louisiana resident members said that the law made it legal to carry concealed weapons into places of worship (presumably it had previously been completely prohibited, or perhaps the new law expressly allows it where it was unclear before), but said houses of worship could still prohibit guns on the premises. MDB (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Presumably guns in church are good because of the horrible Conservative parable. Cantabrigian (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I am curious, the article is rather vague on this, were firearms specifically prohibited from being brought into houses of worship beforehand? From what I can gather, such places can now allow concealed weapons rather then being required to allow people to carry them to such places. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In a state other than Louisiana (I can't remember which one, but I want to say it was my birthplace of Tennessee), a similar law was passed. Churches had to post very official looking, ugly signs to state that guns were prohibited. My instincts are that most churches would probably forgo the sign and say something on the order of, "While we will not officially prohibit weapons, we ask that you remember this is a house of worship and leave any firearms at home or, at worst, in your car." MDB (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Guns not being allowed in churches is actually fairly common, churches and places where alcohol is served. Private property owners can forbid guns as well but that's like forbidding nicks caps, hard to enforce. The thing of it is that it was religious people who had guns forbidden in churches, its not something that the left enforced. --Opcn (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else find it funny...

... that the evolution talk page at CP still has the big CPanel decision at the top? Do you think Ken diligently submits all his edits to the homskollars for approval? This remarkable archaeological remnant of an age before CP was surrendered entirely to insanity is certainly worth preserving in a screenshotimg. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is all the defence Ken needs on why no one else can edit it. He was made a sysop so he could edit the locked page. - π 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
On CP 'irony' is just a part of the periodic tabley. However, I'd love to know what kind of credentials guys like Ken, Karajerk and User188 gave Andy, given his abhorrence of "unfounded claims of competence", for him to sysop them just days after signing up? Even lil'Phyll had to bake cookies for two years before she was sysopped. --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but she is female, and we all know how Andy views women as inferior. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
On that note, I see it's been a year since Jallen last edited. How long before she gets demoted for inactivity? --PsyGremlinTal! 14:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Murican Gummint 101 course.

What a shame Andy calls it "in our fall, free course", it would sound so much better as a "free fall course".  Lily Inspirate me. 13:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got 100 internets that say we see all of Andy's Obama hatred condensed into one easy to read tirade, plus all the good of St Ronnie and a special mention of George Washington's recall letter. --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

US Cyber shield

Very droll Terry Koeckritz, of course the US government is installing a cyber shield against "vandals", not terrorists. Have essential utilities been targeted by atheists and evolutionists? I don't think so.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Next they'll be bleating that the liberal govt hasn't included Andy's blog on it's list. Btw Terry, seeing as you curry so much favour over there, how come Andy still hasn't implemented your flagged revisions idea? Could it be that he doesn't know how? Or that he doesn't trust you enough? People want to know. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Ooo~ I never read this tidbit. I hope we become like China with their Chingching and Tongtong (or whatever their virtual cyber patrol duo is called). Silly Mr. Cat 07:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Night Edit Mode

The day before yesterday, I became annoyed by CP. Again. This time it was the about night editing. Once, there was a little applet on this site which allowed to check whether Conservapedia was in night-editing-mode (done by psygremlin, if I remember correctly). I tried something similar at home, and the right pic is the result, the left one is generated with older data from 2008:

night editing at CP in 2008
night editing at CP in 2010

So, switching off night-editing-mode in the morning seems to be automatized (it's now at 7h, one hour down from 2008), and generally seems to work. But the use of night-editing-mode over the day is arbitrary... larronsicut fur in nocte 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't me - but thank you for the faith in my wiki-fu. --PsyGremlinParla! 14:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday afternoon must have been nappy-time for Andy. ONE / TALK 15:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe it was Interiot who did the night edit thing.  Lily Inspirate me. 22:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, it was him - thanks for the correction...
Night-mode during nappy-time is an inconvenience only for the common editor, i.e., the vandal to be, so there is no haste to switch it off again.
larronsicut fur in nocte 08:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken! Ken!

Just so you know, cp:Homosexuality and language is top of the wanted pages list, with 71 links (all created by you, no doubt). Quick, quick, run along and write some drivel. Show us your ma-cheese-mo! Make sure to include "ainderby quernhow' - "One who continually bemoans the 'loss' of the word 'gay' to the English language, even though they had never used the word in any context at all until they started complaining that they couldn't use it any more." --PsyGremlinHable! 14:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You can read it in all it former glory hereimg. - π 14:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No mention of 'Polari'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A rainbow is a "childhood symbol of happiness?" And here I thought it was a trick of the light. -Lardashe
Hi Karaturd! ÑR/Señor Admin/Talk 19:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Obama's unlawful acts"

This doesn't even make a pretense at being true. Half of these things aren't "unlawful" even if they were true, and almost all of them are grotesque distortions - with only one citation. I was expecting Andy-style citations, with "Obama has murdered millions of women"[1], but this is just pathetic.--ADtalkModerator 14:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you must remember, even the most gifted parodists, like Bugler, Terry and little Johnny boy, let the mask slip occasionally. It's hard work trying to be the perfect Conservapedian all the time. --PsyGremlinPrata! 14:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I particularly enjoyed "Lies to the American people, too many to list". C'mon JPatt, I'm sure you could [list them if you put your back into it. ONE / TALK 15:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice how extensively sourced these claims are. Andy, don't be content with just listing Obama's crimes on your blog! Do the right thing and sue him! Röstigraben (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't elected officials have some degree of civil immunity regarding the job they are doing? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
"If the President does it, it's not a crime" - Richard Milhous Nixon. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you that ANDY SCHLAFLY RAPED AND KILLED A GIRL IN 1990 because it's not true that ANDREW LAYTON SCHLAFLY RAPED AND KILLED A GIRL IN 1990. Half the article is that over and over again, only with out the parts in little text and with Obama instead of AS. the other half is stuff that they wish was illegal. --Opcn (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. By keeping in place DHHS policies that hide the link between abortion and breast cancer.

Tzoran

How did this character manage to fly under the radar for so long. He's even been given Andy's gift of blocking rights. Still it's good to see another resident parodist moving up the ranks. Then again, with comments like, "we do not censor information here. the studies speak for themselves" how can he not? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Errr, does he have checkuser? ÑR/Señor Admin/Talk 16:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope, but neither did JPratt until November and that didn't stop him sucking IP addresses out of his ass. --PsyGremlinHable! 17:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Parodist policy, Guys/Gals? Or does that not count people with blocking rights? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Pointing out that someone is a parodist is fine now, because it doesn't have any weight over at CP. Firstly, we've managed to get possibly-genuine editors blocked by calling them out as parodists (sysops are aware of this, so they don't take our word for it any more) and secondly, we've called out editors as parodists before and nothing was ever done. The only way to get a parodist blocked is by pointing out evidence of the parodist status (and over at CP, even that is difficult). ONE / TALK 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
We really should have a page on "parody policy", actually. It doesn't have to be a real, enforced policy (it's pretty unenforceable really), but I think the debate would be good. ONE / TALK 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
We could have !voting and stuff! ħumanUser talk:Human 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
CROSS-WIKI DEBATE MAP! - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Here we go. And I've given it a sloppy name: Debate:WIGOCP_parody_exposure_policy ONE / TALK 20:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

BenjaminO is twice the suspected parodist TZoran might ever be. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Even a stopped clock finds a nut twice a day...

... and even TK is right once in a while.

TK seemingly agrees with the majority of Americans that banning Islamic head scarfs is wrong. MDB (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't work out if they were pro or anti that. Does that mean Americans are more liberal than Eurpoeans? - π 22:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It's those atheist uropeons: hate religion whatever brand! 22:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I think we might be seeing the real TK here. And when commenting about homeless conservatives.
What I've never been able to figure out is why he spends so much time at CP. I mean, sure, it's obvious he likes confrontation and playing all sorts of mind games. It's also obvious he likes winding people up on here - witness his World Cup comments.
But... if he's going to let the mask slip and expose himself as a reasonable but patriotic conservative American rather than the unthinking ideological rabid right types like Schlafly from time to time, what's the point?
He seems to have much too much time on his hands. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Back in April, on my talk page on Wikipedia, TK described how he was sick and tired of all the endless debate on Conservapedia. In addition to what Ajkgordon said, it would be more the reason why one would question and wonder why he spends all that time on Conservapedia. Of course, he stated that he was just tired of the endless arguments, and not the project itself; I think it would be safe to say that he still loves the project. He may not be a wackydoody as Andy, but it's still a conservative-friendly encyclopedia, so if one's got the time, it would make sense to contribute to it if one is conservative. I mean, you don't have to be an unthinking ideological rabid right type to contribute to it...right? Or are all contributors to the project automatically unthinking ideological rabid right types, due to the fact that they are willing to work in an environment with, err, certain people and their works? (e.g. pantywaists and ma-cheese-mo) ~SuperHamster Talk 23:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
And/or he is a cunt. AceLiquid Room 23:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
As strange as it may sound I think conservapedia would be a whole lot more reasonable and productive a place if TK were in charge and not Andy. Sure TK has an itchy banning finger, but that's because he needs to stop people from giving Andy and Ken problem, no Andy and Ken, and TK might be a force for not exactly evil. --Opcn (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. TK is in charge of CP. He is the gatekeeper, rulemaker, and executioner. Andy's just a blissful idiot who doesn't realize why no one is arguing with him finally. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
TK runs the show, but he doesn't own it, that was my point, sorry if it was unclear. --Opcn (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If TK genuinely cared about CP and wanted to improve its quality and image, he'd have already gotten rid of Ken, at least after he started the whole machismo business. Ken has obviously fallen out of favour with the great leader, as that string of unanswered posts on Andy's talk page indicates, and it probably would've taken only a small nudge to get Andy's consent for either stripping him of his sysopship and deleting his stuff or throwing him out altogether. Maybe he simply has some lucid moments or feels the need to do something useful once in a while to bolster his charade? Röstigraben (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
TK cares for nothing but TK. He won't do anything to disturb the status quo, that being that he is allowed to be as nasty as he wants to anyone - including Andy, by making him look stupider than he is. He is incapable of original thought and consequently he revels in destroying others' work. He's a classic school bully type who's as thick as two short planks and takes the piss out of the nerdy clever kids. (I don't like him, btw) 07:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
If TK were in charge, CP would be entirely sane since it would also be entirely content free. TK bans everyone and never writes anything. Hell, if the 90/10 rule still existed, TK would be guilty, guilty, guilty. OK, none of the other sysops really write any articles as if they were still trying to create an encyclopaedia, but they do have their own little main space projects to attend to. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If it was just TK it would be a staright copy/paste of Wikipedia with the liberal bits taken out.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
"Encyclopedia translation project"

Troll King, back with a zinger

Paraphrasing: "Only the top two cable news channels reported on the NASA/Muslim story." – Nick Heer 02:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

God's intervention in World Cup: falsifiable hypothesis

Just looking at this World Cup thing from a zany CP point of view, the hypothesis that God intervenes to give victory to the team of his choice is testable in a scientific manner. If Spain wins, God will have favoured the minority of devout Spanish catholics against the atheist majority in Holland. If Holland wins, God will have supported the minority of Protestant fundamentalists against the majority of catholics in Spain who rarely if ever go to church. There you are, one hypothesis or the other disproved, whoever wins. The Real James Brown (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia has always adapted facts to suit theories. They never miss a chance for self-promotion or slandering what they consider to be an opponent. It is not going to change for the World Cup. --Maquissar (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If a "good" team/country wins, it proves that god was on their side; if a "bad" one wins, it doesn't matter because "soccer" is a liberal, socialist, atheistic sport. QED. Cantabrigian (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If Spain loses, it's because of the new abortion law they introduced; if Holland loses, it's because they legalise drugs & prostitution and have funny accents. --PsyGremlinSprich! 11:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried to do a tongue-in-cheek prediction of what teams would win based on Andy's Christianity/conservative hypothesis, so we could actually have something to test against, rather than post facto justification. The first round went pretty well, with the Andy-o-meter predicting 5 of 7 matches. It fell apart thereafter, however, as the final 4 should have been all South American countries, while in actuality only 1 of them made it. A Netherlands/Spain match was not predicted, but according to the Schlafly hypothesis Spain should win. I'm rooting for Holland. DickTurpis (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

CP, you ruined my life, you bitch

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

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

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

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

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

Soccer is unimportant in the USA

Or something like that was said on CP. Well:

Just sayin' --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Four counts of attempted murder for two people?

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

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

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