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

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎NASA: ty)
Line 227: Line 227:
 
:::::::::::::America could use a President like Kim Jong-Il. We haven't had a President with hair that good since Reagan! [[User:MDB|MDB]] ([[User talk:MDB|talk]]) 15:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::::::::::America could use a President like Kim Jong-Il. We haven't had a President with hair that good since Reagan! [[User:MDB|MDB]] ([[User talk:MDB|talk]]) 15:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 
(UI) Rob, this is some constructive criticism. 1. Obama is not the real power in the white house; like all presidents, he is the public face of a political society (the Democrats' elites). 2. If the Democrats wanted to win over Texas, then they would EXPAND NASA's budget as a bribe. 3. The Democratic elite do not need to win over Texas, because most of them, being anonymous to the voting public, will jump ship and join the Republicans' elite. The same thing happened to John McCain. 4. America's technological edge doesn't matter, because globalization is nearly complete and the world's space agencies will be united under a single aegis; NASA can focus on specific projects instead of trying to do everything space-related at once. 5. Sputnik was not a shot in the arm for 'basic research.' America was already spending millions (billions?) on research in the years before Sputnik launched and had abducted German scientists after the war to accelerate the process. Sputnik was used in Western propaganda to make massive budget increases for alphabet soup agencies (NASA, NSA etc) palatable to the public. 6. Eisenhower was centrist, and the Democratic/Republican parties stood for different things in his day anyways.--[[Special:Contributions/74.15.52.86|74.15.52.86]] ([[User talk:74.15.52.86|talk]]) 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 
(UI) Rob, this is some constructive criticism. 1. Obama is not the real power in the white house; like all presidents, he is the public face of a political society (the Democrats' elites). 2. If the Democrats wanted to win over Texas, then they would EXPAND NASA's budget as a bribe. 3. The Democratic elite do not need to win over Texas, because most of them, being anonymous to the voting public, will jump ship and join the Republicans' elite. The same thing happened to John McCain. 4. America's technological edge doesn't matter, because globalization is nearly complete and the world's space agencies will be united under a single aegis; NASA can focus on specific projects instead of trying to do everything space-related at once. 5. Sputnik was not a shot in the arm for 'basic research.' America was already spending millions (billions?) on research in the years before Sputnik launched and had abducted German scientists after the war to accelerate the process. Sputnik was used in Western propaganda to make massive budget increases for alphabet soup agencies (NASA, NSA etc) palatable to the public. 6. Eisenhower was centrist, and the Democratic/Republican parties stood for different things in his day anyways.--[[Special:Contributions/74.15.52.86|74.15.52.86]] ([[User talk:74.15.52.86|talk]]) 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 +
:Thank you. Good points and analysis, and most of them I agree with. Especially the part about Obama being a stooge and front man for the New World Order, something I've said all along.  [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|don't bother me]]</sup>
  
 
== This can only go well… ==
 
== This can only go well… ==

Revision as of 01:53, 18 February 2010

Template:AOTW Navigation 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

Make Karajou Funny (sticky)

moved to Forum:Making Karajou funny

Haha, that's funny, the forums were created to take the load off the SB, but it's perfectly applicable here too. Should there be a "conservapedia" category added to the fora now? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I just did exactly that. Fairly easy, nice work tech guys! ħumanUser talk:Human 21:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


University of Alabama shooting

Apparently, this is all due to professor values. Clearly, fundamentally liberal professors are clearly all murderers, and THIS IS PROOF. Webbtje (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Not just professor values, but values of a professor trained in evolutionimg--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
A professor who was also trained in evolution at Harvard. Can we assume then that all Harvard grads have a tendency toward murder, as Andy assumes all evolutionists are? Aboriginal Noise What the ... 20:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
the news has dredged up the accidental shooting of her brother by her when she was 20. A shotgun to the stomach. Hamster (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Didn't Andy graduate from Harvard?--Justme (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hence AbNoise's comment above. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 08:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Andy's bringing out the big guns. It wasn't just biology and evolution, but socialism and liberal denialimg that killed her. Wow, so many fingers pointing at so many things! If only there were some sort of system by which they assessed what really happened. – Nick Heer 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy...

...use the fucking Preview button, Ken.img --Sid (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To Ken the preview button is like onanism. Changes you cannot immediately commit to is a mortal sin. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Just took a quick peek at the Atheism article (that's all a normal person can manage without pain) and was amazed to see he stuck a section on anti-atheism blogs smack in the middle of the thing. Shouldn't that just be a subset of "external links"? Especially since the non-notable Marino takes centre stage. --Kels (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Can people STOP linking to that "article" please. I've just skimmed[TM A Schlafly] the thing and I'll ave to go and lie down with my copy of Keats for a while. The writing "style" is even worse than I remember. Ken shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a keyboard until he's taken a course in writing in English. It's probably the worst screed I've cast my eyes on since infant school. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 21:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, the article is marvelous: it has ten in regards in it - more than Keats used in his whole lifetime, I suppose! larronsicut fur in nocte 21:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Ken can do Andys writing course, that will fix everything Hamster (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On CP, there is this great (though unspoken) rift between pupils and teachers: teachers are Ed Poor, TK, and of course Aschlafly - they don't have to listen to anyone. They write the books. Pupils are for instance every new editor: they should come to listen, not to talk (talk, talk,...) Though the pupils are said to be the core of the project, they are only the junior partners (and junior sysops). Conservative is a teacher, therefore he can't listen to anyone else - and that's a pity, as he is perhaps the only person in the universe (including us bloody foreigners) who could profit from Andy's course --larronsicut fur in nocte 10:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A short praise of pibot

KBs added to WIGO-talk per month

While I get all exited over the abuse of pibot by TK, I just marveled how much pibot helped to manage this pig, i.e., Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?. This is our most popular page, and the number (and size) of the comments to it is enormous.

5000 first rev
5000 rev Jan 2009
5000 current rev
In the beginning, archiving by hand wasn't that problematic: roughly once a week, someone had to tame the pic This time last year, the pig had to be trimmed twice a week, and no one liked to touch it... Smooth operations, nowadays. Lovely!

So thanks, pibot! larronsicut fur in nocte 13:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And thank you, once again, Oh Grand Wizard of the Sun, Eastern Dragons and Awesome Graphs. --Psygremlin말하십시오 13:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks:-) Wigo-5.png Here's the whole picture. Some observations:

  • in the very beginning, the thread was archived roughly once a week and didn't grow over 100K
  • the thread peaked on Feb 20, 2009 with more than 217 K
  • in Jan 2009, the thread was manually archived ten times: a maximum
  • in May 2009, Pibot was put to work - that's very obvious in the pic
  • afterward, it never became bigger than 164 K
  • in Aug 2009, the thread reached length 0 - a result of our troubles

larronsicut fur in nocte 10:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is your brain on acid! --GTac (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bye-bye Weekly Toon

With Karajou having plumbed the depths of his creative well and faced with yet another "evilushun on the blackboard" or global warming cartoon, Andy pulls the plug, replacing it instead with a bit of what-the-fuckeryimg of his own.

Conservatism beats obesity? Can't wait to see the advert on the Home Shopping Network (Um... and since when is obesity an addiction?) --PsygremlinSprich! 14:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why you see all those skinny folks in Texas. --SpinyNorman (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
And why Rush Limbaugh is looking pretty svelt and had never been addicted to painkillers. Aboriginal Noise What the ... 16:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I predict the Weekly Toon going on the "do-not-talk-about" blockable offences list. Innocent user: "Karajou, what happened to your Weekly Toons? I very much enjoyed reading them, they were most comical." Karajou: Block, revert, oversight. SJ Debaser 16:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Great, now I can't get rid of the mental image of Andy as a snake oil salesman, pushing conservatism through the medium of singing a catchy jingle and pointing a cane at bulletpoints. Vulpius (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Try Mr. Schlafly's miracle elixir, it'll get you thin sir, true sir true! Barikada (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth (probably not much), the most obese states in America are largely (hehehe) Republican. That said, I'm betting it's pretty much a coincidence. – Nick Heer 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Therefore they're likely to be nearer to meeting their maker, hence the gODbotheringness. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 22:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Likely. Correlation does not imply causation. "I'm thin because I support gun control!" is as silly as "I'm thin because I support the death penalty!". --Sid (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It's more "if you're obese, you're more likely to be Republican", but it doesn't work the other way around. – Nick Heer 01:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
More likely, a lot of those Republican states tend to be poorer, and poverty is often linked with obesity (inability to access healthier foods, etc.). So it is possible that some Conservative economic policies have an impact. --Kels (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
"The powerful personal benefits of conservatism often include defeating [...] anxiety, depression and other time-wasters" (emphasis mine) - WHAT? Anxiety and depression are mere time-wasters now? --Sid (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course they are, atheist scum! All that time spent on your shrink's couch could be spent reading the Bible or talking to God... who, un.like your shrink, doesn't charge by the hour... or talk back, for that matter. --PsygremlinSiarad! 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
And a new edit of the article features the #1 reliable source on CP: Andy's vague anecdotes.img --Sid (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The way I'd read that "statistic"[TM A Schlafly] is that "Conservative" women are as likely to die early as the men resulting in an equality. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 22:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
That anecdotal evidence from a conservative conference in early 2010 of a "nearly" 100% remarriage rate for widows doesn't seem to include Andy's mother, who was an organizer. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I switched to conservatism and gained two inches where it counts. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 23:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
As soon as I gave up my liberal ideas and became a conservative, my hernia vanished. SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 08:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I got pregnant thanks to conservatism. Webbtje (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
After I switched to conservatismTM I have gotten mind-blowing epiphanies on a near daily basis. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
ConservatismTM cured my rickets! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Say it ain't so! More "quim" please. Jimaginator (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Phase II

Troll that is all. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 08:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Fit y'on aboot, loon?DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 08:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you frae furry boots city? CS Miller (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't feed the TROLL yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 08:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I love how he can no longer bring himself to say certain words, so just gives the initial letters. I'm sure at some point he'll stop being able to even do that and will have to mouth the words at people, because he clearly can't say you-know-what or refer to the winkwink nudge nudge. MaxAlex Swimming pool 09:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Have we been in Phase I all this time? I bet something really exciting is on its way in March! Bondurant (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The Ides, no doubt (well it's well 'idden[sorry]). Also: 12, yes TWELVE, edits for thisimg triumph of reportage. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 10:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait, what's the Phase to Level ratio here? Jaxe (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(UI)This is the reason Kenny is just using the letters A, E and H. That is on the website of mr Turkel/Holding. Ken even got a shout out here: (may 2 2009). The rush he got from that acknowledgment has been lasting for quite a while. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's links from each (A,E & H) to CP's articles, teh Turk must be hard up for sources. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 10:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It's interesting to see the amount of response (zero) he's had on that talk page from the celebrated Mr T. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 10:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Turkel hasn't been all that active for quite a while. Hey TK, I think it is time to do this, at this page. Time to move on. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Should not someone point out that, of the two most prominent youtube creationists, one is going out on the street and the other is receiving treatment for mental problems? EddyP (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I think there is no need to go ad hominem on people who provide such weak arguments. Internetmoniker (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Ken really expecting a response from someone whose entire editing history of 4 edits, covers a period of 6 minutes getting on for 2 years ago? Even if it is the real Turkey?  Lily Inspirate me. 14:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's Saint Valentine's Day, you dirty liberals!

Andy wants to keep the "Saint" in "Saint Valentine's Day".

Of course, no one knows who the real Saint Valentine was, and the Catholic Church hasn't celebrated it as a Feast Day in over 40 years, so I guess Andy knows better than those whacked-out far left liberals from Vatican II. MDB (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Given most of CP's target audience are evangelicals, do they even recognize Catholic saints in the first place? --Kels (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that particularly matters what their audience is, or that Schafly himself is Catholic to the best of anyone's knowledge. It's the idea that evil secularists are trying to remove the religious connotations from something that is religious in origin - similar to the war on Christmas. It doesn't matter if it was a Catholic, Islamic or even Scientologist in nature, it's their way of fighting against perceived secular behavior more than defending the actual religosity of the issue. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 18:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Shocking news

Link

A youtube athlieist has called something the book of 'revelations' instead of 'revelation'. This is a gloatable offense. Webbtje (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess the minister and the Sunday School leaders at the church I attended as a kid must be undercover atheists, then - they often referred to passages from there as 'Revelations' whatever. I guess Ken can't understand that the precise name of something isn't always the same as what it's popularly known as or commonly referred to in passing. 92.22.84.228 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Provided link. Took him a half dozen or more edits, what great irony in one diff. Hey, Conservative, you can't even spell Thunderf00t's name correctly. Next time you try to do a public exposition on a user of YouTube, Rationalwikians suggest you first learn the name of the user on YouTube! (Basically switched words in his last sentence) AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 17:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, in only nine days TF's video has seven times the hits that NephilimFree's vid took almost a year to get! Thunderf00t must be so much more accurate, according to Ken-logic. Now I know which one I should watch, thanks Ken! --Kels (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
To be fair to Ken, Nigel of Half Man Half Biscuit does clearly warn about this in the lyrics of Shit arm, Bad tattoo -

If you’re going to quote from the Book of Revelation

Don’t keep calling it the Book of Revelations
There’s no “s”, it’s the Book of Revelation

As revealed to St John the Divine

Although I would like Ken to explain exactly where else TF has embarrassed himself, I certainly don't recall him doing such with Ray Comfort (I do remember an excellently succinct lesson in speciation though) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I just checked, he doesn't say "The Book of Revelations", he just says "in Revelations", which actually is a common conversational shorthand for the book. If he wasn't trying to use the formal name, then I doubt even Nigel would have a problem with it. --Kels (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right that it's common, but it's also wrong. The correct shorthand term is just 'Revelation'.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 12:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

TerryH

Did this slip through the cracks? I just took a look at TerryH's last 100 contribsimg - and they fall neatly into four categories:

  1. Bible Translation
  2. Using his blog as a news source on the main page
  3. Minor edits and reverts
  4. Using his blog as a reliable source in mainspace articles

Now, I expected the first three, but the last one was definitely news to me. See hereimg and hereimg and keep an eye out for articles by "Hurlbut, T." -Sid (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

With that creepy stare, he can be reliable a reliable source if he says so. Why wouldn't someone tell him that picture is awful before he puts it on the web? Is that the quality of xtian fellowship we've come to expect from our faithful? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Examiner format: Tabloid.This little section provides some insight...

"When then someone clicks your link you earn revenue (similar to ehow etc.). Examiner.com was abused in that way, and there were more similar reasons regarding promotional edits."

Does this mean our little racist TerryH is linking to his own articles for revenue gain? He's basically doing three big no-no's (linking to his own articles, linking to a blog/tabloid site, and possibly getting paid to do it!) at once. Impunity is a bitch. lol AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 17:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if that had been mentioned in the past, but Terry might actually be the only person who actually profits from CP. After all, he apparently gets money based on pageviews. This would also explain why he is so aggressively linking to his articles on the mainpage. --Sid (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU-! Sid beat me to it, but I didn't get an edit conflict and posted before him! WTF! AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 17:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, you know what they say about great minds. :P (And my edit started with a linebreak, so I guess that made the edit-conflict check trip up.) Didn't occur to me to check WP's blacklist, though. Nice find! --Sid (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And he now got a second title, too!

Introducing... the Creationism Examiner! --Sid (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's one intense icon. I can't imagine what someone with, say, a copy of Photoshop could do with that. --Kels (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
So what the flippin' fuck does this:

A serious student of politics and political philosophy since his Yale (1980) days, Terry A. Hurlbut analyzes current political events from the perspective of some of the finest political theorists of the Western world, from Locke to Paine to Tocqueville to Rand. He has been a resident of Essex County for over eight years, long enough to have "seen it all."

...have to do with CREATIONISM? An interest and education in politics gives someone the authority to refute science? And just what in the blue fuckin' blazes does eight years in Essex County prepare you for? Can one really "see it all" from one location like that? I feel an anuerysm starting as we speak... I'm going to go lie down for a while. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Goat is back

I see that someone re-created cp:Goat but has now been locked by Karajou after he inserted the taxonomy template.  Lily Inspirate me. 15:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Croc

His contributions just petered out. larronsicut fur in nocte 17:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's now 5 months since DeanS's last edit. I know he lost his wife, but he did come back sporadically after that. Can we expect his demotion for inactivity? Of course it may be that he has also died; one of the problems with an internet persona is that nobody knows if you are still alive unless a relative decides to make it known, which presumes that they even know that you edit at a crank site.  Lily Inspirate me. 15:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

He has a blog, but it's restricted to invited readers only. Kind of expected, since it might disclose some raw emotion due to his loss. There's also the possibility he's kept in contact with Andy outside of Conservapedia, -or- it's just favoritism and bullshit "meritocracy" that we've all come to laugh at. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 16:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) In any case, hope he's doing well.
I sent him a mail a few months ago to his usual e-mail addy and it was bounced back undelivered. Maybe he's just cut all ties and gone back to hawking dodgy coffee. (or was it chocolate?) --Psygremlin말하십시오 17:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fox news

The WIGO about Obama's and some other guy's height is a bit shit, but in the CP article it links to I noticed Andy had a column in the chart of possible republican candidates called "Fox news exposure". Is Fox news really this important to rightwingers in the States, such that it warrants being listed next to pros and cons of each candidate? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. If you're a Republican and you get bad-mouthed on Fox then you might as well kiss your electability goodbye. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 19:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Some people who here that aren't even that far right-winged will only watch fox news. My boss won't even listen to NPR because of claimed liberal bias. `Fox82 (talk)

I also found it funny that he put the column as "allowed" on fox news, like they are all begging to be on all the time. Fox82 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, Fox's ratings far outstrip other cable news networks in the US. Republicans most certainly need Fox's support if they want to get elected. Tetronian you're clueless 19:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
To me, FOX News is a little like Conservapedia. I watch it because they are so crazy that it makes for good entertainment. I would imagine at least some of their viewers are people who want to see how stupid people like Hannity and Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are. Keegscee (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I used to all the time. News is the only semi-interesting thing that's on in the morning, and watching FOX is like reading mainpageright. TKEtoolshedFrag Out! 21:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
If only mainpageright were as interesting. That was one of the google news links today under 'spotlight'. --23:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Two girls; one vibe. Now that's interesting! yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 23:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It could be on mainpageright, it has a religion aspect: "using a vibe religiously...". Hmmm, I wonder exactly what that entails... DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Probably a lot of chanting and singing, maybe a little holy water, and one HELL of a confession the next night. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 09:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Does "Oh yes!, Oh yes!" repeated ad infinitum, count as chanting? yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 09:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

tempting fate

ban countdown? [1] HoorayForSodomy (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do they feel the need to live blog every little thing that pops into their minds? TKEtoolshedFrag Out! 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
JacobB's monologue about Ed is priceless. Tetronian you're clueless 22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Ed should try making something that other people don't have to undo. TKEtoolshedFrag Out! 22:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Presidential height wigo

Height doesn't appear to be completely irrelevant: e.g. http://www.hackwriters.com/tall.htm. What would It would say about Palin's chances I wonder.

NASA

Rob's now moaning: about the NASA budgetimg. I'd have thought it was just the sort of central Government spending that'd have annoyed them. You can't tell which way they'll go until a Dem does something & then they'll go for the opposite. yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 02:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The only consistent position Rob holds is "anything that looks bad for the Democrats". Actually most of conservapedia is anti-liberal/democrats rather than pro-anything, even Andy's list of Conservative benefits is things that Conservatism guards you against, rather than what it promotes. - π 02:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
In the latest New Scientist it states that although govt. NASA funding is being cut, more of it is being opened to the best of the public private sector. Something CP surely should support. Acei9 02:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Space doesn't exist, everyone knows that. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The free market can't handle space. Health care, on the other hand... --Kels (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The simple fact is, this "post-partisan president" gutted NASA cause Houston is in a Red state that didn't vote for him and he has little chance to win in 2012. Obama is putting pressure on Sens. Hutchinson & Cornyn. It's a miscaculation. How do you suppose this looks to trekkies and techheads outside Texas? He's willing to scrap the US's technological leadership in the name of partisan vindictiveness and a vendetta. The space race gave us things like, oh say, the computer, for instance. Progressive trekkies that supported Obama may begin to think twice about this. Sputnik was a shot in the arm for US basic scientific research. Government backed Student loans & Pell grants were created to recruit young people into science and technology, and this, under a Republican president (Eisenhower). Obama's leading us back into the dark ages of ignorance -- and all over a partisan and vindicitve attitude toward the City of Houston that did not, and will never, vote for Obama. RobSmithdon't bother me 09:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Dark ages of ignorance? Like the bible? Don't make me laugh Rob! yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 09:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes yes, such ignorance as "do good to them that hate you." Praise God that Darwin and science have enlightened us. RobSmithdon't bother me 14:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
And, on the subject of Texas, dids you see this, Rob? yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 09:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You'd think he could find a terrorist to defend rather than some controversial figure like edjucated in medical schools. RobSmithdon't bother me 14:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
If I were you, Rob, I'd spell and grammar check any contributions that have the word "edjucated" in them. (Or are we just puppets on your strings again?) Junggai (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
And, I'm sure native residents will correct me if I'm wrong, but in fact Houston did vote for Obama. Certainly Harris County went Democrat in 2008 for the first time since 1964, and the voting patterns suggest that it was in fact the precincts inside the city were those that voted for Obama. So I think the City of Houston pretty much did vote for Obama. It's the rest of Texas that hates him :) Worm(t | c) 10:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You're forgetting Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso, and all of South Texas. Junggai (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Houston just elected a gay commie lib mayor. Whatever happened to Tom Delay's town. RobSmithdon't bother me 14:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow.... This is a great insight into the mind of a raving lunatic. Rob, how do you function? Is everything a poltiical conspiracy to you? Instead of the obvious answer, the space program is eating up millions (billions?) of taxpayer dollars and we're not really seeing a result. At a time when we're increasing the national debt and running a record deficit, it doesn't seem very intelligent to (literally) shoot your money into outer space. But nooooo, this is obvious some strange Obama tactic to punish Texas (even though NASA headquarters isin DC, the training facility is in Alabama, major research is done is Florida, testing is done in New Mexico, need I keep going?) This is just amazing. How does your mind come up with these things? SirChuckBDMorris for new Jinx! 10:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It's all a Maoistimg conspiracy. Reds under the beds, Rob? yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 10:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC
I find it suspicious that article was created on Kim Jong-il's birthday (North Korean time). --Swedmann (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
America could use a President like Kim Jong-Il. We haven't had a President with hair that good since Reagan! MDB (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(UI) Rob, this is some constructive criticism. 1. Obama is not the real power in the white house; like all presidents, he is the public face of a political society (the Democrats' elites). 2. If the Democrats wanted to win over Texas, then they would EXPAND NASA's budget as a bribe. 3. The Democratic elite do not need to win over Texas, because most of them, being anonymous to the voting public, will jump ship and join the Republicans' elite. The same thing happened to John McCain. 4. America's technological edge doesn't matter, because globalization is nearly complete and the world's space agencies will be united under a single aegis; NASA can focus on specific projects instead of trying to do everything space-related at once. 5. Sputnik was not a shot in the arm for 'basic research.' America was already spending millions (billions?) on research in the years before Sputnik launched and had abducted German scientists after the war to accelerate the process. Sputnik was used in Western propaganda to make massive budget increases for alphabet soup agencies (NASA, NSA etc) palatable to the public. 6. Eisenhower was centrist, and the Democratic/Republican parties stood for different things in his day anyways.--74.15.52.86 (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Good points and analysis, and most of them I agree with. Especially the part about Obama being a stooge and front man for the New World Order, something I've said all along. RobSmithdon't bother me

This can only go well…

I just edited CP's main talk pageimg to ask for a mention of the latest Gallup poll showing Obama's 6-point approval rating increase, just for kicks. Let's see what happens. My bet is either a) "Gallup is a libburral company" or b) 90/10 rule… BAN! – Nick Heer 05:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd bet c) "Member of a vandal site". Of course I'm only betting that since I'm the one that's piloting TK this week. HumanisticJones (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Bingoimg. Though, I find it ironic TK (or for that matter, most sysops at CP) are criticizing anyone for misreading polls. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 06:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, they also banned me for something they say they won't ban people for. But as they're "conservatives", I suspect it's not a double-standard. At any rate… – Nick Heer 07:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought the current line was that they don't block people merely for editing here. Nick Heer didn't break any rules with that post. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Last thing I heard was that they never block anybody for comments elsewhere... but that they do block people who are active members of sites that oppose CP. But in the end, it doesn't really matter because all rules basically grind down to "If the Senior Administrators like you, you're doing fine. If not, you broke the rules and will be politely removed." Because it's not like CP ever applied its rules consistently or transparently. --Sid (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WIGO numbering

I was about to lambast someone about the numbering, then I found it was I wot dun it! Sorry! yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 10:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We need automated numbering really. -- =w= 10:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
That would be nice, it would make things a lot easier. Does anyone know how that could be done? Tetronian you're clueless 13:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Editnotice-100-What is going on at CP? -- Nx / talk 14:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly not all our BON contributors can read. -- =w= 14:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Foxy counting goes awry

From the Fox report quoted here on the woman with 6 kids in a house:"But the gain comes with pain: Europe’s higher taxes and bigger government lead to slower job growth and higher unemployment." Sorry Foxy old son: ain't true:

Country % unemployed Date
France 08.00 2009 (September)
Germany 08.6 2009 (November)
United Kingdom 07.80 2009 (September)
United States 09.7 2010 (January)

yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 14:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pish posh. You're bringing actual statistics into this discussion? =) – Nick Heer 18:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

JeffT

Funny little guy.img Tetronian you're clueless 15:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Classic Andy, classic Ed Poor. One writing plan, one malicious insult from Jinxy and one TK banhammer away from being a perfect representation of CP. — Unsigned, by: 193.200.150.82 / talk / contribs
Ahahaha! Ed "don't be a dick" Poor being a bully, Andy trying to dodge like a 600 pound sumo wrestler, this is great. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Yesss... TK has involved himself. This is perfect. I love how Andy says on the same page that Marc Lepine should be removed because he is not a "young mass murderer", then goes on to defend keeping Amy Bishop. He says the entry is about murder, then goes on to defend keeping manslaughter. He says that changing it to public school would cause more inaccuracies when every one of the people listed went to public school (and most of them weren't really young anyway). This man is the most ad hoc thinker ever. LOVE IT. 193.200.150.152 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Adding one of the classics: User page deletion to declare that the "user is on probation" (and apparently is not allowed to recreate it?) --Sid (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I really love how Assfly can say something that is patently wrong (51 is not young!), then staunchly refuse to back down. It's also a great example of how his minions rally around to defend his stupidity. No wonder the only new users who don't get pissed off and leave (and/or blocked indefintely) are parodists. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
That talk page was a riot. Someone posted when she was born ('65) and yet Andy keeps throwing an age in the 50s around. Which is it? What's funny is, as you guys are saying, it was a perfect melange of everything that is wrong with CP. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Ed is apparentlyimg just as bad at math as he is at critical reading skillsimg. To wit: Bishop's DOB is 4/21/65; her brother was shot 12/6/86. That makes Bishop how old at the time, children? Did you say 21? You did? Well, congratulations, you're smarter than Ed Poor, who takes the word of the the Huffington Post, fershitsake.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WIGO times two

How come the "TK reads between the lines" WIGO is in there twice in there twice? MDB (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's a quick fix because the counting went wrong somewhere. So with the duplicate at the top, the next one to use the "votecp nextpoll=wigo" tag will let the count resume properly again. But I just took a quick look at things myself, so I might be wrong. --Sid (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It's time for my TK impersonation. *ahem* --PsygremlinParla! 17:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
*deletes entry*
  • No there isn't. There is clearly only one entry and your feeble attempts to pour liberal scorn on Mr Schlafly's project will not succeed here. It might work in Jonesboro, Kansas, but here we resist liberal attempts to discredit us. TKAdmin
and block.

assfly

Do a google news search for "Andrew Schlafly". Go on, I dare you. -- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Take two aspirin and call someone else 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean this? Tetronian you're clueless 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
That's juicy. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 19:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it wrong that it's funny to me that this involves Andy and a town called Kermit? HumanisticJones (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not wrong! Kermit rocks!!-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Take two aspirin and call someone else 19:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Andy, nationally renowned lawyer and defender of the downtrodden *hand over heart* well done Mr Schlafly , America stands behind you . Hamster (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to read all 43 pages of lawyer jibberjack (yeah I said jibberjack, wanna fight about it?) to find the good tidbits. If someone could translate it into American, that would be appreciated. :D AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems likely Andy is helping this doctor because he believes these uppity women nurses must be raging liberals to file complaints against their natural better, the jackass quack practitioner. Fox82 (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
My series of posts on the texas nurse case sums it up in not too many words, but these nurses who blew the whistle on a quack got fired and prosecuted by the good ole boys, and the only major org behind the doc and against the nurses was AAPS, and coincidentally assfly represented the quack in a tangentially related matter in NY. ASchlafly, defender of quacks. It's glorious.-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Take two aspirin and call someone else 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I hope someone will add this to our Andy page. I'd do it myself but I'm about to hit the sack.  Lily Inspirate me. 22:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Butbutbut, that means he's siding with an elitist expert! Shouldn't these medical jobs go to the Best of the Public anyways? --GTac (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

JhC saves soldier.

Great WIGO. This kind of shit from religionists really pisses me of; if anything good happens it's because of their all-powerful god, if anything bad happens its, erm, not.

"He's alive for a reason"

Yes he is: because his armoured helmet (so effective thanks to extensive evil atheistic scientific research end engineering) did the job it's been designed to do . Twats. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I can't find any statistics about headshot survival rates, I'm going to assume it's less than 50% even with a modern military-grade helmet. Therefore, it could not happen without divine intervention, which obviously means Jesus.[citation NOT needed]
On the other hand, whatever TK says is false. Science did it after all. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 23:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
No, no, no. The FSM stretched out a noodly appendage and absorbed the greater part of the impact on the soldier's helmet. Anything else is blasphemy.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 00:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
No, no, no. JC sends someone to an early afterlife if He likes that particular individual. Obviously JC doesn't like him as much. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course! I see the light now! What's that behind the light? Mmmm, tall, thin, striking bearing. Yes, it's JC. John Cleese himself. Strange, I didn't think he was dead.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 02:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. --Horace (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
That maxim, strangely one that the marines continue to use for their own despite its patently immoral context, seems to apply more recently only when we're talking about killing infidels, not by the older meaning that anyone martyred during the crusades by hostile or friendly fire would be rewarded in heaven. It pains me that this is what things have come to in this country. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Poor Ed

What the fuck is this source for Barney Frank being a "balf faced liar" about? I'm too afraid to make the Time Cube angry to read it. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If it weren't for the lack of softcore porn, I'd say it's the inside of RobS' head. --Kels (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Ed found us a new article of the weak. - π 22:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Just as we were thinking of ditching it for "featured new article".... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

TK Fails 'liberal maths'

Quite ironic. He says that $272 Billion has been spent and ~595,000 jobs have been created, giving about $450,000 per job. This is correct, if all the money had been spent between October 1st and December 31st 2009. However, he misses that there was another 634,032 jobs created or saved between February 17th and September 30th 2009. So, using the exact figures, that gives 1,229,305 jobs created for £272.2 billion, or $221,425.93 per job - still a bit high, but less than half what TK was claiming. However, if you even so much as read the 'about the Act' part of recovery.gov, you realise that only part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was about directly creating or saving jobs (although I would agree it's probably the most important part), so the actual figure for 'money spent per job saved/created', if you only include the money actually spent directly doing this, is actually even lower than this. I would actually work out exactly how much lower, but, frankly, TK's shenanigans aren't worth the effort. 92.11.8.129 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

TK reads this page but he won't respond to this. He knows he's wrong and a deceitful piece of shit. Even if he turns out to be a parodist I won't hate him any less. UGH I can't express how badly I hate him with words Senator Harrison (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
If that's the case, YHBT. Congratulations TK; you've done it again. Fedhaji (Talk) 02:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding TK's liberal airline passenger

Nicholas D. Heer Quick question for you Where in http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/15/report-romney-threatened-flight-vancouver/ is the attacker a liberal?

[…] Irrelevant banter removed.

terry.92270 it is obvious someone reacting the way the other passenger did, turning violent at being nicely asked to move his seat to the upright position, had to be a liberal

Nicholas D. Heer Oh. The way I see it, it's extrapolating from no information at all on the passenger's political orientation. Hypothetically, if the passenger turned out to be a conservative, would it affect the CP news page?

terry.92270 no conservative would have tried to hit Mitt the "news" page, as I have publicly repeated a hundred times, isn't encyclopedic, but is by design supposed to be provacitive and spur interest

Nicholas D. Heer I understand that, however on the basis of correctness, would the page be affected?

terry.92270 if the passenger was at some point shown to be a conservative?

Nicholas D. Heer Yes

terry.92270 would I make some special correction notice?

Nicholas D. Heer Perhaps not, but just change "liberal" to conservative, or remove it altogether?

terry.92270 i have done so dozens of times

Nicholas D. Heer Would this be an applicable time? Further, is there enough basis to assume he would be a liberal, and would his political affiliation be important to the story? Finally, is it not equally possible that he could be a die-hard Catholic, for example, and be attacking Romney because he's Mormon?

terry.92270 all possibilities however it suits CP's political agenda to use our common sense, and say he was a liberal like I already said, the news items arent by design supposed to be encyclopedic

Nicholas D. Heer But should they, at least, be correct?

terry.92270 it isnt incorrect, as u have failed to provide anything that shows it is it is merely what it is supposed to be, provocative

Nicholas D. Heer However, assuming one possibility until proven otherwise could also form the basis of being incorrect. There has been no evidence to prove that he's a liberal.

terry.92270 thats wikipedia drivel we do not stive for NPOV

Nicholas D. Heer I disagree. It isn't about NPOV but rather correctness.

terry.92270 we reject political correctness

Nicholas D. Heer I'm not referring to political correctness, but rather neutrality and correctness regarding the facts present.

terry.92270 look at RW for anecdotal proof of the violence of liberals we do not strive for neutrality, quite the opposite where are you getting these weird ideas about what CP is supposed to be?

Nicholas D. Heer But CP does strive for factual accuracy, correct?

terry.92270 in our encyclopedic articles not the news column

Nicholas D. Heer Therefore the news articles can be as fictional as an editor deems interesting?

terry.92270 newspapers supposedly strive for factual accuracy, yet still publish letters to the editors and their own Editorial POV, right?

Nicholas D. Heer On a page clearly labelled "Opinion", yes. However, the news pages are of factual accuracy, to the best abilities of the editors and company.

terry.92270 CP's main page is self promotional

Nicholas D. Heer Understandably

terry.92270 your argument would have more clout if you ever objected to anything remotely dealing with liberal deceit, Nick

Nicholas D. Heer I do object to any form of deceit, yes. Regardless of the originator of the deception being on any portion of the political spectrum.

terry.92270 but to come to me, a political professional, only to complain about CP's imagined slights, and never once standing up on, say, RW and calling bullshit, deminishes your cred. ;-) to me, RW and their sysops, act no differently, in reality, than those on CP

Nicholas D. Heer But it doesn't diminish the underlying reality that that particular headline is a work of fiction. No doubt RW's editors work along the same lines, however RW never claimed to be encyclopaedic at all. But I'm not aligned to RW. I have no allegiance to that site, or any site for that matter.

terry.92270 well, your reasoning lacks logic, inasmuch as I have already told you, and posted publicly, and most people seem to understand, aside from you, that the news column is supposed to stir thoughts

Nicholas D. Heer However, would it be more productive and support a conservative movement to stick to just reporting on facts, rather than having to make assumptions? Agreed, the liberal media is in the wrong with regards to this, so perhaps it would be best to rise above that with factual (not neutral) reporting?

terry.92270 lol....you need to drink more, and argue less ;-) we have an old saying here...."the squeeky wheel gets the grease"

Nicholas D. Heer I'm not arguing, I'm just looking for a solid answer from someone who seems to have only the best intentions of CP at heart. I just wanted to know whether it's best to report fiction and be called on it, or report fact and be able to defend your point?

terry.92270 I think saying reporting fiction is hyperbole

Nicholas D. Heer But it isn't reporting fact, either.

terry.92270 95% of the item was demonstrably factual

Nicholas D. Heer If you'd not prefer "fiction", how about extrapolating the unknown?

terry.92270 my assumption was the perp was liberal

Nicholas D. Heer Assumption is good too, but the best news, the news that you can defend, isn't based on assumption but on knowlege.

terry.92270 one item out of ten I put up ni the last two days

Nicholas D. Heer knowledge*

terry.92270 we counteract liberal propaganda, with our own, at times....thats how politics works, mate hate the game, not the player

Nicholas D. Heer Would it be in your best interests to rise above that, though?

terry.92270 no it would be in the liberals best interests if we chose not to get into the gutter with them....thats what they count on thats why i am so hated by them i can and will do exactly what they do

Nicholas D. Heer Why not? You could have an honest news feed that shows liberal propaganda for what it really is. Unfortunately, your news feed, as you put it, is in the gutter

terry.92270 well, the gutter would be sex and sin, and I don't do that

Nicholas D. Heer Oh, OK. I thought you were referring to the propaganda only. At any rate, you'd think it best to report on assumption rather than sticking to fact?

terry.92270 putting up what I believe to be true isn't fiction it is my belief

Nicholas D. Heer OK, thanks

terry.92270 that doesnt make it wrong

Nicholas D. Heer I never said it did.

From an IM conversation tonight. Nothing really new, but take from it what you want. – Nick Heer 01:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I love it when TK pretends to be a "a political professional". He is so transparently full of shit. I wonder what the Canadian PM would think.....What do ya reckon TK? Acei9 02:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
"95% of the item was demonstrably factual" Well, if that's TK's standard for truth: TK is a tomato who happens to also be a sysop at Conservapedia and an much maligned editor at RW. Barikada (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought he was supposed to be in Reno, not Cali? MaxAlex Swimming pool 11:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
TK used to be in CA I believe the 92270 refers to a former ZIP code. A cursory Google search will also reveal a familial property dispute in Los Angeles and that he currently lives about 60 miles away from Reno in a small town that is well-known for it's political connectedness. However, I may be wrong about that last bit. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 11:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that not only does the article not say the attack on Romney was politically motivated, it doesn't even indicate the attacker even knew who Romney was. And considering it was a flight from Vancouver, there's at least a reasonable chance the attacker was Canadian, making it even less likely he'd recognize Romney. (And considering the source is Fox News, if there was any evidence it was politically motivated, they'd be playing it for all its worth.) So, all you can really say from the article is "Mitt Romney was seated next to an asshole who got violent". MDB (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

But if he was Canadian then it's certain he was a liberal socialist heathen, so TK is right after all. DickTurpis (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, TK should save himself some effort with his news stories and just transcribe his local police blotter and put the word "liberal" in front of everyone who was arrested. DickTurpis (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you have to use conservapedian logic when dealing with stories like this;
  • There are only two types of people in this world, 'conservatives' and 'liberals'. Anyone who doesn't perfectly fit conservapedia's extreremly narrow idea a of 'conservative' (hardline rightwing and YEC etc) is, by definition, a liberal.
  • Conservatives would never ever do anything wrong or bad.
Ergo
  • Anyone who does anything wrong or bad must be a liberal.
QED. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 13:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Not like it's a revelation or anything, but this is the essence of TK and Conservapedia at their "Trusworthy" best:
"But CP does strive for factual accuracy, correct?"
"in our encyclopedic articles not the news column"
CP News - "We distort, you decide". Or in this case, "We provoke, you deride". --SpinyNorman (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This week's featured article

... is another hotch potch of half-inched PNG files. The barrel-scraping is clearly audible. Nothing underlines the site's moribund condition like their inability to come up with one decent page a week.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 15:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's less them not having any better articles (by their warped standards, they have plenty of great stuff) and more a reflection of a broken process of a broken community. They regularly drive out people who want to join the community without mindlessly repeating Andy's mantras, and they locked out people from the selection process by only giving committee members a vote and banishing everybody else to the talk page. And the existing committee members will either show favoritism or suggest their own pet articles or things they find fitting for the time (like seasonal or current events). --Sid (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
At the bottom: Conservapedia Masterpieces Gallery. Someone needs to add the tumbleweed animation. – Nick Heer 15:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of those images are tea-leaved citing 'fair use' (the one that don't simple don't state any source whatsoever). Do images like this fall in the public domain? CP seem to think that stating 'fair use' gives them carte blanche to nick whatever they like. What exactly is the definition of 'fair use' in the States? PS. It is also an very shoddy effort for article of the week. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
See here for a good article on what constitutes fair use. Using an image as window dressing on an article doesn't count. For example, here Joaquin Martinez stole an image of the Art Institute of Chicago from a mom and pop stock photo company I contacted to let them know of the unlawful use. The image is used solely on the Chicago page, which mentions once that "The world-renowned Art Institute of Chicago houses both a museum and a school." Here and here are Joaquin stealing 2 more images from the same mom and pop outfit for no reason other than to dress up the Chicago article. Aren't these at least a little troubling to CP? I doubt it. He literally stole them solely because they were represented by the author to be of Chicago street musicians. Why not steal an image from the Chicago Reader of the Uptown Theater when the article doesn't even mention it. In other words, not only is there no even tenuous attempt to reference the subject matter of the photo, it's just put up as window dressing. These aren't remotely fair use. The images themselves aren't being discussed. Rather, they're used to dress up a reference to the subject matter of one photo (and purely as a window dressing as to the other 2 images), which is exactly what is contemplated to be prohibited by the law. Here's an image RJJ stole from the Chicago Tribune to dress up a reference to the Chicago Olympics bid. Where' the commentary or parody? There's none. Likewise a completely unlawful appropriation by CP's resident copyright expert, a fool who would get any more visible website of a more commercial nature than Conservapedia sued. In many instances you'll find that even if there is some colorable claim that the stolen material is properly used for criticism or parody of the image itself or teaching the subject matter of the image (which may be permitted), so much of the material has been stolen (i.e. it was taken at the same resolution and size as the original) in such a manner as to completely interfere with the copyrightholder's market for the original work. Just look at the above Chicago musician and Art Institute images Joaquin stole from http://hazel.forest.net/skjold. There's no excuse for this. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
As long as they're dealing with art created in the nineteenth century, the chances of it being in public domain are almost certain. Yes, there are exceptions, but as a general rule, they're fine. They like to cite Fair Use whenever it allows them to circle-jerk over something mundane though, when the image is actually protected by copyright. I can't be bothered to dumpster dive right now, but I had a couple of examples in my history last night. – Nick Heer 17:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The photograph isn't, though. If I take a picture of the Mona Lisa, the photo is my property, not PD. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has pretty accurate summaries of copyright and fair use guidelines, and they disagree. Basically, if your photo does not add any value to the artwork, and the work is in the public domain, by default the representation of it (photo) is also in the public domain. – Nick Heer 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeabut...I had a short discussion with this exact matter with Karajou here (see Barnstar Header). His comment seems a bit out of place since the link goes to a recreated page, I think I questioned his use of a picture of a statue (or something). 23:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®
Damn, I knew I should have used Venus de Milo as my example. How about if the photo isn't "accurate"? At what point do lighting and film choices (say) create a new work? How about photographing only a detail or part of the piccie? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Lenski in the News

Lenski just got named co-director for a $25 million NSF center for the study of evolution in action. How long until Andy goes nuts over it? Kaalis (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's .4% of the proposed annual budget of the NSF last year if my calculations are correct. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear. "The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a United States government agency" <-- That means Andy will likely go down the "THIS IS TAX PAYER MONEY! CONSERVAPEDIA DEMANDS ALL THE DATA! OF EVERYTHING! AND ANYWAY, WHY DID HUSSEIN OBAMA WASTE MONEY ON THAT? HE COULD'VE USED THAT MONEY TO PRINT BIBLES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN INSTEAD OF FORCING EVEN MORE ATHEISM DOWN OUR THROATS!" road with this. --Sid (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
could Andy be goaded convinced to write a letter to the NSF ? Hamster (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no doubt he could be enticed. Perhaps with a little prodding. I'd do it, but (see TK exchange above) there's simply no way my ban will be removed. – Nick Heer 18:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
TK uses proxies to post on RW. Does that help you address your moral dilemma? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Even if we don't get a letter out of it, I hope Andy will at least notice. Tetronian you're clueless 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting news item

Tory Shadow Minister gives the Republican Party a smack in the mouth regarding their attitudes to gay rights. Countdown to AndyPandy going nuclear. Sorry, nucular.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 18:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the comments after the article seem quite insightful and shed another light on the matter. Don't be too hasty. — Pietrow 21:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually I was pointing out that this is the kind of thing that presses all of Andy's buttons:
  • A 'liberal' European (and nevermind that the Tories don't consider themselves European) lecturing Republicans (the only real Americans in Andy's eyes) about how to behave and act
  • A 'conservative' organization (actually libertarian, but we all know that Andy's definition of conservative can be flexible when it comes to faux outrage) inviting an openly gay man to address it.
  • An outsider pointing out that the Republican's attitude about homosexuality could end up keeping them out of power further down the line when 'everybody' knows that it's the Republican's attitude about homosexuality and abortion makes them eminently electable to the moderate, floating voter.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 21:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill Barilko

The article Bill Barilko was recently deleted when a new user pointed out that the article was simply the lyrics to the Tragically Hip song "50 Mission Cap". The article remained on Conservapedia for over 2 weeks prior to deletion. — Unsigned, by: 99.192.108.69 / talk / contribs 19:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Shortly thereafter, the user who pointed it out was blocked (along with her IP) Candlewick 01:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor funny

Gee, I wonder who this could be. Heh heh. Tetronian you're clueless 19:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably some more Bestest of the Public TKEtoolshedFrag Out! 21:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy showing respect?

Andy passing up a chance to criticize liberals? For once I can say, good show Mr. Schlafly--Thanatos (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Guess who

So, anyhow, I er ... found this fact ...img yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia loses credibility by a hair. lol--Thanatos (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
WIGO'd. Ed "Stubby" Poor is awesome. – Nick Heer 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I say, I say, I say. Why is Ed Poor like the tortoise? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)