Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?"
Night Jaguar (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 288: | Line 288: | ||
:::The fact that it's mentioned here means that the first sock to mention it may as well have been screaming "Ban me, TK, ban me!" {{User:Tetronian/sig|}} 00:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC) | :::The fact that it's mentioned here means that the first sock to mention it may as well have been screaming "Ban me, TK, ban me!" {{User:Tetronian/sig|}} 00:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
::::Or the first concerned legitimate conservative, blundering into the whole thing completely unawares. The WIGO talk is how we keep Conservapedia free of real contributors. [[User:Mountain Blue|mb]] 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC) | ::::Or the first concerned legitimate conservative, blundering into the whole thing completely unawares. The WIGO talk is how we keep Conservapedia free of real contributors. [[User:Mountain Blue|mb]] 01:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
+ | :::::Nice point, Bounty Mule! {{User:Human/sig|}} 02:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Oh, no! Drunken British dropouts are being banned from America! == | == Oh, no! Drunken British dropouts are being banned from America! == |
Revision as of 02:49, 14 September 2010
(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.
RationalWiki:Community Chalkboard
Has Professor Assfly forgotten about his record-breaking class?
It's almost Friday, September 10th, and still no progress on lecture 2.img And does anyone else find it ironic that he lets his students refer to him as "Professor"img given the stink he gives about Obama having been a senior lecturer and not a tenure-track professor? Sounds like classic liberal deceit to me...Cobalt Eel (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
And there was the stink about Professor Richard Dawkins not being a real professor. RagTopGone sailing 12:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nice catch. Prof. Schlafly apparently isn't getting his homework done. I guess I wasted $250! ħuman 04:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
"(suggested questions are welcome) " Nice job, Professor! RascalJack (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Andy is clearly experimenting with his new take on education, "Best of the Public" Schooling. Not to be confusing with Best of the Public Schooling (there aren't any (public schools are all crap (it's liberals' fault (liberals)))). ONE / TALK 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't this exactly what happened with the writing course? D'ya think these homskoll courses still exist, or are they now a total figment of his imagination now? I'm starting to wonder if he doesn't give the first lecture free, then no one signs up to actually pay for the class once they realise what it is. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 10:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Andy is clearly experimenting with his new take on education, "Best of the Public" Schooling. Not to be confusing with Best of the Public Schooling (there aren't any (public schools are all crap (it's liberals' fault (liberals)))). ONE / TALK 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Still no new edits to that "lecture". He must be working off-line, as most of his "students" appear to be doing. ħuman 22:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Public masturbation
I gotta say I'm quite amused that Ken and TK are having their little masturbation session on Karajou's talk page. I wonder what triggered this, though... I mean, Ken just needed an excuse to spam his links on yet another page on CP, but I'm a bit puzzled by TK popping up there. Maybe he's all hissy again because I started off the Facebook section here, mentioning real names such as Terry Hurlbut or Brian Macdonald? I do remember him raising all Hell when I dared to mention "Terry Koeckritz" (quoted from the same LA Times article he loves to cite) on Wikipedia, complete with requests for banning and oversight...
Oh well, I don't mind. It's not my account that gets the "YOU HAVE A NEW MESSAGE ON YOUR TALK PAGE!" box every time one of those attention whores orgasms. Please, gentlemen, keep talking! :) --Sid (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Best of all, I can see Karajerk staring at his talkpage, with his head in his hands, muttering "Why me?" Terry must be bored, otherwise he would be doing what all the other sysops do to Ken's rambling TZB posts - ignore it. I need to find that TZB (or is it SDG) where they debate whether Ken is KDBuffalo and how they aren't going to put up with his trolling CP. --PsyGremlinTal! 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think poor Ken is upset, he after all depends on folks from this website for his oh so all important webtraffic stats in regards to his "essays" because no one else reads them. Now that is threatened and no one may look upon his "hard work" and what will Ken have then I ask! What will he possibly have then!? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Psy, check the SDG files: "User:Conservative again" (Level_1/bc71204...) is the main thread where people piece together the bulk of it. It's also where it becomes obvious that Ken pulled his International Man of Mystery act even on the other sysops. There are other Ken-related discussions, but this is where they sat together for the first time and seriously asked "...who IS 'Conservative'?" --Sid (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ken says, "Certain people monitor the edits at CP FAR more than I do and I find their obsession quite amusing." Quite honestly, Ken barely monitors Conservapedia, if at all; the only thing he does is focus on his personal pages, and nothing more. Just as an example, when I think of reverting vandalism, Ken is certainly not the one who comes to mind - in the midst of a vandal attack, one can see TK, Andy, Karajou, Jpatt, etc. reverting vandalism and blocking, but as that is going on, Ken is adding more pictures of kitties and clowns in addition to deleting and recreating everything, totally unaware or just not caring of whatever is going on elsewhere. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Psy, check the SDG files: "User:Conservative again" (Level_1/bc71204...) is the main thread where people piece together the bulk of it. It's also where it becomes obvious that Ken pulled his International Man of Mystery act even on the other sysops. There are other Ken-related discussions, but this is where they sat together for the first time and seriously asked "...who IS 'Conservative'?" --Sid (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think poor Ken is upset, he after all depends on folks from this website for his oh so all important webtraffic stats in regards to his "essays" because no one else reads them. Now that is threatened and no one may look upon his "hard work" and what will Ken have then I ask! What will he possibly have then!? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. His content is just awful, and he goes off on bizarre tangents like the kitties, clowns, etc. He repeats phrases like "screechy monkeys" and spams other weirdos like shockofgod all over the site, because you know he shops his CP cred when he contacts him to say, 'Great video'. He's a terrible writer who repeats the same phrases, sometimes thrice in a sentence. His essays are random photos that often contradict the captions he writes. He's a public embarrassment who seems unpleasant even when interacting with his comrades. CP is logging around 100 edits a day, often Ken-Doll Crap and tangents like ConservaMath Medals. They'll never pick up new contributors when people realize it's such a nuthouse. I'm so glad we have image capture bot. --Leotardo (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see Ken has turned his wildly spinning eyes on Carl Saganimg now. Needless to say, it reads about as well as shitting barbed wire feels good. Not to mention the layout, which looks like it was done by a 3-year-old, not a wiki admin with 4 years' experience. Oh wait, we're talking Ken here, so it was done by a 3-year-old. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 05:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Gawd, it appears that Ken spent the better part of Friday taking a tremendous shit all over the CP Carl Sagan page, turning a mediocre article into his abhorrent, poorly assembled, personal screed against atheists. I do find it rather humorous that considering the possibility or potential for alien life is somehow a "liberal trait". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- You forget, the Bibbel doesn't mention ET, ergo ET can't exist. And you say he does, then you also eat babies, want no guns and censor classroom prayer. --PsyGremlinHable! 13:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- An update on the whole Ken & Terry wanking off on Karajou's talk page thing: Conservative just deleted the whole conversationimg. I think we may have another RW reader on CP! Colonel of Squirrels禁止不是法西斯 15:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ken has been checking RW for years, just look at his RationalWiki account! --Onion <talk> 15:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- An update on the whole Ken & Terry wanking off on Karajou's talk page thing: Conservative just deleted the whole conversationimg. I think we may have another RW reader on CP! Colonel of Squirrels禁止不是法西斯 15:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- You forget, the Bibbel doesn't mention ET, ergo ET can't exist. And you say he does, then you also eat babies, want no guns and censor classroom prayer. --PsyGremlinHable! 13:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Gawd, it appears that Ken spent the better part of Friday taking a tremendous shit all over the CP Carl Sagan page, turning a mediocre article into his abhorrent, poorly assembled, personal screed against atheists. I do find it rather humorous that considering the possibility or potential for alien life is somehow a "liberal trait". --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
"Limiting energy production is anti-life"
Thisimg conversation is sad and hilarious on multiple levels, showing how even a noble and (according to them) Christian/conservative thing (donating to charity and encouraging others to help) can be utterly stonewalled by Andy over something minor.
But... what is it with his "limiting energy" business?
Though hey, kudos to him for finding the missing link between global warming and abortions. --Sid (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- To steal a joke from Roy Edroso, this is the stupidest thing Andy's ever written, and will remain so until he writes something else. --Kels (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's weird that Andy made the vague reference to "limiting energy" before he says he researched and learned of their "liberal position". Was he somehow trying to bait Jeff? Bluefish (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- That was one of his insights from a few months ago: "There's a correlation between energy use and the average lifespan, so reducing energy consumption will shorten our lives!" Röstigraben (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's weird that Andy made the vague reference to "limiting energy" before he says he researched and learned of their "liberal position". Was he somehow trying to bait Jeff? Bluefish (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I mean within the context of the conversation: global warming didn't come up until Andy mentioned "limiting energy"... I don't quite understand his coyness. He could have said, "Oh, I've heard of them. They believe in global warming, damn liberals" and been done with it. Bluefish (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The site is growing rapidly!
Ok, ok, so I'm tired and hung over, but looking at 50 most recent changes (as at some ungodly time in the am), we get:
3 new users
1 immediately blocked by TK
2 /16 range blocks by TK
1 file uploaded
1 file protected
1 post by a parodist (JacobB)
1 mainpage post by Andy
4 mainpage posts by TK
1 mainpage post by Jpatt
2 welcome msgs by TK
1 file comment by TK
32 various inane posts by Ken
Way to run an encyclopaedia a blog, gentlemen. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 09:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I laughed at "32 various inane posts by Ken". That man brings joy. He's on yet another editing spree. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, he was. I don't think there is going to be much editing this morning. --Onion <talk> 14:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- To follow up on this, I decided to see how many substantive (i.e. mainspace) edits were being made over there. There were 50 mainspace edits between Sept. 10, 4:11 AM and Sept. 11, 10:47 AM (when I checked). That's fifty edits in 30 hours, less than two per hour. What's more, 43 of those edits were by Conservative.
- At this point, CP is a zombie. It may be walking around, but that doesn't mean it's not dead. Colonel of Squirrels禁止不是法西斯 15:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- As much as I want to see Conservapedia shrivel up and die, you realistically can't expect much productivity on a website dominated by USAmericans when the date is at or near 11 September. --Onion <talk> 15:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, he was. I don't think there is going to be much editing this morning. --Onion <talk> 14:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Ken Demyer - the early daze
Based on comments above, I've been having a look through the SDG stuff that Terry Koeckritz leaked and there are some wonderful comments made by the sysops of that time. Remember, Ken was excluded from the SDG, unlike TZB, where they all ignore him. One wonders what CP would be like today, if Andy actually had an ounce of managerial skill and took Ken in hand? (Ok, that's a mental image that will now require brain bleach.) Certainly, there'd be no the transitional animal the flying kitty and just maybe articles on Atheism et al that were readable, if nothing else.
- From Level_1/dce9269700651396.html - Good reversion on TK's part
Background - it would appear as if sometime around Oct 2007, Krazy Kenny was adding info that Fox News - probably then the main source of CP's borked news - was all part of some homosexual conspiracy. Needless to say, sysop eyebrows were raised and TK stepped in and reverted.
DanH: ...because we often rely it on it as a news source, a claim such as Conservative's that FOX News is part of a vast homosexual conspiracy definitely would undermine the rest of our research.
TK: He is a raving lunatic, Conservative is.
DanH: I know I'm complaining about him too much, but I find it hard to be a sysop on a site where one of the leading sysops is claiming that FOX News is a homosexual conspiracy. I just don't know how much more of this I can take.
As we all know, the final straw for Dan was Andy insisting that Obama was a Muslim.
Karajou: Sorry about saying this, Andy, but Conservative is going to have to be dealt with. I'm saying this for the sake of Conservapedia. He's got to come around to where he's a benefit for the site, and not a problem, or he has to be removed.
One of the few Karajou statements I can agree with. Too bad Andy ignored him.
RobS: Conservative represents a parochial, narrow focus agenda, we should be able to deal with that.
Well, 3 years later Rob, not only have you not dealt with it, it's turned CP into a laughing stock. Ok, an even bigger laughing stock.
DanH: The problem is that his "agenda" conflicts with ours to the point that it undermines us.
And where was Andy when all this was going on? Hiding his head in the sand, like he usually does when it comes to conflict resolution.
- From Level_1/bc71204f541c6e18.html - User:Conservative again
Where we first meet the International Man of Mystery (Sep 2007)
Karajou: Did Conservative ever at any time tell us where he's from? Did he ever make postings of any kind outside of Conservapedia or CreationWiki? Does anyone here know his real name?
I'm saying this because I'm still not convinced as to his honesty with regards to CP. Yes, I agree he has made an awful lot of contributions to the site, but even Hitler has done good things as well.
Karajou: ...there are two additional accusations here, one of which is just plain bad.
The first, and bad one, is that Conservative is the troll known as KDBuffalo. That has to be proven, and a simple way of doing so is to get the known IPs from KDBuffalo and matching that to Conservative. Only an exact match will do.
The second accusation, and possibly safe, is that Conservative is the individual named Ken DeMyer from Buffalo, New York, and the same Ken DeMyer who made those off-site columns in support of creation, but were marked with a lot of cut-and-paste quotations. If this is the case, we're dealing with a 45 year-old man instead of the 20 year-old we may have believed that Conservative is.
Now if Conservative is truly on our side, and we all hope and pray he is, he needs a talking to.
Hello? Andy?
TK: I don't like his cutting off all contributions to them, as if this were a Bible Wiki, with just one POV. It is understandable because that is what he is used to, and to be brutally frank, CP needs workers like him creating content, even if controversial in nature, to draw people to it!
Karajou: It is possible that providing a comfortable working environment here we can keep Conservative from becoming someone like KDBuffalo.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Fail on so many levels there, Karajou! And once again, not a single word from Brother Leader. See Andy, it's just a short step from bullshit SEO results to 125 flying kitty pictures. If only you'd slapped Ken around a little bit, you know, like you did to PJR. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- A lovely trip back down memory lane!
- I discovered a new word this morning: "kenspeckle". It's a real word - look it up. It means "conspicuous; easily seen or recognized", so for instance one might say "Ken's various alter egos were deduced through his kenspeckle edits on forums and other wikis" or "Luckily, Sid has developed a way of removing Ken's kenspeckle edits from the Recent Changes page." –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's a nice discovery. However, it is probably more applicable to Ken's postings under one of his IMoM nommes de guerre where he's instantly recognisable be it as Peter Moore, Ruy Lopez, David Jensen, kdbuffalo, etc., etc. Lily Inspirate me. 09:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's even funnier when he outs himself, like posting as 'Peter Moore' then saying, "I wrote most of Conservapedia's article on Evolution..." Duh! --PsyGremlinPraat! 10:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey guys, where do I find these SDG files TK leaked? Thanks! Se7enEight 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here you go. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- The only reasons I can honestly fathom as to why Andy keeps Ken around are: 1) He honestly believes Ken's wank about driving up Google Rankings. 2) Addressing the possibility that Ken has...issues flies in the face of his "Conservatives don't have mental problems" meme or 3) Andy is really just as bat-$#!+ crazy as Ken and if he admits Ken has a problem then it means he might as well. The first is (misguided) pragmatism, the second is pride, and the third...well, self-delusion. For the sake of Andy and his family I hope its the first two because honestly, both he and Ken seem to be getting worse. -Tygrehart
- Here you go. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey guys, where do I find these SDG files TK leaked? Thanks! Se7enEight 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's even funnier when he outs himself, like posting as 'Peter Moore' then saying, "I wrote most of Conservapedia's article on Evolution..." Duh! --PsyGremlinPraat! 10:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's a nice discovery. However, it is probably more applicable to Ken's postings under one of his IMoM nommes de guerre where he's instantly recognisable be it as Peter Moore, Ruy Lopez, David Jensen, kdbuffalo, etc., etc. Lily Inspirate me. 09:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I gotta say, I do get a giggle out of DanH referring to what they do as "research". --Kels (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Pavlov
Brilliant! Almost immediately after I recall the sysop's horror at Ken's "homosexuality conspiracy at Fox" rubbish, he runs out and creates the "Fox News and homosexuality" article AND trumpetsimg it on MPL, although I see he says Andy allowed it. This being the same Andy who said that he liked some photo of Ken's, just before deleting it. Either times have changed on CP, or there is some robust debate going on behind the scenes. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 12:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm starting to wonder that Ken is unable to look at his rants through the eyes of an average joe. Here's a free hint to Ken: when normal people open up the article, they see the headline "Fox News and homosexuality", a few photographs of people who look like they're probably the homosexuals at Fox News, and words words words words words words words words words words. In short, people expect articles to have photographs and illustrations that fit the subject of the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Conservapedia and Homosexuality
With these new "Articles", has anyone ever counted how many pages are related to "Teh Gayz" on Conservapedia? They give them alot of attention, despite the fact that they hate them.--Thunderstruck (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, I had a brief and unscientific look at the subject the other day. As at 23/08 there were 180 pages in the "Homosexuality" category, opposed to 163 in "Religion" and 164 in "Christianity" In addition, CP's Homosexuality article is bigger than CP's entries for God and Jesus combined. --PsyGremlinSprich! 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- An incomplete list is kept here at Conservapedia:Summa Homosexualita. --Xyr (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ken should create the "Conservapedia: Homosexuality Project". --Tlaloc (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should come up with a list of articles for Ken to make? At this rate, he can write (sic) them as fast as we can joke about them. Tetronian you're clueless 20:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Homosexuality and Conservapedia Sysops"? He could write half of it and Terry Koeckritz could write the rest. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ken could get TK to *ahem* fill him in, so to speak. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 11:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Homosexuality and Conservapedia Sysops"? He could write half of it and Terry Koeckritz could write the rest. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should come up with a list of articles for Ken to make? At this rate, he can write (sic) them as fast as we can joke about them. Tetronian you're clueless 20:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ken should create the "Conservapedia: Homosexuality Project". --Tlaloc (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I ran a word count back when they were still mildly interesting in a vaguely morbid way; 2% of their article wordcount turned out to belong to screeds against teh gays. I think this percentage has increased since then but I can't be arsed to count again. mb 21:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've never been sure whether hearing this sort of insanity is better or worse than being marginalized. I mean, while 100% of the coverage is negative, and a good deal is grossly insulting, The Gay Agenda sounds so powerful in their twisted little world. It's like I can just call up my fabulous friends in the shadowy LGBT conspiracy and they'll get the liberal media to drop one of their secret gay bombs on Andy's house tomorrow. Unlike the real world, where it took 34 years of gay rights movements just to legalize being gay in the first place. --Quantheory (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well keep in mind, its Conservapedia against EVERYONE else. They seem to have the "If your not with us, your against us" metality, and that even extends to at least half of all republicans (or RINO's). So the agenda technicly is more powerfull then CP. Thats not saying much though.--Thunderstruck (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
History WIGO
It's over two hours since I added this WIGO and it's still making me depressed. Way back in the day, I actually thought CP might be some use. I always disagreed with it - I'm a filthy lie-bur-al to the point of having stood for the UK Liberal Democrats in the past - but I really do agree with Schlafly's original premise that there is a certain bias to Wikipedia and have argued that point once or twice. I thought the idea of a right-wing version of WP had some merit - at least in a "know what your enemies are thinking" kind of way.
Roll forward... and any vestige of credibility that CP might possibly have had has disappeared. It is now, unquestionably, a vicious, right-wing hate-blog determined to attack gays, Muslims, Democrats, and anything that doesn't sit four-square behind Andy's personal mindset. The edit I WIGOed really sums it all up. For someone who still claims his blog is an honest alternative to Wikipedia, I can't believe Schlafly doesn't see the irony in his change. Fuck America's history. Fuck the war of independence. Fuck the patriotism. Fuck all of it. What's more important is a bunch of small-minded bigots pissed off that their country is run by a black guy. CP can still be funny at times, but don't forget: Andy is teaching this shit to children. It's child abuse, pure and simple. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're not alone, really. When CP started, I initially laughed, but then I actually got interested because I expected a wiki that shows the conservative POV of things. Instead, it very quickly drove into the "Everything liberals do is evil, everything evil is done by liberals!" territory... and then got worse.
- In this case, it's really like you said: A milestone of American history has to step aside so that Andy can focus on his political interests. It's a total dick move that nobody with even the lightest bit of knowledge or interest in US History would pull off. Thank God that Andy doesn't actually teach American Histo-OH FUCK YOU! --Sid (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't take it too hard SP. Conservapedia has never been about really been about a being a conservative alternative to Wikipedia, not really anyway. Andy may tout it as such, and may actually believe it is, but the truth is CP is just his own sad way of showing he can be relevant to the conservative cause. I mean, let's face it. The man grew up in the shadow of Phyllis Schafly, a controversial but still to this day potent conservative pundit who's legacy is no doubt a hard act to follow, and don't think Andy didn't try. From him switching his career from engineering to law, to his aborted Representative aspirations, being legal council for the AAPS and finally being a home schooler and starting CP, every act screams of a desperate attempt to keep the Schafly political legacy alive.
- Sadly he seems to have none of the acumen nor savvy that his mother demonstrated in her day and thus flounders as he jumps from one cause or snit fit to the next. This man wants to be taken seriously and yet supports quack organizations, picks loosing battles with reputable scientists and believes he can retranslate the bible? Phyllis may have been crackers, but at least she understood she needed at least the appearance playing nice with others to get her agenda realized. Andy on the other hand comes off as either as a self-grandizing egomaniac or a lost little boy crying out "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LOOK AT ME!!!" Sometimes pulling off both at the same time.
- CP has never been about being factual, accurate, or even Conservative. Its been about Andy's ego and the fact that no matter how hard he tries he will never measure up to mommy. -Tygrehart
- And to finally remove any vestiges of the notion that Conservapedia really is an encyclopedic resource, Andy has now taken to posting his Tea Bagger headlines in a <big> font. Just like a real tabloid newspaper! Lily Inspirate me. 07:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- That WIGO was a great find. There's no need to get depressed over Andy's antics though, because we're really the only ones who still care. His homeschooling business seems to be already over or at least in its last throes, note how he's apparently abandoned his much-heralded American Government course after its first week, and how there have been no edits by any of his pupils on the wiki. Any parent who'd be interested in sending their kids to a Schlafly class will invariably stumble upon a Conservapedia replete with flying kitties, incoherent rants, sysop bullies and obvious parody, and if that doesn't make them reconsider their choice of educator, Andy can't be a worse influence on these kids than their own parents would be anyway. CP's final curtain can't be too far away now (and it won't come a moment too soon), let's just be thankful that Andy's particular brand of conservatism didn't get any lasting traction because even the right wing is still a little bit too sane for it. Röstigraben (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I must say, I find it increasingly odd that they will block users for "inserting liberal bias" or "obvious parody", yet not revert any of the changes made by said user... it's like there's no intent on quality control... you know... flying kittehs being the biggest indicator of that... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 08:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I said here a long time ago that I thought CP had great potential; an old-fashioned, family-friendly, pro-American encyclopedia could have gone miles. Instead, mainly because of poor leadership, it's become a joke. The moral is, encyclopedias shouldn't be run by people who think they're always right. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I completely agree. A family-friendly encyclopedia would have been a great resource for kids, especially home-schooled children, both for material for lessons and for learning computer skills - and indeed the social skills in an on-line environment that Schlafly so conspicuously lacks. Let's face it, there's quite a lot of stuff on Wikipedia you wouldn't necessarily want a 10-year-old to see. No, I'm not volunteering to set one up! But it would be a worthwhile project and could conceivably attract advertising money to pay the bills. The Real James Brown (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I said here a long time ago that I thought CP had great potential; an old-fashioned, family-friendly, pro-American encyclopedia could have gone miles. Instead, mainly because of poor leadership, it's become a joke. The moral is, encyclopedias shouldn't be run by people who think they're always right. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I must say, I find it increasingly odd that they will block users for "inserting liberal bias" or "obvious parody", yet not revert any of the changes made by said user... it's like there's no intent on quality control... you know... flying kittehs being the biggest indicator of that... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 08:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- That WIGO was a great find. There's no need to get depressed over Andy's antics though, because we're really the only ones who still care. His homeschooling business seems to be already over or at least in its last throes, note how he's apparently abandoned his much-heralded American Government course after its first week, and how there have been no edits by any of his pupils on the wiki. Any parent who'd be interested in sending their kids to a Schlafly class will invariably stumble upon a Conservapedia replete with flying kitties, incoherent rants, sysop bullies and obvious parody, and if that doesn't make them reconsider their choice of educator, Andy can't be a worse influence on these kids than their own parents would be anyway. CP's final curtain can't be too far away now (and it won't come a moment too soon), let's just be thankful that Andy's particular brand of conservatism didn't get any lasting traction because even the right wing is still a little bit too sane for it. Röstigraben (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I think there's several clear reasons just why CP has failed:
- First, it's rotted from the top down. Andy's ego doesn't allow him to be wrong, and he is quite prepared to sacrifice honesty, integrity and truth on the altar of him being right all the time. Add to that him being blinded beyond reason by the success of Obama and the writing was all the wall a long time ago.
- Bad management by bad managers. Andy has managed to surround himself with a core of yes men, who echo his every whim, whilst at the same time being completely ignored by him. None of them, Andy included, possess the people or management skills required to deal with an ever-changing group of subordinates. Given CP's target audience is primarily children of school-going age, every administrator on the site in spectacularly ill-equipped to deal with the vagrancies of teenagers.
- No spirit of nurturing. Once again, for an educational institution, CP shows a spectacular fail in this regard. All editors are viewed with suspicion and punishment is swift and brutal. There is no sense of "ok, you did this incorrectly, maybe try it like this and we'll see how it goes." It's basically, 'you made a mistake, thus expelled." In addition to this, there is no scope for advancement. Even though Andy talks about a "meritocracy," getting anywhere on CP involves agreeing with everything Andy says, never questioning and acting like a playground bully to anybody else that does dare question. Once parodists picked up on this, several were - and still are - promoted to positions of power. Being a sysop on CP is no longer seen as something to aim for, beause most right-thinking people would not want to be associated with that ilk.
- No "brains trust." The people who run CP are - to a man - intellectually incapable of acting as curators of an encyclopaedia. Anything they do not understand, must therefore be suspect. Take Ed and the maths entries as an example. He claims expertise and yet has virtually destroyed all of CP's math entries. Likewise, an edit that conflicts with any administrator's worldview, must be wrong and removed, along with it's author. The minute somebody with expertise showed up - PalMD, RJJensen, KateSorenson - they were attacked and belittled, until they too gave up on CP as a viable venture.
- No understanding of what an encyclopaedia is. They are vaults of collected knowledge. They are not places for original research, wild speculation, or drafting letters to individuals they do not like. An encyclopaedia is certainly not a political platform.
- Failure to engage target audience. One of the first things Andy should have done, is use his mother's contacts within the conservative establishment, to spread CP's name and possibly have respectable contributors and editors on board. Instead, he ended up with people like Ed, Karajou and of course TK. And now, nobody in the conservative movement will go near CP.
- Lack of focus. Andy's apparent ADD is legendary on CP. There are endless projects that's he's started and let slide, and even these have become more and more weird as time passes. Culminating the the CBP, where most of the "translation" was done by unqualified and unknown editors, with virtually no guidance or monitoring.
- No good publicity. Ever. Every time CP has been featured in the media, it's been for the wrong reasons. It started with Lewis Black, NPR mentioned the kangaroos drifting to Oz, LA Times wasn't that complimentary and it went downhill from there, culminating in Lenski, the CBP, the relativity nonsense. Once again, ensuring that conservatives would stay away in droves.
Anyway, that's my 2c worth. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am a died in the wool 'liberal', on the libertarian left wing anarcho-syndicalist wing in fact, but I do think a conservative wiki would be good. If only to balance what wikipedia has become. I've tried correcting some articles on wp in the past on topics I know about and have been accused by people who disliked my edits as being a rapist and a paedophile for my troubles. I gave up quite frankly and rarely if ever visit wp anymore. A broadly right wing wiki could be a good balance imo but cp is not that, for all the reasons mentioned above. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that either you are open in which case you're looking to become Wikipedia II and will fail or you're closed in which case you end up with fights over ideological purity and will inevitably become a version of CP. Wikipedia works that way because it's the only way that works - or doesn't. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's exactly how I view the scenario - the reason why Wikipedia has become the ever-so-popular source for wide knowledge is because it runs on a system that actually works. Yes, it has its own downsides, and yes, it is indeed exposed to POV-pushing, inaccuracies, and so on and so forth - but overall, it just works in terms of actually being viewed as a source by a large group of people and actually serving as an encyclopedia. It's just like comparing systems of government - there are plenty of forms of government, but there is no perfect system - some are just better than others, and in this case, Wikipedia's system is better than Conservapedia's. Andy Schlafly keeps on referring to Wikipedia as a "mobocracy", and sure, there's merit to the argument, and the system is certainly exposed to "mobs" ruling over certain aspects of Wikipedia; but once again, you will never have a perfect system. Conservapedia runs on the opposite lane in comparison to Wikipedia: Wikipedia runs on consensus, while Conservapedia runs on whatever suits Andy's beliefs. Wikipedia runs on the idea that all editors are basically equal, in which admins are simply janitors who are given a few extra tools because they can be trusted with them, while Conservapedia runs on a merit system, in which those who suit Andy's needs are given "power", in which whatever they say, goes. I remember one time, there was a discussion on Conservapedia as to whether or not an article should be deleted. Practically everyone who contributed to the discussion argued that the article should be deleted, giving valid reasoning; in the end, though, a higher-merited editor came along and simply closed the discussion and called it as a keeper. That's not how it should work - it should be based on consensus and openness. It should not be a "mind your own business" scenario.
- However, at the same time, I don't think that Conservapedia would really function under any system of wiki, in terms of falling in line with Andy's views. So I guess the conclusion is: If you are going to make a blatantly biased "encyclopedia", it's not going to work, no matter what. Unless you're Encyclopedia Dramatica. ~SuperHamster Talk 20:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that either you are open in which case you're looking to become Wikipedia II and will fail or you're closed in which case you end up with fights over ideological purity and will inevitably become a version of CP. Wikipedia works that way because it's the only way that works - or doesn't. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
American Government class
Continuing a line of discussion elsewhere, what is the deal with Andy government class? Has he given up already, or is there a chance he's actually just teaching it the way a sane person would: in a class with students and without all lessons and homework posted on a wiki filled with bullies and parodists? We know from what we've seen in the past on CP, as well from Kettleticket and "Conservapedia on the Hour", that he does actually lecture in a classroom (or, in this case, church basement), so is he focusing solely on that? Unless he completely made up those numbers he must have a fair amount of people who paid money for lessons, so I don't see how he could have given up this easily already. I suspect he may have realized that the online element of the class did nothing but attract parodists, so he's slowly abandoning it without discussion (or having to admit there's a problem). Is this an indication that he's realizing that CP doesn't work the way he thought it would? Anyone else have any thoughts? DickTurpis (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's odd. After the American & World History (& Economics?) courses, which were done on CP, he's now dropped the writing course (originally blamed on snow) and Am Govt. Chances are he's realised that there are no online students left on CP, so has reverted to his classroom. It's possible he even came in for some flack after his funding application, so now keeps his lectures away from prying eyes. You might find, as has been said before, that the students listened to the first lecture, and decided they'd rather ride bikes. Either way, I suspect his "world's largest class" exists only in his imagination. How many kids have actually submitted homework on CP? 6 out of 78.img Altho I guess some might hand in written assignments. --PsyGremlin講話 14:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I'm thinking, that the class has gone from a mostly classroom endeavor with an additional online aspect to basically entirely classroom-focused. I obviously can't speak to the veracity of Andy's 78 students claim, but since less than 20 were signed up through CP he must have had several dozen signed up elsewhere. Perhaps the claim was exaggerated, but I don't think even Andy is dishonest enough to claim that many if he didn't have a fair number of people signed up with a $250 check. I also doubt his entire class saw his first lecture and then took off; most of them are probably signed up by their parents, who are now financially invested and wouldn't permit it, nor would most of them realize what an idiot their teacher is. It seems he's always given in class what is probably the same lecture that appeared each week on CP, making the CP post redundant. I also think there were students who handed in their homework in class rather than online, so he's probably doing the sane thing and having most students turn it in in-person and not post their mediocrity for the world to see. By now the only ones doing the online-only class are parodists, and if any aren't then Andy's not getting any money from them anyway so who cares? I think if we really investigated we'd find the class continuing (probably with a significant number of students), just not online. This might be the first sane thing Andy's done in a long time. DickTurpis (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm starting to think Andy reads RW more than we thought, since it's after several RW editors let slip that they're also enrolled in the Gov't class that the online component was apparently shelved. My friend, who is an earnest homeschooler so earnestly put-upon by liberal, atheistic indoctrination and liberal pseudolearning in public school, didn't receive even a single notification of anything to do with the course from Andy or anyone else. Just nothing, and now no classes for the online only people. The American Gov't class was going to save his life. Now he'll forever be glamoured by professor values and liberal clap-trap. And he'll never be able to say he was educated by the Great Andy Schlafly. Boo! Anyway, back to the point. I'm thinking Andy's going to benefit on multiple levels from this decision. If he's too lazy to write his "lectures" out beforehand, which is easy to imagine considering the poor state of other examples suggesting they couldn't have taken more than a few hours to shit out, he's now got a little more time to devote to face-to-face indoctrination in the homeschool classroom. He also no longer has to devote a single microsecond of his time to internet freeloaders and parodists who didn't fork over a $250 check (where did that number come from), although his claim that CP offers "courses" and is an "education resource" rings just a little bit more hollow now. So whatever this says about his homeschooling business, which I frankly think he's been overstating for a few years now since he's just such an odious character I can't imagine people of conscience delivering their kids to his tutelage, it says a lot more about his "encyclopedia." This is why I don't screw around with parody. Andy and his gang of goons do a greater disservice to their fringe message than I could even pretend to plan out. 14:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I forget where the $250 figure came from, but it was probably our inside source Fuzzy Kettleticket. In any case, there definitely is a fee for those who attend class, and I doubt it's much more than that, nor would I imagine him charging much less. I always was fond of how he'd attack Wikipedia for its connection to the for-profit Wikia, while simultaneously stating that CP has no connection to any money-making enterprise, but we do offer a homeschool class for a small fee. Anyway, it might be too early to write the obituary to the online portion of the American Government class (he's only 5 days late on the lecture so far) but I have little doubt the class nevertheless continues in a church basment somewhere in New Jersey, and after the midterm we'll hear all about how great his students did. Maybe we'll be lucky and he'll still post the test online so we can all take a gander. DickTurpis (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm starting to think Andy reads RW more than we thought, since it's after several RW editors let slip that they're also enrolled in the Gov't class that the online component was apparently shelved. My friend, who is an earnest homeschooler so earnestly put-upon by liberal, atheistic indoctrination and liberal pseudolearning in public school, didn't receive even a single notification of anything to do with the course from Andy or anyone else. Just nothing, and now no classes for the online only people. The American Gov't class was going to save his life. Now he'll forever be glamoured by professor values and liberal clap-trap. And he'll never be able to say he was educated by the Great Andy Schlafly. Boo! Anyway, back to the point. I'm thinking Andy's going to benefit on multiple levels from this decision. If he's too lazy to write his "lectures" out beforehand, which is easy to imagine considering the poor state of other examples suggesting they couldn't have taken more than a few hours to shit out, he's now got a little more time to devote to face-to-face indoctrination in the homeschool classroom. He also no longer has to devote a single microsecond of his time to internet freeloaders and parodists who didn't fork over a $250 check (where did that number come from), although his claim that CP offers "courses" and is an "education resource" rings just a little bit more hollow now. So whatever this says about his homeschooling business, which I frankly think he's been overstating for a few years now since he's just such an odious character I can't imagine people of conscience delivering their kids to his tutelage, it says a lot more about his "encyclopedia." This is why I don't screw around with parody. Andy and his gang of goons do a greater disservice to their fringe message than I could even pretend to plan out. 14:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I'm thinking, that the class has gone from a mostly classroom endeavor with an additional online aspect to basically entirely classroom-focused. I obviously can't speak to the veracity of Andy's 78 students claim, but since less than 20 were signed up through CP he must have had several dozen signed up elsewhere. Perhaps the claim was exaggerated, but I don't think even Andy is dishonest enough to claim that many if he didn't have a fair number of people signed up with a $250 check. I also doubt his entire class saw his first lecture and then took off; most of them are probably signed up by their parents, who are now financially invested and wouldn't permit it, nor would most of them realize what an idiot their teacher is. It seems he's always given in class what is probably the same lecture that appeared each week on CP, making the CP post redundant. I also think there were students who handed in their homework in class rather than online, so he's probably doing the sane thing and having most students turn it in in-person and not post their mediocrity for the world to see. By now the only ones doing the online-only class are parodists, and if any aren't then Andy's not getting any money from them anyway so who cares? I think if we really investigated we'd find the class continuing (probably with a significant number of students), just not online. This might be the first sane thing Andy's done in a long time. DickTurpis (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think this course simply died. It was poorly planned from the start, when Andy just assembled a huge list of "special concepts" that would amount to more than a year's worth of college-level classes in political science and law, but apparently never bothered about setting up a timetable for his lectures. Maybe he realized later that actually covering these concepts with just a semblance of seriousness would require lots of time for preparation on his part. For week one, he delivered only the most basic introduction to the US political system, went off on a tangent about team sports, and posted some ridiculously easy homework answers. By week two, he was already out of ideas, as this edit suggests. Maybe he's just making stuff up as he goes along now and doesn't want to leave a trail at Conservapedia, maybe the parents of his in-person class demanded their money back once they saw that he wasn't making good on his promises, maybe he just made up the numbers of students in the first place. In the past, he's always tried to lure his homeschoolers to CP so they'd do the actual work over there, and I don't see why he should suddenly change that policy. Maybe the parents did indeed complain that they had to pay for lectures which he gave away for free elsewhere, but then, this whole course was always planned and advertised like that from the start, so they'd have known about it for weeks. All in all, I think Andy just embarassed himself enough on CP to sink his homeschooling business as well. Röstigraben (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know. Andy's actually been doing this homeschool scheme for quite a while now, and has even taught this class before, I believe. Amazingly, he seems not to have trouble getting gullible parents to pay him to take their kids off his hands for a couple hours a week (I imagine, being home all day with them, they're happen to get rid of them). In fact, on paper Andy seems like he would probably be a good teacher. I really don't think he would have made the 78 students claim if there weren't some basis for it (obviously counting any online sign ups, and likely even anyone who expressed interest in the classroom lessons whether or not they got around to cutting him a check). The idea that suddenly the right-wing wackos who have been shuffling their kids off to him in the past would suddenly revolt en masse and demand their money back seems far-fetched. Even a handful dong so after a single class is unlikely. No, in classic broken clock mode Andy may have had a bit of sense and realized that posting everything online did nothing but provoke parody and ridicule. I mean, I'm sure Andy has enough "liberals are evil and here's why" in his head that he can go off on vaguely American Government-related tirades for a couple hours a week and save him having to write out a lecture on CP with some semblance of structure. It's not like he has certain standards he has to meet. Other than traffic for his site (which students don't add to apart from homework anyway) connecting the classes to CP never had any real advantage. I think he's giving up with that, but asking him about it could be the next FBI.
- Oh, and for anyone who might not have seen it before, this shows that his classes actually do draw a sizeable crowd (or at least have in the past). DickTurpis (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't necessarily show any such thing and might even be the homeschool equivalent of astroturfing. At my old law firm we had a professional photographer come in to take pics of people in the firm "at work" to show off our diversity, dedication, fancy digs, et. We all wore suits, from the partners down to the office staff (effectively multiplying available suits by a factor of at least 5), and sat around using pens to point sagely at sentences in legal documents with our pals looking on in keen interest. Were there really that many lawyers serving that many clients in the office that day? Was anyone in those pictures actually doing what they purported to be doing? No and no. It wouldn't surprise me the least bit if Andy was asked if he was interested in appearing in On the Hour and rallied all available kids at his church to sit quietly with the homeskulerz for a few minutes while the nice liberals with cameras took pictures. 16:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- But surely that would be
liberaldeceipt and we all knowprofessorassfly and the other cp'dians wouldn't be party to that.Oldusgitus (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)- Not even fundie wingers believe good marketing is deceit. 16:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- After quickly skimming this section, I went to NR's site, eager to see ethnically diverse people pretending to lawyer. Needless to say, I was disappointed. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not even fundie wingers believe good marketing is deceit. 16:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting theory. I hadn't given that any thought. You could be right, but it does seem a little overly cynical. And there might be a bit of that, filling out the ranks a bit, but I think mostly of the students are legit. I think it would be harder to cajole a bunch of kids into pretending to be students, especially when most would presumably be in real school at the same time. We also know from past classes that he can get at least 20+ students in them (mostly apparently non-parodists). I'd wager he has that many or more. But give it a few days and if there's no developments someone might as well sock up and ask him about it. Who's got JacobB these days? DickTurpis (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Go on someone, explain to me. How can a class held by assfly in a class room be homeschooling? Surely it's a school, admitedly run by a batshit person but it is still a school and not, be definition, a homeschool.Oldusgitus (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- The point is they're homeschooled students because they're not enrolled in public school and are presumably generally taught by their parents at home. Had they been given a competent teacher, classes of this sort would not only be beneficial for them, but almost essential, as few parents are qualified to teach multiple subjects at a high school level. I hope they're getting some sort of real education somewhere. DickTurpis (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- But surely that would be
- It doesn't necessarily show any such thing and might even be the homeschool equivalent of astroturfing. At my old law firm we had a professional photographer come in to take pics of people in the firm "at work" to show off our diversity, dedication, fancy digs, et. We all wore suits, from the partners down to the office staff (effectively multiplying available suits by a factor of at least 5), and sat around using pens to point sagely at sentences in legal documents with our pals looking on in keen interest. Were there really that many lawyers serving that many clients in the office that day? Was anyone in those pictures actually doing what they purported to be doing? No and no. It wouldn't surprise me the least bit if Andy was asked if he was interested in appearing in On the Hour and rallied all available kids at his church to sit quietly with the homeskulerz for a few minutes while the nice liberals with cameras took pictures. 16:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
They're not enrolled in public schools so they are homeschooled? So by that definition all private school students in the UK are homeschooled? Kids what go to Eton are now homeschooled? What a weird world assfly lives in. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Alright. Scratch the "public". My bad. They aren't enrolled in any school, public or private. They take a ridiculous class taught by an incompetent manchild once a week, and hopefully some other classes perhaps taught by people with a modicum of intelligence. But they presumably receive most of their education at home. DickTurpis (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think the kid in the Che Guevara t-shirt may not be legit. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's one of those anti-Guevara shirts. See here. DickTurpis (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, makes sense. The screen cut it off so I only saw the top half of Che's face, but in a wider shot you can see it's anti-Guevara. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's one of those anti-Guevara shirts. See here. DickTurpis (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think the kid in the Che Guevara t-shirt may not be legit. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I think someone hit it early on. We've seen how he does the on-line lectures before - they start as a crude outline, sentence fragments, etc., that is obviously a wikified version of his lecture notes. Then he sentencifies it and adds a few things. Lecture one proceeded per the pattern. I bet that last week he got his rejection letter from the NJ school people and they specifically criticized some on-line aspect of what he is doing (couldn't be the lectures unless for content, but the homework and tests on line look really bad) and he immediately stopped doing it. ħuman 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Minor lulz
So in amongst Andy driving off editors with unsuitable names like Healthcare4all and Hayewoodjablowemi, he comes across "Ilovelibertarians" and decides he can stay, as long as he changes his name. Is Andy really that transparent? --PsyGremlinParla! 14:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Tetronian you're clueless 19:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Charities suck!
It had to happen:
- JeffR (who just suggested that CP could add links to charities to the main page) gives upimg and notes that Andy stonewalled the entire suggestion by continuously picking on the random example charity and by not naming any alternative.
- Jpatt justifies not linking to charitiesimg by hiding behind unsourced statistics. Donating Enough Already!
- Ed Poor banhammers the guy forever with the lovely summary "Constantly arguing and debating ... no contribs" - yep, that's totally not misrepresenting the entire thing.
Just showcases that you can't even win on CP if you make intelligent suggestions that fall in line with conservatism/Christianity. --Sid (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think it has been long established that at CP prayer is preferable to charitable contribution. I'm sure there are some historic diffs to that effect on Andy's talk page. Lily Inspirate me. 18:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ed has been a real scumbag lately. Even more so than usual. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I was about to disagree until I read Ed's weird commentimg right after the banhammering. Apparently, suggesting to place a donation link on the main page and then asking Andy to name any charity and link to that is now an attempt at sbverting CP with anti-conservative values. What. The. Fuck. --Sid (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Remember, Sid, EVERYONE is out to get you. If someone tries to get you to associate with an organization, the only possible reason they would be doing so is so that they can attack you. Once Andy names a charity, liberals across the liberosphere will try to dig up dirt on that charity and demonize it. That's why it is unfortunate that Andy, with his great charitable nature, cannot risk to name a charity which he endorses. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ed emulating TK? The decay rate accelerates.--Brendiggg (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Conservapedia: going south up to and including the second derivative. mb 19:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- They did mainpage that local church's charity outreach thing when the Haitian earthquake was in the news... ħuman 19:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- IIRC, that wasn't without great discussion and criticism. I remember Ed's idea of flying over Haiti and dropping $20 bills as aid. The most clueless thing I've ever heard. Maybe even worth finding the diff. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Did he really say that? Oh, please do find the diff! DickTurpis (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- IIRC, that wasn't without great discussion and criticism. I remember Ed's idea of flying over Haiti and dropping $20 bills as aid. The most clueless thing I've ever heard. Maybe even worth finding the diff. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- They did mainpage that local church's charity outreach thing when the Haitian earthquake was in the news... ħuman 19:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Conservapedia: going south up to and including the second derivative. mb 19:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ed emulating TK? The decay rate accelerates.--Brendiggg (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Remember, Sid, EVERYONE is out to get you. If someone tries to get you to associate with an organization, the only possible reason they would be doing so is so that they can attack you. Once Andy names a charity, liberals across the liberosphere will try to dig up dirt on that charity and demonize it. That's why it is unfortunate that Andy, with his great charitable nature, cannot risk to name a charity which he endorses. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I was about to disagree until I read Ed's weird commentimg right after the banhammering. Apparently, suggesting to place a donation link on the main page and then asking Andy to name any charity and link to that is now an attempt at sbverting CP with anti-conservative values. What. The. Fuck. --Sid (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ed has been a real scumbag lately. Even more so than usual. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Somebody suggested this a year or two ago: suggested CP link to a charity, and andy just badgered him to attack liberals' lack of charitableness, instead of, y'know, giving to charity. Ah, here it is Totnesmartin (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hereimg is Ed's ingenious plan of dropping $20 bills on Haiti and letting them sort it out. You've got to wonder how someone can be so dumb, even if he has good intentions. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since the thing Totnes links to predates it: CaptureBot, do your thing!img --Sid (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
In Regards To
We cannot, with current technology, write a script that a group of average human beings would mistake for a human being. Could we write a script that a group of average creationist forum regulars would mistake for Ken? Discuss. mb 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say yes. You've got a set of datasources which can be polled for information relating to various topics (gay sex, Dawkins, Hitler, evolution, etc). Paragraphs can be copied and pasted into CP with various typo-applying parsers, the typos being fixed randomly and intermittently. Search Flickr for an image containing any keyword from the most recent post, change its size a few times and viola. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Another interesting thought, if Ken made an untraceable sock on CP, how long would it take for it to get banned? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Probably within ten minutes, less if TK's online. Tetronian you're clueless 20:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're asking if we can write a script that would emulate Ken? Dude, tautology. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Gentlemen at an irrational website,
- It appears that in regards to your comments your comments in regards to Conservapedia are somewhat indicative of atheist obesity. In regards to the subject of homosexuality and foolishness, you censor that the flow of visitors to the Conservapedia theory of evolution article is respectable and has been respectable. In fact, by upon activation of Operation Trickle Down, it is likely Liberals will have lost all vestiges of credibility. :) :) :)
- Rest assured, Operation Grassroots is gathering steam!!! There may be a contest soon having to do with letting others know about the Conservapedia evolution article. Stay tuned for future developments!!! We may have a summer contest as well!
- Sincerely,
- Conservative
- You forgot the Ole! Ole! Ole! at the end. -Tygrehart
Relativity Again
Just noticed this diff http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&curid=66412&diff=818304&oldid=807991 from PhyllisS adding that Relativity is proven by the bible itself. So how will her dad take this? If it was from anyone else I would expect it to be removed and the person get banned for being liberal or a parodist. Quazywabbit (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Daughter and brother. He must be ashamed to live in such a liberal family. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) That'll be exciting. But I imagine Andy won't let this argument happen publicly, as he probably doesn't want to make either of them look bad.
- Also: how the hell does her quote support relativity? Tetronian you're clueless 19:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- SHIT! She's already using Schlafly logic... SOMEONE HELP THIS WOMAN!!! --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- The shit doesn't fall far from the bat. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- To be fair, it looks like she's arguing (albeit nonsensically) for some kind of Galilean invariance/relativity -- surely even Andy wouldn't dispute that. --MarkGall (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know the context of the passage, but how can "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" have something to do with bringing Christ down and bringing Christ up from the dead? For me the passage is talking about people who go to heaven and people who go to hell. I really think that Phylis is deliberately inserting parody into his daddy "encyclopedia". --Tlaloc (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- To be fair, it looks like she's arguing (albeit nonsensically) for some kind of Galilean invariance/relativity -- surely even Andy wouldn't dispute that. --MarkGall (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- The shit doesn't fall far from the bat. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- SHIT! She's already using Schlafly logic... SOMEONE HELP THIS WOMAN!!! --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Fox News and homosexuality...on the main page??
(I know this was discussed above, but I think it deserves a separate heading.) I'm in shock - Andy actually let Ken do thisimg to the main page?? Tetronian you're clueless 19:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I know, that's crazy! Does Andy still care about his encyclopedia? Anyone with a sane mind knows this is going to drive normal conservatives away! --Onion <talk> 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Practically every link on MainPageRight goes to Fox, but MainPageLeft calls them liberal...oh dear, this is giving me quite a headache. Tetronian you're clueless 20:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The key word in this discussion is "normal," which does not apply at CP.
- Actually I love the way that RobS has taken over MPL. Ken has missed a trick by not pasting a complete article. Lily Inspirate me. 20:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- What led you to suspect the transitional species the spineless assfly has any say in what goes on the front page? Ken has pissed on main page left enough that the other poodles know it's his territory. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- He said so in his edit summary. Tetronian you're clueless 23:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- You guys have it wrong, by pegging fox at the liberal end of the spectrum then conservapedia is giving themselves license to use the really far right crazy Whale.to stuff in order to bring ballance. --Opcn (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
10 internets...
...to the sock who first points this out to Assfly. (Though we all know what his response will be.) DickTurpis (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- But abortion does cause breast cancer. Deny this and lose all credibility. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nah, we face immediate banishment for being associated with some damn liberal vandel site --Thunderstruck (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that it's mentioned here means that the first sock to mention it may as well have been screaming "Ban me, TK, ban me!" Tetronian you're clueless 00:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nah, we face immediate banishment for being associated with some damn liberal vandel site --Thunderstruck (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no! Drunken British dropouts are being banned from America!
It's amusing to watch them flap their hands over this "harmless message," given that the kid was so drunk HE can't remember what he put in his e-mail...which, according to most sources, was both abusive AND threatening.
I especially like:
[quote] We wonder when the ego-manical Obama administration will begin detaining American Citizens for the same "crime". [/quote]
Err...they already do. Would've done the same thing under Bush or any other President. Sending the President a threatening letter will (at least) get you detained and questioned; they can't afford to ignore stuff like that.
Conservapedia: defending the rights of drunken British teenagers. (Wait...I thought Britain was an evil atheist socialist country? So wouldn't that make drunken British teenagers bad? Oh, the confusion!) --Phentari (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)