User talk:Lurker/Archive1

Would that I knew which particular apologist (probably not the right word - sounds good though) for CP you are. Probably not a sysop - more likely a crawly ex-homeskuwler trying to ingratiate himself? Susan You don't have to talk, but ...  21:10, 30 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Just someone who thinks your criticisms should be fair. They give you enough to work with, why be petty? Lurker 23:21, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, had to lie down for a few minutes. Fair ... Conservapædia ... In the same sentence (poetic licence). No I can't stand it. Nurse! The sedatives please! Susan You don't have to talk, but ...  23:30, 30 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Can't say I see the point in making unfair accusations against an organization you claim is itself unfair. That's a rather, eh, Conservapedia kind of tactic. Lurker 23:57, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Susan, you're clearly a stage 2 according to Kohlberg. Please stop attempting be as much of an elitist as myself, as it fills me with indignance and umbrage. Fetch me a double-tall skinny latte, woman of inferior intellect.
 * Was that stereotypical enough for you, Lurker? -- H [[Image:Vista-epiphany.png|9px]] ji machong  00:00, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
 * PS: I think you're actually a 5+, Susan :P
 * I'm not really sure what elitism, hipsters or moral reasoning have to do with anything I've said. Unless you are trying to suggest that you guys aren't trying to be better than CP??? Because if you guys are trying to be just as trashy as CP I'll let you be. Heck, I'll help you out. There are a lot of non-representitive samples, wild exaggerations, and crazy RobSmith-style connect-the-dots I could find and add for you guys. Lurker 00:23, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

We have been over this a few times and I will try and lay it out as simply as I can. The reasons such examples are valid criticisms against CP is because CP claims to be a holier then thou wiki that is immune from the problems that wikipedia and other wiki projects face. Schlfaly goes on and on pointing out examples at WP and claiming, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, that CP is some how different and has none of the faults that wikis have. It's the abject hypocrisy and denial of reality that makes these worth pointing out. If Schlafly and CP as a whole had a moment of self introspection and admitted that they are a wiki project and as vulnerable to all the problems wikis have as any other site, and if they were to stop criticizing WP for the same things happening on their site then our criticisms along these lines would be silly and petty. But until that happens its worth pointing out.

Its not the specific article or edit in question that is the problem, its the fact that CP pretends that it is not subject to these problems. Its the hypocrisy we are commenting on ultimately. 00:30, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
 * So are you saying if they get fixed you will take them off WiGO? Because things do get fixed, like all those Lukecorlando craps (I still think he's one of you, but there's nothing concrete to prove it). And what about the CP entries you put there? Or the wild accusations which actually show nothing wrong with CP at all? Or the mean insults of young kids? Or petty entries about spelling mistakes (and sometimes comments) which were changed before the WiGO entry was ever written? Lurker 01:03, 31 October 2007 (EDT)


 * And I'll defend to the point of mild physical discomfort our right to be as trashy as anyone, So yah boo sucks to you. (izat ok for you Lurker - admission of trashiness) Susan  You don't have to talk, but ...  00:54, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
 * Oh I knew you were trashy (erm that sounds meaner than I meant, but it's your words not mine :)) ; I read WiGO daily. I just didn't think that's what you guys were about. Hey, I'm always willing to be corrected. Lurker 01:03, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

B O R I N G ! Susan You don't have to talk, but ...
 * Sting Lurker 01:31, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, that was rude of me. The thing is, personally, I have nothing but contempt for them & see no reason to treat them with anything but total ridicule. They have not one redeeming feature and deserve every calumny that can be heaped on them (whatever that means). Susan You don't have to talk, but ...  01:41, 31 October 2007 (EDT)


 * Thing is, I think that the gullible, right wing, isolationist, god bothering, creationist dingbats who make up, apparently, a sizeable proportion of the population of the USA are a greater present threat to the cotinuation of humanity than any other current event. Given power they would destroy the planetwithin monhs if not weeks. Oh I get so fed up with them that I can't think straight, but I think that it's my duty to defeat them and if unfair quoting helps, then I'm all for it. Susan  You don't have to talk, but ...  02:07, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Reading
Maybe you should take your own advice.... Read the whole post smart guy

Governor Sonny Perdue prayed for rain... and got what he asked for. Let me make myself clear: I'm not going to go so far as to suggest a causal link. However, I will say that it's nice that some American governors aren't afraid to wear their religion on their sleeve. Is this worth a main page breaking news mention?-MexMax 23:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

First sentance - "...prayed for rain... and got what he asked for..." Just because you put in a qualification after the fact, it doesn't change what he wrote. I posted the whole thing with no misleading quotes, people can make up their own minds... SirChuckBCall the FBI 15:00, 16 November 2007 (EST)
 * Seriously? Adding on the rest of the quotation is worse than having only your personal interpretation of the first line of the quote? Since when is adding more material misleading? Or don't you like it when other people make it obvious that you are just making things up to make CP look bad? Lurker 17:00, 16 November 2007 (EST)

I didn't make anything up.... I simply added the link, if people read the post and decide that it makes CP look bad, then so be it.... However, I don't see how going through and altering someone else's work to make CP look better is in any way ethical.... As for the original point.... Just because you add something after the facts doesn;t negate what you start with.... If I post:

"Less murders take place when the dog catcher wears black shoes... Now I don't mean to say that the choice of shoe color has anything to do with murder, but it's nice to see the stats."

I would be mocked relentlessly and rightly so... However, because an afterthought is added to an incredibly stupid post, you seem ready to negate the entire first sentence.... he could have easily posted "Rain comes to Georgia, maybe prayer does have something to do with it".... But he choose to imply that prayer was the sole factor in the rain.... By the way, you really remind fo someone I've dealt with before..... Hmmmmm SirChuckBCall the FBI 18:27, 21 November 2007 (EST)
 * You've waited so long to respond it really is a moot point by now, no? Your drunken post (at least I hope it's a drunken post) rambles on so much that I can't make heads or tails of it anyway. Lurker 00:31, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * Oh, and I'm not sure if I've dealt with you before. Susan thinks I'm an apologist crawly ex-homeskuwler. Have you had dealings with an apologist crawly ex-homeskuwler? Lurker 00:33, 27 November 2007 (EST)


 * Ooh that smarts! Sorry Lurker I've got to know you better now & have realised my mistake. Sorry Susan  purrrrr ...  08:53, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * Ha ha ha. Actually I really like the adjective "crawly". I've been waiting for weeks to find a good opportunity use that in a sentence. Lurker 10:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * Ah ha, you're so funny... you know, in debate we call that sidestepping... but whatever, if you choose not to answer anything, you're welcome to and I won't force the issue, good day to you SirChuckBCall the FBI 14:54, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * Sidestepping....? I;m sorry you rambles.... i'll try harder...... to interpret moot points......... next itime.
 * Let's see if I can even find what you originally wrote in WiGO. Yes, here it is; interestingly when I searched for "rain" I couldn't find it. You wrote: "It wasn't atmospheric conditions and moisture in the air that did it, It was Prayer." Despite your claims that "I didn't make anything up.... I simply added the link" and "I posted the whole thing with no misleading quotes, people can make up their own minds...", you didn't simply add the link and you didn't post the whole thing, you put words in the editor's mouth, and only the words you wanted. You make it appear that the editor said (a) the rain was not caused by atmospheric conditions and moisture; and (b) prayer must have caused the rain; and you make it appear that (c) the purpose of his statement was (a) and (b). I, on the other hand, did not put words into the editors mouth; I used his own words, without interpretation. His words say (a) nothing about atmospheric conditions; (b) "I'm not going to go so far as to suggest a causal link"; and (c) "[I]t's nice that some American governors aren't afraid to wear their religion on their sleeve".


 * So what do we see from this? It's the same argument I've had with others; you are so far in "I HATE TEH CONSERVAPAEDIA SO MUCH BECAUZE THEYY SUCK" mode that when you can't find something good enough you completely make up facts then you lie about it. Then you have the gall to say that I'm sidestepping!


 * Since you seem to want to belabor the (and I repeat: moot) point let's discuss the only part you seem to care about: the supposed causal link between prayer and rain. This is the conservative "rational" wiki, right? What is so conservative rational about categorically denying evidence that doesn't support your theory, simply because of your belief in the Bible modern science? What if the Earth his prayer really did form billion of years ago cause rain? You have rejected the conclusion before you even looked at the evidence. (You like what I did there?) You can't make progress if you never actually look at the data. Lurker 15:38, 27 November 2007 (EST)


 * There is no data... and on an aside, I don't see how this point could be moot, as the original point was something completely different.... Anyway, as I said... there is no data. If he prayed for rain everynight for a month and got rain everyday for a month you might have data, as it is, you have only a coincidence.  You are excluding millions of variables and contributing factors to force a link to the prayer. SirChuckBCall the FBI 16:46, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * Moot because the entry in question was written two weeks ago; it's so far down on WiGO that it's likely nobody will see it again.
 * One point is data. I'm not saying it's true, and you know it. I'm saying that you have decided to reject any and all evidence because of your personal beliefs. Even if you say "wow, look at that, I'll keep that in mind for later" it's better than saying "ha ha ha silly fundies; siance is for grown ups".
 * Hey, wait a minute -- what about the fact that you changed the editor's meaning and I only made it more accurate? I don't want to sling around accusations here, but you aren't sidestepping that are you? I'm not some silly Conservapedian that you can just argue circles around; you wanted to keep it up so you keep up. Lurker 17:03, 27 November 2007 (EST)


 * I just wonder how many others were praying for rain beforehand and had their prayers unanswered? Hundreds of thousands of people visit Lourdes every year praying for a miracle yet the number of Vatican acredited miracles is no more than that of spontaneous cures that the body manages to produce for even those without a Christian belief. We see this effect very often when people win the lottery - Oh I won because I prayed to God - overlooking the fact that 20 million other people who also prayed to God were kicked in the nuts and just lost their "investment". [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 17:16, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * * Sigh* I should have known better. The whole point was never that I actually think these divine events happen. In fact, it was a side argument to Chuck's accusation that I somehow bent the truth by... adding the truth. Unfortunately this point got lost when I suggested that you *gasp* consider something outside your comfort zone. Kinda like how if you mention to Andy in an off hand way that not all liberals aren't Christian, that suddenly dominates the conversation. Lurker 17:29, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * Wow, I must apologize, I didn't address that.... Damn, actually I did..... in my first response post I said "First sentance - "...prayed for rain... and got what he asked for..." Just because you put in a qualification after the fact, it doesn't change what he wrote." I'll say this very slowly, When your first sentence suggests a link, putting a disclaimer after the fact doesn't excuse it.  Understand, as for you, I've seen that Nowiki tag with an asterik before..... SirChuckBCall the FBI 17:47, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * THANKS SO MUCH! Thanks, I mean, for insulting me instead of listening to me, it's a big help. Damn I feel like I'm at Conservapedia again. I'll remember that next time; it takes so much more time to make a rational response, and I really should just save myself some time, eh?


 * Crap, you found me out. I knew that wiki code would give me away!!!!1!! I admit it for one an all: I'm Sid. I'm Ames, too. That's right, Lurker is Sid is AmesG!!!!  The jig. Is. Up.
 * I take it back, actually. It's way more fun to have a non-rational argument here then it is to have a non-rational argument there. Over there I'd be banned for life for responding in kind and with sarcasm. Lurker 18:09, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * That's a bit of a problem, because I'm Sid as well. TK has said so himself. So does that mean that I'm you - or that you're me? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 18:38, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * It's not a problem I (we) knew that all along! I think since you joined first that I am you. We aren't good at keeping our cover, are we? Lurker 19:23, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * And the red corner responds with more sidestepping.... Have you by any chance ever seen "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas?" The governor has a song about it... I think you'd enjoy it SirChuckBCall the FBI 18:11, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * You love that argument. What do you want me to say? I've answered your claims already once before, I'm not about to repeat myself. And no, I haven't seen that (movie?). Is this another insult, or do you actually think I'd enjoy it? Lurker 18:17, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * Oh ok, I lookied it up; now that I know it's a musical the governor/song thing makes sense. I'm sure it was another attempt to insult me, but I like musicals. I think I'm going to add it to my Netflix queue. Thanks buddy. Lurker 19:23, 27 November 2007 (EST)

I'm with Lurker
I think the original complaint was valid, the WIGO blurb editorialized over and on top of the cite. The cite was on a talk page and I don't think the item was ever put on the Main page. Holding CP responsible for every edit by every user (especially on talk pages) is kind of like how CP likens wandalism on WP as WP Official Policy. Then again, the item does has a 0 on it. CЯacke ® 18:50, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * I believe Chuck and I cancelled each other out. Lurker 19:13, 27 November 2007 (EST)
 * Well, either way, I feel that were no longer going anywhere with the discussion, so I will be happy to leave it as is, either way, it has been nice to see someone knows at least how to put a few thoughts together (I've been undercover in Jesusland for so long, I didn't think it was possible.) Well, enjoy your... day/week/month whatever you wanna enjoy SirChuckBCall the FBI 14:53, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 * Agreed. Lurker 17:02, 28 November 2007 (EST)

I like what you posted on your user-page
While I'm not a libertarian (any more . . . ) I do appreciate what you posted. It's what I strive for, though I know I don't always succeed. Researcher 00:19, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 * That's good to hear. I think you do a pretty good job :) Lurker 00:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 * * doffs hat* Why, thank 'ee kindly! Researcher 03:34, 30 November 2007 (EST)

That was a great post. 98.17.59.128 00:21, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 * Thanks, I guess I should post a link to the source. I didn't think people would actually read it (and so quickly!). Lurker 00:25, 30 November 2007 (EST)


 * Were/are you a cp editor? Bohdan 00:50, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Everyone seems to have an opinion on what I am/was/will be/smell like, but suffice to say the answer to your question is: yes. I'm not normally so snarky but (a) you have inspired me Bohdan! and (b) I seriously have so many other very important things to do I can't help but procrastinate them. Lurker 01:04, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Hey
I haven't been around here that much myself, but I think you should hang out here more.  Γ ☭  δλεσς Λιβεραλ  23:42, 17 December 2007 (EST)


 * I've been here, just living up to my name more than usual. Been busy IRL. Lurker 00:22, 20 December 2007 (EST)

No
Sense of humour. Locke   Always Watching...... 00:59, 20 December 2007 (EST)
 * Oh I know but seeing that little thingy and not being able to get rid of it was probably going to make me pop a vein or something. (Really, though, I'm surprised I could rollback, even though I couldn't edit it.) Lurker 01:01, 20 December 2007 (EST)
 * PS: I use American spelling, so even if I thought it was funny I wouldn't have had much of a sense of humour ;-) Lurker 01:02, 20 December 2007 (EST)

I agree with the lurker in pmail.- 01:04, 20 December 2007 (EST)—
 * really? That gives me a new tactic. user:Bohdan [[Image:N544023135_90578_6551.jpg|25px|]] (←User:GodlessLiberal) 01:05, 20 December 2007 (EST)

"I have my doubts"
I posted the news, because I was the one banned, and I honestly did support them. When I came home that day, I told my roommate: "I feel dirty." and she's like, "why?" and I'm like "Because I was actually supporting Conservapedia today..." Then we discussed why... and of course, my rational roommate and boyfriend agreed with my logic. They have a different authority than "science" does. --Eira yay! 18:57, 21 December 2007 (EST)
 * I stand corrected then. To be honest, I hadn't read the debate pages very deeply, but (a) you were using a lot of the CP rhetoric early on, which is usually a tell-tale sign of a parodist, (b) the other stuff I read just gave me a weird feeling in my gut and (c) it's very, very, very rare for people to stand up for CP, especially new users. For that matter, it's even rarer that someone who disagrees with them stands up for them; maybe we are more alike than I care to admit :) Lurker 18:42, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia:Editors%27 report card_2007
You might like to check out how drone editors stack up against sysops at CP. Genghis Marauding 14:39, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * Oooooh thanks. Looks like you put in a lot of work; I'll have to check it out. Lurker 15:27, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * BTW Re: WiGO -- snarking is what I do :) I've tried simply removing information but people like that even less (plus it gets confusing with the voting thing.) I try not to look at who puts what so no personal offence meant. Lurker 15:34, 2 January 2008 (EST)
 * Hey Lurkatroid, I finished that section I was working on, if you want to "refresh" your data. human  22:35, 7 January 2008 (EST)
 * Lurkatroid, that's a new one. I added most of them earlier today and spent much of the day playing around with graphs and such. Thanks for the heads up; I'll take a look at anyone I've missed. Lurker 01:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)
 * Glad you weren't offended by your new nickname ;) Lookin' forward to your graphs! human  06:16, 8 January 2008 (EST)