Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive177

Rob is loading for bear
--129.19.137.241 (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, this "citation" is remarkably dishonest. ShadowRanger Rees11 (in the revision that Rob hides) removes the POV tag, and Sid doesn't edit the article for many revisions after that.  Pretty deceitful, Rob.  -- 05:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Edit: had the wrong name. 08:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where I come from, that's called "lying". I doubt wikipedia admins are stupid enough to be taken in by such chicanery.  08:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I edited your comment with a link to the Rees11 edit. 08:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I notice he brings up the removal of the COI tag, but never mentions the discussion that preceded it. -- 05:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried:" ...empty. As such, it will get tossed out. But if this thing is actually completed and accepted, this would turn out to be a really interesting case. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, he's going to put his attempts at private discussion there. -- Nx  / talk 11:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone shut up and enjoy it. Every problem we point out is a problem that ArbCom doesn't see and doesn't act on. Wait until he submits it to rip it to shreds--129.19.137.241 (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, BoN, but one last thing. Now he's talking about himself in the third person.  If you read it in Gollum's voice, it's quite entertaining.  -- 08:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like his statement will be a sort of Gish Gallop of lies and half-truths. Debunking it all would just take up precious space, which is exactly what Rob is hoping for. Ah, this is going to be hilarious. --Sid (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If he was serious he'd compile his "evidence" off-wiki. He's just trolling. 12:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And playing to his audience. 12:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Toast: Oh hai! 16:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "off-wiki" as in "in private and not openly on a wiki", not as in "not on Wikipedia". --Sid (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all got such a TK sort of feel about it, doesn't it? The whole desire to say things off WP, so they're less likely to be used as evidence of things like harassment and so forth.  Which is probably why, when he got blocked for harassing and threatening here, he didn't repeat a single word of it over at WP, where he could easily post to your talk page.  Funny, that. --Kels (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is funny indeed. While I can see the advantage of using a wiki to "prepare" his "case" (formatting, etc.), he could use any wiki. But as I was "analyzing" some of what he has typed, I suddenly realized that CP is the dumbest one to choose - he can't type "rationalwiki" on that wiki! 16'll get you twenty that that page is dead and he's working on it elsewhere, once he realized what a pain it will be not being able to actually type his adversary's name. Oh, and far as the "TKish" aspects, you do know this is a TK joynt, right? Look at the goal - to inconvenience as much as possible the backbone of the RW "cabal". 02:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And he can't even spell Trent's name. 12:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By "inconvenience" you mean "incapacitate through spasms of laughter", right? --Kels (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If he actually brings the "case" to arbcom it could range from a minor inconvenience (being "summoned" to turn up and watch him get slapped down) to a pain in the butt (actually having to read difflinks and type stuff). Oh, and Tet, well, anyone actually, please don't help him copyedit his "case".  I should have said that before.  00:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Braggin' rights
Whats gonna happen?

RobS won't ever get it done. Arb com refuses to even hear the case. Arb com hears the case but dismisses it and takes no action. Arb com hears the case and finds against RW members issuing sentences up to and including bans. Arb com hears the case and finds RobS is in violation of harassment rules and bans him.

Paranoia and Language
Please enjoy this recent Andy edit re: Title IX. There's a vaguely amusing slip there: observe that Title IX is not used by homosexuals or the homosexual community but by the homosexual agenda, i. e. the homosexual agenda has gone from an abstract product of human discourse to a person-like sentient entity with political consciousness. It almost like reading de Beauvoir again. I you've seen one persecution complex you've really seen them all. mb 12:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's like the ontological god: if it is imaginable, it exists.   15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You do know I'm really afraid of Cthulhu, right? 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I love how he just drops this blatant assertion in the middle of an "encyclopedic" article and doesn't even attempt to find a source to back up his bullshit. He cites no court cases, no press releases, nothing.  18:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The legal claim he refers to is real and there is a DoE guideline that may have the force of law (I don't know). The homosexual agenda stuff is deflection to distract from his butthurt at living in a world where homosexual students get to go to public school, which to him is wrong on so many levels. I love these glimpses into how hate filled and unsavory Andy's world is. 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the claim, I just find it funny that a trained attorney would just drop something like in an article with no citation. It can't be hard to find one.  18:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

More whatthefuckery.
Regenerative ability of early humans. I can't wait for Andy latch onto this insight. Of course, if early humans could regenerate, wouldn't that negate Jesus' miracles. Hmmm? -- PsyGremlin  18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see Poe written all over it, but that might be just me.  18:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * TSpencer seems like some pretty deep parody to me...and I like it. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone should copy that to aWK. As a mainspace article.  20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. It'd work just fine on CP as a mainspace article if the author could find some kind of anti-homosexual/liberal slant. Teh gay takes away our ability to regenerate like Wolverine. It's Stephen Fry's fault that I don't have adamantium claws! -- 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do liberal teachings cause us to decay? Acei9 21:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it is parody or not, it is obviously self-defeating because it uses YEC as its basis but suggests that human have been affected by mutations over time. 21:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he does explain those mutations only caused "loss" of information. That's pretty YECcy. Internetmoniker (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ConcernedResident, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. When I first looked at the essay, I had the strangest sense of deja-vu, but I couldn't put my finger on where I had seen it before. Your Wolverine comment finally reminded me: It was this comment (mentioned in Archive 174, the JimPT section where Wolverine was also brought up in the same context) by the same guy. So thanks for letting me sleep easily tonight. =P --Sid (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Wolverine does not naturally have adamantium claws. He has regular bone claws that were later covered in adamantium (along with the rest of his skeleton) by a shady government department for shady government reasons (probably obama's death pannels needing a new assassin). So Stephen Fry has taken away our bone claws. X Stickman (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but Stick my friend, you are going off of the recent retcon story. Originally, Wolverine only had regeneration.  The adamantium claws were added by the Weapon X program.  This is obviously Obama's secret plan to upgrade his private Readycorps Army (which may not be an army, but has an army sounding name, so we'll assume it's an Army) to supersoldier levels so he can force all dissenters into Fema Camps.  18:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Retcons are still canon! Plus this is still talking about the 90s, when magneto magneted his ass. Also it totally makes sense; they couldn't just jam metal claws in there, because they'd have to add a whole system to cope with it, like a method of locking them into place, muscles to control it etc... and we all know that Obama's healthcare will be so terrible that they won't have the ability to perform such complex surgery. So they must have been there right from the start. One thing I've always wondered, though; how does he bend his wrists? He's either got some amazingly strong wrist muscles when they're extended, or he shouldn't be able to bend his wrists at all. Also they must retract all the way into his forearms. X Stickman (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait...what??
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=next&oldid=767874 He must be kidding. No one can be this insane...] 23:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The bill creates a "Ready Reserve Corps" as part of its attempt to help reform the national medical response teams which supplement local emergency aid. This is a deliberately stupid interpretation of that section (5210).-- 00:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the articles he linked to - nowhere does it mention "military" or even "militia," so the Reserve Corps in question is obviously a medical emergency response team. It's stunning that anyone could be so hyperbolic or that CP (for all its insanity, there are people even crazier) would allow something like that on the main page. 00:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked into this. The link points to a YouTube video of a Fox News segment. Andrew Napolitano goes off on this tear about how someone is trying to build a corps of 6,000 armed and uniformed doctors. Not joking. Naturally, he doesn't give the numbers of any segments of the bill, thus making it hard to look up. I picked up a few context clues and learned that he was blathering on about Sec. 5210: Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps. What it does is establish an organization similar to the National Guard, but designed specifically to aid in public health emergencies. Actually, it doesn't really establish the organization - Sec. 5210 is an amendment to a bill passed in 1944. What it does is change the organization of the health corps.
 * Are the corpsman armed? No. Are there 6,000 of them? The section doesn't say. Does it allow the corps to poach men from the National Guard? Not by my reading. In sum: Napolitano is full of shit, and so is BenjaminS. Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊. 商讨. 00:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm probably being a bit naive here but why would Obama even need to create a new army by using sneaky wording in the healthcare bill. Doesn't he already control the actual military? Plus the national guard. 6,000 doctors/healthcare specialists, armed or not, don't really compare to that. X Stickman (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to find my copy of this book (I've moved so often lately that I have no idea where half my library is any more) but from it, my recollection is that some, but by no means all, employees of the the CDC (and possibly other public health organisations) are members of a "uniformed service" and have uniforms (obviously!) and so on. Of course I can't remember useful details such as the name of said service!--NotANumber (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention already has a rapid response section (the Epidemic Investigation Service) which investigates outbreaks of disease caused by anything from food-borne microorganisms (my area of interest) to Ebola and everything inbetween. Some EIS members are part of the uniformed corps referred to in the previous edit but so are other CDC employees. This corps might be called the Commissioned Corps but don't quote me on that.--NotANumber (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy explains: "Reserve Corps" sounds like an army name, so therefore it must be one. Perfectly logical.--WJThomas (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered if being a judge isn't one of Andy's secret fantasies, actually. To some extent, a lot of ECHR and UK HoL cases do end up boiling down to 'because I said so', just as Andy's done here - it's just that the person or persons saying so have decades of experience and are infinitely more intelligent than Andy are (though it's shaky at times, I know). If Andy was to become a judge, I think he would be a little bit like this (explanation for why this is so fucking hilarious at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Thorpe, incidentally, from 'Homosexuality scandal' onwards, though it is a stunning sketch without the foreknowledge anyway). Webbtje (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything with "corps" in it is a military organization, obviously. Marine Corps, Peace Corps, Americorps... TheMayor (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Citicorp? :P --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't she die like 30 years ago?
yet there she is, spreading the cancer. Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky, but I think that even in a vacuum the rest of the statement would earn the whole thing some scorn. --Opcn (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OH NOZ! $700,000 went to Planned Parenthood affiliates...that give breast cancer screenings and mammograms... &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you see, they are treating the breast cancer caused by the abortions so that they can have the women have more abortions. It's crystal clear.  Big red truck, duh... Ravenhull (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe she caught the boob canzer from an abortion. --Opcn (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh good, a new confederacy
blarg and just in time for Confederate history month too! --Opcn (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fitting it be the same month that starts off with a holiday like April Fools. :p


 * Seriously though, am I the only one who sometimes thinks that should the Tea Baggers or Neo-cons or whatever ultra far right policial faction tickles your toenails actually decide and succede in causing states to once again break away from the union that it might be better to just let them go this time? Tygrehart

Menendez recall committee
Andy might actually have a chance. 13:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd have thought, by now, that Hurlbut/TerryH, as an Andy fan, would have asked Andy to take a more flattering photo of himself. Ideally one which doesn't make him look like a sex offender. Though thinking about it, that photo of Hurlbut is deeply disturbing too. Webbtje (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Terry looks as if he's leaning in, telling some small child to remove their pants, while styling that crazed smile. There, I said it. --Bunchanumbers &mdash; Unsigned, by: 70.119.42.172 / talk / contribs 14:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a fairly decent AP photo by Rich Schultz, only the shirt Andy's wearing looks like it's from a Moldavian sales bin. mb 15:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This one? Andys_Monitor.jpg &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the one from the Hurlbut piece about the March for Life. It's the same shirt though. Come to think of it, the shirt in the AACP video doesn't look all that different either. Either this man owns exactly one shirt, or he has a real hard-on for PET polyester filament yarn in 1972-formula Columbia blue. mb 16:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IIRC he wore a different shirt (white) for his appearance at the Colbert Report. but the tie looks the same however.  17:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy.mplayer.1.png Andy.mplayer.2.png
 * BZZT WRONG BITCH. It's blue. It does look like a slightly paler blue on my monitor but that means absolutely nothing. Look at the 70s collar and the button on his cheapo pseudo-Italian cuff in the right picture. It could EASILY be the same shirt AGAIN. mb 18:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What a good looking man. Keegscee (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fact of the day: Andy shops at a Sears stuck in the '80s. – Nick Heer 20:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's the same shirt, then it all makes sense now. The AAPS video has the intermediate shade of blue, and so the same shirt is getting paler as time goes on.  What bleach is Andy using to have that uniform colouring again?   05:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What an uncanny resemblance to the ventriloquist's dummy Lord Charles. 09:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the original topic
As per the topic of the header, I think it is kind of interesting actually. The NJ state constitution clearly states what I think are the recall parameters. The state courts of NJ are constricted to what the state constitution says. The argument from Menedez is that there is a conflict with the Federal constitution. I don't think that can be settled in state court. The ruling they did get though was not that the recall was constitutional but rather that you could not stop the petition processes on the claim alone. That "standing" wouldn't exist for the constitutional claim till the signatures had been gathered and a recall election was put forward. Ultimately, I think the NJ state courts are bound to rule that the petition is valid under state constitution. However, whether there is a conflict between the state constitution and the federal constitution is a more interesting question. Has Andy ever argued a case before the national supreme court? I know he filed amicus curiae briefs all the time, but hell anyone can do that. I don't think he has ever actually been on council for a major enough case. I am interested. tmtoulouse 19:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is very interesting, especially as an NJ resident. Initially, I was surprised that the case made it to the Supreme Court so quickly, but Trent's point about the state constitution conflicting with the lack of federal precedent explains why. The problem (which I think Nutty brought up previously) is this: the Supreme Court doesn't like to set major precedents when they don't have to, and siding with the state constitution would mean giving states the power to interpret Article 1 of the Constitution (since it does not mention recalls), which would be a dramatic and earth-shattering verdict. I would think that they are more likely just to strike down the clause in the NJ state constitution that allows recalls, which they can certainly do under the Supremacy Clause. 22:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is still in NJ though right? I thought it was before the NJ Supreme Court, and if my legal understanding is correct they would still be obligated to find based on the NJ state constitution. tmtoulouse 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike that, apparently a state supreme court does have authority to rule state constitutional clauses as violating national constitutional clauses. tmtoulouse 23:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Since the problem is that the clause indirectly contradicts Article 1 of the Constitution, striking the recall clause seems like the most likely option. If the Court gives the go-ahead for a recall, they will be doing something utterly without precedent and messing with Article 1, so I doubt that'll happen. I'm not sure if this can be appealed to the US Supreme Court, but I doubt it will. 23:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the lower courts decision that says, basically, until a recall election is actually called there is nothing for a court to do? tmtoulouse 23:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seemed like they were just passing it on to the higher court, since they didn't (or can't) strike down the clause in the NJ state constitution, which of course is the heart of the problem. So, they just passed the buck and said that they couldn't do anything until someone forced their hand. 23:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would hit SCOTUS until/unless the petition succeeded, creating a federal issue - a state actually recalling their Senator. And Andy is disingenuous, I think mentioning CA - if he's referring to the recall of their Governor, a state office of no federal impact.   Let's face it, Senators don't work for their states, they work for all of us, in that the federal gov't pays them, not their state. I doubt that is "legally" interesting, but it is still interesting.  To me, anyway.  02:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you damn yanks just do it like we do? Don't have anything written down, and let the lads in the HoL/Supreme Court argue it out and not dare to mention that we have a deeply unrepresentative and corrupt parliament which is meant to be supreme. Great fun to watch.Webbtje (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ed "knows he's right" WIGO
That's one of the funniest things Ed has said in a long time. My favorite quote: "We don't use article[s] to "prove my side is right" but rather to explain what each POV is, and why its adherents support it." Remember, Ed, you're not on WP anymore. 21:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My favourite part is the implication that he hopes people on CP can "work together on world-class encyclopedia articles". There's a bonus chuckle in his Ken-like "over hope". --NotANumber (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * when Ed starts to call you my friend you know, he's up to something devious. What a sanctimonious prick 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * :Learn to live, we learn to give each other blocks, in general. And not each other, actually... 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it somewhat... unusual for them to be openly unhappy about someone departing? Don't they usually declare themselves (a) greatly relieved to be rid of the deceitful liberal prevaricator or (b) completely indifferent? First TK, now Ed? mb 23:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, Andy restored the status quo. Keegscee (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy's first sentence says a lot about him. He sees the world as completely black and white, and he thinks that teaching this to someone is "opening their mind." Though he recognizes that others don't share his view, he sees compromise and NOMA as self-denial. Also, he could definitely benefit from the following expression: "Don't try to have the last word. You might get it." 23:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Has anyone figured out what Bert is prattling on about here? Junggai (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone ever know what Bert is talking about? Keegscee (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or is the response in that thread getting ever more listless? I don't think Andy even believes what he just wrote. Junggai (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bert is searching for validation, he is only human. Is it me or is JimPT winning a conversation with Andy? --Opcn (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if by winning you mean "making reasonable points while Andy keeps falling back on a single shit example that doesn't match the situation, because that's all he's got," then yeah, but then, what else is new? Perhaps the fact that he's taking it and trying to argue back rather than threatening to block JimPT's ass for MYOB.
 * To me, it seems that Andy's conspicuously having to strain a little bit to justify his earlier comments. In most casess, he would have dismissed the situation immediately afterwards as typical liberal denial, but now, 2-3 days later, he's still letting himself be engaged in discussion about it. Junggai (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm curious as to why it's gone on for so long, and Andy seems to have no qualms about JDW leaving. I hope he does, and the same applies to JimPT. There's little they can achieve in Andy's star chamber of the illiterati.


 * Ed's comment provides a perfect example of an insincere attempt at being the voice of reason. Ed, here's a quick lesson in mediation. The goal is to try to establish yourself in a position of neutrality. It is oddly difficult to do this when you lavish all of your advice and criticism on one party. If this were a physical fight, Ed would be blowing Andy and jabbing JDW with a pointy stick while dispensing platitudes on how JDW should learn to accept disagreement. It's not about disagreement. It's about one guy trying to discuss a subject in a civil and reasoned manner while the other guy hurls red herrings and personal attacks. Ed, wipe your chin clean and quit CP to pursue your true calling in life. I suggest you'd make a fine door stopper, and in time you may even become a useful paperweight. If that fails; fill your pockets with stones and hurl yourself in to a river. You'll present the local water rescue teams with an invaluable opportunity to practice recovering the bloated corpse of a malicious dullard. 15:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL at the third suggestion for Ed being "useful". 03:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I guess some comments are more revealing of the author than the subject they're talking about. --Kels (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Guess who said it
Nice quiz for anyone who's been following so far: who said this in response to whom? The soul of polite conversation is to consider the feelings of others ahead of your own, and also to take about the issues at hand rather than about one's own feelings or the (imputed) personal shortcomings of your conversational partners.

And in case you guessed it was someone scolding Andy politely about having attacked JDW: WRONG!!! Here's the continuation: ''Anyone who fails to adhere to these rules is subject to being dropped from this project. Jim, consider this your first and only warning, as your comments above are a direct challenge to the very rule you have invoked. Or in plain English, don't come here to pick a fight with the boss. And don't play innocent, when we show you door when we catch you.''

Ed, you give weasels a bad name. You really don't know how corrupt you sound, do you? Junggai (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that Ken said "Deny this and loose all credibility"
Ken runs on and a reply --Opcn (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Loose credibility is a terrible thing. Cantabrigian (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a nice belt would help. --Kels (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * some more --Opcn (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Image not in Liberal media
It's there. Perhaps it should have been there during the Bush years. 04:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I love how giving poor people health cares makes you bad but starting two endless wars makes you pretty respectable. 18:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the image and a story about it on a CBS news site. Liberal media ftw.-- 22:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's "liberal" it can't be charity
Andy removes Bill Gates from Charity list. Edit comment: (Gates and Buffett's view of charity deserve criticism; I don't think they've built many hospitals either, and much of Gates' "charity" has gone toward liberal approaches to education) 11:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus-facepalm.jpg
 * --Sid (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Soooo.... only hospital-building qualifies as charity? All of sudden, Andy's quip "Atheists do not give to charities" makes perfect sense when you define "charities" as "religious organisations". Facepalm indeed. --Ireon (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is petty even by Andy's standards. Webbtje (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I hate Microsoft with a heated passion greater than the fires of perdition itself, but I do greatly respect Bill Gates for attempting to recreate the concept of the wealthy philanthropist. Here's a listing of the global health efforts of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (warning -- its a PDF). Okay, there aren't any hospitals, per se, but there's quite a commitment to health. MDB (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that negotiating and buying a buttload of medicine is uncharitable, and that Mr. Gates must build the building that contains the medicine to be considered so. But hey, what do I know? – Nick Heer 14:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to get specific medication to third-world countries then building a hospital is a pretty inefficient way of doing it. A hospital needs a lot of capital expenditure and where poor people don't have access to transport then getting to a hospital is almost impossible. Many small clinics, which may already exist, are a much better way way of disseminating treatment. Schlalfy is an utter moron and knows nothing of the rest of the world other than what he gets fom his biased right-wing US sources. Like most of the regulars at CP he is contemptible. 14:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's missing the point to call Schlafly insane. He is worse than that: he is contemptible, nasty, self-centered, and dishonest. Fawlty (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lil's got the word: "contemptible". Spot on, girl! 15:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"At least one?"
Please note how Andy censors an unwanted edit by using among the reasons that it contains "at least one" broken link. It contains EXACTLY one broken link, Andy. There were three links total, so it's not like it is so difficult to check them all, or to keep count.

I am rather irked by this usage of "at least one" to imply "more than one"; I had already remarked it when I read that the Shroud of Turin had caused the conversion of "at least one" scientist. Am I overreacting, or do other people find this usage of "at least" pathetic and leading? --Maquissar (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy? Pathetic?  Hard to believe...--WJThomas (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Am slightly more perplexed at the removal of the perpetrators names. It reminds me of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District where he wouldn't allow any mention of Tammy Kitzmiller because it took away from his ACLU bashing. 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I think it is typical from a person with a lawyer background to write it like that; after all it is how it is usually written in patents and other legal documents.  15:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Family Friendly?


I'm wondering why CP now has a picture of a on their front page.--WJThomas (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope i hope i hope oh boy do i hope Joaquín Martínez puts the London olympics "Orbit" under the World Treasure section one day. The fallout would be delightful. ONE / TALK 15:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Even worse, there's a giant glowing erect penis aimed at a happy ass on the top of the front page of conservapedia! --GTac (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The friendly people over at Wikipedia Germany recently lead with a picture of a hairy cunt. I mean a literal one. Andy can't let a bunch of radical feminist Eurotrash lesbians outperform him on the reproductive organ front, not when they're so dangerously close in the anti-science department. mb 15:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reminder: It's JM who put the "glansless" (see wp article for what the glans is) penile object on mainpageleft, not Andy.   21:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

New ape-human woman and little human ape unrecognized on CP?
Hi I'm new, but I've been an RW reader for awhile. Australopithecus sediba, the new human evolutionary link, was discovered in Africa (my understanding is that most of the undiscovered 'missing links' in evolution are likely in Africa, but that the geography and politics of the region make it incredibly difficult for discvoery): "When you talk to a biochemist or biologist at a university level these days about the 'evolutionary debate' they're likely to laugh; after all if you are knowledgeable modern scientist, you know that the vast body of molecular, genetic, fossil, anatomical, and field biology evidence all points to the same thing -- that organisms evolved via natural selection and genetic drift over the last 3 billion years. ('Sinful' Missing Human Evolutionary Ancestor Discovered in Africa)" Is Conservapedia stumped about how to spin this into their worldview, or are they formulating a new Lenski-esque dialogue about it? --Leotardo (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Conservatives don't get stumped. They evolved ideas like Liberal Deceit to deal with that. And everyone already knows that autumn foliage disproves evolution. 18:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Good old Jinx
Finds out about Rob's shennanigins (sp?) at last. 16:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "stumbled across this one" Stumbled. Indeed. -- Nx  / talk 16:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaand TK vanishes it ! 17:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an interesting thought. TK wants us to stop connecting his real name to his initials because the source of that connection (he claims) is the LA Times article that he now claims is inaccurate and can't be trusted.  However, his "proven vandal site" nonsense comes from exactly the same source.  So I guess it's not such a firm proof any more. --Kels (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, I hadn't thought of that. 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But the LA Times isn't the only source that says TK's name is really Terry Koeckritz, Terry H at Conservapedia also confirms it: http : //strike120.ning.com/profile/TerryKoeckritz 193.200.150.125 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If his name wasn't Terry Koeckritz then he wouldn't care. The fact that he does care proves that it is his name. QED. 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I've read a leaked email where he confirmed it. Meh, either way I want his ass Tweety (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

JDWpianist
Andy has decided that JDWpianist (contributor of many knowledgeable pieces on classical music) is a liar - or at least quite an oddity. The whole discussion is typical: Andy decided what the truth has to be - and to hELL with reality!

15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup! He's cruisin' for a bruisin'.
 * It's Ok to make poorly informed and nasty personal remarks about a person, but when he refutes their basis you get to shut the discussion off by saying you won't address the specifics because they're allegedly as anomalous as a marathon runner smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day? Andy Schlafly in a nutshell, really.


 * Are there any references to the day-age and framework viewpoints to the Genesis creation story on Conservapedia? Anyone? This "literalism" in a vacuum shit to support a YEC framework is getting out of hand. It seems the only biblical hermeneutic Andy and these YEC fundamentalists are capable of employing is EVERYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS THAT AGREES WITH ME IS READ "LITERALLY"/EVERYTHING ELSE IS ALLEGORICAL. In other words, Andy's faith isn't remotely informed by his reading of the bible, rather his reading of the bible is informed by his own ad hoc religion. He is a Christianist. 15:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Andy's faith isn't remotely informed by his reading of the bible, rather his reading of the bible is informed by his own ad hoc religion." Sounds a lot like your evisceration of diatribe against Phil. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although PJR's religion has a name - YEC. I'm not sure what to call Andy other than an apostate Catholic or a Christianist. In other words, you know what to expect when you talk to PJR. Andy's a whole 'nother ball of wax, just a hodge podge of extreme views. 17:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just sayin that PJR's religion informs his reading of the Bible, similar to Andy. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah dude, it's the same made-up shit. But at least PJR's cult has a name. 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, JDWpianist has always been striking me as a kind of expat Jensen. Having grown up in Vienna, I happen to know that he's not always completely accurate, but he seems to be sincerely interested in building a genuine encyclopedia, quietly adding useful article after useful article in exchange for no recognition whatsoever. He may be their absolutely, definitively, irreversibly last and final bona fide contributor. mb 16:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "...sincerely interested in building a genuine encyclopedia..." So you're saying he's opposed to Conservapedia's goals, then. --Kels (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's true! Some of us actually did attempt to build a genuine encyclopedia by writing real, factual articles, then we ran afoul of Conservapedia's Number One Unwritten Rule: "Andy is always right", and that was that. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Of course, some of us built it by copy/pasting WP articles. Just an aside here: I wonder how Andy deals with the fact that there's quite a few global-warming deniers running around, who were also paid by the tobacco companies to say smoking doesn't cause cancer (names escape me at the mo - remember it from 'the denial machine'. Are they now good people because they agree with Andy? -- PsyGremlin  17:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Andy is what gets you ahead on Conservapedia, it doesn't matter if you are a decent or honest person or not, just if you are sufficiently sycophantic on issues dear to his heart. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Obviously you won't address that Jesus expressly confirmed the occurrence of the Flood, so maybe you're picking and choosing passages that match your own preferences."
 * That's a bit fucking rich coming from a man rewriting the Bible. 17:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we now add "psychics" to the list of Andy's expertise, now that he can get to know a person better than the person himself with little or no physical/verbal interactions?  17:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, that's not new. Andy can tell with 95% certainty that you are liberal, atheist, support gun control and eating babies simply from the taste of your semen. -- PsyGremlin  17:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I LOL'ed. JWDpianist is an arse. Even if he believes in the idea of creating an encyclopedia, it should be pretty clear that CP is not the place where it's going to happen. The best he'll ever achieve is to create tiny fragments of scholarship in a sea of vitriol and junk. Andy's just accused him of being a liar and a false Christian. What else does Andy have to do to get rid of the guy? -- 19:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that JDWPianist is still around. Andy and co. have given him so much shit. He's been blocked, had articles deleted, and I think he even had an article swiped JacobB-style. In spite of that, he still sticks around. The guy's either a masochist or a complete moron. Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊. 商讨. 20:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Did any of you here read the pianoman's latest edit ? He's perfectly polite and sober by any reasonable standard... but he does point out Andy is not arguing in good faith and the CBP is a disaster. I guess that's it then. mb 20:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I read that, and it was a good reply, but ultimately pointless. JDW should know by now that Andy is not going to back down, and that even if JDW manages to prove that Andy is wrong, his comments will be quickly oversighted and we'll end up with yet another odd talk page conversation in which Andy appears to be arguing with himself. Even if the comments remain, I'm not sure who else is left to be warned by them? It's hardly a secret that Andy is a deranged lunatic intent on remaking Christianity in his own image, with Jesus being nothing more than a figurehead or a rubber stamp for Andy's Sermon on The Blog. -- 20:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy already replied in a predictable manner complete with red herring. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My favorite Schlafly Classic: "There is a high correlation between belief in evolution and liberal political beliefs; that correlation alone demonstrates that evolution cannot be factual." Them's logics, you can't argue 'gainst them, I don't who you are, them's true. 02:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Auf Wiedersehen, Andy Update: apparently this was an act of wiki-suicide? 03:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

JDW Pianist Says Buh-Bye...
Screencap P-Foster (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Poor bugger. At least he can salvage some dignity by walking away before TK came in to ban hammer him. -- 22:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thousands upon thousands of productive edits (Or are they? ;) A civilized, faithfull parting shot. What a loss. Please go help Wikipedia, JDW Alain (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pasted in from later section. 03:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, JDWpianist has excused himself very gracefully. Perhaps this is my brie-nibbling, latte-sipping Eurosocialist elitism talking, but it was obvious to me from his articles this man had too much taste and style for a madhouse like Conservapedia. I've been waiting for this for almost a year, i. e. from back when he was one contributor among, er, several. I've updated the archive so the circumstances of the pianist bowing out will be preserved for the benefit of future historians. mb 03:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * JDWpianists's comments in this section are amusing to read, too. Indeed, the world history lecture provided us with numerous insights: English is the best language, Prussia is Germany, Orwell was not only a republican, but a Republican  07:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * KBinbota hereby outs himself and declares himself really sorry to see JDWP go. The high win quotient I experienced in that debate made me happy as a pig in shite.   DogP Marmite Patrol 07:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole discussion is a little marvel: Best I like Andy's definition of obscure: anything he hasn't heard of... 07:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion added here. Junggai (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Classic difflink, courtesy of some asshole
03:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wha? mb 04:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this some oversight magic at play? Colonel of Squirrels白山羊不山羊. 商讨. 04:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been oversighted, not as far as I can tell. On the contrary, watch TK being considerate and sympathetic .mb 05:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * JDWpianist's wiedersehensgruß wasn't oversighted, but the (perhaps sympathetic) comment of another editor. Obviously, if not done by TK, commenting on such is thing is a violation of CP TK's MYOB-policy... 06:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, obviously. Very stupid of me. Thanks for setting me straight. mb 07:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I capped Hector's comment before going to bed since it was just the sort of parthian shot that gets oversighted quickly. Nothing we haven't seen before, and I'm mostly just uploading it since it was oversighted before most people here noticed it. --Sid (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well, you're right. The comment is true, the comment is perfectly accurate, the comment adds absolutely nothing of value. Some random parodist who got bored before he found his voice, as it were, and decided to go out with a bang. Thanks for capping it anyway; it's good to know we didn't miss anything of importance... or creativity. mb 11:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, yup, yup, aaaaaaaaaaaand yup. --Sid (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This confirms my view that Schlafly is secretly an atheist, communist evolutionist and that his master plan is to drive away any decent human being who happens to be a conservative. Either that or he's a total freaking moron. The Real James Brown (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no women on the Internet...
...or at least on CP. Remember the good ol' days of Deborah, Justine, Bethany, Sharon, Jess, HSMom? Now, if memory serves, there isn't a single member of the fairer, cookie-baking sex left on CP. Just sayin'. -- PsyGremlin  18:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough I just saw a wonderful bit of parody on CP, in which someone has managed to sneak in a brief guide to masturbation. I suspect that advice is pretty useful now that the boys have managed to drive all the girls out of their fort. I won't link the page in question, but well done whoever managed that. It's been up now for over 2 years.-- 18:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mama Schlafly would be proud. Keegscee (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh! You e-mail linky nao pleez? Erm... just so I can read the parody, of course. -- PsyGremlin  18:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too! I was asking first, Psy just outeditconflicted me. mb 18:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mails sent. I wonder if women are leaving because of the sheer aggression from Andy and and a few of his fellow sausage wielders. The JDWpianist comments were amazingly harsh and fairly typical of Andy's "You're a fucking liar and you're going to burn in hell" approach to handling those who don't fully embrace the Schlaflyianity. -- 19:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Concerned Resident", women are more likely to be atheistic, feminist and liberal. Using basic statistics, one can deduce that the number of women on Conservapedia is inversely proportionate to the number of individuals who have accepted that Jesus Christ confirmed the flood. Seeing as how 100% of Americans know the Flood is real and that evolution is evil, you can draw your own conclusions. Godspeed. -- VradientHit me up 19:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the mail mate. I LOLd. Several times, actually. Work of art. mb 20:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a safe bet that Opcn would want that link too ;) --129.19.137.241 (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can haz e-mailz? EddyP (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like emails. -- VradientHit me up 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to see! 20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see too, but dont email it too much, 8 clicks the same day on a non-homosexuality-related page will blink red on TK's radar... He will notice something strange and fix it. Alain (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Yeah, I'm hesitant to send on any more copies. We do not own Conservapedia. We merely take care of it for our kids. -- 21:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh! I will so HomeSundaySchool my kids with RW!!! tanks for the idea, ConcernedR! Alain (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, email it tomorrow then? plz? Senator Harrison (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Screenshot and send to every e-mail on the planet except TK and Rob, plz? ~ Kupochama[1][2] 06:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sign me up as well. Thank you.   15:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sumbuddy Email it to mee pleeese! --Opcn (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we create a private forum for this kind of stuff? Oh wait... -- Nx  / talk 16:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CR, the Super One awaits your email, if you'd be so kind... 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay. I'll upload it somewhere today or tomorrow and mail a link to it. -- 12:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

On the original subject - that's true, CP did use to have several regularly contributing women editors - HSMom, Jallen, Bethany, SharonS, (and was Addison female?) but they haven't been seen in ages. I guess CP is a mens-only club. Refugee talk page 18:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Stubby
I found what may well be Ed's shortest article. Excluding the title and the external link, zero text. It's a lot like copy/paste, only lazier.--WJThomas (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there had been even shorter ones (where he didn't even give a link description), but I don't have any examples handy. --Sid (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember one or two stubs where he just copied and pasted a link in. Even that, though, isn't as short (or as funny) as this. 01:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * cp:Eft is another contender for the record. --MarkGall (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That one might take the cake - he doesn't even bother to capitalize, though he does link to the "newt" article. 01:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They mostly come out at night... mostly. Stile4aly (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that short though, really. Sure it's his shortest?  Anyway, the other 187 editors will soon flesh it out!  03:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the shortest stub. zero text, not even external links . (Somebody else is updating it for him with a stub tag and someone else changed it to speedy deletion candidate.)  04:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * KnThreeOhNine for he win! 07:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What's remarkable about that is he added a category. Virtually every other stub of his is category-free except for the really stupid ones that he makes up like cp:Category:Movies about football coaches with 11-year-old daughters or cp:category:Microsoft Problems. 09:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid, half of the 187 editors are blocked now :-) 06:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why thank you so much for explaining the joke. mb 06:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically that was a new joke. ONE / TALK 12:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, it's not real humour. Sorry, humor.Webbtje (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget smart growth, a personal favorite. TheMayor (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We should have a page of Ed stubs. 17:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a wiki of 'em. 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, very funny Toast. 17:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that they would fit onto a handy single page rather than rooting round a grubby blog. Sorry but I'm a lazy slob. 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ask and ye shall receive [[Image:Winking0001.gif]] CS Miller (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Goddamn, is Ken Ed a worthless asset to that site. He writes like a fecking four year old. He started an article on a movie called Hounddog and from the edit comments it seems he wrote it as he was watching the movie. It's like reading a retarded kids blog. The last sentence of the "article": "Then the girl gets rape, having been lured to an isolated shack," accompanied by the edit comment: "at this point, I stopped watching." Too funny. 19:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That brightened my day up a bit. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind SuperJosh but I took the liberty of changing Ken to Ed. --NotANumber (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, dear NAN, not at all... 23:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I can't believe nobody has mentioned the PoorTwitapedia in the course of this discussion. Maybe it should finally be moved to CP namespace and linked around. ONE / TALK 20:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an idea. Let's do this like the annotated Bible that can be extracted for quotes.   21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the PoorTwitaPedia. Awesome. Is this still work in progress? I could scan my archive for additional Ed stubs very efficiently; would it make sense for me to go looking? mb 13:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It was originally created as a snapshot in time, but it can cetainly be added to, I can even hack together a script to pull out new articles to add if I can remember how I did it originally :) 19:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I maintain a complete mirror of the entire site on a local drive, so it's just a matter of a few finds and greps. The are are currently 798 pages in the article namespace less than 200 characters long. Many of them are "Terms" list pages with just one or two terms on them but fully 495 are classic stubs. Most of them, based on a few spot checks, appear to be Ed emesis. mb 23:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What gets me about Ed more than his stubs are his ridiculous categories that are way too specific: "films made in the 1980's about boys who get bullied in high school" and that sort of thing. Refugee talk page  18:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuke WIGO
Sorry to be a nuisance but TK, not Andy, posted the news item about the reduction in the number of nukes the US has. --NotANumber (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, nice catch. Acei9 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to fix this, so if anyone asks, I'm the one who did. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters, I removed it because it ruined an otherwise decent wigo. -- Nx  / talk 21:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nx, TK aint funny. Acei9 21:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Thanks Ace. I've enjoyed RW for a long time and it's nice to be able to help out once in a while, albeit in minor ways. I'm sorry for ruining the WIGO though! --NotANumber (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're Overlord? -- Nx  / talk 21:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not me Nx - it's hard enough wiki-editing as myself without having socks! --NotANumber (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * TK is not funny to the cabal. The cabal can go fuck themselves. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The cabal frequently fuck themselves and others. Acei9 21:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saying that non-cabalists still occasionally find TK funny. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad you enjoy him. Acei9 21:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad you are glad. Let's go for a long walk together. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we hold hands? Acei9 21:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Only because yours are so soft. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I use a cream. Acei9 21:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-cabalist here: Tk is not funny but interesting to watch like a train-wreck or the freak show at the state fair. A bit like Marcus Cicero... I dont understand why you guys bannninnated them after having fed those troll for years. Oh, yeah, the lawsuit... OOoOOoOOh.. scary :P man 4chan has been up for years now, even with scientology on their back. They have absolutely no case about RW. It's a schlafly FBI menace redux. Alain (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As a wanna-be Cabalist, I share the opinion that TK isn't usually much fun. MC was a little better, but noisy all the time instead of just during CP slumps...and not everybody enjoys watching trolls interrupt threads and flip articles over. Anyway, the WIGO itself was at least decently written... ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * TK, the wannabe intellectual, doesn't understand what begging the question means. Stupid old fart. 09:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where? 08:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy Runs Out Of Ideas
Now Andy's fussing that, with Stevens's retirement, the Supreme Court will have too many Catholics. I predict that Andy will next complain that the Court has too many conservative Republicans in it's ranks. Damn those liberals and their wicked schemes to foment their atheistic homosexual baby-killing agenda!--WJThomas (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Catholic bashing is so steel mill era.
 * What is interesting is that Andy is Catholic, and is defending bringing up the "issue" of no Protestants in SCOTUS in the main talk page. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Man, I screwed that one up. It's Chippy who added that tidbit, not Andy. Wonder how Dear Leader will handle this one...Nice knowin' ya', Chip.--WJThomas (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems close enough to Andy's thought process to fit right in. 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see how it's terribly significant, but the lack of Protestants on the Court is an interesting factoid. I was sure he was wrong, but I didn't realize both Roberts and Thomas are Catholic. I suppose there might well be some pressure to appoint a Protestant. Shouldn't be hard to find one, I hear they're quite popular. DickTurpis (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not all that familiar with the people who are on the court right now, but is the majority catholic because the majority of them come from the Northeast? Then that might actually be significant because they're all coming from an area famed for its elitism and general snobbery. 18:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going back to the suggestion I made when Bush made his last nomination -- Butterstick, the baby panda at the National Zoo. (Okay, he's gone back to China now. So sue me.) Not only would he be the first Asian-American Justice, he'd be the first adorable-American justice. And what Senator could say no to a panda, huh? Even the hearings would be a breeze! "Mister Butterstick, would you care to clarify your statement from 5/13 regarding Griswold v. Conn.... awwww! he's eating bamboo now! How cute!" MDB (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How many muslims are there on the Supreme Court? 21:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fourty two. 04:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The moment Obama was sworn in they all converted to being secret muslims. --Kels (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Secret Marxist atheist communist Kenyan-born muslims. Accuracy dear boy, accuracy.-- 15:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean Secret Marxist atheist communist Kenyan-born muslim nazis. Accuracy... Internetmoniker (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Darn, forgot the Nazis. I'll hang my head in shame.-- 16:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean Secret Marxist Atheist Communist Kenyan-born Muslim Nazis Homosexual Abortionists Evolutionist Eugenicists Reletivitiest Relativist Bible-denyiers who can't abstract. Accuracy... --Opcn (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sysop promotion
DouglasA finally makes sysop. --MarkGall (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now he gets to make sure people only use their real first name and last initial. 17:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * About time. Countdown to him abusing the privilege in 3...2...1... 03:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Late by a few days per 50/50 talk rule. --Sigma 7 (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yo, Fuck y'all, someone ought to get this all up in Andy's shit
(moved to the Saloon Bar) 23:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

quick learner
Daniel knows the score..... Acei9 21:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No sane person can talk like that without an agenda. What are you up to DanielePulido? 22:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sane being the key word there. This is a Cp sysop we're talking about. 00:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's Poe I assure you. there is no reason to talk like  unless it's parody.  03:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Good old Ed
Man made global warming, asbestos & second hand smoke? All junk science, he says. 17:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought second hand smoke was junk science? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell Roy Castle that. 17:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the substances in second hand smoke are definitely toxic and some are carcinogenic. It can hurt you, but I don't think it's something you should worry about unless you spend a lot of time in a smoky bar.  18:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or are a kid who lives in a house where your parents both smoke. 18:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If they believe DDT is not hazardous, why is nobody repealing the ban about its use in the US since 1972? Better yet, why would a republican president (Richard Nixon) sign this into law in 1972 in the first place?   18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that jazz musician did blame second hand smoking for his lung cancer...guess that settles it. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which I'm inclined to believe. That building didn't have much airflow going through it, and burning any kind of organic material (i.e. tobacco) produces hydrocarbons that can cause lung cancer if you breath too much of it. I love how Ed is such a frustrated man that he's willing to believe anything some corporate expert-for-hire tells him as long as he can use it to bash liberals and environmentalists. Does anyone really believe asbestos is good for you? 18:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Ed, he did specify asbestos removal, which I'm inclined to think id often unnecessary. As for second hand smoke, is there really anyone in the world who doesn't believe second hand smoke is harmful? The question only remains how harmful. It's cigarette smoke, plain and simple. "Cigarette smoke causes cancer" is one of those tautologies Andy like to go to when he needs to make a point about people denying obvious truths. I guess Ed didn't get the message. DickTurpis (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing. While the way society treats these dangerous things and what trade-offs need to be made can be debated, the science behind their danger is not "junk" by any definition. As for asbestos, the removal is often far worse than just leaving it up with a DON'T TOUCH sign. 18:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And some people actually do debate the cigarette smoke-cancer link. They're all ex-lobbyists and other corporate types like Fred Singer and Steve Milloy, and conservatives and environmental reactionaries definitely pay attention to them and believe this crap. 18:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to find Roy Castle's explanation plausible, but you can't be certain that his cancer wasn't caused by radon in his basement, asbestos in his attic, anything in between, a virus or any particulate. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the EU says that 19,000 non-smokers die from second-hand smoke every year. But what do governments and doctors know?--BobSpring is sprung! 17:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Did TK even think about the implications of this one?
74% of voters think America is weaker than it was ten years ago, according to TK's latest "In the News" item.

Gee, who was President for most of that time? And who controlled Congress for somewhat less, but still over half, that time? MDB (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In what world could the US possibly get STRONGER in that period of time? Answer: a world without China, India, the EU, or the rest of the industrializing world.  18:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * EU is still industrializing? Vulpius (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of its eastern members are, yes, though I didn't actually intend it to be part of that list: EU and China, India, and the rest of the industrializing world. 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, a World without anyone else wouldn't make the US stronger anyhow. They need to get a way to stop those countries from industrializing.   21:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It got weaker on Jan 20, that's why. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is weaker. In April 2000 Bill Clinton is in office.  then somebody ran the country down to the ground for 8 years.  Now a different guy is in office, of course it takes time to catch up.   21:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. This is why I agree with the conspiracy that the Republicans basically threw the election by picking some old git that probably wouldn't be able to live through the term and a bimbo who is, frankly, dumb as a fucking moose, to back him up. The Bush years set the scene for a ton of shit, but people are idiots with a short term memory. So when the shit did come, Obama would be President, people would blame him and the Democratic Party and this would set the stage for at least 8 more years of Republican rule during a boom. One of the more interesting things I've read recently is that Obama, from the very begining should have branded this as "The Republican Recession", which it really is in all fairness. In the UK, Labour did a great job of riding on poor management by the previous Conservative government which got them through a good few years (their problem is that they were still doing it a full decade later), Obama would have been entitled to do the same trick given the circumstances in the US with the economy and the wars - Obama inherited a turd, so why are people blaming him for being unable to polish it? Well, because people are idiots, unfortunately. 20:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The True Colors of Atheism
In Andy's world, the fact that Dawkins is threatening to have his Poopiness the Hole arrested is a sign of 'the true colors of atheism'. I wonder what he calls Benny XVI allowing his little bugger boys to carry on molesting children? The true colors of Catholicism maybe? That said, I think it is a publicity stunt by Dawkins, but one geared towards highlighting the Pope's failure to do anything about abusive priests. And why shouldn't an atheist kick up a fuss, seeing as the religious mob prefer to keep quiet. -- PsyGremlin  12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's potential for a legal shitefest over this, but I doubt it will go very far. As you say, publicity stunt. I note the hypocrisy of Andy calling anyone an 'anti-(x) bully' when he is violently anti-(various things) himself and bullies people into agreement in his little playground. Webbtje (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see: atheists want a man who is complicit in several child sexual abuse cases to stand before justice. If those are the true colors of atheism, that's fine by me. Must be that lack of absolute morality again. -- Nx  / talk 15:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, the little fact that what TK said isn't actually true might also have some bearing on this. To be fair to him, though, the headline of the Times article is very badly worded, but simply reading the article itself would have told him this. 92.16.29.26 (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nx. I cannot say it any better than that. I'd probably say the same thing to the people who think it's a publicity stunt. Even if it is (and just part of Dawkins' "consiousness raising" crusade) then it's not exactly a deplorable one is it? 19:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been very pissed about this utter lack of law enforcement response to these people with power raping children since he story broke in Boston, what, ten years ago? Cardinal Law got a sinecure in the Vatican - moving him beyond the purview of local cops.  He moved rapists with dog collars from place to place to cover up what amounts to a conspiracy to make it ok for grown men to touch children in ways we all despise.  So what if the grandstanders happen to be atheists?  In greater Boston a movement formed to make their "church donations" to a separate body pending the "outcome"... not up on the latest details because I stopped killing trees a while back.  03:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Rob, TK, DMorris... Ken?
Good old Ken is offering his deep insights (shorter section-only cap in the oversight image below) about Rob's antics on Wikipedia:
 * Wiki Humor: Abridged posting at Wikipedia on the talk page for their Conservapedia article: The gentlemen at a rather liberal wiki seem "to be pretty obsessed with Conservapedia and members seem to devote an inordinate number of edits to venting about CP or its members. That obsession seems to have drifted here a little. Conversely, I don't really see the same thing happening with Conservapedia editors.".
 * Translation: I think some people at a rather liberal wiki have "Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder". Perhaps, McMaster University will develop a course addressing this new disorder within their abnormal psychology curriculum. :)
 * Translation: I think some people at a rather liberal wiki have "Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder". Perhaps, McMaster University will develop a course addressing this new disorder within their abnormal psychology curriculum. :)

I'd normally ignore Ken's public masturbation, but this is worth archiving since it adds to the list of Conservapedians who enjoy piling on on this. So, who will be next?

For extra fun, at least one of Ken's edits has actually been oversighted: Compare his visible editing spree with this now missing diff. --Sid (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This coming from a man who obsessively picks up the red telephone to tell somebody how well his "My Experiences in regards to Homosexuality Obtained in the Third Stall from the Right in regards to the Men's Toilet next to the City Dump" are ranked on Google Outer Mongolia. -- PsyGremlin  13:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been following the whole Wikipedia thing, and it's absolutely insane with extra stupid sauce. Especially since  PCHS-NJROTC showed up and just sort of randomly started pushing the drama (while complaining how much they hate drama).  Honestly, does Rob think he's accomplishing anything besides annoying all the sane editors?  --Kels (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno what will happen officially in the article space, but Rob managed to completely drive CP's reputation on the talk page into the ground. This is epic failure of Conservapedia as a whole. It's obvious that they all see what's happening, and nobody tries to step in. On the contrary, they're cheering him on. You can't tell me that Ed or Geo don't know what's going on - they're both close to at least TK, after all. Their failure to control Rob is just as bad as PCHS-NJROTC's involvement. See if I ever assume good faith with any Conservapedian again. --Sid (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can just imagine if Rob followed through on his empty threats of Arbcom. There'd be multiple injuries from laughter and headdesk incidents alone. --Kels (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This can only end in Rob being old to shut the F up. It's a nice demonstration of the reality-challenged CP mindset at work. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So far, everybody coming in from the outside is actively ignoring it. My fear is that he'll get away with it, and maybe that his nonstop trolling will even be rewarded. --Sid (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, they might not be commenting, but I doubt outsiders coming in are really looking at his mess and concluding that he's sane. DMorris in particular is transparently looking for attention and drama, and a quick look at his User Talk page shows this is nothing new for him.  TK has been smart enough to only make one or two snipes and otherwise keep his distance, and Rob isn't exactly making himself look too stable.  I doubt he's getting a lot of fans and supporters. --Kels (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. TK was really the only one who was smart enough to stay out of the spotlight once he fully realized that the WP rules wouldn't work in his favor. DMorris is either trolling or really doesn't have a firm grasp of what's been going on, and Rob tries to... to... I don't even know what he's trying to do, but this sentence from a recent post sums up his modus operandi well, I think: "The WP:DR, WP:BFAQ, WP:BLP issues are yet to addressed or in process; it's too early to attempt WP:CON on WP:NPOV." --Sid (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt the WP Admins will fall for Rob. From what I've seen, they've seen it before.  I doubt they will block him, however, unless he starts editing an article lots.  Šţěŗĭļė 23:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Google ranking delusion has reached his holiness Aschlafl. Y.
Being in the (digital) proximity of Ken has degraded Andy's mental state even further. Click to see why it is ranked no. 1 on Google! Number 1! Woohoo! CP is champion of the world! Internetmoniker (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The family friendly summary of the article: "Hollywood values are characterized by decadence, narcissism, rampant drug use, extramarital sex leading to the spread of sexually-transmitted disease, ..." EddyP (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in fairness to Ken (now there's a phrase I never thought I'd say), Andy has been obsessed with pageviews for years, even though he knows that a lot of his pageviews are from RW users. 15:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bragging about the fact CP turns up first if you type in "Hollywood values" in the google search field is even more moronic than bragging about pageviews. At least the pageviews tell you something about people reading seeing articles. I also call deceit on this bit: "Click our entry and see why it is ranked number one by Google" yet the article tells me nothing about Google's algorithms, it's just a list of famous people who have died. Internetmoniker (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that stupid... or at least consistency can be found in the stupidity. Andy surely means "Because of the high quality of the article Google (bla bla), as you can see here". — Pietrow   ☏  15:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Google doesn't rank according to quality. This is the same thing Ken keeps thinking. Internetmoniker (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The other weird thing is this: Andy hates Google. 16:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick read of our Andrew Schlafly article would explain why it's ranked higher than CP's effort. Isn't attention whoring liberal style? -- 16:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

To put things in perspective: 18:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Should we have a CP article for such things like that google trends? To put things in another perspective.   20:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * explain this --Stocking (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Any Idea on what a professor should be professing that is different from a senior lecturer?
here. 20:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How can someone who went to college be so ignorant of how professorships work? Keegscee (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In all fairness they don't sit the students down and explain the ranks to them. You go in to class and get introduced to Professor So-and-so, and Dr. Thing, how they titles are related to one another is not really a concern unless you are looking for a job and the titles are largely dependent on the particular university. Chicago says they use Senior Lecturer for the non-tenured equivalent of a Professor. Keep in mind he was working in a law firm and being a State Senator whilst simultaneously holding this lecturing job, it is not like he would have been a full faculty member. 08:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is still a story? The right wing could barely tolerate people looking into whether Bush Jr. went AWOL from the National Guard, yet they're parsing whether a word is capitalized in order, to what? To say Obama was only a Senior Lecturer at one of the finest educational institutions in the world instead of a big P Professor. Brilliang. Muy brilliang. 13:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ken still can't use preview
boring. 10:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And Andy's a bad person. Not like it's news. Disgusting, though. 10:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC) I know it's tk, but still. Disgusting. (see image) 10:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the best way to keep young people involved in your organization is to rape the shit out of them then lie about it.Livingabomination (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, TK is a malevolent genius. Under the guise of "breaking news" he's managed to illustrate the front page of CP with a big ol' swastika. What a wonderful first impression it makes!--WJThomas (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True that. Not genius, though. Just malevolent.   12:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant in relation to Andy, but I suppose that's a pretty weak standard.--WJThomas (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait. What? The "homosexual agenda" poses a grave threat to religious liberty? Wut!? 13:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it does. It threatens the religious liberty to stone gay folk. 92.18.184.197 (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things: first, since when does Andy care what some foreign person thinks about anything American?  Oh yeah, when they agree with him..... Answered my own question.  Second, does TK really think that people are so stupid they'll just assume that "National Socialist" means exactly the same as "Socialist" does today?  What an idiot.  17:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Poland
Plane crash in Russia kills 96 - Poland's President, Bank Governor Die in Plane Crash

Really, that's all? No follow up? No note of compassion for this tragedy of the Polish people? And no update of the article on cp:Poland?

Could someone please help Ed Poor with the headline - as he has asked for? 14:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for ef's sake, Ed! I know there are no football coaches with 11-year-old daughters involved to grab your interest, but it still wouldn't take much effort to write a proper headline. Vulpius (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Foot meet mouth
This really just says it all about Conservapedia. 16:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That was just beautiful. Tomorrow on CP:Mainpage:  A link to a YouTube clip featuring John Cleese goose-stepping and not mentioning the war.-- 18:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is there an image linked to itself for a signature...? 22:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of language?
I was shaking my head in disbelief at Counterexamples to Evolution ... but then, meanwhile, I noticed that the article on Language admits "the most wide held belief is that language has evolutionary origins", and several of the language articles even say that some languages are "descended from" other languages! Does the Conservative Bible omit the part about the Tower of Babel? I have to wonder what the CP crew would say if asked, when the first English-speaking person was born, who else was there who he could talk to? - Cuckoo (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I found this bit of sheer idiocy. Why is it idiocy? Because it tries to link in the Chinese language with how it varied from Sumerian, because of the Tower of Babel. Fucking idiots. And dates are quoted, such as '2247 BC at the earliest', 'cus the bible says so. Tits. Tweety (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Language article does say that language's origins have never been proven definitively. In any case, it's important to remember that CP is not and has never been a coherent whole. It is a work in progress riddled with contradictions, parody, and lazy editing (read: Ed Poor). 23:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Another Ed classic
Dihydrogen monoxide. I'd forgotten about this important article that every "trustworthy' encyclopaedia should have. -- PsyGremlin  17:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed his answer to the suggestion of putting it into the essay space: "I want more Google hits." &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, resident parodist JacobB is reading us. Gotta love his "I deleted and recreated this, to hide the fact that Ed wrote this piece of shit...". Except the history is still there for all to see. -- PsyGremlin  18:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that he's reading us is slightly overshadowed by the fact that he is one of us. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * APROPOS OF ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, I haven't been editing over at CP in two or three weeks. Actually, I haven't even been watching for a couple days. I did get the angry message, but I honestly have no idea what the sender was referring to. mb 21:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh. The first version is at least tolerable in that it tries to clarify the whole mess and just say what this whole thing is about, but all versions since then are the same sneaky old-meme fodder, hilarious to noobs only. Warning to Conservapedia readers: Everyone has already heard this joke. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And it's just plain bad. Nobody who actually knows chemistry would call water dihydrogen monoxide. There's no possible way for hydrogen and oxygen to combine other than as H2O, so you just call it hydrogen oxide. 21:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)?-- 21:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And in solution, hydroxide(OH-)-- 21:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hydronium (H3O+) &mdash; Unsigned, by: Stocking / talk / contribs
 * Well, the only way for H and O to combine as a stable compound is H2O. And peroxides you call peroxides. So yeah. 03:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it bad that at laughed at this edit comment? Keegscee (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC) a:Nah, that's pretty funny for Ed! 22:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And it's Jeebus related as well, reinforcing Andy's point about humour. Well done Ed.-- 23:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be the first deliberately funny thing he's done that I've laughed at. 23:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed's final comment on the talk page kind of makes sense. I'm scared. Hold me. -- 23:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If Ed's making too much sense for you, let not your heart be troubled: The Importance of Sex. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, TK...
Can't you at least be a little more subtle? 00:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All he wants is attention. Don't give it to him. Acei9 00:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, true that. But the point is: even I could write better parody that that. 00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When everybody who could possibly stop you is either gone or convinced that you're the best thing that ever happened to the site, you don't need to be subtle anymore. --Sid (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sid wins the internet for completely summing up TK's history in just two links. EddyP (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Choice wigo
According to Conservapedia, the trusworthy encyclopedia, the Liberal Party is now in power in England. Truly, they don't have a clue. Fawlty (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In other news, gravity still makes things fall down. 15:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They also fail to mention the fact the UK Conservative Party would be judged hopelessly liberal by pretty much any standard that Andy would use. 16:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How liberal is the UK conservative party compared to American democrats? About the same? Jaxe (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Typical Andy "you don't have a clue" Schlafly. The so called Conservative party ticks most of the 'boxes' on CP's list of Liberal positions and practices. Andy "open your mind" Schlafly has been informed of this numerous times, but his having an open mind means it goes in one ear and straight out the other. What ever way the election turns out, going by Andy "faith and logic" Schlafly's definitions, it will be an overwhelming endorsement of 'liberality'. Auld Nick (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Prepare for bullet-point rebuttal to stupid news item:
 * 1) The Liberal Party haven't been in power since the early 1920s, and even then that was a coalition.
 * 2) By American standards, the British Conservative Party today are practically socialists.
 * 3) "Lose power in England," - England don't have self rule, we're part of the United Kingdom, you ingrate.
 * 4) The Conservative Party was four points ahead less than a week ago. Not exactly a red state/blue state divide.
 * 5) Buzzwords: "conservative," "liberal," "power," "substantial," "losing liberals." All the markings of a classic Andy news item. Now shut up. 19:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If anything, such a small gap in the poll figures between the two parties reflects badly on the Conservatives. This is one of the most unpopular governments in history, yet the Conservatives still cannot get a decent lead. --Grey (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Minor point -- Andy confusing "England" and the "The United Kingdom" may be a mistake, but it's one a lot of Yanks make. They're used pretty interchangeably here in the States, accurately or not. MDB (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently, according to the all wise S Fry esq: But you might say, when you meant Britain, you say, "Oh yeah, you know, the English, er . . . are very good at, blah, blah," and you actually mean Britain, although, y'know. And the fact is, it was perfectly normal to say "England" for all of Britain right up until the 1930s, when Scottish nationalism arose and they got rather offended by it. Benjamin Disraeli signed the Treaty of Berlin, er, as the Prime Minister of England. He meant . . . He meant Great Britain technically. The one part stood for the whole. Er, so, the book . . . The Oxford History of England is actually the history of the British Isles.
 * 13:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, he should have said The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). CS Miller (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

American Knowledge of England
Okay, here's what the typical American knows about England:


 * England -- ruled by a Queen who has a lot of screwed up kids, one of whom married a very pretty lady who got killed. (We all felt bad for you all then.) You helped us win World War II. People talk funny.
 * Typical English people: the aforementioned Queen, most of the bad guys from Star Wars, whoever is your President Prime Minister now, the guys in funny hats in front of the Queen's house.
 * What it looks like: London and castles.
 * Scotland: People talk even funnier. The men wear dresses (but they don't call them dresses.)
 * Typical Scottish people: Sean Connery, Groundskeeper Willie from The Simpsons, the Loch Ness Monster, bagpipers.
 * What it looks like: Mountains, castles, a big lake with a monster.
 * Northern Ireland: Things blow up a lot. We're really not sure why, except it involves an argument about God between people who talk funny.
 * Typical Northern Irish people: Either getting blown up or causing people to get blown up, leprechauns, (do they play the bagpipers there, too?)
 * What it looks like: Explosions.
 * Wales: ???? (Presumably, people talk funny.)

MDB (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The typical American also finds the terms "England," and "Britain," or "UK," interchangeable, as above. 17:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't "Britain" and "UK" interchangeable? I thought so, and the atheistic eurotrolls at WP seem to agree. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're being pedantic about it, Britain (as in Great Britain) is the island which England, Wales and Scotland are on, while the United Kingdom refers to the monarchical union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, hence "United Kingdom of...". Britain and UK are fairly interchangeable however, though technically meaning different things. England and Britain aren't, as England is a constituent country making up Great Britain, albeit the largest one. 17:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I trust that this settles it. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Typically only one town is shown - London. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact that MDB is now off me and Human's Xmas card list (look you, boyo), for not knowing a thing about Wales, here's a brief summary. The United Kingdom is made up of 4 races: The Welsh, who pray on their knees and their neighbours; the Scots, who keep the Sabbath and everything else they can lay their hands on; the Irish, who don't know what the hell they want, but are willing to die for it; and the English, who consider themselves to be self-made men, thereby saving God one helluva responsibility. -- PsyGremlin  17:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * God bless the United Kingdom!! 17:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(unDent) Just to clarify -- I was speaking of the typical American's knowledge. I am an atypical American. I know a smidge about Wales:
 * It's to the west of England proper.
 * The Heir Apparent to the throne is Prince of Wales, due to an agreement that's centuries old. And I seem to remember he's expected to be able to speak Welsh.
 * You like really long names, and are the reason "w" is a vowel sometimes and an old friend manages to pronounce that has only L's and N's for consonants to begin with an "eff". MDB (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You forgot to make a joke about sheep-fucking or leeks. 07:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mo'n ddrwg, achos Americanwr. At bod ffair hymddangosi at adnabod yn anad'r 'n Ffrengig.-- 18:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wales, where you ask for directions and people gargle at you. -- PsyGremlin  18:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally love the fact that there are 25 000 Welsh speakers in Argentina. That's one hell of a swim.-- 19:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be less pedantic, the Great Britain (and GBR & GB) thing is more complicated than that. As well as being simply the island, Great Britain is commonly and officially used to mean the UK in numerous international agreements and frameworks along with things like the Olympic Team GB. It's an historical term for what is now the UK and still widely used. Likewise Britain - and I don't think Britain is ever correctly used as a short form for Great Britain. The citizens of the UK are British and we have British passports. So, at least, it is perfectly correct to refer to the UK as Britain and it is also accurate, in many contexts, to refer to the UK as Great Britain, GBR or GB. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Historically, we will fuck you Brits up. That's all they need to remember. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, OK. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sound like the Vikings are back then.-- 18:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, they only used to fuck up the wimpy Saxons. Us Celts were hard bastards. -- PsyGremlin  18:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Historically," we're all Germanic, whether it be Celt or Anglo-Saxon. Lucky for me I'm both. 19:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Historically" we're all African, just that some of us lost our tans crossing the Alps. 07:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Edited conversation from my only visit to the US: USA - Hi there. Bob - Good afternoon my good man. USA - Hey! you know you talk kinda funny. Where you from? Bob - I come from the ancient Principality of Wales. USA - Wow! That's a coincidence. I'm going to Australia next month. (This is a true story)--BobSpring is sprung! 19:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * #facepalm# Seriously, I know Australia was once part of the British Empire, but was it ever considered part of the "United Kingdom"? MDB (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Americans, plus others, get Wales confused with New South Wales. Personally, I find it annoying when Google does. Especially if I'm trying to find a pizza place near me&hellip;-- 19:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've feigned ignorance about the world to indulge the stereotype the rest of the world has for us. So many people have such huge chips on their shoulders about it, like somehow it's important. Makes for a good laugh on both sides. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also met a couple of guys who wouldn't believe that Canada wasn't a seperate country. They were certain it was part of the USA.  Yes, I did the "same continent" question, but they insisted it was part of the USA.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

UCL WIGO
The University College of London is prominent, Andy, because it was the first university to be founded in London. It is also the sixth best uni in the UK according to the Guardian League Tables, although that's obviously leftist propaganda I suppose... 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So is the Times ranking it the fourth best university in the world, I suppose. And the contributions to science. And the fact that it was the first secular university in the UK. etc etc etc Webbtje (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh and the whole "The information is all there in front of me but it's on Wikipedia so I'm not going to read it despite all the citations" is quite funny too.Webbtje (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did anyone else feel nothing when Andy said, "We think for ourselves here"? Guess I'm used to Andy's stupidity--Thanatos (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Capt. 22:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * W/C --Thanatos (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. 23:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry :) You only put in Capt., so I initially read it as Captain Mei. Me, I like the airforce, so I put W/C, which designates Wing Commander in RCAF. It was a little joke. BTW, I also outrank you :p--Thanatos (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah ya do. 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Thanatos - OK that makes sense. Clearly I cannot keep saying "Capt" without people thinking I have been made captain of something. To clear up this confusion, I will have to actually join the airforce. Strangely I am OK with being Captain Mei. :3 03:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Capt. Mei too, but seriously. It what she types when she adds "capture" tags to a cp difflink, noobs.  04:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad Andy has reminded us, in no uncertain terms, that "christians [what, all of them?] build hospitals and atheists don't". Cantabrigian (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh oh. What about the Ben and Hilda Katz building at Baycrest Hospital in Toronto. Hint - not Christians. 16:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't swear to it, but somehow, I suspect New York's Beth-Israel Hospital was not founded by Christians... MDB (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Psshh.. that's just a building at a hospital, not an entire hospital. Andy wouldn't even move the goalpost for that. Until Richard Dawkin's Hospital for Anti-Christians opens up, there's no point in trying. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the taxes etc crap, WTF has the date got to do with it? :::::::::::Taxing and spending by government does not count as "atheists building hospitals," and you didn't mention when UCH was built anyway.  22:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A conservative Militant Tendency?
My gob is smacked. "Fourth best university in the world" is stretching it a bit but "among the top ten in Europe" is pretty uncontroversial. What a staggering example of Schalfly's intellectual inadequacy: "I don't like the facts therefore they're not facts. Oh, and I'll stop anyone ever adding the actual facts to my encycloblog." Doesn't he realise that he's acting like a stupid, arrogant, ignorant dickhead (I was going to add "with the manners of a pig" but that would be offensive to porcines everywhere) because the facts can easily be checked by anyone with a reading age of 8? Doesn't he realise that this degree of moronicness (is that a word?) totally kills any credibility his pet project ever had?

His behaviour is what you might expect of someone who wanted to infiltrate American Conservatism and destroy it from the inside. Is Schlafly American conservatism's Derek Hatton? Is CP its Militant Tendency? Is Andy really a pothead liberal with a promiscuous gay lifestyle? Is CP often so completely dumb because he's stoned out of his mind? Too late, too much wine... But surely this is a logical explanation for CP? Also, please note, the hypothesis is testable: if anyone has ever seen Schalfly in a bathhouse, high on dope, railing against Obama's trimming and capitulating, please say so. Photographic evidence will help to convince sceptics. The Real James Brown (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're not the first to suspect Andy of being a deep cover liberal, but unfortunately Andy is probably sincere in as much as he can be. He's utterly bonkers, and unfortunately for him it's not in any way that would indicate genius. Perhaps he'd strap on some explosives and wander on to crowded bus if he weren't so comfortable in his funny little blog world, and it's unlikely his mother would give him the money for that kind of thing. Right now she's probably just glad that Andy has a hobby to keep himself occupied. -- 23:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * True: I should give him some credit for confining himself to promoting his loony views just by talk, talk, talk. "Better Ballot than Ballet", as I saw on a sign in Nepal during their revolution. The Real James Brown (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * He's simply playing to the gallery. He knows he will never "convert" anyone. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect he's actually decided to look down on UCL (I'm an undergrad there, it hurts!) purely because it's not in yankland to be quite honest. That and the fact that it's oh so godless and liberal. Webbtje (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A friend of mine is an undergrad there. She's a methodist - and one of my friends who gets annoyed if I mention that I think religion is bullshit - and I don't remember her complaining at all about any of the so-called atheistic teachings there, and she studies a science in I-can't-remember-what field. 13:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't atheistic, that's the thing - it's just secular, and prides itself on being the first UK university to be. There's a prominent Christian society as well as a very prominent Islamic one - sadly the latter is mainly prominent these days because of the underpants bomber. There's also a big Sikh soc, etc etc etc. Intrinsically atheistic my arse, it just doesn't stick crosses up all over the place or any silliness like that - the only thing that's atheistic about it is Bentham's influence over it in its formative years (and indeed his influence over the cloisters, embalmed, staring out of a box). Then again I suppose that anywhere that isn't Liberty university is atheistic in Arsefly's pocket book of standards. Webbtje (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Double Standard FTW
I was gonna Wigo this, but decided it fit better here. I love how Andy's mind works. Public School staff ignore warning signs, leading to the suicide of 15-year-old Phoebe Prince. Andy is outraged that they have not been fired for the record, I agree. However, when it comes to another older Caucasian gentleman who turned a blind eye to staff misconduct.... Well, he doesn't appear to have much of an opinion does he? 19:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh come on don't be coy, you mean Cardinal Ratnazinger, right? 12:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be a slut Human, being coy has its place --Stocking (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe, upon rereading my comment I thought I mispelded the Ratpope's name. Then I got my cheap joke and laffed. Again.  08:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Master of English
Everytime I see something like this, I just have to chuckle. "a notoriously and frequently ticketed driver crashed fatally head-on into a car turning left in front of his Porsche." Spot the error. Now, if you spotted the error, give yourself one point. If you spot the extra irony, give yourself another point. If you have two points, congratulations, you are better than Andy. I will say in his defense though, he did fix it right away. 07:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Even after the fix, it is still a very awkward sentence. Keegscee (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't really spot it, so I'm point-less. But regardless, there has to be a dozen ways of taking all that information and putting it into a technically coherent sentence, and that isn't one of them. 10:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

CP News Feed
You just gotta love the Conservapedia news feed. An endless source of lulz for numerous reasons- it shows, on a daily basis, that Andy still believes this stuff (and that TK's willing to go along with it), it shows how CP manipulate tragedies such as death to their own ends, it shows the blatant selective bias inherent in their project, and it shows their plain stupidity and ignorance of what they're actually talking about. Take for example the news entry on the Conservative Party from TK. It's not fooling anyone: everyone knows, even Andy, (as he has said countless times himself that we're all socialists in the UK) that by US standards the British Conservative Party are roughly at the same position on the political spectrum as the American Democrats. TK ends the item with "the Conservatives lead Labour by 7%," even though about 10 days ago it was 4%, 2 days ago it was 8% (which they have on their mainpage) and now it's 7%. But more than anything I just love how it's degenerated to a radical right-wing fundie tabloid of a website. A lot of news items end with "maybe he/she/it/they/Obama are planning on doing this/that/the other/terrorism???" while others just end with "why can't liberals admit deceit???" Andy's really doing more to destroy his own website than anyone here possibly could; anyone coming to visit Conservapedia will just laugh at the stuff it has on the front page, and any sincere editor willing to overlook that will run afoul of Andy or TK within his first 3 edits. Thank you Andy, for making our jobs so much easier. 12:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't really have a "job". We are not here to discredit Conservapedia for the good of mankind, or to show to the public how Conservapedia is preposterous, arrogant and extremely biased; this is rather obvious to anyone not entirely devoid of common sense, whether he is Liberal or Conservative. There is no danger whatsoever coming from Conservapedia.
 * No matter what Conservapedians say, their website will always remain a very, very, very minor Internet phenomenon, and it has more or less the same chances of overtaking Wikipedia than I have of becoming President of the United States... of Epsilon Schlaflii IV, in the Andromeda Galaxy.
 * Conservapedia has no credibility, no influence, no future. The bona-fide conservapedians are probably much less than half of the (few) visitors of the website. We are not here to destroy Conservapedia, but to laugh at it. --Maquissar (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The WIGOs are partly so we can laugh and partly, I'd like to think, so that any parents who let Andy teach their kids can see just how fucking insane the man is. I don't think is, or that there should be, any kind of agenda of bringing CP down; hell, Andy and his bunch of sycophants are going to run it into the ground sooner or later anyway. I see no point in actively trying to bring a website down when it doesn't necessarily do any harm (particularly as I suspect the number of homeschoolers actually involved in the project in any way is pretty low).Webbtje (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad something like CP exists. I'm also glad that we have people like Sarah Palin constantly in the spotlight.  Regular people need to hear the dumb ass shit coming out of these peoples mouths. Diavolos (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was pretty pissed off when my slow-burning socks were blocked, as my parody was going well, but I have to agree with the poster(s) above; when you look at the shit that the Assfly et al put up there, there's no need for parody!  14:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We know how you feel about Conservapedia. To be as big as Wikipedia has never been a goal. For that to happen they would need millions of pages that reflect nothing; obscure bands, cartoons, sports, door knobs. You can deny Conservapedia has traction but you are obsessed with Conservapedia. You fear them, you loathe them, you face-palm, you desk-head, you monitor them, you write about them, you hide from them. Let's face it, they are leading where it counts- Top Conservative Websites. You can't stop them but you can bitch, bitch, bitch. You can make fun of them in comparison to Wikipedia but your site in comparison has only 4000 content pages. You are nothing, Conservapedia is something. You're juvenile, half-a-brains who think differently, desperate I might add. Keep on laughing, that never held back the conservative message.--193.200.150.82 (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Poe's law? Even conservatives lol at you. What a grand delusion you indulge.. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is we have a free discussion atmosphere which CP can only maintain on secret forums (we hide from them?). We're a mob, a fairly big mob, (there's many more of us than CPites) who all feel similarly - not identically - about a number of subjects. Unlike CP we have no intention of creating an encyclopedia full of Ed stubs or even of Wikipedia articles. There's no mighty one who's beliefs must be pandered to at the cost of all reason no matter what. I don't think we make fun of them "compared to Wikipedia" - we just make fun of them. Aww - I give up! Cp is such a laughing stock even among those who should be its biggest supporters - the Xtian right that we are almost redundant - but as long as there's lulz to be gained we'll be here.  19:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * EC - "To be as big as Wikipedia has never been a goal." -> Yes it has. Aschlafly frequently predicts that Conservapedia will usurp Wikipedia's position.
 * "For that to happen they would need millions of pages that reflect nothing; obscure bands, cartoons, sports, door knobs." -> If you had the workforce to do that, you would do it without hesitation. You're not smaller out of some stylistic preference. You're smaller because your mission is gibberish and you destroyed your userbase.
 * "You can deny Conservapedia has traction but you are obsessed with Conservapedia." -> We like your site because your stupidity is funny. That's it. But even now people are getting bored of you.
 * "You fear them, you loathe them, you face-palm, you desk-head, you monitor them, you write about them, you hide from them." -> We don't fear you. You have no influence or common sense. How exactly are we hiding from you? You aren't blocked on this site, but we are all blocked on CP, usually several times over. Who is hiding in this scenario?
 * "Let's face it, they are leading where it counts- Top Conservative Websites" -> I can't even mock this part. It would be like punching a child.
 * "You are nothing, Conservapedia is something." -> We have a community of people who like each other. You have a clusterfuck of random bullying, paranoia and mindgames. I'm perfectly happy with this situation.
 * "You're juvenile, half-a-brains who think differently, desperate I might add." -> I don't speak whatever language this is.
 * "Keep on laughing, that never held back the conservative message." -> See also Sarah Palin. 19:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Serious Mei is serious. Obvious troll is obvious, too. =w= [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]Norseman  Cyser Melomel  19:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is serious business. Everyone put on your bowler hats and look serious. I am already wearing a bowler hat right now because of fashion. 19:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The seriouswiki cabal approves of the seriousness in this serious thread. 19:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, if BoN is TK, then he is justifiably blocked at this site and is taking out his butthurt elsewhere. What a child.  Also, I seem to have spontaneously generated a bowler hat, how peculiar. --Kels (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like serious Mei's PJR-style response. I do not have a bowler hat, but I do have a tri-cornered pirate hat. I hope that works. 23:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the kids I feel sorry for - the ones whose brains are abused by Schlafly, and indeed by their parents who pay that man to tell lies to their children. Maybe CP has become a joke even to the extreme right in the USA but there are other people who are just as mad, even if they seem a bit more sane. Ann Coulter...? I'd seen her name on CP and other extremist websites but I knew nothing about her until the last few days. My god, the stuff she writes is poisonous. A challenge for 2010: how can Coulter be turned into as much of a public joke as Schlafly? The Real James Brown (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why ...
... is it worthy of mention that the supreme court is without a military vet? It's not just CP that grizzles about it, I've seen it several places on t'web. 15:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems kind of odd. My understanding is that supreme court may rule on military related matters, but it's not as if they're the ones deciding whether or not the US would go to war. It's odd to see the wingnuts playing up the veteran card, given that so many of their prominent numbers have the kind of military background that anyone could pick-up by renting a copy of Rambo III. -- 16:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd daresay its the latest right-wing whining point, and impervious to logic.


 * FoxNews/Talk Radio Conservative: "There's not going to be a veteran on the court! Obama's an evil libb-burr-ull because he's not appointing a veteran!"


 * Thinking liberal: "Of the nine current justices, six were appointed by Republicans. Only the retiring Stevens is a veteran, and he was appointed by Gerald Ford. This was never an issue till now."


 * FoxNews/Talk Radio Conservative: "There's not going to be a veteran on the court! Obama's an evil libb-burr-ull because he's not appointing a veteran! Why do libb-burr-ulls hate the military?!?!?!"


 * Thinking liberal: "But but but..." Gives up, goes off to have a gay marriage and an abortion MDB (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * More seriously, the Supremes have historically been rather deferential to the Executive Branch and Congress in military and foreign policy affairs. For instance, I've heard it said that, when cases considering Constitutionality of a military came before them, they always found a way to avoid taking the case, the assumption was that, if they did take it, they might have no choice but to say "involuntary servitude, unConstitutional", and since those generally come up during wars, they just didn't want to go there. I don't see that there's that big a need for a Justice to be a vet -- of the three branches of government, the Judicial branch is the least likely to interact with the military. MDB (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I imagine the number of lawyers/judges who have been in the military is pretty small, as it's been about 35 years since we've had widespread military mobilization. The reason most post-war presidents have been veterans is not because we demanded it of them but because just about every male in the country had served in the military at the time. Stevens is the last vet on the bench because he is the last WWII era justice. DickTurpis (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Valid point, except the Vietnam generation is reaching the age where they've got the experience to be potential nominees for the Court. Of course, serving on the Court almost certainly means a college education (a law degree isn't legally required to be on the Court, but a President who tried to nominate a non-attorney would be out of his mind), and if you were in college during the Vietnam era, you were probably getting draft deferments.
 * Personally, I thought John Edwards would have made a good justice, but his name is far too tainted for that. Or Hillary Clinton, because half of the American conservative movement would immediately have massive coronaries upon hearing her name even suggested for the job, but she's busy being SecState. MDB (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Vietnam generation is quickly passing the age where they'd be nominees for anything. Someone who was 18 in 1968 is 60 now, which is a bit on the elderly side even for the Supreme Court (50 looks to be a more typical age recently). DickTurpis (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea! HRC for SCOTUS! For so many good reasons, including your population-thinning one.  03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that any 'vet' who becomes a high-ranking lawyer will most likely have more right-wing views. (OK, so I'm stereotyping but it's probably true) So demanding a 'vet' is like asking for another Republican nominee which obviously makes perfect sense. Of course over at CP they don't think these things out for themselves they just latch onto some loonie blogger and it's suddenly an issue. 18:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

On the bright side, I reckon we can infer from his complaints that Andy feels himself unqualified to be a judge, as he is not a military vet (so far as I am aware). One less thing to worry about: "Judge Schlafly".--WJThomas (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now they are lamenting that not only are there no veterans, but no Protestants as well What would be their reaction be if a "dirty Atheist" were to be nominated? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought only 6 were Catholics, so what are the other 2, Jews? Musselmen?  03:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the other two are Jews, yes. As far as an atheist being nominated... they were fine when the atheist was Robert Bork. (Well, I don't think he was more a "don't care" type when he was nominated; he was certainly not a vociferous atheist. And he has since converted to Catholicism.) MDB (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Hillary
Orrin Hatch said her name is one that is being considered for the vacancy. No reports of conservative apoplexy yet. MDB (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because it's not really being considered. She is way too valuable where she is.-- 02:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

New Kara-Toon!
How is that donkey holding the roach clip? And if it has the hoof dexterity to hold that little clip, why does it need the clip at all, for a blunt that big?--WJThomas (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that blatant drug use depicted on the main page? And isn't this the same cartoon as last week, more or less? What will it be next week, a donkey aborting a fetus? DickTurpis (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He figured that we found his donkey adorable and gives us more. Besides, as long as a LIBERAL is doing it, it's perfectly fine to show things that are bad. Because then CP's educational mission (*snicker*) overrules its family-friendly rules. --Sid (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it's jammed into the hoof? I actually find it quite amazing (and silly) that Kara actually tried to aim for realism there. The lack of hands apparently hasn't stopped the donkey from putting on its shirt, necklace, headband or glasses. --Sid (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And interesting that Kara's got apparent experience with the habit? 13:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Call me boring, but that's an ad hominem attack if I ever saw one. No content, shitty cartoon.  13:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I like how utterly redundant the wording of the caption is. Webbtje (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also filed under "redundant": The "WASTED" on the shirt. --Sid (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's to show that the donkey is smoking something other than a cigar.--WJThomas (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, he should have drawn it with concave sides, in the traditional manner. Johann (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like how Conservapedia has degraded to a wannabe online tabloid/shitty forum for moronic, hateful retards to post their views. There's more creativity in my toilet bowl after a night out than from KKKarrotJuice's cuntoons.  13:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On the upside, the quality of the art is noticeably improving.-- 13:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true. In fact, this is probably the best one so far. 13:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The speech bubble just makes me think of the Mind Cop. "Oooh man. I'm so hiiigh maaan. Why the fuck is my man bitch sniffing around some white bread pussy man?". 15:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Part I am curious about is the syringe in the lower right-hand corner. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I only just noticed the syringe. A bit useless without a spoon and some sort of tourniquet, though, isn't it?  02:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would assume the implication is that not only are liberals potheads, they use IV drugs. To be fair, liberals are probably more tolerant to marijuana use, but I don't hear any liberals clamoring for legalized smack. MDB (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that in Andyland, liberals are complete anti-conservatives. Anything conservatives forbid, liberals want to make mandatory. Conservatives oppose drug use, so liberals are for legalization of all drugs. Deny it and deny logic. --Sid (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Andy knows that Bill Buckley favored legalizing pot. MDB (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does the donkey have buck teeth? It looks more like a rabbit to me. Also why " today's modern Democrat"? 08:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"One of our friends at Rat Wiki dared me to write about sex..."
Wtf. Please try to shift one paradigm at a time, to prevent back strain. 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is comedy gold. I can't wait for the community's (read: Andy's) reaction. 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Ed, and if you let your kids name the live lobster you bought for dinner it'll be harder to convince them to eat it. I'm amazed he gets through the day without seriously injuring himself. --Kels (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the million dollar question is this: did someone actually dare him, or is he just using it as an excuse? 00:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody seems to have used his phrasing on-wiki, at least...not that he met the apparent conditions anyway. Also, I'm not sure "LIBERAL VANDALS DARED ME" is the best excuse to pull on Andy. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 00:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, Ed even mentioned the unholy words "rat wiki." Andy will probably have a fit when he sees Ed's post. 00:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed has friends at RW? Kind of weird no?  Is Ed a user on this site?  Does he enter entries into WIGO?  Is Ed really just a parodist?  Diavolos (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's probably a good chance he's actually a pedophile. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All we have to do to get some laughs out of CP is dare them to do something? Well that was a lot of wasted effort from us. Hey Ed, I dare you to write an article portraying homosexuality in a 100% positive light, and ban Ken from going near it. X Stickman (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Ed, I dare you to take a chance on inviting an RW editor over to make supervised edits to the homosexuality, atheism, and evolution articles in order to inject some balance; and keep Ken out of it. If the "student panel" can't do it, someone else needs to. Let that someone be you. Ken's writing is absolutely awful, the points he attempts making puerile and often unsupportable, and the quotemining tired and predictable. I won't remove anything substantive, just improve what's capable of being improved and provide a mainstream response to the creationist, homophobic, xenophobic, irrational, etc., stuff. I've frankly never seen anything as bad on a wiki as these three articles. Aren't you a little embarrassed? 16:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. But I'm not going to be laughing when two thirds of the essay is devoted to the importance of sex for young girls. This man is very likely a pedophile, the essay's nothing to look forward to. Bil08 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already finished and the joke was it had nothing to do with sex. 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Capt. 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's a relief. Still, I get the feeling that Ed actually knows that we laugh about him being a pervert, and the essay was playing on that. Creep. Bil08 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it strike anyone else as telling that "It's a girl!" is a parenthetical statement? --[[Image:Flag of Soviet Canuckistan.svg|30px|IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!]] Yossarian The Man from the USSR 21:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm especially amused that they can't even follow their own rules. TK almost doubling the word count of someone else's essay, and neither of them signing the bottom section like the notice says. Hilarious. --Kels (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He is Ed Poor's proxy. He said so. 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The current version of the "essay" basically boils down to "once you know the sex of the child, the parents can attach to him/her more like a person". Let me tell you a funny story (which will undoubtedly be lumped in the "cool story, bro" category by random passers-by): A while ago, I was looking at a machine-translated Wikipedia article on guard dogs which turned out to be surprisingly legible, even when Finnish is notoriously resistant to automatic translation by computers. Finnish language has no articles, so the translator software had to take a few guesses. I particularly liked this phrase: "Some breeds are strong enough to drive even the wolf away". Instead of speaking of "a wolf", the article spoke of "the wolf", as if there was some specific wolf that all guard dogs are compared against; a mighty feral animal in the wilderness that only the strongest of guard dog breeds dare to challenge. A simple article change can add a lot of personality to things, even to animals! ...I don't know what point I was chasing, but I thought this was insightful. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer Ed's take on cp:Lolita. After writing his usual two sentence review, Andy had to come in and make the article suitable for families. Andy removed all references to paedophilia, which given the story is a bit like removing all references to cars from an article discussing Too Fast, Too Furious. 22:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, goodbye
Now that's just rude! 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I swear he's getting worse, I wish andy would fire the prick, if he had any sense he would Tweety (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If Andy had any sense, would there be a RationalWiki? --Maquissar (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but then it would look like WIGO:ASK.  18:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ubi aSK? Wigo aSK? 19:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. "U.K Troll." X Stickman (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * TK is a coward who hides behind his internet penis because that is all he has in life. While this was complete fuckery, is it really surprising to anyone? 04:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)