Fun talk:Andrew Schlafly

Three separate articles...
I understand--and totally supported--the idea of two Andy articles, one satirical, and one a serious critique designed to show potential homeschoolers what they were dealing with. Now we have a silly one, a sillier one in the Fun space, and a serious one. Why? Is it clear what goes in which silly one? Why are there things that appear in both satirical articles? Can we go back to a two-article paradigm, or have some sort of clarity as to why we need two satirical articles and what goes where?PFoster 16:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)


 * To avoid confusion, can we keep the discussion about this in one place?  w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 17:51, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, sure--to avoid confusion, can we keep all our silly stuff about Andy in one place? PFoster 17:54, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I ain't gonna keep fucking repeating myself on this issue. I've spelt it out about three times on the talk page linked above.  I'm not got waste time typing out again here.  If you want to discuss further, follow the link above.   w easeLOId [[Image: Weaselly.jpg|15px]]~ 17:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
 * My point exactly. PFoster 17:59, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

This article is ridiculous and pointless. I vote for deletion. Salvage any yuks we need and jam them into the funspace article.DogP  17:42, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * Fine by me. The "Andy is a Muslim" crap is already duplicated here, although I really think it belongs in fun, essay or the bin. 17:49, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Why...
...is the entire "sensible" article at the bottom of the page? Yours trulyDear Sir 17:47, 1 February 2009 (EST)
 * It's a transclusion error. This was built to display the same gallery as appears in the "satire" article, but everything's been moved umpteen times in the last two days so it's now transcluding the wrong article.   17:49, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I don't believe it!
All I did was attempt to make Conservapedia a bit less radically conservative and Andrew Schlafly banned my account for five years! I did not even do any vandalism!
 * Yeah, that'll happen alright.  11:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You did vandalise it. You tried to make it less radically conservative. 13:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirects
Under discussion here. 06:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a link to Self projection as god? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but thanks for stopping by.  17:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

His evil British twin brother?
Just saw this story on the ITV News at 6:30: (but using BBC as online source):

Somerset sex abuse teacher Nigel Leat 'extremely devious':

"A mother of children at a primary school where a teacher sexually abused pupils has branded the man "extremely devious".

The woman has spoken of parents' devastation on learning Nigel Leat was being investigated for sexually abusing children in his classroom."

AP (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Birth Certificate?
Is there any evidence that Schlafly was born in the United States? I heard that he was actually born in Micronesia. I'd like to see his birth certificate to be sure.

Bella et Vita
Now amended to be civilised and decent Scherben (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Biased article mocking another human being
Please contribute to the 'Quick Poll' at the bottom of this section.

I am sorry that I added my opinion to your article. It just infuriates me that you can set a standard for the opinion of the page, and revert any edits that state an alternate opinion. Do you agree that people whom you disagree with should be treated this way?


 * Not everyone I disagree with should be treated in any specific way. The logic does not follow. This article treats Andy this way. I disagree with Andy. Therefore, any article about someone I disagree with is this way. Perhaps there's something more unique about Andy? Hipocrite (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Andy is a sick, disturbed individual who is an embarrassment to Christians, and humans. This article is much kinder than it could have been to a figure who spreads the most perverted idea of Christianity this side of Westboro. This is a man who thought he could rewrite the freaking bible! We have a massive catalog of his outright lies. Read it and get back to us. VOX  HUMANA

You my friend must rethink your theory of embarrassment. How can you say this?? If you believe that this article is "much kinder", I am very confident that you should rethink that too. Please exit the liberal box that you are reading about him. Have you even ever met him??

No person is perfect!!! When Bill Clinton was made president of the US, what did he do (under oath)?? When Nixon was president, what did he do?? When President Obama was running for office, what promises were not fulfilled (we're 4 years into it, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN).

A biased article mocking another human being? Must be Rationalwiki!--Token Conservative (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so mush for helping me out Token Conservative!!--184.6.214.237 (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome--Token Conservative (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone (on the left) agree that this "Fun:Andrew Schlafly" page went overboard and should be deleted??--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably not. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought... If you agree that you want this "Fun:Andrew Schlafly" to be deleted, please speak...--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to funspace generally, so...--Token Conservative (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

AGREED!!! I never would have believed that it existed if someone told me!--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Does ANYONE else want the page deleted??? --184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't get me: this page as a part of funspace I'm fine with: Andy is an idiot who says idiotic and sometimes dangerous things, and people should be aware of them, if mocking him is the best way to do it, then so be it. But I don't much like funspace as a general idea because it reduces how much of a professional appearance RW has. And if anyone says they support deleting this article, it'll only be the few other people here that support deleting funspace altogether.
 * Also, making it seem like we agree makes me feel dirty.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

So why do you call yourself a conservative?? Everything you've stated thus far has been in favor of my efforts. And don't transitively call me names.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you met him?? EVER??--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You said bad things about Obama, Nixon and Clinton. I also say bad things about Osama bin Laden, but I've never met him. Since when was meeting someone a requirement to mock? Hipocrite (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (Thank you to whoever just put the delete/retain poll on this subject. Thats really nice of you.) I did not say bad things about Obama, Nixon, or Clinton. I proved that they are fallible human beings just like every one of us. I would never MOCK someone, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT MEETING HIM!!!--184.6.214.237 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? You're an awesome dude, then. I'm not as awesome as you, I guess. Just so we can verify - you wouldn't mind linking to your contributions to other wikis and facebook/twitter/whatnot? Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Lets just say that I wouldn't go out, publicly demeaning him without meeting him. I have not posted to other wikis or anything else. You can take a look at my user talk page. I think I nailed some of the questions given there.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So you have never edited Wikipedia? Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not really. (Just word and grammar corrections). Have you?--184.6.214.237 (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So you've never edited the article about Andrew Schlafly to defame a certain New Jersey senator? I edited Wikipedia under the username Hipocrite for years. Hipocrite (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am an honest man, with a not-so-honest memory. I did edit that page in that way, but it completely slipped my mind. Sorry about that. If your not convinced, look for something else. That's the only article. Lately, i've been pretty disturbed at the ganging up on Andy. Again, that completely slipped my mind. I'm REALLY Sorry.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Conservative Deceit in action. Who told you about this page? Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So you forgot about an edit within 24 hours? I don't know that you have the mental capacity to continue editing...unless of course you're being dishonest, though I would hope that beneath someone whose only intent is to help preserve Mr. Schlafly's good name. 96.239.179.37 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

That's all I want to do. As far as my mental capacity... You are already judging me as if i'm your enemy. Please stop. I forgot completely. '''When you asked the question, were you testing me (aka. stalking)? (this reply is for 'Hipocrite')'''--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course I was testing you. I don't think testing and stalking are the same thing. Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there any person who agrees with me? Please speak!!--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dosen't look like it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I take it that this organization will always be anti-Andy and anti-conservative and anti-all that conservatives believe.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think you or Andy represent "conservatives." You are a home schooled kid. Andy is a fringe catholic figure, mocked by even his own "side" of the political argument. Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't you dare try to mark me as something. Are you homeschooled?? What's your IQ?? Take a look at the comparison between public school graduation rate, and homeschooled grad rate. You can keep feeding the pubic school system. IT WILL NEVER GET BETTER.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not homeschooled. My IQ is OVER NINE THOUSAND! (In the real world, no one gets IQ tests). Graduation rates are not a meaningful statistic for multiple reasons. First, because homeschoolers have a graduation rate of zero (they do not graduate from school). Second, because homeschooling in self-selecting. Correcting for economics and other factors, the purported advantages of homeschooling shrink substantially. WP:It gets better. I know it's hard to be a homeschooled homosexual. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (EC)The site (as outlined in its mission) opposes pseudo-science and authoritarianism. Andrew Schlafly pushes both of these things. If you're trying to help out Andrew Schlafly, I can understand why you're distressed so many people deride him... but this is all over the Internet. RationalWiki is one of many sites that criticises or mocks him... Disgust, like respect, is earned. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(reply to 'Hipocrite') Why, because you are one? If you don't like grad rates, then how about college acception?! It's almost obvious that your IQ is over 9,000. Actually, I believe you're underestimating yourself. You're a funny guy.


 * College "acception" is not a meaningful statistic. The number of things that need to be corrected for make it impossible to evaluate. In addition to economics, demographics and geography, you'd need to correct for religious/non-traditional schools, schools applied to, and the like. If any real study has been done, I'd like to see it. I'm certain it does not exist in any quality. Hipocrite (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU FOR BEING THE FIRST PERSON TO AGREE WITH ME ON THIS ISSUE. PLEASE, SPREAD THE WORD.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

User: Powdersmokeandleather, why did you revert my changes if you want the page deleted anyway?--184.6.214.237 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because as long as the article is here, it should suck less. Your editing made it suck more. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 13:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't going to be consensus on deletion the way you've raised the issue as some anonymous griefer with an agenda. You will also fail at editing it. Someone who knows the site better is going to have more success. The article is going to get tuned up because someone who cares is going to make it better, not save someone's feelings or accomodate your druthers. In other words, at this point you're pissing in the wind and basically just wasting peoples' time. How about you move on and go fight someone else's battles somewhere else? [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you feel that way, but honestly, its your time to waste. Anyone can either defend their opinions on my poll, or waste their time actually pissing in the wind (haha). I don't think that anyone here will be making any page-saving changes because the entire idea of having a page devoted to such nonsense is ridiculous. Thank you for taking a little time out of your daily life to contribute. It benefits the both of us (you, for stating your opinion; me, for achieving my goal).--184.6.214.237 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete

 * Out of date, unfunny, Hitler, mean-spirited, unnecessary in light of non-"fun" article, and what the fuck is cisgender . [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * * Comment* The Hitler image does violate Godwin's law and I would lobby for its removal, were it not for the fact that Conservapedia seems to hold Hitler in such esteem given the number of sites that link to the man which include such diverse topics as liberalism, the New Deal, Darwinism, and moustaches. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 20:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We have a quite decently put-together article that takes Schlafly down and unquestionably shows him to be an intellectually dishonest, incompetent, ideologically dangerous buffoon. Why engage in second-rate snark when reality is so much the more shocking? If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 13:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Retain

 * Jack Hughes (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Andy's funny, just not hah hah funny. 17:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The man's an out and out idiot and deserves any calumny that can be heaped on him.
 * Conservative;
 * God-botherer;
 * Anti-science;
 * Incompetent lawyer;
 * Homeschool propagandiser; etc. etc. .... Scream!! (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Worth keeping IMO. Maybe a bit of touching up, but certainly no deletion. The Invisible Man  I spoke to Him   14:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Acei9 22:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason it is up for deletion is pretty stupid, IMO. Yes, it could use some touching up and we could even divulge into whether or not it's worth touching up. But for the reasons given for marking it for deletion (it's too biased), well, welcome to RationalWiki. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite having said a few times that we should move on from CP, I really think it would be a terrible thing to remove content just because a Conservapedian requests it. Update, make actually funny, but keep. Sophie  Wilder  11:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - cause the BON is an annoying wanker who doesn't deserve to get its way Ghost (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Goat

 * Until such time as funspace is depreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The mainspace article is well-written with excellent sources, often from Schlafly's own "pen". I don't see the funspace article as particularly abusive, nor funny. Unfortunately, I'm not funny, so I cannot re-write this myself.--TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's deleted, it will be because all Funspace articles are deleted, not because one of Andy's homeschoolers doesn't like it. Spud (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I reiterate the sentiments of Hipocrite and Spud.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For our clueless IP - The "goat" section indicates some of us are questioning the very purpose of the FUN space itself. But if FUN stays, then we will retain this article. Don't mistake this broader discussion about the FUN space as being support for your heavily misguided beliefs. VOX  HUMANA  02:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Long-eared jerboa

 * I have nothing against mocking idiots and loonies, and Andy deserves to be mocked. However, this is out of date, not so funny and lacks the relevance that it once had. I agree that our serious article does a better job of discrediting him. So I wouldn't be sorry to see it go (and that applies to a lot of fun-space) but not for any of the reasons than the BoN is proffering. Генгис silverbrain.png 10:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Genghis Khant is a man of great wisdom and prudence. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 11:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (((comment))): If you agree with deletion, please put your opinion into the "delete" section. Not the "Long-eared jerboa" section (are you kidding me?? What the fig is that??)--184.6.214.237 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand that then you don't understand RationalWiki. Генгис silverbrain.png 14:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess not. Can you explain?--184.6.214.237 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If BoN.184 had paid better attention in baraminology class, there would be no need to ask. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I know the animal, but what the heck does it mean in this wiki??--184.6.214.237 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you know we have an article on it? May I suggest dusting off your research skills and putting them to use? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here, I'll save you the effort. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jack.--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What exactly does it mean in this poll (or any poll)???--184.6.214.237 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It means you're a fucking infantile idiot who should piss off back to Conservap&aelig;dia and stop trying to tell the bigger boys and girls how to do what they do best. Scream!! (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be one way of looking at it. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 17:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe what the estimable screaming member meant to say was that it means you are spending a lot of time engaging us in discourse, for someone who seems to have a naive fondness for things laid out simply in clear-cut, well-defined unambiguous terms, such as the ones you may be accustomed to seeing on Conservapedia, and that attempting to influence the views of people here, who have spent years if not decades mocking authoritarians and fundamentalists, will be a forlorn hope on your part.
 * To that I will add the following: if you are willing to let your views, morals, and actions be dictated by some external authority figure, you had better make sure said authority figure does in fact know what's best, and is not manipulating you in aid of their own misguided agenda. Since this world operates in realms of ambiguity, in nuanced shades of grey, if you will, it makes best sense to do your own research, to find out what really makes sense for your own situation, and let go of dependence on firm direction from others. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Call me names if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that "long-eared jerboa" has no possible relation to a poll. Just because you don't want to explain its definition so as to keep outsiders from contributing, it doesn't mean that you can go f-ing me off the scene. It ain't gonna work!--184.6.214.237 (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Goat" and "Long-Eared Jerboa" are what are known as "jokes", and you are taking them way to seriously. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 13:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Or alternatively they're real world views about what some people naively try to paint as black or white. Генгис silverbrain.png 13:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds?

Namespace purge

 * Fun, and recipe! Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki, template, user! [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Mainspace, MediaWiki. Генгис silverbrain.png 19:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Resemblance to Ha Ha Guy


http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/038/262/hahaguy.jpg

Just putting that out there.

Coolguy212
Why am I included in this article? I mean did Schlafly evered say that to me or is someone making this up for comedic purposes? User:Coolguy212
 * You aren't included. There is some wiki magic to make the current user's name pop up. For instance my sandbox says the current user's name, but I never typed your name in.ClickerClock (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's probably , if I saw it I'd see "Christopher" and ClickerClock would see "ClickerClock". Christopher (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)