Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive231

American History Lecture Ten
Andy decided to improve the Social Darwinism section. Justice Holmes wrote the decision, in which he declared, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Every other Justice, except one, agreed with this horrific decision, and it is considered one of the worst decisions in American history.  Lily Inspirate me. 21:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Homework Nine is an interesting insight into Andy's teaching. The question of whether or not imperialism is a good thing is something that is open for debate, in that it helped to spread the word of God and brought the poor, benighted backwards people into the civilized world. (In the real world, the idea that racism was very much at the heart of imperialism is very much NOT open for debate, but I wouldn't even begin to try to tell Andy that). Also, 100,000 people died in the recent Japanese earthquake. P-Foster (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Andy impLIES that the horrors of the Great War were all Darwin's fault - H5. Do you think the ideas of Darwinism -- survival of the fittest -- made World War I so horrific?  Lily Inspirate me. 08:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That question is kinda dumb for many reasons, not least of which is that he doesn't believe in "Darwinism" which means that the only thing that made WW1 so horrific could be god. Maybe Andy *is* a deep cover troll after all. X Stickman (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, Andy surely believes that the ideas of "Darwinism" exist, and that's all the question presupposes. Put differently, "Did the introduction of the theory of natural selection cause people to be more vicious in WWI?"  (Still a stupid question, but not because Andy doesn't believe the theory of natural selection.) Phiwum (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It shows a massive fail in Andy's knowledge of WW1, even excusing his fucked-up world view. The massive casualities came from the "war of attrition" fought by butchers like Kitchener and the French. It wasn't so much survival of the fittest as "let's see who runs out of troops first." Still, the Andy we all know and love doesn't let reality or facts get in the way of his agenda. -- PsyGremlin  13:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't most of the slaughter the result of upper-class conservative types on all sides believing that God was on their side and using the socialist working class as cannon fodder; while Russia withdrew from the war after the atheist Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar.  Lily Inspirate me. 15:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On a more practical level, a lot of the slaughter had to do with the fact that weapons, especially defensive weapons like barbed wire and the heavy machine gun, had really changed the battlefield calculus and a rigid and conservative (intellectually, not ideologically, though they were that, too) class of general officers couldn't understand that the old tactics and strategies weren't going to work under the new conditions. P-Foster (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find my copy atm, but Colin McEvdy's "Atlas of Recent History" has something like this in it: "[In 1910] Germany was stronger than any other two European nations. This made them more susceptible to the sort of master-race theory to which all European nations subscribed at this time." You can read the "master race" thing elsewhere too. Andy's probably doing the usual creationist "evolution -> survival of the fittest -> death camps" sort of progression and blaming Darwin for Europeans in the early 20th century all being dickheads.

P-Foster's comment about the battlefield weaponry of WWI is the right answer. Generals had absolutely no idea just how much the balance between attack and defense had shifted, which is why every early offensive had such awful casualties. The generals were too busy studying the battles of the Napoleonic Wars and reading Clauswitz, when they should have been looking at what happened in the American Civil War. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

American History Homework
I don't think we WIGO homework, but here's a great honors question to stimulate discussion among Andy's students. Q."What do you think of the ERA?" A."THE ERA WAS BAD." Full Credit! I went through most of the answers to see if anyone had the stones to show any support, but no luck. --Marlow (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that this dimwit believes he knows oh so much and that public schools are so horrible but the fact that in reality it's the other way around... it's just incredible. And yet he's so arrogant. Unbelievable. Rationalize (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Choice quote:"Since that time people can afford their rent and cable TV bill while only working 25 hours a week at McDonalds. The American dream lives on..." Heh, the kids sure do learn fast.Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say assflys reply to the answer to honours question H1 is absolutely classic assfly and priceless. In question 2 he calls the student for touries instead of Tories, in question 5 for enviroment instead of enviroNment and then in H1 we get the great educator writing "But does that many that all muslims" instead of mean that all muslims (emphasis mine).  FFS the keys aren't even close so there can be no way that is even remotely a typo.  Edumacate away andy, edumacate away. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hazard a guess that he originally wrote "many Muslims" and then changed the sentence to "all Muslims"; so it is not strictly a typo in the sense of miskeying the letters. The problem with Andy is that he relies on his FF spelling checker and with his innate predilection for Schlafly Skimming often doesn't read and fully comprehend what he has committed to the page. The man's brain is like fly-paper.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What stands out for me is how a single Muslim requesting C.O. status becomes, in Andyland, the implication that all Muslims would automatically be invoking that in the case of a draft. However, Quakers and other Christians requesting C.O. status based on religious beliefs don't raise the possibility of all Christians using religion to avoid the draft.  Guess that's because Andy doesn't visualize typical Muslims serving in times of a draft, or doing anything resembling good citizenship as typical behavior. Spend an afternoon in Arlington or any military cemetery, Andy, and count the crescents...  DinsdaleP (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He also gives the typical retort so something he disagrees with but is nevertheless well-argued. "Good point, but". "Compelling answer, but". I'm he didn't squeeze in "...doesn't withstand closer scrutiny" - a Schlafly favourite. ONE / TALK 08:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, the glory days of '08. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 13:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

i hate all of you
i hate all of you
 * Insightful response. Full credit! --Andy Schlafly 23:40, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
 * EC That's too bad. Hate is a heavy emotion, and it must really suck to have to carry that kind of negativity around. I hope you can find a way to come to peace with yourself. Try taking a walk in the sunshine, or petting a kitten, or listening to your favorite song -- maybe then you can get some more positivity going. Take care. P-Foster (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [[File:Goodpost.gif]] Refugee talk page 05:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A pleasure to see you here Professor Schlafly, why not create an account?  Lily Inspirate me. 09:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to tell us that you'll pray for us and that you love us enough to tell us what evil rotten sinners we are. ... of liberals? (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought it was us liberals who were all hate-filled. oh no wait, that's just in Karajerk's world. -- PsyGremlin  11:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the love for all non-believers in "teh TRUTH" and the associate prayers is but a temporary burden that they have to tolerate as a command from their god. What they really desire to do, and look forward to, is watching everyone else (especially their enemies) burn in torment while they laugh from the heavens above for all eternity. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew it! -- UHM harassme  15:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood and Bad Reporting
This MPR post, basically reprints this Washington Examiner story, which is a beautiful example of selective reporting. The main news is "Fifty-four percent of Americans do not approve of using Title X family planning funds for abortions, and 43 percent “strongly” oppose giving any federal funds to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood", but note a couple of things.

First, who on earth is this "the polling company, inc./Woman Trend"? I've never heard of them before, and I follow American polling pretty closely. Second, what was the exact question and series of questions that were asked? Respectable polling organisations always provide the full survey so that it's clear if there was any "push-polling" going on. Not even printing the question to which you're printing answers is deeply suspicious. Lastly, note that the poll was commissioned by Susan B. Anthony List, an organisation devoted to ending abortion.

In other words, don't take polls like this seriously. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well what can you expect? By the look of her picture the article was written by an obvious atheist.  Lily Inspirate me. 12:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't find much at the polling company's homepage (though I didn't do a mega-in-depth look), but this page and its linked PDF might help you out a bit? --Sid (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, good find. Note that it's still more interesting to see what's not there than what is. There's still nothing about other questions, and although figures are given for different groups, there's no information about what %ages of the sample those groups make up. Note also the precise question: "Do you (ROTATE) SUPPORT or OPPOSE taxpayer dollars for family planning services going to organizations that provide abortions?" That's giving undue prominence to abortion. Then see the little box towards the end with the comment "Polling questions that include the just the name “Planned Parenthood” and exclude the word “abortion” are incomplete and misleading.  The question debated during last week’s budget discussion and this week’s up-or-down U.S. Senate vote go to whether taxpayer dollars intended for family planning purposes ought to go to  organizations that furnish abortions.  A  majority of Americans say “no.” "
 * In other words, it's a push-poll paid for by a group with an agenda. Meaningless. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The polls on this are more nuanced than the propaganda poll. CP couldn't have cared less what Americans wanted when they polled by a massively larger margin in favor of ending the military gay ban.  --Leotardo (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * More good links. It shows a big difference in attitude between... well, just me and CP I suppose, but I imagine many people here will share my views on polls. I'm actually not very interested in the headline figure of a poll beyond an instant "Really?" I want to know what the precise question was, when the polling was conducted, where it was conducted, with whom it was conducted, by whom it was conducted, how it was conducted, what other questions were asked, etc. It's only now becoming clear that all those factors can influence a poll. Remember all those opinion polls that didn't use mobile phones and which therefore excluded a disproportionate number of Dem voters last November? This is why I read sites like FiveThirtyEight and UK Polling Report, which are both blogs but are both far more accurate on their respective counties than anything else you'll find. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - I'm interested in polling dynamics, too. Last election I kept raising--via Nate Silver in particular--the problems that polling outfits are facing in how they sample.  It didn't materialize much in 2010, but it's something to keep an eye on.  I think fixation on polls is one of the problems modern society has, because we elect our leaders to be more knowledgeable than the rest of us, and to explain to us why certain measures make more sense than others.  They aren't doing a good job of that. --Leotardo (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why my reaction to polls tends to be either "And I care because...?" or "Fuck you, Frank!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I fucking hate Frank Luntz. --Leotardo (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, do you think ANYONE bothered to tell CP, or conservatives in gerneral, about the Hyde Amendment? I think it would make conservative fear mongering harder if they were to mention that.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What the f***, how can anyone talk about dodgy polling techniques without providing a link to this from Sir Humphrey. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. --DamoHi 05:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Karajerk
Is it even worth pointing out quite how crappily unfunny the latest karawank 'toon' is? Oh, it also seems my work place has been de 403'd this morning as well. Which is nice for me but not for my managers as now I can resume my spendinng time laughing at the idiots. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That must be the 50th time you've posted that. No hang on, there were some gaps; make that the 46th time. And if you didn't post then you should have.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not even trying anymore. Even his caricatures (for which he has some talent) have degraded to ugly scrawls. He's always been useless at captioning them, so no change there. The man has no concept of subtle humour, preferring to bludgeon his point home a the expense of everything else. Then again, is audience has no concept of subtle humour either. -- PsyGremlin  10:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This study might explain why Karajou's 'toons' bludgeon their points home. --Leotardo (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My work place was also de-403'd this morning. How curious. Either we work in the same building or they've dropped all the 403 blocks, or maybe it's just a coincidence. ONE / TALK 11:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here, looks like they've shut down their cloaking device. Do you think Rob was actually able to convince Andy of this, or did he realize himself that he was hurting his own project? Röstigraben (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell - I'm no longer 403'ed either. It looks like they realised that having a site nobody could view wasn't a very good idea. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still 403 here. --Scream!! (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm free of the 403 blocks as well, and my area's been blocked since at least January. άλφα Talk 12:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Still 403'd here. Then again, we're just atheists, commies and darkies here, so why should we be allowed to read his blog? Thank goodness for unblocked proxies. -- PsyGremlin  12:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 403ed here. But I'll be at uni in a week, and last time I checked it was still open there. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 12:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also still 403'd, but maybe they're loosening the Force Choke in small steps to see if it's safe again. --Sid (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No longer threed either. Happiness is me. Mountain Blue 10:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'm back again too.  Bizarre, sometimes my status changes every few hours.   I think someone must be trying to fuck with the server, myself.   DogP (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Time Zones
Moved to User:Mountain Blue/Time Zones. No longer happy with programmatic solution because of fugly inconsistencies between Google Groups and Google Mail timestamp formatting. Will give up and hand code author -> timezone lookup. Mountain Blue 09:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone broke their wiki (again)
I keep getting Internal Server Error.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Great ref, Ken
Fresh from the "We don't read our sources" department comes this from 🇰🇪. It's about the law that Tennessee is probably going to pass allowing creationist bullshit to be taught as actual science, at least as long as it takes for the Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional. The source Ken uses to trumpet his story is this, which contains (less than halfway down, Ken - you didn't have to read too far) "But the ideas proposed as alternatives to evolution -- creationism and intelligent design-- are not science. Creationism is religion. Intelligent design is just plain sneaky: It is rooted in religion but couched in pseudoscience with enough scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo to confuse a kid into thinking there just might be something to it. Neither has any place in a science curriculum, scientists overwhelmingly agree."

I wonder how much it would cost to persuade all major news outlets to add "Oh, and Conservapedia is full of lies and bullshit" to the end of everything they publish? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered, between him and the Assfly who consistently misquote their sources if they are just straight up lying or too stupid to bother reading? Rationalize (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Occam's Razor would suggest a simple mix of only reading what they want to read and pure incompetence. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that their cognitive dissonance means that they just ignore the bits that don't agree with their worldview. It's like quote mining in real-time version.  Lily Inspirate me. 11:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Parodist. It's the only explaination. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 16:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Beyond his basic illiteracy, he just can't string together a coherent argument. Academic freedom, pro-evolution newspapers losing readers and revenue, homeschooling, charter schools, liberal colleges closing, and PBS losing public funding have nothing to do with teaching creationism as science in schools. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, like they read sources before? I've seen links to sites like Infowars in their refs section (and I checked the histories to see that they weren't added by parodists). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Karajou is in good company, it would seem.
What's with all these Christian Rednecks trying to claim Einstein as one of their own? P-Foster (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing rank ignorance and stupidity, with healthy lashings of dishonesty. -- PsyGremlin  15:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, Malcolm Brown is not the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Lily Inspirate me. 15:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

#NotIntendedToBeAFactualWiki
Where doesn't that apply? DinsdaleP (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edpoor's response to me
AlaskanEconomy here. A member of this wiki was kind enough to email me a link through conservapedia. I emailed EdPoor after leaving, expressing that he didn't seem to have read anything that I wrote. I also pointed out how labeling everyone who is critical of them a liberal would in turn ensure that they were only ever criticized by liberals. I thought you might enjoy his response. Dear anonymous contributor,

I'm sorry I was so hasty as to "attack" you; what did you want me to read first? Also, I didn't understand your next two points: perhaps you can elaborate.

I didn't meant to label all our project critics as liberal. I'm sure we've received some constructive criticism from Conservatives. It's just that so many project opponents come along, pretend to be well-wishers, and then leave with a Parthian shot such as yours.

I've made several critiques of our project policies and actions. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I'm not really a conservative, and I've never pretended to be. I'm a "head-winger" (sigh, now I'll have to post an article defining that).

In general, liberals don't check themselves. Rather, they apply standards selectively to others, when it advances their agenda. To the extent that conservatives stoop to that level, they are also in the wrong. If I've made any specific mistake, please point it out. Better, yet, come back to the project and point it out publicly, so we can all learn from it.

Are you a Conservative? If so, this would be the first time I ever got such a shrill email complaint from one. Also, I don't recall your calling yourself a conservative on your user page. And what does it matter, anyway? The project does not discriminate against people for their political ideas.

You say that you refuse to contribute any more, because our system "is flawed". Once again, I ask you, to provide a specific example of a flawed action (and/or the flawed policy that prompted it). How can we check ourselves, if you don't help us?

Ed Poor Senior Editor Conservpedia I looked around and I'm guessing that they will block me email after I post this here, but I don't think I need to respond to that. Oh and I am really a conservative. --64.134.142.44 (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are in achorage you should totally come check out Alaskans For the Advancement of Critical Thinking (AFACT) --Opcn (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he does need to post an article defining a term he just made up. It will really help flesh out the encyclopedia. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

How'd we miss this?
More "woe-is-me" from KaraJerk.

I must have missed the part where we "emphasize 'Jew' in 'karajou'" Just once I'd love to see him expand his arguments beyond "cowards", "liars" and "hate-filled" - but I doubt he has the mental ability to do that. ooh, how hate-filled of me to say that. -- PsyGremlin  14:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It didn't even occur to me that the "jou" meant "Jew". Yeah I'm so hate filled.  It's so liberal to hate Jews.  Senator Harrison (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen at least a few trolls here refer to him as "Karajew." P-Foster (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, one. P-Foster (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was expecting more than that. I'm not sure if the site search checks subpages or not. I've always preferred "Karajerk" myself. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I ran a search with all the boxes checked, got one hit. Probably the case that I've seen it more on CP than RW. P-Foster (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Koward or Kajagoogoo top my list. Still funny how the jerkwad can't differentiate between "liberal" and "bored, spotty 4channer." Then again, in his grim little world liberal = "everything I don't like." He doesn't have to think too hard that way. -- PsyGremlin  15:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And Christianity has no history of anti-Semitism at all. Absolutely none. We always loved the Jews. Always. L'chaim! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Being less intellectually honest than Ken is no mean feat. Congratulations Karaturd. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I kinda agree here. Calling him Karajew isn't doing our cause any favors: it's immature and unnecessary. - Jpop (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Karajou sounded like "JOW" (as in jowl) to me in my head. The "JEW" pronunciation never occurred to me. Even if it did, so what? If "jou" is pronounced "jew", why does it follow that liberals hate Jews? They be crazy people over there... Jimaginator (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It always sounded like "JEW" to me. I wouldn't be surprised if vandals had to resort to such phonetic anti-semitic spellings out of necessity (i.e. username blacklists, already blocked usernames, etc, etc). Occasionaluse (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But what if I'm anti-semitic and "hate-filled" towards Karajou? Occasionaluse (talk) 4:25 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * The fact is that nobody will ever prove to Karajou this his opinions of liberals are wrong. Even though liberals are the biggest donors to charity, he will still claim they are uncharitable. If all of us on RW were able to get all the little children in the world to hold hands and sing songs of peace, he would still claim we wished that they had been aborted.  So his usual, "They always prove me right" is pretty meaningless because he is an old man whose belief system is dying out, and so he is angry and sees what he wants to see. --Leotardo (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Karajou left out the words "hell-bound" before "brothers and sisters". I wonder if that was an oversight. DickTurpis (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Karajew was used once, but KowardJ___ seems to be more popular. 22:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I always thought "jou" was pronounced "you" in true arfenhouse style. LordSlug 誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Smooth Ed
Sweet talking the ladies again, you old charmer you. Although, I've done some research and a more fitting Japanese name would be 'Baka' or in full 'Bakayarou' --PsyGremlin  15:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What, |en|%E3%81%B0%E3%81%8B%E3%82%84%E3%82%8D%E3%81%86 "EAT ME"? mmmm... roasted old guy... LordSlug 誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平 03:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Time to impress her with some credentials . He's trying now to figure a subtle way to mention he was also User #188 at WP. 72.92.128.62 (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Credentials? "Question from an Administrator" is usually a cue for the foreboding music... (Also, if you haven't seen it yet, go watch that movie. It's great.) --Sid (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Greek
I don't have much Greek (perhaps even less than Andy :-), but I find AugustO's contributions amusing, especially his last one addressed to Andy:

Does this mean that Andy pulled his translation out of his ass? 16:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Naa, he just doesn't agree that the definitions in standard Greek lexicons adequately express important Conservative concepts. And he doesn't read Greek. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, FYI: Anyone on CP trying to translate Greek is Nutty Roux. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But he doesnt have to read greek, right?? He's just rewording the English more than anything. And its not like anyone would dare fact-check Andy and survive. Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 16:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why my new sockpuppet sticks to Liberty University related stuff. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have always thought that Andy's attempts at disproving relativity by sloppily translating a bible verse is among his most foolish of ideas. Even if we give him his favored translation and agree that it says "at the same instant", it is a MIRACLE. The point of a miracle is that it is supernatural and violates our understanding of natural processes. Just because Jesus can violate the the laws of physics doesn't mean that the laws of physics are wrong. Although I think I remember that for a while Andy was trying to say that all of the miracles in the bible could be explained by science of that science would eventually show that they were possible, which is even nuttier. --Marlow (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Denying miracles just makes him an apostate according to like all Christian faiths. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (playing around with the indents a bit since Marlow's miracle subthread undented) Yeah, that was the craziest part - Jesus' miracles weren't actually miracles, they were just... what was it... *digs out a proxy to bypass the 403* "signs", which are "a disclosure of reality, rather than a violation of it". --Sid (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link Sid, I would have never been able to find that gem. It is better than I remembered it.  Andy straight forwardly rejects that Jesus performed miracles.  I have to agree, the water into wine "miracle" has always smelled of David Blaine to me. --Marlow (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @sid, I just laughed so hard I pooped out a kidney. Awesome find/remembrance. --Opcn (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Teach the controversy! Know your Bible! Slavery is OK sometimes. Child rape is OK sometimes. Incest is OK sometimes. Don't cook a young goat in the blood of its mother. Selling your daughter into slavery is OK sometimes. If God tells you to kill your child, that's OK sometimes. Jimaginator (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What the fuck is wrong with you Larron? Do they not teach you to close parentheses on the planet where you learned math? --Opcn (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The smiley's mouth is the close bracket. NDSP 08:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm for bracket-parity! I just haven't learned not to insert :- at random... 14:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And Andy 'adds a cite' for his gibberish, based naturally on a Google search and not any scholarly reference. But the thick mother top quality wiki owner and scholar he is he fucks it up Oldusgitus (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)and no 403 for me anymore at home
 * AugustO wasn't convinced, neither! LOL, indeed -- 14:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

She's back!
One of the last voices of reason on CP, HSMom returns after a 6 month hiatus. Maybe she's heard that TK's no longer around to hurl verbal abuse at her. -- PsyGremlin  22:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Ken, try THAT Hiatus on for size, instead of your piss poor "90 day" haitus with "cameo appearences" LordSlug 誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平 04:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Has Ed been drinking?
User: Can we see some proof of WP banning people for what they write on their blogs, it would be shocking if they did. Ed: About half the time I try to correct something biased with neutral prose, they'll turn around and say, "You're not at Conservapedia." WTF? That's not even a non sequitur. -- PsyGremlin  22:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * His butt hurts because someone called him out on POV pushing. Again. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy shit. I think I agree with Ed Poor. I would consider gay rights a political issue, and I'm surprised there's opposition to this. DickTurpis (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Gay rights is simply a civil rights issue, and there's no need to drag politics into this. Wha-wha-what? In that conversation Ed seems to be the one more rational (and that says something). -- UHM harassme  00:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Gay rights are political in the sense that legal rights are legislated; however, they are not necessarily party political given that there are many gay conservatives.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I like how his comment has no relation at all to the question being asked. --Kels (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did y'all see this (quickly deleted) edit by Ed on an article page @WP? He's definitely losing his WikiFu. --Scream!! (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Psy, you might as well ask why Ed is replying to a post that is 11 months old. Ed just loves to cross his CP and WP activities (but of course, pointing this out or comparing notes is completely forbidden because we absolutely must view Ed's contribs in an absolute vacuum), so anything he can't say on WP ends up on CP. Just compare this discussion with this this "random" post roughly an hour after his opening post on WP (by my timezone calculations). --Sid (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From that WP link: "...this in no way undermines the modern view that the earth is spherical (ball shaped)". Thanks Ed, you really saved me the effort of getting my dictionary out.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Gay rights is totally a political issue, but the ethical resistance to conversion therapy is not synonymous with political opposition. --Opcn (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The parade of incompetence continues. --Kels (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Even for CP this is bizarre
Have you guys seen the first line in Palin's con section of the 2012 election page on Conservapedia. "Relies heavily on Facebook, but it was crushed by The King's Speech at the Oscars - an omen, perhaps?" So the fact that a fictionalized movie about the founder of Facebook didn't get an award at the Oscars is indicative of Palin's defeat because she uses the service? I mean I'm sure she'll lose but even for Conservapedia that is a bizarre line of reasoning. They don't even mention anything about her horrible polling data which should presumably be one of the most important factors in their "Likelihood of Winning Nomination" table.

I know that the fact that our opponents in the cultural war are sometimes rendered blind by a certain disconnect from reality is an advantage; but it is still alternately exasperating and amusing to watch. I have come to the conclusion that Conservapedia and it's critics are actually symbiotic. Conservapedia provides things for people to criticize and mock while the critics provide page views and links that enhances Conservapedia's search engine position. This is not an insignificant boon as so far Conservapedia's largest achievement has been a high placement in Google for a few articles like atheism and evolution. This victory comes almost entirely on the back of their critics.

The more offensively ignorant they are the more successful they become; on the other hand where else could we witness a spectacle like Andy Schlafly a smart man rendered purblind by an ideological straight jacket so tight it verges on a form of insanity? So mock away my friends have fun but don't take this too seriously we're only dealing with a sideshow. Infoseek (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are making the mistake of expecting rationality and logic from CP - won't happen. --Scream!! (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * His obsession with Facebook is starting to border on the stalker creepy. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was added after the Academy Awards. Andy genuinely believes that the fact that a movie about Facebook failed to win Best Picture means that Facebook is doomed. Never mind that the film was critically and commercially successful - no Best Picture Oscar means that the subject is failing. Presumably, this means that ballet, boxing and gay relationships are also on the way out, since films on those topics also failed to win. Actually, that's being facetious - Andy believes that this Means Something because Facebook is a liberal website (just roll with it, we all do) and the fact that the also liberal Academy Awards didn't hand it a win means that they see the writing on the wall. As for Palin...Andy doesn't like her and is seeking any excuse to rank her lower on his little chart than the people he does like. 江斯顿 What is it now? 06:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ...which makes me wonder when the last bible adaptation won an Academy Award. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 20:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a great analysis Colonel of Squirrels. I mean only good things when I say you've really gotten into Andy's head. The world must be a scary place for Andy as it is almost completely controlled by people antithetical to his view of the world. It's no wonder he is always so angry. I truly believe he would have been more comfortable ideologically if not physically in the middle ages. No evolution, no theory of relativity, everyone believed in the church. Mr. Schalafly is a man born in the wrong time. Infoseek (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Scary?? Reality is fucking horror movie for these people!! Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 16:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly believe that western fundamentalists with all the access to sience and reason they technically have, were afraid of the world at some time (probably through big problem in life) and therefor searched for an intelectual savehouse, built on absolutes, clear cut sides and anything else that makes them comfortable. Maybe some of them were afraid of themselves but over the years couldn't resist their urges and then we end up with people preaching that homsexuals try to radically change christian society but fuck another conservative in the ass hours after they hold up a sign "God hates fags!". --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 21:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't the scary the reason Assfly built his truss-worthy pillow fortress? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you know?
That Kim Il Sung was a fat atheist who died ? It's creeping into the mainspace. P-Foster (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken really needs to learn the fine art of subtlety. However, if he does acquire this skill, he'll never be able to edit again. 江斯顿 What is it now? 05:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder how the North Koreans embarass themselves any more than religious people kneeling before a painting or crucifix. And it's nothing to do with NK atheism as the Kims are being promoted as god-like beings; so while it isn't Christianity it is akin to religion.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, Lily. Senator Harrison (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Oprah not endorsing Obama
As always, it's what Ken doesn't say that's important. The article states that Oprah is unlikely to take sides, because she doesn't want to risk alienating her struggling channel's audience.

The again, Patriot Update seems to be exactly the kind of site Ken, Jpatt and Andy would go down on. Rabid right drivel, and judging by the comments, read by the less intellectual right wing. The first comment is a classic:

Clearly went to the JPatt school of English. -- PsyGremlin  11:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I liked the FEMA death camp one. What the hell is wrong with people? Senator Harrison (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Et tu Oprah?" - does that even follow from what was said before or does he not know what that actually translates as?? But given the CBP and their treatment of Greek......... Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 16:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "telling the world that she a atheist". "she a atheist". "a atheist". Does this guy watch Oprah? Or, like, speak English? – Nick Heer 22:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken also neglected to include a copulative verb in that sentence. As one of my teachers said, "A sentence must make sense"… CS Miller (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WTF? Since when did Oprah become a mouthpiece for the vast atheist conspiracy? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that ever since she made this video, many people view her as the anti-christ. DamoHi 04:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The ongoing 403rd annual blockathon super-discussion
I'm going to start putting the numerous 403 talk sections in here. Objections? ONE / TALK 08:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Blockerations on the ye olde server-side
Here are some /16 ranges that I think are blocked - I haven't done enough testing to check that they are all /16, but I can't imagine the Assfly fannying around with anything less. Most are probably /8, but I have connected from some in the same /8 range, so I know they aren't all /8s. Yet. 23:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Goodness. That's quite a few.  sPaRkY Do I look like a lightbulb? 23:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you okay with us adding to that list as new ranges are found? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatismyip gives me as 195.137.* and I'm 403'd and have been for some time. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Crack on guys! 10:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there an easy way to pick up the 403 ranges? Just wondering about my neck of the woods. -- PsyGremlin  11:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, unless someone expert at doing RAW TCP/IP requests can gin up some fake headers. I just used a selection of proxies and my own IP addresses. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, 'fraid not Psy. It's easy enough to spoof IP addresses on the handshake and HTTP packets, but the problem is that the server responses are sent to the spoofed address, so you wont get the inevitable 403. 11:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

403? Or just down?
During most of the above discussion about 403'ing the planet, I've been able to get through. But sometime this morning (GMT-5), CP went from being up to getting apparent network timeouts. I get this from Firefox 4.0:
 * The connection has timed out
 * The server at www.conservapedia.com is taking too long to respond.
 * The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.

No "403" here. Is this just more of the DDoS attack? Or Andy shutting the place down? Or not paying his provider? It's been this way all day. Perhaps Firefox doesn't report 403's as such? (I don't think I have ever seen an explicit 403.) I'm going to try one of my trusty proxies when I get a chance. Gauss (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can still see it no problems from work. Looks like you have joined the half the world that can't view Conservapedia. -  π    04:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm foxed with 3.6.16 and I see 403's. So looks like you have finally joined the rest of the liberal world.  Welcome aboard. Oldusgitus (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a visualization of the 403s. 14:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I get the same issue, however, im sort of in the heart of jesusland and conservativia.--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

CaptureBot
Appears to be borked. Can we check if it's been 403d?? -- PsyGremlin  11:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The latest Ken wigo is showing the Rand paul capture from above.  Oldusgitus (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You might just need to wait a bit. 12:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe CaptureBot got some wires crossed (the Rand Paul section above apparently has Ken's capture?) and/or got tripped up by CP's downtimes (the cap in the section above seems to be cut off for me?). I think that we should give it time to recover. --Sid (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my mistake - somehow swapped the Rand & Ken pics around when I uploaded the img files. Fixed now. -- PsyGremlin  12:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just had a look in the capture for "They said it..." above - no image either. Capturebot has probably snuck off behind the shed with Pibot and a can of oil. -- PsyGremlin  16:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the bot is still working - I just used it to screenshot UESP and it worked fine - so I'm guessing they've finally 403'ed it. Can somebody with server access take a look at the logs and confirm, then put Operation Moisten into effect if required? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh. So their wet dream finally came true? Congratulations, CP, you finally managed to cut off the one group that continuously paid attention to you. Have fun in your little rabbit hole. --Sid (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All the caps are working for me. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 18:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * www.isitdownforeveryoneorisitjustme.com says it's been down (all day) 72.45.254.78 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, because people have uploaded them by hand. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Capturebot can use proxies too. We just have to wait for the attack to be over to see what lands are untouched by the carnage. 19:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. If it can be tweaked to use several different ones and rotate between them, that'd be even better. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second, so in less then 7 days (right?) we had an attack on RW, PsyGremlins Blog get's "taken down" and our Capturebot is now running into a wall. If I wouldn't know that they weren't able to pull something like that of, I would almost think they faked the attack on CP and had the whole thing planned, but then again: I (and most others here) know that they couldn't pull that off even if they wanted to. On the other hand, their silence is telling. Anybody got the number of the FBI? -- UHM harassme  20:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My home IP has finally been 403'd. They must have spotted it making an anon edit to RW or RWW. 21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I think the site is being DDOS'd right now.  I can't access it either and they have no way of getting my IP, and I live in NJ like right down the road from Andy so there's no reason to block my area.  Besides: http://www.isup.me says conservapedia is down. Senator Harrison (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it works fine with proxies. Now I really want to know what's going on.  I've never posted my IP on this site.  Senator Harrison (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ullhateme, if it is Anon doing the attacks then by attacking us as well as RW they're being true to the original way of doing things. Lulz before causes and all that. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 01:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

CaptureBot should be working again. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Mirror?
Maybe it's time to mirror CP? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * you mean you want someone ot download the entire site and host it on a different friendlier server? That'd be awfully kind of them to do that for us, but it would be quite a burden.  RW servers are slow enough as is.  Btw, how often would we have to update it?  Would we have to create a new mirror after every edit?  Each week?--Brxbrx (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus, I don't really see the point? --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 21:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't see the point, you're obviously still seeing Conservapedia. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The CP licence would allow Andy to pretty quickly pull the plug on a full-scale mirror. There's no way we could argue fair use the way we do for Capturebot generated content. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 01:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * we don't have to connect the mirror to RW per say, just keep it as an anonymous or something. LordSlug 誇らしげに2008年からソファの上に手の平 06:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I could save a current copy, probably, as I have quite a lot of disk space - roughly how big is the site? 08:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's as big as Andy's ego and growing rapidly. Are you sure you could handle it? ONE / TALK 16:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends - I can certainly capture a text ony version, and can probably get decent copies of the major pages. I could probably capture the text + wiki markup or source code only, and host/recreate it on another wiki. 16:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * TOW is only ~8 gb (of pages, more like 130gb with all revisions, metadata etc.) in a minimalist format such as text only, so saving large chunks of ConPed shouldn't be hard. However, images are ridiculously huge, so I may not store them too. What's the general consensus: store the site, store & mirror or let it die. 16:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, researched - a simple $ lynx -source -traversal -realm -crawl "http://www.conservapedia.com" . Sadly I am 403 blocked, and will have to run it through a proxy, slowing it down considerably (and, I think, muck up the automatic site crawl), unless someone else wants to try it. 17:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That command will just mirror the whole site (obviously minus the other SQL data like revisions, and such)? I can try that from my laptop in our campus library... unfortunately, our connection isn't terribly fast and I don't have anywhere to upload all the data if it were to succeed. άλφα Talk 17:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue is being able to see diffs so we'd need their own wiki front end to serve up the database. A mirror won't work unless it's substantially more sophisticated than I can imagine anyone is interested in creating. 17:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(Unindent for clarity) @Alpha - that will create html docs of every page beginning with http://www.conservapedia.com (I think!) -- it is lynx, so shouldn't take up too much processing power, but it may still take a long time due to bandwidth requirements.

@NR - while this won't create a working replica of the site, it should create a usable/searchable copy of the site pages.

As for size, the code for liberal (quite a long page) is 105.8 KB, and conped lists ~87000 pages (total) giving < 10mil KB or < 10GB of data. I am NOT an expert at any of this, and if someone knows this better, please correct me. 17:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC) EDIT: this is for gnu/linux -- I don't know about lynx availability on windows.

I'm happy to download the site, but I will need a proxy that doesn't change the url, such as http://www.anonym.to/http://www.conservapedia.com (this one seems 403'd), to allow the crawl to proceed properly, so give a yell on my talk or here if you know one. 18:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a lot of point telling you either here or on your talk. The sysops morons over at cp will read it and immediately block it.  Have you enabled your email, if so then that would be a far better idea. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All ready to go! 18:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As a final check, what is the legal status of a) copying vast chunks of the site b) uploading this onto a certain series of tubes?
 * I can't help you on that. I am only lucky to be non 403'd for now and am trying to enjoy my status there.  Sorry. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just my luck -- everything ready to run overnight, save the proper type of proxy, and the site seems to go down completely (according to isup)! Is this my fault for trying emacs instead of my usual editor (vim)? What perilous forces hav I unleashed! 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Emacs scum! Ye shall reap as ye shall sow! Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 21:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Foiled - all "proxies" of the type mentioned appear to be dereferrers, which hide where the link was from, but not my IP. This makes me sad ;_;. So where in the UK isn't blocked? 21:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ahah - I can skip online proxy services (hidemyass etc) and just add their servers as http_proxy. Tomorrow. 22:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, you haven't answered the copyright question. Should somebody from the RWF make it clear that no RWF computers or other resources are being used to do this? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my question - I forgot to sign, but I would rather know the legal ok-ness. 08:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CP's badly-drafted copyright page says "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution. When material is copied from this site, a link to the page copied is appropriate. This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees or stopping unauthorized copying or mirroring of entire parts of this site." So unauthorised mirroring would not be allowed; although "entire parts" seems a ridiculous phrase because there is no definition of the size of a part. For a document written by a lawyer it's appalling.  08:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * However, merely informing people that doing :lynx -source -traversal -realm -crawl "http://www.conservapedia.com" having edited lynx.cfg (found in /etc/lynx) to change the http proxy, will create a .html copy of the site pages, and then informing said people that they do so at their own risk, is not illegal, si? OTOH, what is the actual, real-world chance of me having my ass sued off? 09:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC) EDIT: after checking cp/copyright, surely it comes under the "feel free to use our stuff, with attribution"?
 * First of all I was responding to the mirroring question in general, not what you proposed. We have made use of CP's "feel free" approach when Andy threatened to sue over something we had copied. While I would like to be able to access CP without their stupid 403 blocks I think that wholesale mirroring might be pushing fair use to its limit. Having said that, litigation is not cheap even if you are a lawyer. Judging by your editing times I assume that you're not in the US so enforcing a civil suit from Newark might be problematical. The best that anyone might expect would be a take-down order against the host ISP as there is hardly any financial loss for CP and enforcing any punitive damages would be almost impossible - it's not like they are some major media corporation trying to deter piracy. So it is a very grey area but I doubt that you would have "your ass sued off". 10:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also don't forget that the US has much broader freedom of speech legislation than the UK does. which is why morons like justice Eady were able to create a defacto privacy law by allowing people with extremely tenuous links to the UK to sue in UK courts.  I doubt assfly will want to try suing in a UK court, he would be torn to pieces by a decent defence advocate and he knows it - and I would expect you could even get Geoffrey Robertson to act for you in a case like this were it to get to court.  Any threat to sue woudl be bluster and nothing more. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll give a first attempt at downloading the site now/overnight. 10:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * DAMN IT ALL TO HECK! lynx won't traveral with html source code, so its gonna be text only metinks! 11:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC) SOLUTION: use wget! not lynx + options!

More DDoS attacks
It seems to not be working again. Can anyone else confirm? Thanks, Rationalize (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No successful access for more than a few minutes in the last few days. Has anyone actually had reliable access without timeouts?  23:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have had more access than not for a few days now. US Midwest, recently blocked IP, but able to register accounts. P-Foster (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I had it working fine with proxies, but otherwise it doesn't work. Like I've said, I can't be 403'd.  Senator Harrison (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i don't know what that means =/, although I know my IP is blocked on CP (since June last year if that makes a difference). I live on the east coast, US and the past few days have been out, although isitdownforeveryoneorisitjustme says it's up. Rationalize (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was all 403'd out the door last week, but I'm back now and all's fine, thank goodness.  I think there might be some randomness, or some other aspects beyond their control going on, as I can't see why they would have removed my IP group block once they'd established they wanted it?   Whatever, I'm just glad to have my reading pleasure back again.  --DogP (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. I don't know if it's because Andy removed my Northern Chicago suburbs ISP from hosts or if it was the attack making CP inaccessible but thank heavens I can now see it from home, work, the coffee shop down the street, and on my California VPN. Glad they got the attack under control so I have something to read while I'm taking a crap. 00:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * could someone email me a working proxy? the ones I've tried don't seem to work. I aren't particularly savvy with these sorts of things, so thanks--Brxbrx (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to enable email in your RW preferences for someone to do that. 07:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's probably not helped by them using a deprecated 3 year old web-server dæmon, using the FrontPage extension which is also deprecated. The dæmon also has a known security flaw, although it is only for 64bit systems, it could still be attacked (unsuccessfully), leading to more load. CS Miller (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm certain that the best of the public will join CP in order to fix its creaking infrastructure. The question is can they survive long enough to actually do some work? Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 01:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh snap, CP is back!
At least for me... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Back for me at work but not at home. The 403 has dissappeared from work for now so at least I can once again be non-productive during work hours.  Thanks cp Oldusgitus (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And the Patrol Log is mixed up with Recent Changes. Ken is such a busy little man. 08:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My home is still isolated but HideMyAss is back up as is the other US proxy which I use. 09:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CP never really went away for me except at the darkest hour of DDOS. I've been able to keep up my campaign at CP unhindered. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 64.68.90.53 / talk / contribs 13:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what is going on? I'm back at home as well now. Are they lifting the 403's generally or is this simply some fluke/fuck up on their part and I will find myself 403'd again before I can do anything worthwhile with my foot garment? Oldusgitus (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Current 403 status
Just trying to get a measure on the various IP blocks running around out there. I'm fine, though I was 403'd for a few days a while back. What's anyone else's current status and has it changed recently? --DogP (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can access and have only had a very brief issue during the denial of service attacks, but given how politics work here in Arizona, I'd doubt they would want to block us. In fact I think Andy might fit in well here. --Marlow (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Chicago area with a static IP; I registered under this name on CP a while ago, so it's known to be liberal. Never been 403'd yet. 04:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I’m in Scotland and have been 403’d for around a week. Obergruppenführer Andy sagt dass alles ist verboten, der dork. JumboWhales (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Home IP 403'd since January or so, work IP a casualty of the recent DoS shitstorm, proxies on and off but seems to be getting better. Röstigraben (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All my UK IPs are 403'd but I can easily get on and edit with proxies and LogMeIn to my US friends and relatives. When I first edited CP back in March 2007 I couldn't have dreamed that much of Europe would be prevented from even seeing the site. The recent results are beyond my wildest dreams and, more deliciously, entirely self inflicted. This is a massive win in my book. 08:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Central Europe here, where most of my IP's have been 403'd since December. Since two weeks ago, all of them are. Junggai (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At home (UK) I'm 403'ed, but at uni (also UK) I can still access CP. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 08:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My work IP is based in Munich - I work for a German multinational - and that's blocked as well as my (UK) home IP. I haven't been able to read CP since forever. I mostly hang around the other WIGOs nowadays. Jack Hughes (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

My home (Scotland) and work (England) are both 403ed. Home always was but work used be fine. I can also report that following a few days away Amsterdam hotel was 403ed (suprised?) and so is Copenhagen. This block list is growing rapidly. StarFish (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been 403'd since the DDoS hysteria a few weeks(?) back and still am. No complaints here. --Sid (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing most non-US IPs will remain 403'd. After all, anybody living outside Andy's sphere of influence is clearly a liberal and/or commie, so why should they be allowed to view The One And Only True Word Of Schlafly. -- PsyGremlin  09:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weird, Im 403'd again this morning.  Has there been a new round of wall-building?   --DogP (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)   UPDATE   Weirder yet, I'm back again within 24 hours.   I picture Andy with a big Frankenstein-stye lever switch, throwing it back and forth, screeching with manic laughter.  --DogP (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * oh frabjous day callooh callay, I can connect again for the first time in weeks but then, like the hurried lover, I guess that CP comes and goes. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, they've gone back to the original 9 zones and dropped most (if not all) of the others. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest 403 status, seems to be lifted
Not sure on this obviously but it does seem that the 403's are finally being lifted. If it was nobs that got the assfly to lift them then I have to say well done to him for that, credit where credit is due. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in the virgin lands of sarf London it isn't! Mick McT (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Socialist soccer
Does Andy realize that he is penalizing soccer coaches for their high substance to word ratio? --Opcn (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "100 words" refers to the vocabulary, not the length of the speeches... 04:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I love the idea of a soccer coach using the "Most Idiotic Conservative Words" to coach his team. One Internet to whoever comes up with the best parody of this. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the way Andy blindly accepts the work of scientists when he thinks it backs-up one of his crack-pot 'insights' but immediately rejects the works of scientists when it comes to evolution (rejecting most of biology, geology and cosmology along with it), relativity (rejecting much of physics) and climate change. Though, more often that not, having a closer look shows the science cited by Andy has nothing to do with his 'insight'. Andy is just a class A Kook -- and we love him for it. Auld Nick (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I like how he quotes the headline with footballer being used for Association Football rather than American Football. Of course the article is about the number words that are being used to coach a football team (not educate them) and 100 seems quite a lot when compared to Andy's use of only 3 - "Read the Bible".  Lily Inspirate me. 08:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the football coaches will devise new strategies that are based around free-market concepts. In the next World Cup, US team will demolish Nicaragua* (or some other country Andy has never heard of) with the skillful use of the Deregulation Formation. The midfielders use an innovative variation of the Machismo strategy to confound the defenders. And don't worry if the game goes badly for them; the Transistor defence never fails. (* Also noted: I know I just pulled the country out of my hat, but quick Wikipedia check says Nicaragua has never qualified for World Cup. Lies and liberal deceit! Only we here in Finland can make that claim. Our suckitude in football is a matter of national pride! Someone has to be the worst!) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to see he's carrying on TK's work and is now trolling his own wiki. Another point that would be lost on him is that football teams aren't just socialists collectives, but have also fallen to the evils of transnationalism and multiculturalism. Keeping your instructions down to a small vocabulary is kind of advantageous when you're addressing a bunch of players assembled from all over the world, most of whom are probably not fluent in god's own language. Röstigraben (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Andy's aware just how much money is poured into football and how much the best teams are worth? Socialist my ass. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 09:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only two reasons why American conservatives think soccer sucks is socialist is because they think America isn't good in it (which it is, steadily qualifying for the world cup is good) and because they are bored with it, which using Andy's thinking makes America an evil commie nation. On another note, I've always had the feeling that Christian preachers didn't really need many words either: god, satan, heaven, hell, Jesus, sin, pain, love, death - that makes 9 and Christdom the reign of evil commies. Thank goat for logic! --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 10:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I thought a number of UK teams (and possibly elsewhere) were listed companies on the stock exchange. Can't get more capitalist than that. And another thing... SO WHAT if football is a socialist sport? By Andy's logic, he should be lauding cricket as the preserve of the rich elite (well, in England anyway). -- PsyGremlin  10:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And of course, several UK teams are owned by gun-toting, god-fearing, GOP-voting Merkins. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What of course the moron totally fails to understand is that Capello the foregin England national team manager (for it was he that said the 100 words quote) was saying that he only needs 100 words OF ENGLISH to coach the England national team. Capello has translators with whom he works in coaching sessions to translate what he says. The actual quote is "If I need to speak about the economy or other things, I can't speak (in English). But when you speak about tactics, you don't use a lot of words. I don't have to speak about a lot of different things. Maximum 100 words." But then to be honest I doubt very much Andy knows a single word of a furin language. I even doubt he knows as many as 100 words of English sometimes. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point is that many football (soccer) teams actually originate from church social organisations. They find football is a good way of involving youth and keeping them out of mischief. Everton FC for example started from St. Domingo's Methodist Church.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lily's right - Celtic and Rangers (Glasgow Old Firm renowned for having one of the most heated rivalries in British football, not just Scottish) were both founded by God-fearers. As for "I doubt very much Andy knows a single word of a furin language", I'm thinking back to that bit in Inglorious Basterds where Brad Pitt is pretending to be Italian and talking to the SS General with a thick, Tennessee accent; "Bonjourno!"
 * On an aside I bumped into a couple of Mancunians last night. They were shitfaced celebrating after City beat United in the FA semi-final. 10:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm always suspicious that Andy doesn't really believe a lot of what he says, but this sort of thing makes me wonder where the authenticity ends and the refined bullshitium begins. Does he really believe soccer is an inherently socialist sport? If so, does he really think the Capello quote supports his theory? Or is some or all of this nonsense just a ploy to bait people into listing the many reasons why he's so wrong so that he can misuse that 'doth protest too much ' line again, thereby winning an argument that he doesn't even really support? He's an odd little man. Grumblejaws (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

How I've missed the homeworks
"I can't tell what your answer means. 9/10!" EddyP Great King! Disaster! 20:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 88/90, A MERITOCRACY IN ACTION! --Kels (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the answer is even difficult to understand...Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It disagrees with Andy. --Kels (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a succinct proof of how worthless Andy is as a teacher or grader. "Your one-sentence answer confuses me and needs detail.  Thus, I can only give you an A+."  04:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Analyzing the final grades of all the students in Andy's classes would be a waste of time (translation: I would love to see someone else do it), but I would be shocked if anyone got anything but an A (Maybe a B+ for the most hopeless student). I thought grade inflation was a liberal trait.  Andy really doesn't seem to understand grading at even the most basic level.  Each question is worth around 10 points and even a blatantly wrong answer (most of the questions just ask for opinion anyway) seems to get 8/10. --Marlow (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, first HW I looked at .  Q: when was this European map of the new world made?  A: Two hundred years before anyone in Europe knew it existed.  Grade: 9/10.  On a side note, I just realized these are the lectures, homework and answers from the 2008 class.  Is he even teaching it this year? --Marlow (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged
Given how the critics are panning it (loved Rotten Tomatoes and Roger Ebert in particular), I can't wait for Terry Chuckarse to come out of retirement to defend what he considers to be the greatest book after the Bibbel. Although he might do it on Examiner, where he at least gets paid. -- PsyGremlin  20:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a movie version of Atlas Shrugged? Huh. You're right, I can't wait for Terry's praise for it. --Sid (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't CP hate Rand because, well, y'know...ATHEIZMZ!!!111!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but the main message of being an asshole and whinning that it is all other people's fault that they don't recognise your greatness is too good to ignore. So if anything conservatives take it and improve on it, see? The same way many objectivists seem to improve on Galt's oarth by constantly forgetting the second bit. Sen (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe for guys like Paul Ryan, but the CP article on Rand insults her quite a bit. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the Randroids got to IMDB already. The first three pages of reviews are almost solidly THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE EVAR OMG GUYZZZ!!!1!!!! A much more entertaining (and honest) review lives here. --Kels (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that Atlas Shrugged the book was panned by critics but did extremely well in spite of that. --Opcn (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Which members of the Liberal Media Conspiracy do I talk to about getting Part 2 shunted to direct-to-dvd? Maybe we should be telling more people about Ayn Rand's atheism. My VERY religious aunt was in love with His Dark Materials until I explained the authors intent. I love but, but she's about as smart as your average evangelical. Majintahu (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

CP takes Trump Seriously?
I'm not sure what to make of this post by Andy. Is he claiming that Trump isn't a joke? Are CP really, seriously going to suggest that Trump is a viable candidate for the presidency? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given he describes Trump as a "front-runner", I'm gonna go with yes. --Kels (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Add to that the fact that Andy adds disparaging comments about the people criticising him and labels their comments as "bizarre" then yes, I think we have Andy's nominee for Pres. With Rove and (presumably) Beck on the shit-heap for having a go at Trump, it'll be interesting to see who comments Andy tunes into. Then again, Trump is the only birther running for office, so he must be CP's fave. Best part is, Andy thinks Trump joined an evangelical church. What will happen when they find out he hasn't? Probably isn't even religious. -- PsyGremlin  17:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, are the Republicans really this stupid? I mean, I know Trump just came top in an opinion poll, but do they not realise, even for a moment, that he will get absolutely annihilated if he runs against Obama? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do the names Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell mean anything to you? DickTurpis (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, Trump is the only candidate willing to bring up the most important issue of the election -- that Hosni MuBarack Hussein Osama is not an American citizen and must be taken out by a military coup. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the best thing that could have happened with regards to Obama's chance of reelection. - Jpop (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Best case scenario is that Trump narrowly loses the primary, then makes good on his threat to run as an independent. DickTurpis (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

‎::::::::"With the news of Trump polling well for the Presidency, I'm starting to suspect the US is not a real place but in fact a clever TV show." ~ Max Berry --Mikalos209 (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh curses, you've discovered our secret! What gave it away? Was it the ridiculous accents? The over the top acting? I told Paul during casting to get more experienced actors, but nooooo. Oh well. It was nice while it lasted, I hope despite the fact that you figured out the premise you'll still stick around for the season finale? Protoman (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it a comedy? A tragedy? A murder mystery perhaps? --DamoHi 02:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It all started back in the 1400's, Columbus didn't want to tip the competition off to the fact that he had discovered the way to the east so he just pretended that Mexico and Canada were connected by a land bridge, and the whole ball of wax got it's start from there. --Opcn (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm starting the East India Company Party. We think Americans have had freedom enough already, and it's time they put the grown-ups back in charge. We'll be sending over John Major to act as governor just as soon as you proclaim yourselves a crown colony. -- 04:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's very sad that sometimes I actually fantasize about at least part of America rejoining the Empire. The Westminster model is looking better and better, especially after the whole government shutdown snafu. 04:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Military coup or rejoin the British Empire? CP or RW?  Hard choice... --Marlow (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You should see some of the american monarchists, read their facebook once, really insane bunch. facebook link to their discussion page --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To some them up (after reading their nonsense for a minute):Don't like politicians? Try a king. --Marlow (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was referring to the Westminster parliamentary system, not the monarchy. 06:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They have an entire discussion where some guy insists only a faithful conservative roman catholic of the Charlemagne line is the rightful king of America. i guess i miss the part where this country is protestant--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

New cartoon time!!!
The latest KaraJerk original. Although, I don't ever recall Obama wearing a bowler hat and spats. Wait, is the Ghost of the West Wing...Winston Churchill? Scrooge McDuck?12.16.112.2 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's part of a plot. He's trying to get us all to headdesk enough that we kill ourselves accidentally. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he's making these cartoons as an attempt at ironic anti-humor. Being funny is too lamestream.  «-Bfa-»
 * Still, it's good to see cutting-edge satire - still belabouring a point that's a) 3 weeks old and b) was a total non-event outside of right-wing fucktard circles. -- PsyGremlin  20:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the strip would be funny if 1 - Obama had some sort of costume that would make him recognizable without being visible. Doonesbury is usually good at establishing these sorts of trends.  And 2 - if Obama were an absent president.  If he were constantly away from work.  But neither one of these is true, making the joke a strange comparison between transparency and invisibility.  By presenting Obama as transparent, the strip says that he IS transparent.  I don't think this is what was intended. -Lardashe 20:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I reckon he missed a trick by not having the guy demand to see a death certificate. Grumblejaws (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, you could use this cartoon unchanged to make fun of birthers. Maybe Koward's finally getting a bit fed up with them. --Kels (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Capturebot fail. Anyone got a screencap for us 403ers?   21:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * done --Scream!! (talk)
 * I changed Scream's link because the toon can usually be found at Forum:Making_Karajou_funny. The section header should link to the original version that has been copied here.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

500 internal server error
I know this is nothing new but I seem unable to access CP due to an internal server error. I do not believe it is just my IP, because isitdownforeveryone says it looks down. Does anyone else have the same error when they've never gotten it before? Thanks Rationalize (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 403 seems to overrule 500 for me, but DownForEveryoneOrJustMe also says it's down. Curious. --Sid (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Works fine for me. DickTurpis (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For me too, although I can't get their 'wanted pages' to load. Which is where my sock gets all his article ideas from. -- PsyGremlin  20:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 'taint down for me. (after months of 403edness) --Scream!! (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They get 500 errors sometimes, largely because none of them have any idea about running a web site. It'll pass. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 403 blocking is likely done fairly close to the server, and before anything else is run. It would make sense - one can use a 403 block system to prevent a denial of service and you don't want it running any scripts - taking any cycles.  Once past the authentication and authorization modules at that level of the web server you then run whatever script is to be run.  If that script generates an error, it is an internal server error - a 500 error.  Thus, a 403 error (as configured, though they could return any other 400 class error, personally I'd love to see Andy implement it as a 402 or 418) will take precedence over anything else the server does.
 * That is precisely correct - mod_access blocks the IP before Apache even tries to access and run MediaWiki's index.php - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A Confederacy of DeMyers
I don't know how many of you here have read A Confederacy of Dunces (though I recommend you should read it if you haven't) but the main protagonist of the novel, Ignatius J. Reilly, is exactly like our Ken. A man/child with weird obsessions, a bizarre overly formal pattern of speech (Sirs, Gentlemen, in addition to etc) rather slovenly and somewhat insane in a mad genius sense. I am even betting they share a physical resemblance - fat, unkempt, strange looking. It is really uncanny. Ace of Spades 04:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * An amazing book, and there is a big resemblance! Although Ken is rather less erudite, one can easily imagine him obsessed with his scarf.-- 04:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does he go to see shitty movies so he can whine about them? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I love that book. If you don't know the story behind its publication it is very much worth learning about - it's both sad and inspiring. --Leotardo (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

IE 9 Ad with Flying Kitties!
Okay, so I go to The Onion and there's an ad for Internet Explorer 9 that features several kittens flying across the screen. The slogan: Fast, like kittens with jetpacks fast. Have they stole Ken's idea ? I would love to see this go to court, especially since Ken stole the image of the flying kitty. (I realize with The Onion that this might be some sort of elaborate joke.) --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no way the Onion would be able to dictate that Microsoft use flying kittens in their ads. They did it on their own volition, and I'm sure Microsoft has no interest in mocking conservapedia. It's a coincidence. ONE / TALK 08:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shhhh... I want to see Ken try to sue Microsoft over flying kittys. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think IE's marketing occasionally enjoyed doing plain silly ads, like the ones with... er... that guy who played Superman in that TV series? Like that one? So yeah, kittens with jetpacks are par for the course, and it's not like cute animals with jetpacks are a new concept in marketing anyway. ;) --Sid (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, Microsoft is definitely late to the web-browsers-featuring-animals-with-jetpacks party. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

atlas shrugged
so, should they give it up because a movie about a liberal book ushed said book sales to #4 or... what? --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, im not good with the capture thing, sorry. --Mikalos209 (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the #1 book on Amazon's bestseller list is the neofeminist autobiography of a liberal icon who repeatedly mocked Sarah Palin. Give it up, conservatives! Röstigraben (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If he fucking says "give it up, liberals" one more time...Senator Harrison (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Give it up, Conservapedia! ... of liberals? (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You should know by now that Andy only window shops the best of things he considers fits his religious and political outlook. He's less of a cafeteria Christian than bum who rummages through the trash behind the cafeteria. -- PsyGremlin  12:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hang on a minute... I going into Andy logic, I may be some time. Andy Schlafly, the man who crows when bookstores shut down, because books are full of liberal claptrap, crows because a movie that has failed at the box office, pushes sales of a book by a pro-choice, atheist, that conservatives deem to be conservative, to #4 on a bookstore's list. Incidentally, according to this it's down to #20. Am I missing anything? Except to say, "Give it up, conservatives." -- PsyGremlin  16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Too late, they got to that part of her Wiki page about her atheism. Atlas is now liberal claptrap...and falling in the ratings. Give it up, liberals! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems Karajou isn't the only "creative" mind on CP...
Seems Johnny X-Ray is too. -- PsyGremlin  09:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming that's him, it appears he's a violent traitor and a racist. And such a delightful guy. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What's racist about that? 15:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. That's pretty fucking racist. I mean, the very existence and continued use of the Aunt Jemima kerchief-wearing-grinning-Mammy figure (I know, she doesn't wear a kerchief anymore, but she did do so waaaay past the expiry date for such things...) is fucked up to begin with. Thinking that it's cool to refer to her without addressing how bloody problematic she is speaks to almost zero awareness of the racism that defines her existence. Making an argument that can boil down to "they all kinda look alike" or that "the most successful African-American woman in history is at the base of things reminiscent of a house slave" is totally unacceptable. P-Foster (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's breakdown. -- 16:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Projection: I have had 2000+ liberal fascists/trolls/vandals/racists blocked. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's arguably racist, but not really. On a scale from 1 to 10, 3 tops. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I'm sure Jpatt is completely ignorant of the origins of the Aunt Jemima/Mammy stereotype, therefore any attempt to label it racist is "PC." Much like the idiots who post CHARGIN MAH LAZER and then whine "What's so racist about it?!" (Hint: Blackface) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not racist to put a picture of Oprah next to a picture of Aunt Jemima. You learn something everyday. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was a random picture of an orangutan, it would have been racist. Since they've got the same folded hands, it's just a shitty TLL macro. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Touché, sir. Touché. I had to scratch my head for a moment there but I admit it, you win. Well played. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the irony of Johnny XRacist's Cheezburger page. Next to the witty caption of "An idiot is a genius to another idiot" we have I am a man in USSA. Epic phail JPratt.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He's trying to be clever, implying that under the Obama admin, the USA is like the USSR. USA "x" USSR = USSA. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to be clever is a perilous game for JPratt.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And poor little johnny xray. He has no friends at cheezburger, and some of those there are the dumbest people I have ever had the misfortune of reading.  And not even THEY will friend jpratt. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm being dumb, it looks like whoever's in charge of the account has deleted the racist one (or whatever it was; I didn't get to see it). X Stickman (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He deleted it but the pictures that made up the mashup are still there. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

JPatt. Rhymes with "Coup d'etat."
"I strongly believe the President needs to be removed from office by the U.S. Military and tried under the military court system." "Am I advocating a military coup? No I am not." Actually, it would appear that you are, Johnny. Somebody call the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FBI. P-Foster (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * F..U..C..K..!!!! What is he on? --Scream!! (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy fuck. That's a whole new level of insane cognitive dissonance.  -- 02:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Annnnnd they shut it down. 500 Internal Server Error.  Scared much? Too tired to log in (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad capturebot is working. P-Foster (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For sheer dropped-on-the-head-repeatedly-as-a-baby stupidity, it is hard to outdo Mr. J. Patti. To call him a fucking retard is an insult to retards worldwide. DickTurpis (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still up for me. -- 02:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Beyond the stupidity, this is friggin' frightening. We talk about Koward being angry, this guy's so into his fantasy he makes the swabbie look tame. --Kels (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he's right about the warrantless wiretaps and detainment policy thing, but that's only one sentence in that foaming-at-the-mouth screed. That still counts for something, right? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stroll on, I'm not 403d! It's worse to actually read than to see in the 'cap. --Scream!! (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actual conversation in my house: Me: "Hey, Honey. Someone on Conservapedia is advocating a coup d'etat against Obama." Mrs. Foster: ""Really? Seriously? Maybe you should call the FBI." Memes in real life. P-Foster (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I expect there are FBI and Secret Server computers that automatically scan various extremist sites including CP for this sort of thing. --Kels (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Patti ha ever read or heard of the Smith Act. This isn't the first time he's come awfully close to sedition. Scary scary guy. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the've got an article on it. (Whee! no 403 no more!) --Scream!! (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FREEEEEEEEDOM FROM 403! EddyP Great King! Disaster! 08:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto 403 freedom!! Even for Jpatt, that is a pretty scary rant. Especially as he's the guy who would block you for daring to say George W was a criminal for getting the US involved in 2 non-sanctioned wars and condoning torture. Does anybody have Homeland Security's e-mail addy? Or should I contact that Florida department? -- PsyGremlin  10:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading it again, I see it's typical CP style - long on rant and very short on facts. Just what crime (other than JP's perceived and paranoid fantasies) has Obama committed. Even the things he does list are all legacies of the Bush admin. The rabid right really are working themselves up into froth over this. Then again, coming from a man who admits to owning semi-auto NATO weapons, this is pretty out there. What will happen when Obama wins in 2012? Will Johnny Xray storm the White House? -- PsyGremlin  10:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "The only thing the military would do is relieve the President, by the powers invested by the Constitution, of his duties and put others in charge of running the country." He thinks that the military has constitutional authority to remove the President from office? Seriously, WTF? And why is it always the guys who rant the most about the Constitution that have the least knowledge about its actual content? Röstigraben (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because they have the least knowledge of the constitution. Otherwise they would know what they are saying is total bollocks.  Those who actually know and understand the constitution tend to keep quiet when the wing-nuts start off and leave the loonies to make fools of themselves.  Witness that classic during the last US house elections when the (ex) witch and now wingnut xian didn't realise there was a constitutional seperation of state and religion. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * O'Donnell's "mistake" wasn't a mistake so much as it's part of The United States as a Christian nation mythos -- after that debate her campaign manager offered a $1,000 prize to anyone who could find the phrase "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. IOW, take any historical figures or writings and shoehorn them into your ideology so you can say "Look, I'm not a raving lunatic -- all these other (alternate universe versions of) famous people said the same thing! My thinking is based on a long and super-serious tradition!" Cf. Assfly's recasting of George Orwell as a conservative. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the Smith Act hasn't been used to prosecute anyone since large parts of it were deemed unconstitutional around 50 years ago. Junggai (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's probably true. General legal consensus is that the Brandenburg v. Ohio imminent and likely analysis would apply to any alleged First Amendment defense to a Smith Act or state law prosecution. The Brandenburg case was over a vague statement by a KKK leader that did not necessarily advocate violence at any specific time, whereas John Patti is urging that President Obama be violently deposed prior to the elections in 2012. Ironically, Brandenburg was prosecuted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism statute and Patti resides in Ohio. 5 bucks says that is on the books in a form modified to comply with the Supreme Court decision. I still need to wrap my brain around the "likely" prong of the Brandenburg rule, since I have doubts anyone but crazy people and those interested in gawking at crazy people is likely to read John Patti's screed. And as a practical matter, what he wrote is seditious as a matter of law. The Smith Act prohibits the violent deposing of a sitting president at a particular time (particular time meaning "imminent" e.g. prior to November 2012). It would also prohibit urging the military to rise up in insurrection prior to that particular time. The only question is whether he would have a First Amendment defense under Brandenburg. Paladin Press might suggest he doesn't. I'll report with more later and perhaps write a quick brief on this is a scary suggestion and I imagine it's not uncommonly raised by these ultra-right wing tea party types. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've contributed extenive material to Wikipedia on persons convicted of Smith At violations. For example, this edit atg wp:U.S Peace Council has been overwritten. The source link at Political Affairs magazine, an official Communist Party publication, boasts James Jackson's Smith Act coinviction as a great accomplishment on his biographical page. nobsdon't bother me 13:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is right on a par - if not better - with the list of states with Republican governors & Democrat senators that Wonkette picked up on. Except this time, it's not the creation of an "internet terrorist" but a senior sysop. Hmmm.... maybe I should drop them a line. -- PsyGremlin  16:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, PG. P-Foster (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget TPM Muckraker, the Young Turks, and Rachel Maddow, all of whom have covered Conservapedia's ridiculousness. This goes to new heights. I'm sure someone's interested. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done :) Now either they run with it, or deem CP to be too useless to write about. Either way... profit. -- PsyGremlin  12:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A response from an old-timer
The Piano Man has a few thoughts. P-Foster (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's always nice to see the pianist drop by. Mountain Blue 20:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Technically, yes I am calling for a military coup." P-Foster (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's, uh, quite the fantasy you've made for yourself there. Quite the fantasy, indeed. --Kels (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if there was a coup, under section 1 of the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution of the United States, then Joseph R. Biden, Jr, will be the next Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. You'd think JPatt would know this. CS Miller (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he does - "I would like to see the military remove Obama, the second in command becomes the chief executive, Congress stays in place, the Constitution stays intact." - I guess Jpatt is so hardcore anti-Obama that he'd greet President Biden with open arms? --Sid (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe [he] can be removed from office but the days of impeachment are about over. It is no longer an effective means of removal. [His] crimes, particularly his lies are well documented and should be enough to warrant removal. His fiscal policy is endangering not only future generations but today's generation and world peace. [...] Just as millions put this man in power, millions would oppose his removal. [...] These people care not for the country but of themselves and the influence and paybacks they will get from keeping [him] in power is their priority. [...] This bad situation we find ourselves in and will likely be rectified with more elections and Democracy. He may have been democratically elected but it was a sham like no other. The election was a victory for thugs and their friends. The lies, the sheer number of lies surpasses any politician promises that are often made. [He] lied his way to victory. That is not a Democratic victory, that is a victory for fraud and deceit. I feel the discussion needs to be centered on what line cannot be crossed and what to do if it has been crossed. [...] Unless America devises a strategy to deal with this man, we are held hostage to the power he possesses.
 * ^-- Hard to distinguish this from a 2008 era posting, isn't it? ;) --Sid (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When did america become a african democracy?(we have the election then the military gets involved to mess up the democracy part)--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember, it's not democracy unless their guy wins. -- 10:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are weasel words a conservative trait? Because Jpatt's response to a request for a list of Obama's crimes is "I don't have to go into description of what Obama has done that deserve his removal." Sounds like typical teabagger, "I'm protesting Obama because others are protesting Obama. I haven't got a fucking clue what the issues are." -- PsyGremlin  10:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Section in which Nutty Roux goes off at a tangent and is moved to somewhere relevant

 * Johnny's closing comment that he hopes urging military insurrection and the treasonous military overthrow of a legitimately elected president will grow Conservapedia is truly pathetic. It's as if he and the rest of them are well aware that the site is an irrelevant cesspit of extremist lies and hate and that the only way they can get any more attention is by turn the stupid up to eleven. Then again, urging a real threat to the President's physical safety, putting up pictures of flying kitties, calling prominent scientists big fatties, and rambling about biblical scientific foreknowledge, relativity, and whatever else Andy intentionally misunderstands may very well be the most relevant substantive conversation these people can muster. I sincerely hope that in the next several weeks Johnny boy will be scrutinized by federal law enforcement agencies and mentioned in the national press. It's not as if hasn't previous skirted the line of urging violence against Obama or as if this isn't a consistent, albeit sub rosa, theme among teabaggers. I don't bear him any ill will because I suspect he's not any smarter than he appears, though I don't wish to live in a civilized society in which extremists get to say violent, hateful, and unlawful things like this in public without consequence. People of conscience shouldn't have to accept violent extremists threatening elected officials. For fuck's sake: what would have the fundies and wingers have said if so-called "liberals" made any similar statement about Bush? The most serious charge raised what that his misconduct warranted impeachment and indictment on war crimes, which the wingers even said was outrageous. Really? As outrageous as telling soldiers to pick up their weapons, march to the White House, and physically remove President Obama? No, the liberal response to President Bush's numerous crimes was to urge that he be submitted to existing legal mechanisms, not unconstitutional violence. I really wish Patti had put more thought into the meaning of his hatescreed essay before he pressed "Save page". If pressed would be actually defend urging military insurrection and the violent unseating of President Obama? Is that really his message or is he an artless thug largely incapable of adequately communicating emotionally charged ideas? Either way, I wish him luck with the consequences of publishing his threatening rant. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [[File:Goodpost.gif]] Oldusgitus (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that he originally wrote that the prez should be removed by the military, but then in the next sentence said that we wasn't advocating a coup, I originall chalked this up to his base stupidity ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -Inigo Montoya). But, when confronted by the Piano Man, he didn't back off, he doubled down. Amazing. P-Foster (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ironically, no US authority can actually get to CP to read the rant in the first place, so he'll probably go unpunished for the time being. X Stickman (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Nutty, what planet have you been living on? nobsdon't bother me 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) I believe a statement like "Kill Bush" is materially different than what Jpatt said. Are you somehow disagreeing or are you throwing up a nonsequitor to derail the discussion? I wouldn't expect you to follow the Brandenburg analysis people have mentioned so there's probably no point in discussing the differences between the statements. (b) Not that it's particularly relevant, but I also condemn statements like "Kill Bush." He should have been impeached and indicted, not killed, because there's no legal basis for simply killing a man because you disagree with him. (c) What's your position on urging insurrection and the military removal of the President prior to November 2012? Nutty Roux (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * EC I can't believe I'm about to write the following sentence. Rob is right. A lot of the really nasty anti-Bush stuff was repugnant, and it opened the door for the kind of nasty anti-Obama stuff that followed. (That being said, maaaayyyybe you can make the case that the anti-Clinton stuff opened the door for the anti-Bush stuff in the first place, but I'd have to poke around a bit to take a stronger stand on that) I also tend to think that the 9/11 truthers on the left opened up the door for the birthers on the right. None of that, of course, excuses JPatt for what he said or CP/Andy for hosting it. P-Foster (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that whenever one political wing is in power, the other wing is always going to turn the slop on full force, so it is a waste of time bawling about any of it. 22:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * EC Yes, but. The tenor is so much different now than, say when Reagan or Carter was in power. Probably because between the 'net and the 500 channel universe/24 hour news cycle, there's a lot more space for the crazies to inject themselves into the mainstream. Stuff that was printed on dirty mimeographed pamphlets in 1983 could end up on the HuffPo now. P-Foster (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * True; ain't egalitarianism grand? 22:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Rob, as usual, doesn't have a coherent substantive response so he does what he always does: shift the subject, try to pass blame, dissemble, deflect, etc. Prove me wrong Rob. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no shortage of dumb political hatemongering on the internet indeed; what bothers me is that it's being endorsed on a site whose stated purpose is to be an educational resource for impressionable young schoolchildren. PACODOGwoof, bitches 22:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nutty, (a) virtually all articles that link to CP's Smith Act were authored by me -- and many of the same contributios still exist in Wikipedia lo these many years later unaltered. So the Smith Act & its history I'm well aware of. (b) Dittos. (c) I'm studying this question in the context of Pinochet. I've yet to see credible evidence that the United States, the CIA, Richard Nixon, or Henry Kissinger are directly linked to the removal of Salvador Allende by a military coup that brought Pinochet to power. Or a direct link between Pinochet & Allende's killers. But if you have one, I'd like to see it (Hell, even that great expert in breast cancer, Dr. Peter Lipson, took a strong stand regarding the death of Allende, Pinochet, and CIA involvement; when did he have have time to see patients since he was busy cyber-vandalizing Conservapedia with this crap while at work, according to RationalWiki 1.0/Icewedge Archives). Don't get your knickers in a tussle, it sounds morelike another whackedout paranoid leftist consiracy theory.  nobsdon't bother me 23:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, the question was "What's your position on urging insurrection and the military removal of the President (Barack Obama) prior to November 2012?" Barack Obama. President of the United States. Now. Not Pinochet, not Allende, not Chile, not 1973. Obama. Here. Now. P-Foster (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike Dick, who is very generous to you and gets nothing in return but similar incoherent responses to direct questions, I'm done. Feel free to take another shot at actually participating in this discussion. It's an interesting subject. I'm glad you know what the Smith Act is. Now try applying your knowledge to the facts before you. Regarding PalMD, be real careful when you refer to him like this where your source doesn't support such a broad statement. I'll let him know you're dragging him through the mud again. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you know that noted expert on breast cancer and defender of the "anti-science movement" was a little out of his element hen he came to CP, with no sourcing whatsoever, to make the claim that Pinochet led a military coup that murdered a democratically elected president. See cp:Talk:Salvador_Allende . nobsdon't bother me 23:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So we're back to "Rob has no common decency" again? --Kels (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, I am sure you have some reason for thinking that Allende's ouster is linked to the question of a military coup against Obama (in some sense other than their both being military coups). But the rest of us do not know what that is, so you might have to offer some more explanation. 23:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Rob I am perhaps a little dimwitted, but could you please explain why Palmd's edits to an article on Allende is relevant to a discussion on the legality of forcibly removing a US president? DamoHi 00:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple, Rob doesn't want to go on record criticizing JPatt's essay. Like most of them over there, he's a coward at heart. --Kels (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Screw you, Kels. I'm sick of your damn trolling. I went on the record here and I hung the OR tag. nobsdon't bother me 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How scathing! He's gonna be feeling that drubbing for weeks! --Kels (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

the right of assocition and charges of sedition
Rob's point is taken, but he's overlooking a few key discrepancies. First of all, you seem to be equating a thought-out (in the loosest sense of the term) essay with a placard, probably made for shock purposes and questionable as to its literal intent; this goes especially for the ones which are a pretty clear tongue-in-cheek parody of the Kill Bill movies. By doing so, you are also basically saying Jpatt, and by association Conservapedia, is no better than a bunch of anarchists, vandals, and punks, and therefore not a serious encyclopedia and political resource. If this were some screed in a random blog that would be one thing, but its presence on CP makes one wonder if this view has Andy's tacit endorsement. Isn't your website supposed to encapsulate conservative values? Furthermore, Jpatt pretends he has a legal framework for his proposed coup. The images you show clearly don't have any such illusions. (Also, many are completely irrelevant, but I realize it's a google search that comes with the territory.) Now, instead of random images, can you find a respected website (as Conservapedia has delusions of being) that endorsed the murder of Bush, or a coup to remove him from power? That would be relevant. In the internet age anyone can come up with an example of someone somewhere saying or doing something as an example to illustrate whatever point one wishes to make. (Want to prove that there's a movement to legalize slavery? Here you go!)The key is to find someone relevant doing that. I realize Jpatt is not relevant, but CP pretends to be. DickTurpis (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "by association Conservapedia"
 * May I direct you to wp:Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, "around the right of association." Argued before the Supreme Court, mind you (according to Wikipedia), by KGB operative wp:Allen Rosenberg. nobsdon't bother me 00:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with anything, as usual. Are you saying an essay appearing on Conservapedia is not associated with Conservapedia? "Associate" is a pretty general word; I'm not talking about legality here. DickTurpis (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. When a KGB agent argues a case before the Supreme Court in 1951 at the height of Joseph McCarthy's witchhunts, it is "Nothing to do with anything." nobsdon't bother me 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with this topic. Can you get it through your thick skull that not everything is relevant to your commie obsession. You're like a 13 year old girl who can't shut up about Justin Bieber. DickTurpis (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps your reply was a joke based on my recent comment on your talk page? You didn't quite mention Alger Hiss, so I'm guessing no. Stay on topic or don't bother replying. DickTurpis (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not immediately apparent as to why that case is relevant here. If you are using it as evidence for the proposition that you are not legally liable for the essay written by Jpatt, then I think we can agree (but I don't think anyone was suggesting that).  On the other hand your citation does nothing to address the point Dick was making; viz that this appears to have the backing of CP which asserts itself as a trustworthy and legitimate source as opposed to anarchists and other assorted indivbiduals carrying offensive signs.  Perhaps you could address this point in your next response?  DamoHi 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you're an editor in good standing "associated with Conservapedia" and the anarcho-wingnut cabal, why don't you make these points there? Are you "liable", too?  nobsdon't bother me 00:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have and I think you have misread (or misrepresented) what I was saying above.  I explicitly said that I DON'T think a CP editor is legally liable for Jpatt's essay.  DamoHi 00:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. Note a Bureaucrat on this site, User:David Gerard boasts on his user page that Julian Assange is a protege. Would that make users associated with this site open to the charge of sedition? nobsdon't bother me 00:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a lawyer in NZ and I make no pretence to knowing the laws regarding freedom of association/aiding and abetting criminal actions in the US. However I think it unlikely that the mere membership of a body which contains a member who supports something illegal is sufficient to make that person liable.  Actually I thought that was the point you were making in citing McGrath.  DamoHi 00:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me connect the dots. Once upon time in America it was illegal to advocate the violent overhrow of the United States. Then, while Joe McCarthy was making wild charges about Communists in the government, a KGB agent argued and won a case before the Supreme Court proteting commie fronts groups that were associated with groups and individuals who advocated the violent overthrow of the United States. The point became moot, however, as the law (the Smith Act) prohibiting the advocacy of violent overthrow of the government itself was overturned. Many prominent Communists walked, including CPUSA General Secretary Eugene Dennis, and prominsnt civil rights activisit James Jackson who later served on the executive board of the wp:U.S. Peace Council (a KGB front), along with wp:Alice Palmer who hand picked Barack Hussein Obama as her successor in the Illinois State Senate. But as we all know, based on the hard fought battles of fellow travelers and civi;l rights activists who have gone before us, these guilt by associations slams are outrageous.  nobsdon't bother me 01:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rob for clearing that up. I agree that guilt by association (in the colloquial not legal sense) is outrageous, which is why I am surprised you have not taken the opportunity to explicitly and unequivocally reject Jpatt's call for a military takeover.  Will you do so?  DamoHi 01:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rob, what's your position on urging insurrection and the military removal of the President prior to November 2012? P-Foster (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I, like Obama, oppose "dumb wars", and like Obama, even when "he brutalizes his own people". nobsdon't bother me 00:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Rob, what's your position on urging insurrection and the military removal of the President prior to November 2012? --Kels (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you guys, but I sure am curious what Rob thinks about someone urging insurrection and the military removal of the President prior to November 2012, and I'm even starting to think he's kind of a coward.-- 01:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Jpatt's idea is totally fucked and not worthy of being taken seriously. nobsdon't bother me 01:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pleased to hear it!DamoHi 01:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have new respect for you for having the chutzpah to take a responsible stand that's not going to be popular over there after having made the mistake of coming over here to talk about this publicly. Cheers. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * +1 P-Foster (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There, that wasn't so hard now, was it? It feels good to give someone a direct answer to a direct question, and especially one that takes a moral stand.  You should do it more often, it looks good on you. --Kels (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bravo, Rob!-- 10:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Atheism and rejection of science
Is CP user Anupam a parodist? I know we're not supposed to out people, but he's been spending a lot of time working on an article about how atheists reject science, and I'm sure it's been noticed by the powers that be. The thing is, his examples include rejecting the big bang and relativity. Is this really not a subtle dig at Andy? DickTurpis (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but keep in mind that Andy has said so much weird stuff that not even his core sysops can keep track of it all. If that guy is real (no strong opinion about that), then he likely didn't study all "insights" in-depth. That's one of the epic pitfalls of CP - you join an online encyclopedia and suddenly get attacked because you believe in evolution and relativity, but not in the healing power of prayer or Jesus quantum-tunneling through walls. --Sid (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These days I go by the credo 'If it's not Andy, Ed, Ken, Rob, Kara or Chuckarse it's a parodist.' After his latest stunt, I'm inclined to group Johnny X-Ray with the latter. -- PsyGremlin  14:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought Anupam was someone who knows Ken IRL. There's certainly an Anupam who lives in Buffalo and the one who edits at WP (from which some stuff was copied to CP) claims to be a Methodist, which would fit in.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anupam is a 🇰🇪 sock and Jpatt is a parodist. Job done. 13:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC Anupam appeared around the time of Ken's supposed 90-day sabbatical. Coincidence? -- PsyGremlin  13:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not Ken. Seriously. The person uses edit comments and is capable of doing more than resizing a picture pixel by pixel over the course of 25 edits. Nutty Roux (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's really that Ken is an Anupam sock? As for subtle digs, I got angry and inserted a few of them, then got blocked for removing them, CP is a zany place. --Opcn (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Useless degrees
One of the items on the list is: "Degrees leading to careers in investment banking and corporate work." When did Andy become a commie? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They should go to the school of hard knocks. Like he did. P-Foster (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's part of the Best Of The Public "Don't read a book; write a book!" Great Achievements By Teenagers mega-meme-medley? --Sid (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he's onto something big here. He went to Harvard law, which undoubtedly leads at least to careers in "corporate work," yet the degree utterly failed him. I'd be sore too. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you still need to achieve a degree of competence to maintain that corporate employment. Also I don't know if this has been explicitly pointed out before but was the CBP basically "Don't read a bible; write a bible."  Lily Inspirate me. 18:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Need for a degree? Liberal elitism trying to censor the Best Of The Public (which is becoming increasingly conservative at a geometric rate)! =O
 * No, for contributing to the CBP, no language skills are required. All you need is a little googling . Excerpt:




 * 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The search Andrew Schlafly bullshit returns over 70,000 results. Someone should point that out to Andy. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 19:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How embarrassing, we only rank #6 on my search engine beginning with G, YMMV.  Lily Inspirate me. 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How the fuck is it that he hasn't been banned yet? --Opcn (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because TK's dead. -- PsyGremlin  20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Besting Assfly won't get you banned, it will get him to walk away. If you continue press him (or try to take his silence as a concession), you get popped for "talk". Occasionaluse (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My search for "Young Earth Creationdouchbags" yielded over 1.7 MILLION hits! What is going on here? Either Google is reliable or it isn't. They better work on that algorithm or somethin' Jimaginator (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Google's system is designed to find the top few most interesting (according to humans who search for stuff) hits for a given input. Google actually neither care about nor have any way to accurately count how many web pages have some specific sequence of words once that number exceeds the number of results needed to display the page with the adverts on it. You might ask, "So, why include a number?" it turns out people expect a number, so even though the estimate is rubbish it satisfies that desire from users. Google are perfectly open about the fact that the number isn't accurate, and their users don't seem to care if it's wrong by several orders of magnitude. Just seeing a number of "hits" is somehow reassuring.
 * There have been a few Language Log posts about this. There have also been plenty of Language Log posts which, despite this, try to estimate popularity by using Google hit counts. It's just hard to resist doing it even when you know the answers are garbage. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not always garbage: granted, it is meaningless the way Andy tried to use the it, but if you want to check whether a phrase of figure of speech is common - or only used by us bloody foreigners, it's really helpful... 07:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Google's system is designed to find the top few most interesting (according to humans who search for stuff) hits for a given input. Google actually neither care about nor have any way to accurately count how many web pages have some specific sequence of words once that number exceeds the number of results needed to display the page with the adverts on it. You might ask, "So, why include a number?" it turns out people expect a number, so even though the estimate is rubbish it satisfies that desire from users. Google are perfectly open about the fact that the number isn't accurate, and their users don't seem to care if it's wrong by several orders of magnitude. Just seeing a number of "hits" is somehow reassuring.
 * There have been a few Language Log posts about this. There have also been plenty of Language Log posts which, despite this, try to estimate popularity by using Google hit counts. It's just hard to resist doing it even when you know the answers are garbage. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not always garbage: granted, it is meaningless the way Andy tried to use the it, but if you want to check whether a phrase of figure of speech is common - or only used by us bloody foreigners, it's really helpful... 07:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)