Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive288

Even more crazy than Chuckarse
Nick "The Birth Certificate" Purpura has written a perhaps the most insane thing I've ever read, even on Chuckarse's blog. Which is a grand achievement. The Ruskies are coming to take over the US. And the Muslims. And Obama's private army. Someone needs to tell this weirdo that the soviet union disbanded 20 years ago, and that Russia is a democracy and a US ally now. -- 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and these 100 million "free loving Americans"? Where can I meet them. I could use some free love. -- 21:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rusia is a democracy? When'd this happen.-- il' Dictator   Mikal  22:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * More to the point, the guy who wrote that article seems to think Russia is still communist. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to take away from the crazy of the article but Russia is neither a Democracy or a US ally.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but it's not communist, which is what the article is arguing. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You pedants pain me. Do you also have "A Republic, not a democracy!" bumper stickers? -- 23:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Reporters Without Boarders lists them as an Authoritarian Regime.70.171.14.182 (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You DO understand that the question of communism vs. a free market is a completely different thing from the question of democracy, right? That's not pedantic, it's fucking grade 8 civics. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But Russia is a representative democracy. They have elections regularly where the people elect representatives for lower house and president. -- 23:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong! Only America is a democracy. All other countries are socialist dictatorships. Deny this and lose all credibility. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given putins been president for the last... 12/13 or so years... -- il' Dictator   Mikal  23:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost ready to break FDR's record. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What a lunatic, that one. article άλφα Ταλκ 22:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

So, the russians aren't comming, they're already here? I owe my neighbor an apology. Also, while I'm in the 80's, I should invest in microsoft while I still can.--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 00:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Either you people are playing dumb or you shoud really start reading the "World" section in your newpapers. Putin was not President of Russia for the last 12/13 years, he just got "elected" into the office of President again after (I think) 4 years of Medvedev (his puppet in command) and Putin spending his time as Prime Minister. The last elections were not "free" and neither were they "fair", oppositional canidates were ill treated, silenced and not allowed to register. Political Parties that call the situation what it is are banned constantly. Peaceful protestors are beaten bloody, even in the freezing cold of the Russian winter. They may have "elections" but these are neither functional nor is the state a democracy in anything other then law. An ally of the US? Are you fucking kidding? Putin's Russia constantly votes to saveguard other dictatorships (Syria?) and is cooperating heavily with China. --84.158.90.162 (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BoNs is half right. While the Russian Federation has a perfectly modern and decent democratic system with elections and suffrage on a par with countries like France, that system and the laws produced by it suffer from an extremely high level of corruption and abuse from politicians, businesses, agents of the state and others in positions of power. Freedom House, for example, lists them as "not free" - a status generally repeated by most other reliable sources. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dem Liberals all censor... By providing information!
The Fifth Circuit court blocks a lower court's ruling which was in favor of Planned Parenthood. Andy claims that liberals in the press are keeping the ruling silent and thus censoring the information, and then ironically states he got the story from what he claims is a "liberal source". WTF? So are liberals censoring by providing you with the very information you seek?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. If "a leftist source" is the best he can come up with, it's obviously not just liberals who are "censoring" this story. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Who did this?
This exchange made me happy --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 06:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my poor irony meter. The man who claims 'It's mah insights! I don' need no steekin' citations!' says intellectual arrogance is a bad thing. Beautiful.  PsyGremlin  07:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My guess is that that had to be the intent. No one would quote a bible verse at Andy expecting change from him, everyone knows that bible is only for reenforcing the opinions of the believers, not for directing and informing them. Clearly they were just highlighting the irony.--Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 07:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LMAO! Quoting your own motherfuckin' rewrite of the Bible on a passage about humility! WIGO-worthy. --Night Jaguar (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't think about it before, but I actually like Andy's version better, though that may chiefly be due to the fact that I like how he proves its prophecy, his arrogance has lead to his humiliation.--Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Schlafly's version is the only verse translated on that page. He did the re-write "on-demand" minutes before replying.

To the guy who's been tagging CP with our name all morning...
You're an ass. Knock it off. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're an ass. I ain't gonna stop. R4T10N4LW1K1 F0R3V3R!!!!! CPAnnihilator (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to use RationalWiki to plan and coordinate future attacks. That's what we're here for. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That sound you just heard was Karajou orgasming as he thinks he's found the smoking gun to finally put all RatWikians in jail for eternity. -- 15:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, fuck. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 16:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Just as irony sharpens irony...
The vatican speaks out in opposition to ideological indoctrination. And CP approves this message. I can't stop laughing. -- 19:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, when a Conservative does it, that means that it is not Indoctrination. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  20:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Boy, I have to say that my Catholic upbringing certainly felt like indoctrination. I must be mistaken. Jimaginator (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I felt like the Jesuit influence is what helped me to become a Skeptic and an Atheist (toothfairy agnostic). --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 21:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you know those Jesuits. Always looking to sell your soul to the antichrist. -- 22:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? I always thought the Jesuits were pretty respectable. What gives? Nate Keaton (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, Nate. Clearly Jack Chick needs to have a word with you. The Jesuits are behind everything bad that has ever happened. In fact the serpent in the garden of Eden was probably a Jesuit. -- 00:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anybody else see a disconnect between "The State should respect the choices that parents make for their children" and "avoid attempts at ideological indoctrination"? Who's to say that parents aren't doing much damage too? --84.158.39.242 (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't state mandate that people be "good" parents. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 00:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Statistics. Andy does not understand them.
Best use of the word "inevitable" in recent memory. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 20:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * what makes him think we wont cycle back to a three? -- il' Dictator   Mikal  20:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is always 2-2-2-1 except for that one time. That's what inevitable means, people.  Phiwum (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ... ... ... Grasping at straws does not even begin to describe that. Vulpius (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm gonna take a whack at this. 2-2-2-1 = Eisenhower, JFK/Johnson, Nixion/Ford, and then Carter. 3-2-2 = Reagan/Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush jr. What about pre Eisenhower? FDR and Truman equal about 6 terms with Democrats in charge. So since the 1930's the arithmatic looks like this: 6-2-2-2-1-3-2-2-?. Tl;DR? Andy is full of shit, and I proved it WITH MATH.--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 20:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FDR + Truman = 5. FDR died early in the 4th term, then 22nd amendment. 85.179.45.14 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Facepalm. It's just another thing Andy is going to be insufferable about if Obama loses. Can the RatWiki foundation make fund an election advertisement that's just 5 seconds long. "Obama. Because Andrew Schlafly's a douchebag. &lt;extra fast&gt;Paid for by RationalWikians for a less irritating internet&lt;/extra fast&gt;" -- 20:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand... If Obama wins, someone can add this to Conservapedia Proven Wrong, forcing Andy to spin it so hard that half of New Jersey will get dizzy. Vulpius (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Three distinct spin possibilities: 1. "The Ghost of 2000"--Claim electoral fraud in a close state. 2. "This doesn't count as throwing off the pattern, because Obama isn't really the president, 'cause he wasn't born here." --Andy has already played this card, expressly claiming that the United States has not had a president since 19 January 2009. 3. "You should've listened to me/The RINO Defence."--Had the GOP but picked a True Conservative TM candidate, like Andy told them too, CP would have been Proven RightTM. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't a 2nd Obama term make it 3222, not 2222?
 * Well, it contains a 2222. I had the same question, and concluded that Andy must be accepting a subset.  And we all know how erudite Andy is about mathematics in general, and set theory in particular.  Why, he even used set theory to explain how it proves that more marriage combinations are possible if only heterosexual marriages are possible.  Gauss (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like he's adding a shot of whisky to the evening cocoa again. Prodigal (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * * stares at the Examples section* Whaaaaaaaaaaat. --Sid (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Dennett mentioned in one of his lectures that the word "evitable" IS a word, unlike words like "couth" from "uncouth". I therefore propose that Andru was evitable. Jimaginator (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 *  Well, that just shows that Dennett doesn't know the English language or, to be more precise, disnae ken the braw Scots tongue. We few, we happy few, who come from South-West Scotland know perfectly well, or should I say ken fine, that couth (usually familiarised to couthie) means loving, affable, cosy or comfortable. The context is clear in several of Rabbie Burns' poems, such as Halloween. So uncouth means not couthie or not loving, affable, cosy or comfortable ("solitary, poor, nasty and brutish", if you like). Couth is a perfectly good word which has been lost in standard English. Fare ye weel, The Real James Brown (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC) 
 * Both my UK SOED and my US Webster's New International Dictionary (1909) have "couth" with the Scots definition as only one part. Even pedantry is done badly at CP.   07:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Who's CP's Techie?
I just noticed that CP is running Apache 1.3, which was replaced like a decade ago and has been end-of-life for a couple of years now. Running a production site on such obsolete software is pretty mickey mouse. Does anyone over there know what they're doing? Whoover (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * HA! You crack me up. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * CP use shared hosting from some big company I forget the name of. It's actually pretty standard practice for big hosting companies to run very outdated versions of their webserver, because they're known-good and porting the entire setup across major version changes is a colossal pain. You shouldn't confuse that with their setup being insecure though, they just backport all the patches. Having said that, there have been a couple of instances of the webserver CP is on getting owned recently. That security problems leak across customer boundaries doesn't speak too well for them. -- 23:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't they use Siteground? άλφα Ταλκ 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's siteground. Amazing they're supporting commercial sites on software that hasn't been supported for years.  Whoover (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. There are good reasons why shared hosting bods won't touch Apache 2.0 with a stick. -- 00:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of that was fixed with 2.2, which has been stable for a few years now. 2.4 is current.  Whoover (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The techie used to be cp:user:CPWebmaster, but that account has been dormant for a long time. (Not that they've bothered to change the user page to say so.)-- 13:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * CPWebmaster used to be one of Andy's homeskolars, PhilipB I think. He's probably gone off to university now and presumably has interests outside a church basement. 08:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Last I checked, OpenBSD was still distributing Apache 1.3 as their default web server. I suppose you could call that "obsolete" and  "unsupported", but you'd better have some good evidence to back it up. --65.101.119.25 (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OpenBSD supports their (modified) version. But as far as Apache is concerned 1.3 is end-of-life. Whoover (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

First person shooters for " gifted Conservative creationist" children?
[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=979103&oldid=979096 Well that's surprising. ] My mind is teeming with lurid thoughts. How much time has Ken poured into FPSes? Obviously, he's a bit old to have been a child when the game was released...but  this seeming endorsement of allowing young children to play violent FPSes seems to be way left field for Conservapedia.143.215.97.162 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Theres always Super 3d Noahs Ark for the bible kids! I also huave a hard time beleiving Ken would know a thinng about Go.-- il' Dictator   Mikal  01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He's simply claiming shooting Nazis as a conservative Creationist activity, since Hitler was obviously a Darwinian. I don't think that he's serious about FPS's as conservative fodder.  (And, of course, his latest comment about Go is tied up with his general love of anything Asian &mdash; just because it makes him appear worldly.) Phiwum (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He was formally obsessed by the Hispanic ladies until our TokyoRose came along and Ken was smitten. I'd bet a fair chunk on the fact Ken has never left the USA. AceModerator 01:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume that for these purposes, Canada is part of the U.S. He lives too near to the Falls not to have trekked across that border.  Phiwum (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would he go to atheistic, britsh-america?-- il' Dictator   Mikal  02:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well his special friend Shocky (as well as Nephy) are obsessed with Battlefield 3, so some violent FPS games are "conservative approved".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I play BF3 regularly and now kinda wish I knew those guys' gamertags so I can go massacre them. Cow...Hammertime! 15:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that your fat atheistic fingers would not stand a chance against the lean, well disciplined fingers of User:Conservative. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 00:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

North Carolina v Florida
Not sure if it is WIGO-worthy but I found it interesting that Andy made a comment about North Carolina being a bad choice for the Democratic Convention this summer with NC having such a high unemployment rate(5th actually, not 4th) and a really unpopular Democratic Governor. Florida, where the GOP convention is going to be held, meanwhile has the 9th highest unemployment and, as many know, the governor with the highest disapproval rating/lowest approval rating in the country. Ayzmo (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And there I was thinking they picked NC as they narrowly one it last time and are hoping the convention boost their chance of retaining it. Pi 3:14 (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the fact AZ has high unemployment isn't all that relevant. The Democrats have the White House and so, in the publics' mind, are responsible for unemployment.  (At least this seems to be Andy's reasoning, which is rather more coherent than we've come to expect.) 10:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ^Thats the general publics reaction; the people in power are the most public face on government, and therefor take the fall because they are the easiest scapegoats.-- il' Dictator   Mikal  14:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody gives a fuck about unemployment, not with my man Killer Obama on the job. He whacked bin Laden!  nobsCorporations are people, too. 13:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I love how conservatives are just now figuring out how to put a negative spin on Obama ordering the death of the world's most wanted man.
 * "What? Obama just killed Bin Laden? WHERE IS THE BODY? WE NEED TO SEE IT!!! CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!"
 * "So what, Obama killed Bin Laden. That was months ago, but let's keep talking and talking about how it's unimpressive."
 * A huge part of being a right wing loon is to be so fucking stupid that you think you can fool everyone with anything. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's cute how they disposed of bin Laden's body so he wouldn't be memorialized and and dug it up to celebrate the anniversary. nobsCorporations are people, too. 16:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's cute how rightwingers demanded the body, and now want to act like it never existed. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama's slogan
Obama's new slogan is "Forward!" Kara: know who else wanted to move forward? the Nazis. and the commies. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  14:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * People have speculated about Andy's drinking habits. I think they have the wrong man. It's Kajagoogoo that's CP's token angry drunk. It explains a lot - how he creates articles, but then forgets to fill them in; how's he's perpetually like a bear with a sore bum; the fact that he never progressed in the Navy; the fact that he's supposed to be at uni but is always on CP blocking and reverting editors... -- PsyGremlin  15:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy actually strikes me as the teetotaler type. If memory serves, he's gone on record several times on CP about his disapproval of alcohol. Omar (gibber) 15:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was his close friend, confidant and de facto number 2 TK, who raised the issue of Andy's drinking. However, he was good at blocking editors, so Andy overlooked that. -- PsyGremlin  16:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No idea whether Andy is a closet drinker or not, but TK was obviously an unreliable witness. As we all know.  (Out of curiosity, when did TK raise the issue?) Phiwum (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was brought up on IM with HelpJazz/Jazzman at 10:11:59 PM. 13:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

-- 01:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Red telephone for 🇰🇪
Please take a look at this --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 00:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is only a single example, but one that reinforces what's in that article, .  Kiva is a micro-lending web site where you make loans to people in developing countries and don't receive any interest for your loan.  Always thought it was interesting that the Atheists consistently outperformed the Christians.  Palmetto72 Whaaaaa?  01:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like Ken is going to take anything UC Berkley says seriously. RachelW (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh.
Kendoll, that's not how futures work. I love this idea that speculators are actually buying oil and "storing it in a tank." I wonder where Merrill Lynch keeps its vast oil tanks? You might want to at least vaguely understand what is going on before blindly promoting the interests of your corporate overlords. -- 10:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my. Reading that article, I agree with the idea of not dismissing speculative action out right because of the benefits (liquidity, etc.) and also the fact that any time someone speculates on something on one side of the market, someone else is speculating on the other side of the market. Even ignoring those minor details and the negatives of speculation, WOW. This is absolutely ridiculous. I hope someone calls Ken (and the author, actually) out on having absolutely no idea how the futures market works. Absolutely no idea. (I don't know what I would do if every time I traded coffee I needed to store at least 37,500 lbs of coffee in my apartment...) άλφα Ταλκ 11:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You could invest in cocoa futures too and create chocolate covered coffee bean futures I suppose. Mmmmm. Delicious, delicious futures speculation. -- 11:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I always worry about trading cocoa, though, because since I don't actually like coffee, I'm highly motivated to offset my positions before expiration. I like chocolate, though, so I worry that some sinister part of my subconscious will make me "forget" to offset so I get stuck with a load of cocoa in my living room. Too risky! άλφα Ταλκ 13:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironically, one of the original reasons future markets were founded was to balance out price swings like this, when people who actually store the commodity hold their supply until the "time is right," eg the market price is high, and then dump it to try to reap the profit, thus creating periods of increasing prices followed by crashes around harvest time. It's a bit different for oil, sure, but I can't get over how completely wrong that article is. άλφα Ταλκ 11:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. I thought your original "storing it in a tank" comment was a metaphor, but the article really says it: "By buying oil now and storing it in a tank -- instead of making it available to consumers -- he is decreasing the present supply of oil, and thereby increasing the price." That's so stupid it hurts. Prodigal (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't sell by the due date, you will take delivery of a boxcar of orange juice, with added delivery costs. But it's good to see Ken get off English Goat Fuckers and the Lack of God in their Life and post something relevant to the election.  nobsCorporations are people, too. 11:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't sell by the dute date. Speculators aren't going to hold their contracts on commodities until expiration because they don't want the underlying commodity. If someone is in the futures' market to hedge, then yes, they may hold the contracts until the due date. With oil, however, the level of speculation in the market is extremely high, and virtually none of those traders want to hold the underlying commodity. Your broker or the clearinghouse sends out reminders a few weeks before the contract's expiration alerting you to the fact that you need to either offset your position or take delivery. Just because you can take delivery of something doesn't mean a) that you want to, or b) that you can't sell before the expiration. If everyone holding a futures' contract was actually holding the commodity, we'd be out of oil, since many of these contracts are on oil that hasn't been pumped yet. Hence the name "future." άλφα Ταλκ 11:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is exactly correct. Speculators perform an important function. If speculators did not purchase crude oil when pump price are @2.50 per gal, the price would fall even further, refineries and such would dry up and layoffs ensue, and the maintenance of refineries and pipelines would deteriorate. Then when Recovery and demand picks ups, the pipeline would be dry and capital improvements necessary before production could ramp up to meet demand, thus exacerbating price demand and creating greater shortages. nobsCorporations are people, too. 12:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly I can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or merely drastically oversimplifying the mechanics of the futures' market. Long story short, any time a speculator takes a long position in crude oil futures (or futures on orange juice, gasoline, coffee, cocoa, etc) there exists another speculator/hedger/arbitrageur taking the other side of that trade. You can't take a long position in the market without someone else taking a short position. It always seems that people define speculation as "whatever behaviour I don't like." (take Soros for an example) If prices are going up, then speculation in long positions is causing the price increase, but if prices of some commodity are falling (e.g. grains) then overselling is causing the problem. Although this can happen, situations involving short squeezes and other manipulative practices on the underlying commodity itself are more problematic. άλφα Ταλκ 13:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Though isn't it mostly the case in the futures market that the physical producers are the ones almost universally taking that "short" position, while the speculators who by and large have no real physical interest in the market are almost universally taking long positions? It's not really the same situation as the stock market where any given player might take take either position on any given stock. -- 13:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No. It makes more sense to divide the futures' market into speculators and hedgers rather than long and short positions. People who own the physical commodity, e.g. farmers, often take short positions (selling in the futures' market) because they're trying to hedge against price decreases. However, a lot of other hedgers take long positions too. Take companies that use oil as an example. An airline company may take a long position in crude oil futures so they're protected against price increases. Companies that purchase wheat, soybeans, corn, etc. for production may also take long positions, since they want to hedge against price increases in whatever they have to purchase. It's very possible that both the long and short sides of a position could be hedgers. Speculators break down into these categories too. If you expect the price to rise, you long the contract. If you believe the price will fall, you short the contract. Both speculators and hedgers may be either long or short, and the numbers that fall into each camp are roughly comparable. άλφα Ταλκ 15:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one more note. Breaking the market down into long vs. short positions is also tricky because it's possible to be the equivalent of long and short a contract at the same time. You can be long a contract in the futures' market, but also write (short) options on that contract in the options market or use some combination of the underlying asset, options, and other derivatives to create a synthetic long or short position. The latter case is mainly true for futures on stocks and stock indexes, since it is possible for Merrill Lynch to hold the underlying asset if that asset is stock or other equity. No need for an oil tank! άλφα Ταλκ 15:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Andy....don't ever change.
Dirty brown eyes/people keep stealing our blue eyes. Therefore...young earth. Thanks 2006 New York Times (Ha!) article discussing only the past century! Hiphopopotamus (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You cant trust them shifty brown eyes-- il' Dictator   Mikal  01:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aww, shit. Didn't see the conversation above until now. In my excitement of Andy's lunacy I neglected to read the entire page. For a time I was normal, but now I only see what I want to see. As the Lord Assfly has commanded. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy breaks out the homophobic language...
"Sissifying," "pansying." Christ, this guy has no love in his heart at all, does he? He's just a little ball of hate. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Back when Obama made a push for ending DATD, didn't he say something like "Obama is trying to turn the military into a bunch of sissy boys"? Mr. Anon (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That was Ken. Used to be, Andy's language was more measured.  He's been getting weirder and weirder, of late-- 04:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, language like this just highlights the insecurity of the user. Few self-confident gay men think they're sissified or pansies. Rather, this kind of language depicts the user's attitude and fears regarding the state of being gay. It feels like he'd be more afraid of becoming a pansy if he was so.±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR longissimus non legeri 04:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, football was better before the sissies made it so that players were less likely to die on the field. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 04:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What pains me about this is that he's completely missing the point: players were being offered bounties for injuring other players. Or maybe he doesn't care that players are being rewarded for intentionally putting other players in the hospital-- 04:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Many safety rules like the "fair catch" protection were considered to be only for sissies." Encyclopedic. AceModerator 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit too young to make the argument that sports fans have always been saying crap like this, but it certainly seems like it. Just look at the evolution of equipment in hockey.  Even ignoring the pads, you go from: no helmets for anyone at all; to a frontal mask for the goalie; then helmets for players and a full helmet/mask for the goalie; then a neck shield for the goalie.  I bet every step along the way there were a bunch of people saying people playing with equipment were pansies.
 * Now you have visors being introduced, and one by one you see the veteran guys change their minds and switch to using them when they get hit up high. You also have changes in safety rules, with the league coming out strong against any kind of head hits due to concussions.  Predictably, somewhere on every hockey forum you can see some random fan(s) complaining about "the emasculation of hockey".  Q0 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or does Andy come across as the kind of guy who knows nothing about football/sport in general? That seems like a silly question given his well known lack of knowledge about anything except how to ignore facts, but his posts about football come across as his standard "I skimmed the first three words of this headline and assume the rest of the story to fall into line with my retarded views" sorta thing. I dunno how fans perceive playing dirty in the American game, but in association football players who intentionally hurt others run the risk of destroying a good deal of their rep. Petr Cech nearly died after a head injury in 2006 and now where's a helmet to reduce the risk of him dying in case he's in another collisions. Fabrice Muamba had a heart attack on the pitch 2/3 months ago and was technically dead for over an hour. I suppose measures to protect goalkeepers and calls for better heart screenings for players are just examples of how soccer is an all-inclusive commie faggot sport, eh? 10:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Is it just me or does Andy come across as the kind of guy who knows nothing?" Corrected there for you, ET. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Any sportsman, in any sport, who deliberately intends to injure another participant is lucky not to be banned for life to be honest. If anything, I think the authorities tend to be too lenient. I can't think of any professional sport where actual injury is a legitimate aim. Boxing and Total Mental Fight Club Ring Boxing (or whatever it's called) maybe a bit borderline, but certainly American Football, along with all other mainstream team sports should have an absolute zero-tolerance attitude towards deliberate harm. Of course, I'm just a big softie. But at six-two and 270 pounds, I rarely have to worry about physical intimidation on a sports field. Especially as I play in goal (soccer) and therefore have full (handily paddded) use of my hands :) Worm (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone else find it weird how Andy is constantly decrying violent video games, but is totally in favor of the real life military violence these games emulate, and seems to condone violence in sports? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the UFC is generally pretty serious about safety - the last I had heard, injury rates were actually significantly lower than for boxing, because giving up and tapping out is acceptable and encouraged. That's not to say that there aren't psychotics out there, but management is very concerned with being seen as a legitimate sport and anybody seen going out of their way trying to injure people is likely to get canned pretty quickly. Omar (gibber) 12:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironically, more protective equipment tends to lead to more brazen behavior, and more injuries. Helmets and pads are there to prevent you from getting hurt, so go balls out. Lead with the head. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the topic of video games, I think Andy is just afraid of media: any media by which a person could actually draw a conclusion that's not his own. Even if video games can be violent, they're still media, and have the potential to carry messages Andy doesn't like. There's no machismo in it for him, no team of garrulous young men howling in victory, no beautiful and majestic war that proves his country is right, no self-affirmation in it for him. Just somebody sitting on a couch, ungloriously, by himself (in Andy's mind, I don't think he's ever even heard of multiplayer games): an image that Andy doesn't like. Media just doesn't please his sense of vicarious excitement and might even challenge his ideas. Hence, he doesn't like it. Sports have that tribal, ego-stroking quality to them that I can totally see him latching onto. ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR walls of text while-u-wait 13:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * IIRC Boxing gloves specifically make it far easier to hit your opponent's face (intended to be a major target in the sport) so hard that they're concussed, without breaking your hand. Ordinarily a really good blow from a closed fist will do serious damage to the hand, which is OK if you're fighting for your life but not so smart in a sport you have to practice every day. So bare-knuckle fighting is actually safer for the fighters' mental health, but it looks more brutal so it gets a bad reputation.
 * The "macho image" of sport does definitely make it problematic to prevent chronic injuries. The fans don't want to see a sportsman removed from the field on a stretcher, but if the injuries gradually make him disabled and he has to retire at 30 or never walks again or recognises his own family, that's fine because it happens off camera. It's easier in sports that are already heavily machine-assisted. Safety cages and HANS can mean a racing driver walks away safe from every smash, a loser but not accumulating chronic injuries. That has its own downsides (it can make sense strategically to deliberately crash, at speed, into an opponent in F1, and even if the penalty is a career ban people will risk it, because it's worth a lot of money and they're pretty sure they won't die) but at least nobody's life is ruined. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

While Andy rails about sissification, tough men who actually play the game are seeing things differently
While we don't yet know why Junior Seau killed himself yesterday, his method of doing so reflects a previous incident in which a former NFL player dealing with post-concussion issues took his life: a gunshot to the chest, and not to the head, so that his brain would remain intact for medical examination. Meanwhile, last year in Canada, three "tough guys" took their own life or died of substance-abuse related issues. Andy, you're no tough guy. You're an office monkey with a degree from Harvard. Shut the hell up, because you don't know what you're talking about. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 14:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Shut the hell up, because you don't know what you're talking about." Well heck, we would never hear from Andy again. We've heard his legal acumen before, we know he doesn't know dick about that either. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 15:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the coaches from the Colorado Avalanche has extreme post concussive disorder. While he is an amazing scout and coach for the team, he has spoken at length about his day to day life.  He keeps an assistant at all times, cause he will walk into rooms and not know why he's there, not know where he's going.  He has had one moment, his most scary he said, where he literally did not understand how to get out of a small room, ie., what doors were for.  He is skilled enough at what he does, that it's worth the team supporting him with his issues.  But can you imagine what that kind of life would be like, if you are without occupation, or trained assistance.  Andy can fuck himself... caues i'm sure taking your own life would cross my mind if I lived like that.  --[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot   22:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

More sissies are bitching and moaning about concussions.
Quit yer bitching, or you'll never be a "Greatest Conservative Athlete.". All one hundred of you. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 21:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moon-Eyed Andy
Ok, I'm convinced Andy is fucking insane. Not like "haha", more like "back away slowly". Andy cites a 2008 report on a study which claims that the genetic mutation responsible for blue eyes happened 6-10k years ago. Aside from the normal WTFery, Andy throws a jeer at the lamestream media for waiting for four years to report a story...which was reported four years ago. Did Andy just call CP the lamestream media? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And, of course, there is the problem of the genetic mutation being more than 6k years ago, which is not possible if you are a YEC, AND the problem that genetic mutation cannot actually change an organism in a substantial way. This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, wherein it is possible to hold 2 or more conflicting thoughts at once. Yea, he's nuts alright...Jimaginator (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Stunning! Just Google "blue-eyed ancestor" and the first four hits (for me) are 2008 media reports. The man realy is delusional.  Phiwum (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is Andy just now hearing about this? LIBERAL MEDIA CONSPIRACY, that's why. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to pretty much be it. Andy has only just heard about it, therefore, it's only just being reported. All those "2008" dates are wrong, somehow, or maybe the sites quietly uploaded those stories without actually announcing them anywhere. "I haven't heard of it / I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong" seems to be Andy's main way of thinking. X Stickman (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An even more focused search. Whoover (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah Andy, the media isn't reporting the story now, because its four years old. I remember it being discussed in several science blogs back in 2008; the recent (evolutionarily speaking) phenomenon of blue eyes is well know and well accepted already.  The question though is what does this have to do with the age of the Earth itself?  It isn't as if blue eyes are some critical trait humans couldn't be just as fine without and it certainly isn't critical to the planet's age. WTFery indeed.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't as if blue eyes are some critical trait humans couldn't be just as fine without...Well, it might be easier to get laid if you have blue eyes --Th. Bernhard (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Th.: It ain't necessarily so! Scream!! (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Sceram: Yeah, I unfortunately know from experience that it ain't so. Even bright blue eyes don't make up for a rotten character and social awkwardness. Th. Bernhard (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe they just aren't blue enough? =P --Sid (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They are blue enough I think :P Th. Bernhard (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, I was reading exactly the same thing about blue-eyed people in America being overcome by filthy brown-eyes just last week. Where did I see it - Anders Breivik's manifesto (p 1161). Andy was probably catching up on it after reading Chucky's blog article. 16:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I didn't read the whole thing, I just noticed it while counting the number of times Jesus is mentioned compared with Darwin. 16:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

More proof that the spice must flow! --24.212.154.38 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy doubles down on Frothy the RINO
Uh, oh. Frothy is a RINO, just like Andy predicted. Awesome, super-sucessful truly conservative Tea Party Express would never do something so unfathomable. Hiphopopotamus (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that what Bruning has a stance on? First time i've ever actually heard anything concrete about these people. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  15:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So I got a productivity App called RescueTime. Hilarity ensued
So I am wasting my life on the internet, doing very little productive work, spend a lot of time reading science news and avoiding getting my work done. Anyways I got this app to better track how I'm wasting my time. Rational wiki shows up on this app as productive, a reference site. Conservapedia shows up as highly unproductive, classification? A comedy site. :D --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 07:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Damn, AIs are getting scary accurate these days. -- 11:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, I thought that's what it was at first, too. But then, after maybe two months, it dawned on me horribly that they were serious. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 20:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

God's Divine Wrath on Google!
According to Kenny (after only five page changes, you get a banana sticker Ken!), Google is on the magic man in the sky's shit list because its subsidiary Youtube shut down some obscure Christian Youtube channel for "violating the community guidelines". While I agree that shutting down the channel was complete bullshit, and that Youtube is far, far to quick to pull the trigger on videos and channels based on complaints (many which are fraudulent and trollish in nature), this happens to non-Christian channels just as often for just as frivolous of reasons; but hey, its their company they can do what they want (include chase customers/users away). What I find interesting in Ken's suggestion that Google will suffer the wrath of his Almighty is the all to typical Christian notion that their god will selectively punish those who wrong them, while completely ignoring much, much great tragedies of human suffering and oppression. Famine, terrorism, slavery, sex-trade of children, starvation, oppression? Feh, Ken's god has no time for such trivial human affairs. However a Christian Youtube channel is closed? Well now its time for divine justice!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, Yahweh must have mellowed in the last few millennia. He used to visit his wrath upon the unbelievers with fire and brimstone. Now he sends a couple of lawyers. Yesterday we had Rob claiming that he was the primary reason for the dems getting a kicking in the midterm elections, now we have Kendoll invoking divine wrath for the closure of a youtube channel. As king of the moon, I'd like to say I frown on these types of grandiose delusion. -- 23:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's really easy to claim god will punish something, because all you have to do is wait until something bad happens (and something "bad" will happen to everything, ever, anywhere, in quite a short amount of time) and scream "Look! I told you what would happen! You didn't let the local vicar pull out onto the main road 4 days ago and now a bird shit on your car!" It's a really easy self-confirmation thing. But looking at the link, what Ken has done is even lazier. He's waited until something bad happened and then retroactively assigned it to god's wrath. Which is adorable, in a way. X Stickman (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, lawyers are the greatest plague of our time. Vulpius (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets remember, its the offseason. God needs somthing to do untill he can help tebow win again.--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 23:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What really makes me laugh is the reason why Google is being investigated: violation of antitrust laws. So the capitalist GOD is punishing a capitalist company that treated a Christian/capitalist customer badly with a investigation about violation of a law that restrict capitalism before that ill-treatment has even occured. Either their GOD's a comedian three meta-levels up there or he's a socialist taking a piss at them. How they don't see this, I don't understand. --Raga Man (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember, ppsimmons was controlled by a group of people controlling the channel, moderating (censoring) content, and had a few run-ins with filing false DMCAs or some shit. It's always funny to see the nutjobs assume it's some conspiracy and form of oppression, but if an non-christian channel is removed, they *had* to have deserved it. Norseman  Cyser Melomel  01:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On Youtube that is standard operating procedure for Creationst channels: Censor all comments; delete the comments of and ban any user who asks too many difficult questions (or just one); file dishonest copyright claims against fair-use videos critical of them, and even false DCMA claims against rationalist channels that criticize them.  They don't stand by these opposing channels when it happens, they view it as justice when secular channels go down, even if its through dishonest means.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of me that really wants religious people to be perfectly moral, honest, un-hypocritical, caring human beings; but they rarely ever are. 22:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. There are many religious people whose faith motivates them to care deeply about other people. Some of them are leaders of religious groups (Pope John Paul I? Rowan Williams maybe...?) more often they're ordinary people who feel called by their particular god to devote their lives to good works or even just to behaving decently to other people. Just one example which occurs to me at this late hour: almost all leprosy colonies/hospitals in South Asia are run by Christian charities, including nuns and priests. Without their work, leprosy sufferers would often be thrown out of their communities and left to die. Don't doubt the sincerity of the motivation of these people, even if you think their faith is based on fairy stories. Why the US conservative movement is full of stinking hypocrites is another matter entirely. The Real James Brown (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you. There are a huge number of people who honestly care and feel compelled to help others. My question is whether their religion is really the driving force behind that? Would Mother Theresa have done what she did if not for her faith? I don't know. Some people care because of religion, some care regardless of religion, and some care despite religion. Ayzmo (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A circle jerk of stupid
Pastor without portfolio Carl "Gish" Gallups gets aboard the "God is my hit man" train with Kendoll. Which Kendoll dutifully reports on the main page. Is this really what Christianity is? People wishing desperately for the magic man in the sky to take vengeance for every petty slight they suffer? It's pathetic. -- 22:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Circle Jerk © is a registered trademark of brx incorporated. I'm going to have to ask you to cease and desist-- 22:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fucking hell Brx, shut the fuck up with your dumb shit idiocy. Brianster (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the point of the New Testament revenge fantasy against the Romans? --24.212.154.38 (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Conservapedia, the popular conservative alternative to Wikipedia...", that alone made the whole article laughable. Still I guess its nice for the CP crowd that they haven't managed to piss off all of the Christian conservatives. I wonder how PPSIMMONS feel about Andy's rewrite of the Bible to conform to his political ideals?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Only I pick up on the fact that this is published on Blogger, which is another Google-owned site? No comment on this at all? --Raga Man (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Carl is the author of the recent best-seller "The Magic Man in the Sky" which will be released in May published by WND Books."
 * And I STILL don't understand how you can be the author of a best seller the HASN'T COME OUT YET. RachelW (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pre-order, I imagine-- 02:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What always astonishes me about these fundies is how petty and powerless they seem to think their God is. Instead of relishing in the awe and wonder of the cosmos and nature that He created, they reduce His power to punishing Google with no more than a few legal attacks. This is, I'm convinced, the main weakness of the fundamentalist - no imagination. So he has to reduce the Almighty to human scale and consequently nothing special at all. You can see this in another example - Jack Chick's tracts. Instead of the afterlife being another level of existence, unimaginatively beautiful, love beyond the infinite, etc., (or hell being the opposite), his cartoons show it as little more than a Marvel comic with blank-faced Jesus the superhero sitting on an Ikea chair surrounded by some dry ice. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * God is reduced to hardening hearts, like some giant anti-cupid in the sky, using his arrows for petty tricks. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 09:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Its Every Year Andy
I know that I am being picky, but the "supermoon" event is a yearly occurrence, not a once in a two decade event, such as Andy claims. In fact the last time this occurred was in March of last year and the Moon would have been just a tiny bit brighter during that night (not enough that we notice the difference visually between then and tonight); oh and it will happen again on June 23, 2013. Its a cool event but there is nothing divine or supernatural about it. All the "supermoon" happens to be is the coincidence of a full moon with its perigee, or closest approach the Moon makes to the Earth on its monthly elliptical orbit. Andy understands astronomy like he understands the NFL, which is not at all. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to me like Andy is implying that supermoons only happen once every 2 decades. However, I thought last year's supermoon was the closest and brightest in 2 decades. Andy's own source says the one this year is 240 miles farther away than last year's. --Tabrcg23 (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Last year's was brighter than this year's, but the 2008 supermoon was the brightest in two decades. Andy seems to suffer from ADHD; he doesn't read too many of those pesky words. Whoover (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to be nothing more than another of Andy's attempts to construct a false argument: Event to do with the moon happens -> There's more than one non-creationist theory about the origin of the moon -> All those theories must be false -> The bibble is correct -> Conservapedia proven right.
 * I know Andy has lost several important lawsuits, but given his inability to construct a simple argument, does anyone know if he's ever managed to win one? Prodigal (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not from what I've read. Though I'm more interested in what his fee was for the lawsuits he won. Also, I'm very fond of Andy's making sure that people know the moon rises in the east. Ayzmo (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It does? I thought that was the sun. Thanks, Andy! 22:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AugustO has just aligned himself with the hearsay society. Should be fun. Whoover (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Stalking much, Karajou?
Nice try, buddy. A few small problems - 1. It lets me know whenever you search for me and 2. I'm not in the US, I'm not on that database. 3. You don't need to check every 3 days. Scumbag.

-- PsyGremlin  15:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What the fuck. But could you give a n00b like me some background as to where you get these alerts from and stuff? And does Kara actually know your real name or is he trying to find you based on your mail address? ...and did you try the Creamy Spam Broccoli Casserole? --Sid (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the creepiest CP-related screencap since Ken's 30-hour editing marathon. Vulpius (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he claims to know my name, so no doubt he's been busy Googling and stuff. Not that there's much to find. After all, we are talking about the guy who phones other people's companies. I'm not even sure how I get these alerts - just checked my spam folder and there they were. -- PsyGremlin  15:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)-- PsyGremlin  15:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Go easy on the guy. He's probably only trying to find Kotomi's FB pics for the faps--Brendiggg (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fucking sad loser. He must be really missing the Navy. 16:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, he might have looked once and now that business is spamming you. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 17:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems way more likely.-- 03:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Every three days would require self discipline and systematic thinking. That's not Karajou. Karajou shared an email allegedly from Psy where the sender claims to be ex-military and fought against the godless communists wp:SWAPO. That doesn't sound like PsyGremlin, either. nobsCorporations are people, too. 18:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, remind me to share Karajou's love letters to myself and Jess sometime. Especially the creepy one where he was the stalker in her house, while she was having a bath. -- PsyGremlin  09:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If I did a data dump for Conservaleaks, this would be included. And to Karajou, ''Why do think I haven't done a dump for Conservaleaks? According to you, me & PsyGremlin are the same person. Would that necessitate an apology from your mushroom shrouded mind and an admission you are full of shit, don't have clue about the technical aspects of being a sysop, and wantonly abuse CP's own written policies?'' nobsCorporations are people, too. 19:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

BOTP Redux
No Andy, a highly-bred, trained from birth horse, combined with somebody whose career is being a jockey, and bookies' odds, does not make for the best of the public. You turning up on a donkey and winning the race, would, however. -- PsyGremlin  14:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's odd is that I can't find anything on CP (other than Ken's quote mines) that says gambling is immoral, rather than just "addictive". I guess Andy endorses the industry? 14:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there may have been some MPR posts. Try there, although searching through the archives will be a pain if you hope for attributions.-- 15:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Gambling has been a conservative virtue since Obama "attacked" Vegas, saying there were better ways to plan for your kids' college. CP cited this coverage, and added that Obama hated gambling because Koran. Whoover (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Gee, the Encyclopedia Britannica has done it all wrong!
Student's homework answers belong in encyclopedias! You know, because Student No. 9 is a superstar running for political office. --Raga Man (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It has always been the case that CP is not an orderly filing system but a sackful of disorganised junk. While many lowly editors have tried to clean out the Augean stables of CP's content the only sysop who had a clue about organising a wiki was PJR. 19:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but he's so rigid and dishonest that he can't even get along with any but fundies of exactly his stripe because he can't tolerate anyone disagreeing with him even if he's the asshat who bumbled into the discussion. He couldn't even hack it at CreationWiki. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg
 * Oh, I don't dispute that. But aSK has not failed because of poor wiki skills, it's a Phil's personality in a situation where he has the final say on everything. 22:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Enough of the Nazi stuff, Ken
Andy engages in a bit of trimming. 19:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. If TK were only alive to see this. He'd have given Andy a mouthful about Ken's activity on the Main Page. nobsCorporations are people, too. 16:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whats that got to do with the price of fish?--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 16:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  16:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Why don't you go over to Main Page talk and ask Andy if (a) User:Conservative posting swastika's is an abuse of sysop rights or (b) an example of the Best of Pubic, or (c) reverting it is censoring conservative facts? nobsCorporations are people, too. 16:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't YOU? -- il' Dictator   Mikal  16:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't. I'm blocked indefinitely. But an experienced true blue troll such as yourself shouldn't have ethical problems with that, like I do. nobsCorporations are people, too. 16:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting swastikas everywhere certainly IS the actions of the Best of Pubic!±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR walls of text while-u-wait 16:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * you asking us to break the rules so you dont is the same as you breaking the rules rob. -- il'  Dictator   Mikal  17:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm giving you valid talking points that someone with a brain could get mileage out of. Perhaps you're the wrong candidate. nobsCorporations are people, too. 17:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I can't. I'm blocked indefinitely. But an experienced true blue troll such as yourself shouldn't have ethical problems with that, like I do." You can't do it because you have some selectively applied "morals"; but since we apparently don't have morals it's ok for us to do it for you. Thats still ultimately you breaking the rules; manson didnt actually kill anybody (afair) but he's still in perma-jail over the killings.-- il' Dictator   Mikal  17:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I'm like a football coach. I got the head for the game, but not the physical ability. The 20 year old player's got the physical ability, but shit for brains. So he needs the coach to teach him how. nobsCorporations are people, too. 17:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ... Rob... .... I... fuck it. Not worth the effort talking to a complete idiot who can't keep on track, see his own flaws or where he breaks his own "morality" system. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  17:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I, for one, deeply appreciate Rob's willingness to share his wisdom with the dullards on this site. With his expertise, surely we will be victorious in whatever it is that he thinks we're trying to do here.  I will go sign up a sockpuppet forthwith, in order to follow his gentle directions!  Thanks! Phiwum (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He'd have given Andy a mouthful about Ken's activity on the Main Page. Isn't the usual saying "give an earful", not a mouthful? Giving someone a mouthful implies something entirely different... Cow...Hammertime! 16:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Double-slit logic experiment"
Can anybody tell me what caused Andy to create this article? I'm kinda baffled, though the edit summary hints that it's just another bullshit Insight - and a lame one at that. Andy's "example" isn't really making things clearer for me, I'm afraid. And nothing links to it, so I'm lost about possible context. --Sid (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * His "probabilities" don't even model the actual interference pattern you observe. I think this must be another of his sunday "insights" he found at the bottom of a bottle of wine. -- 22:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this insight at all. AceModerator 00:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Master speaks in parables and allegories, and don't need cites. nobsCorporations are people, too. 00:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy has been getting crazier and crazier about science lately. (I know; that sounds like a tautology, but he generally increases the crazy in one field while he lets other fields lie fallow. For the last few weeks it's been science.  The overall average keeps moving up, of course.)

Quite a number of people (most of them not socks of mine) have been very skilfully ganging up on him about relativity of late. We have boxed him in solidly. He's surrounded by impenetrable brick walls on all sides. The most recent thing was the demand, by several people, that he really, really, really, show us his data proving Einstein is wrong about the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.

The requests for data on Mercury, and requests for references on a number of other of his "scientific insights" seems to have coincided with the "hearsay society" meme and the "citations not needed" template and his claim that any random person's insights are superior to the study of other people's works.

Since he has now completely liberated himself from the need to justify anything he says, and can just spout "insights" at will, protected by his goons, he's really having a grand old time. The "double slit logic" page makes even less sense than his writing about double-slit experiments in general, and his claims that the second law of thermodynamics follows from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics (or whatever he's claiming; I can't be bothered) is just blazing new trails of nonsensicalness. No one can talk any sense to him, now that he is protected by the Cloak of the Hearsay Society. Anything that anyone else says is hearsay, right? SamHB (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm taking an A-level in physics, and... You know, this just makes me want to slash my own throat with a hacksaw. If you do do this experiment with, as I did it, a laser, you can't actually model it as a particle and account for the results you get.
 * But hey, he doesn't need sources and I guess the fact that I'm studying it makes me an "expert", who the hell am I to argue with the best of the public? Now, someone, please, get me a hacksaw. --Veni Vidi.png Feci.png 10:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Devil's Advocate"
With the addition of "devil's advocate" (1760), Best New Conservative Terms is only two shy of another perfect geometric fit by century: 29-57-115-232. Other than being pre-ordained because of Andy's Jesus-numerology, any idea why "devil's advocate" is conservative? Is it too sophisticated for liberals? Is it that liberals really are the devil's advocate and so are barred from using the technique? Is a liberal's playing "devil's advocate" just liberal deceit? Or are liberals just too fearful to debate conservatives, and who cares what a liberal might do when debating another liberal? Or do you have a better explanation? Whoover (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Justice and trial by jury are conservative notions, therefore to have a fair trial one needs a devil's advocate or taxpayer funded public defender so the administration of justice can be complete. nobsCorporations are people, too. 00:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Justice and trial by jury are conservative notions bahahahaha. Sure they are, suuuuure....AceModerator 01:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ace, look, a joke looses it's punch if has to be explained. Don't they have comedians in NZ, or do they have to rely on imports for that, too? nobsCorporations are people, too. 01:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure we have comedians but nothing is funnier than the bullshit you write. AceModerator 01:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Flight of the Concords is pretty funny. And Rob was being sarcastic, Ace.-- 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh man, every time I read one of your comments, Brx, a part of me dies. Rob was being sarcastic, Ace Yeah no shit, you freak. AceModerator 02:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely trial by jury is Liberal. The Conservative alternative is to see who has the most money, and they win. After all, money is a blessing by Jesus, so the more money you have the more God favours you? And anyway, it's completely ethical and right to just throw money at a trial, since the hand of Jesus is in everything; the court isn't more powerful than Jesus, so if you're found innocent when you're guilty and should have been punished, that's just the will of God, right? Sasayaki (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In a sinful world it is unjust that a thief then gets to rob the public treasury through the appointment of a public defender in the administration of justice. But this is all part of rendering unto Caesar. nobsCorporations are people, too. 01:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly the modern world has this notion of fairness and a right to a trial and defense; something your god doesn't see as important. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  01:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to have to point out that Rob has lead this thread into the weeds. Devil's advocate has nothing to do with justice.  It's a damned rhetorical device. Whoover (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely the conservative Christian method of justice is 'trial by ordeal' so that God can show who's innocent and who's not. Trial by jury is a liberal ploy to introduce doubt and let guilty people walk free. 07:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

To be back on point
In andys world; alongside many others; liberals and non christians are just actively denying the truth and being rebellious, so by default are being devils advocates; and it was conservative truth seering that discovered this notion-- il' Dictator   Mikal  02:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's why Andy calls it a conservative term. He speaks approvingly of playing the Devil's advocate in order to sharpen an argument.  I think it's really just a matter of all good things being conservative. Phiwum (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That too.-- il' Dictator   Mikal  02:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The devil's advocate is also known in the New Testament as the accuser of the brethren (1 Tim 4-13; Rev. 12-10). Christ is the advocate with the father (1 Jn 2:1). The devil functions as a prosecutor, accusing the believers conscience (Rom. 2-15), and Christ the defense attorney. Andy, as a attorney, is making the point the devil is an advocate for a sinful world without God (which of course is liberalism). In this parallel, a government prosecutor functions as a devils advocate, and the defense attorney for fallen man is Christ. But Andy has said adulterers deserve capital execution, which is the arguement Satan, as devil's advocate and accuser of the brethren, makes before God on Judgement day. nobsCorporations are people, too. 04:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Traditionally the Catholic church (for let us not forget Andy is nominally Catholic) had a Devil's Advocate whose role was to contest the sainthood of new proposed saints. He was the only guy in the Vatican saying "So, this kid just happens to need money for his sick mother and then by coincidence he's witness to a miracle? And your corroborating evidence is a blurry photograph of nothing in particular?". This annoyed John Paul II, who wanted to create record numbers of saints as quickly as possible to boost the Church. So JP2 scrapped the post, getting rid of the obstacle. If the Vatican was a real country it'd be like saying "These people are accusing us of injustice. Fire the Justice minister and declare Justice obsolete". Not that creating lots of saints will help you, the Mormons trumped Catholicism on that years ago, and then Discordianism trumped both of them by declaring all of its members are Popes and able to saint people at will. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be darned. I didn't realize how the term came about.  But Wikipedia concurs with your origin story, and the office was established in 1587.  But I guess that the term was used in Andy's sense two hundred years later.  Otherwise, his date placing it in the 18th century is inexplicable.
 * Say, the fact that the best conservative words grows exponentially is yet another good argument for a young earth. After all, extrapolating backwards, only a few centuries ago there was less than one best new conservative word.  That must be when the world started.  (It's rather less than six thousand years ago, but never mind.) Phiwum (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Conservative words? Bah!
Ken decides the growth of Conservative English is unimportant, instead asking if Jesus believed in the genesis account for some reason. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  06:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...why would Jesus believe in a Young Earth? Shouldn't he know? But it's indeed nice to see him pissing all over Andy's bullshit. --Sid (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Atheists? More generous than christians??? Noooooo!
Me: Here's an interesting new study that claims that atheists are more generous than very religious people. CP person: YOU LIE! Heretic! Blah blah blah librul, atheists are stinky! http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#SPPS_Survey Meh... Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So: Christian say atheists have no morals → therefor they lie. Study says atheists actually are more moral → Atheists lie → this study is a lie.
 * With all this circular reasoning, who needs carousels? --Raga Man (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Related? http://i.imgur.com/1kMfe.jpg ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR longissimus non legeri 12:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What book is tat? [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 12:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno what exact book, but it was in the social psychology textbook of a person on reddit r/atheism.±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR garrulous en guerre 14:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And again we see Ken do something that simply irritates me, even though there's zero reason I should care: he talks about all this irrefutable evidence for Christianity, then links to an article which presents no evidence of Christianity whatsoever. Come on, Ken, I want to see this evidence. Where is it? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Liberal Atheists are rich and elite; but also know they need to not be considered scum of the earth, so they pretend to care by donating more money! It's all liberal lies and trickery mixed with atheistic elitism.-- il' Dictator   Mikal  15:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Once, when someone went on about the evidence for Christianity, I asked him to present that evidence. He actually had the nerve to answer, "You haven't disproved it yet." ... of liberals? (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I need to become more of an atheist then so I can attain this rich and elite status of which you speak? I'm pretty much maxed out already. 15:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When you find out, please let me know. I'm still waiting for my homosexual special privileges. ... of liberals? (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid as n atheist you lack economic skills and therefor cannot become rich. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  17:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that mean as an atheist I should just give up on being an economist? άλφα Ταλκ 19:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy's source on precession of the perihelion of Mercury
First of all, thanks to the Committee for Calling Out Andy's Bullshit on Relativity. I'm afraid that the following posting may be tl;dr but so be it. All the boldface emphasis below is mine.

Andy has been going on and on about how GR was tweaked to predict the precession of the perihelion of Mercury (False), and how improved observations now show the GR predictions to be incorrect (also False).

Several people have been asking Andy for his source of information. I'm sure that I know what his source is - it comes from ksorensen, during a long discussion in 2009. I've copied the salient points below; see http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Essay:Quantifying_Order for the whole sorry mess.

ksorensen said the following (19:11, 14 November 2009 (EST)) [It's a long posting, I've deleted most of it...)


 * "Oh, okay. I see where you made an honest mistake.... There are two numbers at play here: there's the observed precession of Mercury's orbit, and then there's the anomaly. Hang on, lemme splain... If you add up the precession predicted by Newton's approximation, you get exactly 5,557.02 arc seconds per century.  But if you run the numbers using the Einstein equations instead of the Newton equations — using the same constants for things like the mass and shape of the sun — you get a precession of exactly 5,600±0.04 arc seconds per century. It's really weird that it would be a round number like that, but that's how the math works out. The observed precession of Mercury's orbit? It's 5,599.7 arc seconds per century. Which is where you got your number from. And that means the general relativity prediction was accurate to within (deep breath) one half of one one hundredth of one percent."

Notice that '''the observed value of 5599.7 does not lie within 5600 +- 0.04. I'm convinced that this sloppy "off the top of my head" posting by ksorensen is the source for Andy's claim''' that the observed value does not lie within the experimental error. At the time of these postings, I was lurking on both CP and RW; I spotted this glitch immediately after ksorensen's posting, and was hoping she would clarify it, but instead ksorensen continued with further, more detailed evidence, but failed to respond to this problem with the 5600 +- 0.04 (the numbers quoted above).

ksorensen went on with the following: ( 20:35, 14 November 2009 (EST) )
 * "Right, but there's an error of fact buried in there. It's a totally innocent one, I'm sure; I'm not accusing you of axe-grinding. It's just that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury has not changed since 1916 when the theory was published. It's not that we measured it with telescopes before 1916 and got a rough estimate, and now we measure it with better telescopes and have a much more precise figure. We measured it before 1916 and got a very accurate figure because measuring the motion of Mercury just isn't that hard, and the measurements we make today with better telescopes say only that yup, the older measurements were pretty much spot on.   What we have done since then is to much more precisely measure the oblateness of the sun. There was a big controversy about that back in the … hmm … 80s I think it was? Goldberg and Dicke claimed that the sun was much "fatter" than previously thought, which would have made the predictions from general relativity different from the observed precession....  Anyway, saying that the prediction matched the observation in 1916 and doesn't today is simply flat-out false. If your argument depends on it, then you're hurting your argument with this point. If it doesn't, then what's the harm in fixing it?"

Note that not only did ksorensen give Andy the bogus data to support his claim that we now have improved observational results that invalidate GR, she even spelled out this claim in the text above - but she was explicitly saying that the issue is not improved observations, but rather a change in assumptions about the shape of the sun (which of course means that the error bar was actually larger than believed).

Thus Andy wasn't even bright enough to originate this claim he's been going on about, that improved observations invalidate GR.

What happened, of course, is that ksorensen was just slightly careless in giving the original numbers, and Andy latched onto this in full quote-mining mode. There are many other points to make about this, including the following:
 * The error bars for an experiment don't guarantee that a measurement must absolutely fall within the error bars if the theory is correct; they are concerned with probabilities, not certainties.
 * Sometimes the error bars are calculated incorrectly, because of unknown phenomena (e.g. the oblateness of the sun).
 * There are many measurements and observations; Andy seems to think that the measurement of the precession is a high school experiment that comes up with one single number.
 * The talk page of a blog is not a suitable source for data to back up scientific claims, especially ones that require extraordinary evidence.

To my knowledge, Andy has never cited ksorensen for this data; I doubt that he even remembers where he got this idea. But he surely got it from ksorensen; he's too unintelligent to come up with it on his own. Fawlty (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for you hard werk on that! 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ

You lost me at the word "perihelion", therefore, it is OK to say God did it. Q.E.D. Jimaginator (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Remember when Andy cited a fuckin' forum comment for a counterexample to relativity ? And that he justified it by saying there was a relativity conspiracy so it was okay to cite random forum comments the Best of the Public ? And that he somehow missed that other commenters on that very thread explicitly explained how the alleged counterexample assumed relativity was false right off the bat? What an idiot.--Night Jaguar (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

New evidence of a young Earth ignored by Andy
Boobs are getting bigger. If we extrapolate backwards we will find that 50,000 years ago women's breasts would have been so small that there would be empty space between their neck and their abdomen. Proof positive that the Earth is no more than 6000 years old. I can't see why CP is ignoring this. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's no question that as science discovers more about the vastness of the universe, and how much we've still to learn, the biggest boobs in the world will continue to grow significantly larger. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I need to investigate this further. Right, I'm off to find my wife and do some, um, research. Darkmind1970 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed at the lack of pictures of boobs in the article linked to. There are over three sentences in that article but no pictures of boobs. 20:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to see the evidence for these claims. No "hearsay society" here, please! The Real James Brown (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Does Andy know the difference between rewriting and retranslating?
In this trolling section, he claims that "...never sought to rewrite the Bible, but to translate it with greater adherence to its original meaning." It's obvious he's rewriting the Bible and not "re-translating". He won't accept any translation that doesn't agree with his ideology, wants to omit or edit parts (Adulteress Story), and as far as I know, it's being "translated" from mostly English text. Is he just saying he wants to "translate" it because the term rewriting the Bible would be blasphemous, and who the hell is he kidding (besides his idiot cohorts)? Norseman  Cyser Melomel  17:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He sees other translations of the Bible as being tainted with liberal bias. He's lying to himself, though.  He must have doubts about the project.  That or he's ill.-- 17:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's obvious liberalism is a Satanic conspiracy to distort the Word of God through mistranslations. Andy now is responding to charges he's converted to liberalism and joined the Satanic conspiracy. nobsCorporations are people, too. 17:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy has reached the point were he'd be more believable claiming devine inspiration directly from god than what he is "arguing" --Raga Man (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that many bible translations predate liberalism as we know it, this whole affair is baffling. ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR garrulous en guerre 17:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been said over and over again, but this claim that he's "translating" anything is so shockingly dishonest I cannot believe the man has the gall to repeat it over and over again. He doesn't read Koine. AugustO appears to be the only person over there who does. Andy literally looks at an English-Greek dictionary, "translates" the English word into Greek and then back again. I showed him a Greek interlinear bible and a concordance, which are a start for someone who can't even sound out Greek words. He seems not to have looked at them again or he would see that his "translations" of words (and even extracting "concepts" from phrases) to suit his political whims are so far afield as to render the verses he butchers unintelligible and rob them of any of the meaning the author intended. Were he actually a christian rather than a member of his own cult this would be heresy. The fact that he proceeds so blithely in the face of unequivocal commands from his own bible and simply argues by assertion show how out of touch with any notions of mainstream christianity he is. Hurlbut was no better. /rant [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur, far from the biblical "man being made in the image of God" they try to make God in their own image. 19:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my non-existent god, he's doing the exact same thing he's doing with Orwell's redefinition of words with Feurbach's theories on religion. Poe-level: through the good damn roof. If this man is a parodist, he's a fucking genius. --84.158.71.193 (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with BoN, and +1 internets on that rant, sir Nutty. Slow claps all around! [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]<font color = "Green">Norseman  Cyser Melomel  11:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He's claimed that the original writers of the bible didn't have access to the conservative words that now exist, despite the fact that they clearly would have used them if they did exist. He's "translating" it from old(er) english into modern conservative english. X Stickman (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, they could have MADE UP the words to express what they meant? Rather than saying something that they did not mean? Unless... they actually meant what they said and Andy's full of bullcrap, which is 100 percent certain. <font face="MS Sans Serif" size="3">±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR walls of text while-u-wait 19:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy was evidently trying to reconcile the Mormon and Catholic bibles with the Protestant bible before the 2012 elections, but never bothered to review the Protestant doctrine of the cp:Biblical_inerrancy. Karajou in places tried to warn him off this path, but never had the balls to stand up. Ken never came out of the closet til I outed him as CBP dissenter, but that only earned the wrath of Ken & Karajou. The two are nutless dribbling dweebs, kissing the ass of their boss in the service of Satan. nobsCorporations are people, too. 19:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They can't have made up the words back then, because conservative words only appeared in 1800 or so (according to his "new conservative words" progression rate). And that, combined with earthquakes, supermoons and grey hair means that the writers of the bible (who weren't writing in English, which is irrelevant, stupid liberals) simply didn't have access to the words they needed. Luckily, Andy can read minds across time (disproving relativity) so he knows exactly what they meant to say. X Stickman (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets not pretend that the ConservaBible is an aberration. It's exactly what every Christian does, they just usually aren't as explicit about it. There's no such thing as a Christian who even tries to do what the Bible actually says they ought to do, it's so outlandish and essentially impossible. They just choose a few bits of Paul that they can manage to accomplish without any major impact on their life and pretend the rest doesn't exist. The inconvenient bits get rewritten in to compliance with their lives, they just don't go through the hassle of writing their revisions down. -- 20:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me Lord Jeeves, What must I do to be saved? nobsCorporations are people, too. 20:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Abandoning your imaginary friend would be a start. After that, sell all you have and give it to me. -- 20:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Who? Harvey the Rabbit? nobsCorporations are people, too. 20:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

So…
…what do you think, will the victory of French socialist Hollande be reported on on CP or is the French President's Office not important enough for news? Or is Europe just going become more and more conservative? --Raga Man (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the sysops (Jomar?) appears to be a Hollande supporter, if the recent MPR stories on the issue are any indication. Omar (gibber) 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Andy ain't... Nice to know Andy ♥ European racists, except for the one of course, he was a liberal. --Raga Man (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * CAP TAGS DAMN YOU. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  15:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember, there are no True Conservatives in Europe (the last one shot himself in a bunker), so any victory by socialists, or Labour, etc, is merely a swing from the left, to the far left. -- PsyGremlin  16:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even so, I'm surprised that Andy didn't make something of Boris Johnson's re-election as Mayor of London. 17:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If he did that, he might have had to mention the gains Labour made in the rest of the elections. That doesn't fit his narrative. -- 17:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a suggestion: Sarkozy fails to get any mileage out of whacking Khadaffi. nobsCorporations are people, too. 23:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

One thing I find fascinating about the U.S. coverage of the election year is how every singe headline is "Socialist François Hollande [verb] [noun]". Apparently they are trying to get as much mileage as possible out of the fact that the social democrat party in France is called Parti socialiste. Omar (gibber) 13:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

How Andy responds
Andy tosses sarkozy under the bus, specifically calling him a warmongerer who helped overthrow the legitimate libyan regime. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  02:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not gonna find a better example of Fusion paranoia than the hit job Sarkozy & Obama did on Khadaffi. After Sarkozy's loss, does Obama still think he'll get mileage out of bin Laden job? nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Rob. Vulpius (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Watching American conservatives search for allies in Europe is hilarious. Europe's so-called conservatives are basically social democrats that don't like same-sex marriage all that much (but won't proclaim the end of the world over it when legalised). Most nationalists are pretty tight against business and big international cooperations and like the social systems and last but not least the actual social conservatives/christian activists are equally social democrats, they support social programs, emigration, keep their mouth's shut on evolution (because saying it's a conspiracy in Europe won't get you killed but laughed at). And that's not even accounting for the racism of nationalists (the whole thing against "the immigrants" a.k.a. "muslims" because none of these people actually cares if a French, German or Dutch comes over the border to take their job away). I guess the best alliance you can built as a American conservative are in the middle east, with moderate islamists, of course. --Raga Man (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yah I remember when the socialist photographers following d’Estaing around called a strike to protest working conditions. Difficult job, you know, with inhumane working conditions, following the President around and snapping pictures.  nobsCorporations are people, too. 11:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Just baffled
[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AAugustO&year=&month=-1 0:06, 7 May 2012 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) changed User:AugustO's user rights from rollback and SkipCaptcha to rollback, SkipCaptcha, edit and Block. (adding blocking and greater editing privileges)]

20:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * .....Well played. What ever he's up to, I just don't understand it.--ThunderstruckMONKEYS 20:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy's running out of people to police his blog for him, so he gave out block rights, I guess...Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 20:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh. Maybe if I ask nicely he'll give me Edit.  I've got an erratic sleep schedule so it can be really annoying-- 20:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This site is growing rapidly! <font face="MS Sans Serif" size="3">±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain! 20:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * August asked and teh Assfly giveth. Prodigal (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well he beat me out, i never made it to edit before i got bored; not that getting block was hard, just needed to wait for a vandal attack. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  22:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, on one hand now Andy can claim CP is a meritocracy, on the other, he gave rights to somebody whose sole purpose on CP is to poke andy and say, 'no, you're wrong, here's why.'  PsyGremlin  23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile behind closed doors:


 * nobsCorporations are people, too. 23:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * -- il' Dictator   Mikal  23:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling Rob, Mikalos. Is there something wrong with you? I can see a comment here and there but you follow him around like a dog yapping at his heels. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * its following him to not even know when he edits til i see the comment? hows that work?-- il' Dictator   Mikal  00:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a plethora of times when Rob's inanity deserves dismissive snarkiness; let's not give it to him on those occasions when it doesn't. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I read this more as a healthy dose of sour grapes with a sprinkling of wistful toadyism. Perhaps he hopes that by pointing this out he can score points with Kara and Ken (since we all know they watch this page) and maybe earn back his privileges to the He-Man Liberal Haters club.  Keep up the good work Rob m'boy.  Nothing is more adorable then watching a cast out Quisling try to win back his master's favor.


 * Getting back on topic, it is rather amusing to see AugustO get a bit of a promotion. Are there truly so few left over there to...heh "help" the project that Andy is really having to bite the bullet and promote a known dissenter? --Tygrehart
 * Andy thanked God for sending AugustO to retrieve some lost CP entries . It seems August got the promotion because of his divine connections. Way to go, God's IT guy! --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tygrehart, as mi amigos say, Yo no me voy. nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed by Karajou's power of observation: following his reasoning Chancellor Merkel is just Sid in drags. 13:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And there goes my sex drive… --Raga Man (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * * cackles* --Sid (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Um... Kenny baby...
So, according to you, the US is getting fatter, whilst at the same time halving atheism and homosexuality on the internet. In fact, after your landmark of date of 2020, the US will continue to get fatter? What gives? Maybe the science is right and it is conservative Christians who are the lardarses? -- PsyGremlin  12:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The remaining atheists will be so fat of comfort food, that they'll make the US fatter all on their own. --Raga Man (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he will now declare one-third of American adults atheist by default.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd love to track all these "X is becoming more/less Y every year" posts on Conservapedia and then do a short story based on what the world was like in 1,000 BC and then what it will be like in 3,000 AD from Andy's point of view. --Sasayaki (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The world is getting more conservative, dumber, fatter every year. In the year 1,000 BC, everyone is 100% liberal, 100% homo, completely covered in hair, have MASSIVE TITS, is rake-thin and hyper intelligent (and the Earth is geologically inert). In 3,000 AD everyone is 100% conservative, completely and utterly bald, 100% hetrosexual, flat chested but colossal lard asses and dumb as two bricks. By the year 3,000 every word is a conservative word so they have to keep inventing new words at a geometric rate to keep up the growth rate. Earthquakes happen every four seconds and measure 22.8 on the rictor scale, which shakes the blubber a lot and makes writing down all the new conservative words difficult. --Sasayaki (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OH MY FUCKING GOD --Raga Man (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pathological liars do so out of compulsion, not usually for some "personal gain" as Andy sees "proving" this "insight". If I had to bet, I would go with delusional disorder. It's rare, but it fits like a glove. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia Proven Right Again, Or Not
Well it has been a while ride for Santorum as far as his status on Conservapedia goes. First he was nothing but a pro-abort dirty RINO, then Romney's stalking horse (and still RINO). Once it became apparent the Gingrich campaign was going nowhere and Conservapedia's "dream Gingrich administration" was shown to be pure fantasy, Santorum was suddenly  elevated  to  true  conservative hero, hailed as  the   great  hope, and so totally pro - life. Now that Romney has clearly won the nomination in all but name (and he will be the nominee no matter what Objectivist Pauline fantasies Launchbooty has), Andy has declared we have always been at war with Eastasia, er thrown Santorum under the bus , er shown Conservapedia was right all along ! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotta admit, it was a mighty deep and secretive stalking horse campaign. I wonder if Romney liked it when Santorum said he was the worst Republican in the country to go against Obama.  That deflected all suspicion about Santorum's real intentions.  And he would've gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those kids at CP and that meddling dog. Phiwum (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Geometric rate ruined! Oh no!
Andy just needed one more word from the 1700s in order to achieve "another" perfect geometric rate for his little word list. Of course, we all know that these number games are meaningless, but Andy loves them.

But then Toadaron ruined it by adding a word in the 20th century. In order to fix things, Andy needs one new word in the 1600s, three in the 1700s, four in the 1800s and seven in the 1900s.

Or, of course, he could just make up a reason to delete Toadaron's contribution.

Geez, I wonder... Phiwum (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Both are victories; the later being more but not worth his time-- il' Dictator   Mikal  03:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's global warming causing accelerated life cycles. The bio-clock is all fucked up. Somebody go explain to him his geometric progression got behind because of accelerated lifecycles due to global warming. nobsCorporations are people, too. 03:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You go fucking tell him, you slovenly wank-face. AceModerator 04:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ace, I already told you I have ethical problems with socks & trolling, of course you don't have a clue what that means. nobsCorporations are people, too. 04:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * asking us to do it is the same thing as you doing it; again, manson didnt kill anybody but he's still in perma-jail. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  04:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mikalos is right. Rob your morals can't be that tight. I mean, barely legal porn doesn't seem to worry you. AceModerator 04:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the best things you could do on CP would be to find and add ten new words from the 1600s. Then Andy would have to find 140 new words from later centuries to preserve his fit.-- 08:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I used to do that but Andy would just come along and delete them for spurious reasons. --Horace (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rob, whatever your convoluted morals are, no one is going to do what you suggest. Partly because few people like taking orders and partly because nothing you say makes any fuckin' sense.  It's no funnier than saying "Bananas are computer chips because cheese is loud." Phiwum (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, are you that fucking dense you can't discern between an order & a suggestion? nobsCorporations are people, too. 12:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever you want to call it, no one gives a fuck about what you'd like to say to Andy. Either find a way to say it yourself or moan quietly in the corner about the unfairness of life. Phiwum (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comeon now, August0/Sid just got enhanced user rights cause he's vital. Your not helping, Phiwum. Any idiot can prove Karajou wrong, but you're overreaching on this one. nobsCorporations are people, too. 12:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Helping what? I read CP because I think it's funny. I don't aim to "help" you or anyone else do whatever it is you think you're doing.  If Andy wants to give August block rights, let him. Phiwum (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, do you think August has Karajou fooled? Do you think Andy promoted a known Ratvandal over Karajou's objections? Do you think a Ratwikian can contribute constructively to CP? If so, why am I infinitely blocked? nobsCorporations are people, too. 12:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Better question: Why are you still allowed to derail threads with non-sequitur bullshit? 99.50.98.145 (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't we write a script that automatically places trolltop/bottom tags around any post Rob makes? -- PsyGremlin  13:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And there it goes!
"Level playing field" has been downgraded, so only one word away from Andy's goal again. To be fair, "Level playing field" doesn't sound conservative to me. If only Toadaron had chosen a word with impeccable pedigree. A term popularized by Reagan, say. Phiwum (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is my favorite example of what I think is Andy actually believing in his own insanity. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The very fact that Andy can't seem to understand that he's massaging the data to suit the result he wants, is a clear indication that he's either mentally ill, or a pathological liar. I'd go with the latter. -- PsyGremlin  15:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing about this particular insight (or whatever he wants to call it) is that it's so pointless. Why does it matter if it's a geometric growth, or any kind of strict growth? It just plain doesn't. If there were 50 new conservative words from 1700-1950 and then 50,000 new conservative words from 1950+, why is that a bad thing? Why does he insist it has to fit this very specific growth pattern? I honestly don't have a problem with the core concept ("conservative" phrases appearing and the times they appeared), I actually find it quite interesting, but the way Andy approaches it is just incredibly bizarre and... specific. Pointlessly so. X Stickman (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy thinks it's evidence of the inevitable triumph of conservatism*. Y'see, given time, every word anyone ever uses will be conservative*, and the power of language will lead to a conservative* society, where nobody but conservatives* exist and everything is conservative* in perpetuity. *Valid only for Andy's version bastardisation of conservatism ONE / TALK 16:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Moreover, once he called it geometric growth, that means it has to be geometric growth. And every time that it is (temporarily) exactly doubling, then, of course, Andy was right again!
 * Yeah, I dunno. The whole thing is literally mind-boggling.  He's an odd duck. Phiwum (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's as if in the minds of CP every single aspect of life is progressing (wait.. that's not a conservative word) or regressing to some point which clearly proves their beliefs to be correct. I don't know exactly what it is that causes the crazy, but it always seems like a good case study on making up your mind first and then trying to find evidence later. Q0 (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Phiwum, here's a word popularized by Reagan, keister. nobsCorporations are people, too. 19:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a kind of fish to me.
 * I can get that he wants the amount of conservative words to increase, that part doesn't faze (phase?) me at all, which probably says something about how banal CP seems to me now. What confuses me is his insistence on a strict geometric growth, as if... what, there's some kind of external power making conservatism grow exactly like this? Why? Why exactly like this? Why not just a generic "more conservatism"? Why not another pattern of growth, or even "conservatism increases then declines then increases then declines" or whatever? The entire concept just raises so many questions that I don't even think he's considered, and it is bizarre as all hell to me, more than anything else for some reason. X Stickman (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Faze (verb) - To disconcert, disturb, daunt, make frightened. 07:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No more of this talk that Andy's list is ad hoc! We can see that it is carefully vetted by the man himself.  For instance, he tells us that "coolant" is a conservative word because it is an essential part of nuclear energy -- which liberals loathe .  Phiwum (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't nuclear energy a liberal lie?-- il' Dictator   Mikal  03:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy's reading list
found this while looking at some religion pages ; andy has a very interesting list of top books; though im curious as to why some of those books are "best of x and y"--[[User:Mikalos209| il'] Dictator  Mikal  03:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ever written ever written ever written ever written --Sid (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And woe betide anyone who asks Andy to provide references for those self-evident truths.--Spud (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy does teaching writing. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe this is Andy's defining trait - his inability to understand the difference between subjective and objective AMassiveGay (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that. Who in his right mind actually has an opinion about which book is the "most profound" or "most intellectual" ever written?  It's not merely subjective --- it's nigh meaningless.  Phiwum (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There are no words other than
--Raga Man (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A turn to socialism must surely be bad for Obama. 10:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh? Why the face palm? It's a valid point. Unpopularity of incumbents in tough economic times. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what Khant said. --Raga Man (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I felt that voters overall were smart enough to realize the problems inherent in the economic crisis and vote to the left for more oversight and regulation, I'd claim it as a positive point for Europe and make a snarky joke about Romney and stupid Americans. But you're right in that it's probably just a coincidence and that people will be motivated to vote against the current government they think is responsible for the economic problems.  Q0 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The good 'christians' over at CP see bad shit going down in the world and rub their hands with glee AMassiveGay (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone at CP know that most Europeans think Obama's centre-right?--Fergus Mason Thruppence I got for selling my coat, tuppence for selling my blanket. If ever I 'list for a soldier again, the Devil shall be my Sergeant. 17:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you actually compare the party programs of many European Liberal Parties and that of liberals in the Democratic Party you come out with the same things. A free market, but controlled by the state in a way so harm to the public and the people is mildered. Social safety nets that are cost effective, but still with the ability to support private enterprise. Wide personal freedom and often civil liberalism and secularism. The biggest difference between American and European Liberals is the way they approach things. In Europe the Liberals are the middle class and in the relative sense of the word "conservative", not by default using the law, but more of a social attidute. In American Liberals are the again in the relative sense of the word "progressives". Because people oftern go in their best interest Liberals are often intellectuals and workers (although this is highly dependend on region, probably an effect of the election system automatically mitigatinf class conflicts into elections). In Europe Liberals are supported by the middle class and upper classes, while working class and elite favor social democrats, socialist greens and a few others (eurocommunism, mindsets that tend towards libertarian-socialism but aren't actually that and other regional occurences).
 * Only the direction in which they have to push is different (European Liberals have to push society toward the right side, American liberals to the left). What makes the real difference are the teeny tiny 2% on each side. What is right of liberals in Europe are the nationalists, they base their ideology on Western culture, Christianity+Judaism/Islam (Albania, Turkey) and a distaste for foreigners, weirdly even these people support the public safety nets, although I doubt they do this because they believe in them and more because they are just that popular. This teeny tiny bit of the European spectrum is about 40% of the American spectrum. Left of the Progressives (the European center) are actual American socialists, these have in turn about 20% to 30% of the European spectrum (it's hard to exactly tell as social democrats and socialist mingle a lot in Europe).
 * Long rant, short story: The spectrum is exactly the same, but the poles are so different — the American left being European right, the American Right being European crazy people and the European Left having been in the US "the enemy" for almost a hundred years now — that the way in which we describe these lefts and rights has changed, even though the ideas behind them are almost exactly the same. Through this usage the rethoric on both sides has changed so much, that Europeans only see their liberals raving against state influence, while Americans hear their liberals rave against markets and too much economic freedom. This is why internationally European and American Liberalism, are both put into the center of the spectrum. Even shorter: Both sides are missing one part of the international spectrum. You can do the exact same thing with any two democracies in the world. --Raga Man (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Silly europeans, thinking you know politics; oonly the american left-right spectrum is correct; nevermind it originated in france-- il' Dictator   Mikal  17:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It proves that the world needs a strong America to tell it what to do. Vulpius (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist liberal due to the irresponsibility of its own people." Henry Kissinger Holy Alliance Andy Schalfly, conservative folk hero. --Raga Man (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting read, Raga Man. America never had feudal aristocrats, whereas in Europe socialists and liberals are seen as democratic replacements of a feudal aristocracy. In America, where economic opportunities always existed for most commoners, class warfare is largely a European import over the past 125 years or so. 'Socialist' has a connotation of 'traitor', someone seeking to tear the system down. 'Liberal' has many meanings, but a distorted use of the term has been captured and abused by fringes on both the left and right. Some conservatives in the US & Europe share a loyalty to the church, but it's not a defining characteristic on either Europe or America (granted, more religious people in both may call themselves conservative, conservatives do not have a monopoly on this demographic). nobsCorporations are people, too. 21:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty good summation, Rob. One thing to note, of course, is that socialists like the new French president Hollande aren't really socialists at all. They are probably more accurately described as social democrats. Whereas in the US it seems that people use the terms socialist and communist interchangeably, no continental western European would see a red banners when voting for a social democrat even if their political party is called the Socialist Party. The main exception is probably the UK where the word socialist is too dirty for the Labour party. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Rob! Your history degree/thing you went to college/university for is showing! If you take out all the red-baiting, you actually have something in your head. Can't you do that more often? And yes, socialism is a European import, mainly because working condition were the worst there, so that shocked intellectuals (and Christian utopists, btw) thought "this can't be it, there's gotta be something better". Although there is something of undercurrent in European thought that because the industrial revolution hit the US later and because it's still pretty rural in some areas, the US just behind. And actually, if you think about the time from 1871-1920s in Europe when many of the social policies were established in a few countries, there were a lot of conservative people that did not want these policies with different reasonings against it. One of the reasonings is very much the same as now the American Right argues: It's socialist and therefor bad (Other were something like "I don't want to pay for that"). If we continue further down this road, the reasoning against these policies is much easier in the era American liberals are fighting it in, the reason is simple: Soviet Union. That damn thing ruined so much, just because a state calling itself socialist produced for itself rather than for it's people, which of course failed horribly (although the trade emborgos of the West might have had some influences with this). If you have such a gigantic fuck-up ready as an argument at all times, often used in utterly serious hyperbole (c'mon we all know single-payer health-care isn't the same as a command economy), it keeps your enemies away like a lance.
 * So, if you are an American and you don't completely understand why Europe is so left-sided, think about it this way. Imagine the American Revolution and the Civil War packed into a single narrative, but not just 70 or 80 years, but 300 years plus some of wars, revolutions and everyday politics most of it, not even in democracies and some of them, without even elected officials. Imagine the mystic heroish fog that mantles the founding fathers a hundred times more and for thousands if not millions of activists over 300 years. So many, we only know the most important. And all of those calles themselves liberals, social democrats, socialists or communists (and of course the occasional anarchist). Some of those are just those who you might think are "the bad guys", Marx and Engels for example. To Europeans, those aren't the bad guys, these people and mostly the common activists are heroes. So it is like an allergic reaction in Europe to vote red (or by now green) if economic crisis is on the horizon. It's also why simple Greek workers let their country burn when they are told they can't have those rights (and it is important that Europeans do not see these things as privileges, but as rights), or English and German students fight with mass protests against student fees. And why the French workers first walk through the streets making fires out of stuff and then telling the guys what they want. It's a bit like Europe goes into class warfare mode whenever the word s"austerity meassures" are flung around. Maybe, the best analogy for this in America is limiting freedom of speech. When there's just a hint of it flung around, Americans go up the freaking roof.
 * Ah, crap, I ranted again. Sorry. --Raga Man (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I got most of that. American liberalism descends from the anti-Tory Whig tradition. Both British & American Whigs never were infected with Marxism, probably because of the official atheism stance. It was controversial then, and remains so now. So American Marxists hi-jacked the term 'liberal', and conservatives now use it as a pejorative.
 * Let's discuss public education and social security. Yes, both began in Europe (Prussia), but neither can be considered 'socialist' or 'democratic' reforms. They were methods of promoting and entrenching big government wp:autocracy -- which common people, without the ballot box, still were compelled to support through taxation. So Marx developed his theory of history - commonly accepted throughout the world today, that the feudal system was slavelike and oppressive. Perhaps so. But there is another explanation as well: the feudal system was society's way at the time of dealing with homelessness, crime, unemployment, and other social problems. A poor starving begger need only swear an oath of fealty to be allowed onto an estate where he enjoyed the protections of law enforcement against robbers & bandits, got a job as a field hand, found lodging and supported a family. Marx conveniently overlooks this. Was it a perfect solution to society's problems, free of corruption? No. But it the tale of human history.
 * Fast forward to Lenin & the embargo. If Lenin hadn't reneged on the foreign debt, he (and the people he enslaved) wouldn't have had a problem. That's still a big no-no in the world today. A successor regime cannot swear off the debt incurred by its predecessors. If so, like Castro, Lenin, and others, or Saddam trying to wipe out his foreign debt with Kuwait by annexing it in 1991, the rest of the civilized community of nations will make a pariah out of common thieves. nobsCorporations are people, too. 01:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

New York Times Double-Crosses Liberal Atheists
Times hails an underdog. Somebody should taunt Andy with this. Whoover (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"Did you know he won?"
Terry lets everybody know that Luger got beaten, just-encase we didn't realize it from Jpatt's MPR post or andys mainpage banner. The difference? he provides some commentary on his website!-- il' Dictator   Mikal  17:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Silly lil' Mikalos. You think TerryH actually reads what anyone else has posted on MPR? It's only a free billboard for his blog. 18:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * TerryH is too busy stacking well-earned pennies on his plastic kitchen table to bother reading what others have posted. ONE / TALK 11:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I almost feel bad...
...because "Ed couldn't start a proper article to save his life" jokes are cheap, and I feel like shooting fish in a barrel...

...but I'm sure any idiot could write a better article on William "The Elements of Style" Strunk, Jr. than Ed just citing a sentence from the foreword of The Elements of Style without clearly marking it as a quote or even noting who said/wrote it. Also, "Will Strunk"? Really? --Sid (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's embarrassing. I scored a copy of The Elements of Style at the dump a while ago, best read I ever owned.  And Sid!  Still my favorite CP commentator!  02:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He's really on a roll today. He made one earlier (which is now burned) on Maxfield Parrish in which he called this painting "softcore pornography". What would he consider hardcore pornography? The beach? Flapper girls? Cow...Hammertime! 20:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that's Ed's way of demonstrating just how deep and viscous the swamp is. He's so helpful in that way. -- 21:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, CP looks like what would happen if inmates took over an asylum and preceded to make a wiki. Each are off creating their own unique brand of crazy, non-encyclopaedic articles. --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, if Ed jerks off to it, it's soft core porn. --Opcn with regards to regarding my regardliness 00:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, you're being unfair to inmates, many of which are far more well-read and sane than your average CP user. Q0 (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)