Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive125

Off on a tangent...
I was reading THHGTTG for the gazillionth time last night, when I came across a line that sums up Andy's (via CP) worldview perfectly: "The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate." And before anybody comes with a CP version, they're all Golgafrinchians. TK is Number 2. --PsyGremlinWhut? 07:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)


 * I'd think the CP'ers would be the executives of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, who will be among the first to be put up against a wall when the revolution comes. (Note to the "real" people from CP who read this -- lighten up, I'm just quoting the book and not seriously suggesting your execution.) MDB 08:39, 18 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Reminds me of Colbert: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" Runderful 09:21, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I prefer "facts have a well known liberal bias" as it dovetails nicely with Andy's other than our conservative bias, we don't censor facts here Me!Sheesh! Mine! 11:16, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Google ranking for Andrew Schlafly
This has probably been noticed before but the RW article is ranked one on the google search for Andrew Schlafly (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7DMUS&q=andrew+schlafly). Totally unimportant but I thought that Ken might be interested. Hi Ken! JoeDuffy 09:56, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "Many times; many, many times." and therefore by the Kdbuffalo theory, it is absolutely true. 10:11, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Ole! Ole! Ole! -- 10:39, 18 March 2009 (EDT)



Here are some more Google rankings in regards to Andy on the internet:


 * ""Andrew Schlafly" teacher" - RW article #1
 * ""Andrew Schlafly" homeschool" - RW article #1
 * ""Andrew Schlafly" educator" -RW article #1

This would appear to constitute large quantities of win in regards to this area. DogP  14:04, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Google ranking for evolution and Conservapedia
This one goes out for our 🇰🇪. Today's search for evolution on Google, based on a completely clean browser/web search history and all cookies deleted, lists the Conservapedia article at 16, whilst a search for 'online encyclopedia' lists Conservapedia at entry 164, behind such other luminous online encyclopedias as "The Flower Expert - Flowers Encyclopedia and Flowers Guide", "Vizsladogs, Ltd.", "Online Encyclopedia for Genetic Epidemiology Studies", "Internet Mental Health", "Jewish Encyclopedia" and 140 others. Petard, hoist, feel free to fill in the rest--stunteddwarf 11:53, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

What's this?
Discovered this: http://www.cptransitive.com Any interesting explanations? Auld Nick 11:41, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Possibly leftover from their failure/upgrade debacle? It's the same IP, just a different DNS entry. Worm  (t  11:54, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Ah! From The week that never was. Auld Nick 12:26, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * If memory serves, Andy has registered 15 or 20 variations of conservapedia.com.--WJThomas 12:48, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Did Andy register failapedia.com or did someone actually pay money for a a joke? User_talk:PainkillerUser:Painkiller 16:19, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * That is funny. Etc 17:05, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Black holes is moar librul deceet
Andy sez how real science works. Neveruse513 13:05, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Guess what else was "not observed first and in fact ha[s] not been observed in a meaningful way ever." --  Nx / talk 13:15, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * What constitutes a meaningful observation of a black hole?? Andy is so far out of his element... Plz add cosmology to the list of teh mastury. Neveruse513 13:20, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * The concept of making predictions to test a hypothesis, i.e., of talking about something what isn't observed yet seems to be lost to Andy. Arrrgh! 13:22, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * @Nx: Actually people did observe events for which, at the time, God was the best available explanation. It's a different world now of course - we have all the answers to everything neatly packaged up, enabling us to live completely rational, blissful lives.--ConservapediaRoolz 13:27, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * He's basically outright denying relativity...I wonder why he thinks you can see stars on the moon during an eclipse. Personally, I bet they're angels. Neveruse513 13:32, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * (EC) That's not a "meaningful way", according to Andy, because then he'd have to accept the existence of black holes too, which are the best available explanation for a number of things. --  Nx / talk 13:33, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Well, we can't all be consistent all the time. I don't think not believing in black holes does any harm. I'm an agnostic about them myself.--ConservapediaRoolz 13:39, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * As long as you're willing to admit it's based solely on fallacious personal incredulity and that you have no real basis, go for it. Neveruse513 13:44, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, it's pretty much demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that not only can black holes theoretically exist, but that there is one at the centre of our galaxy. -- 13:49, 18 March 2009 (EDT)


 * (EC)But perhaps you're right. Perhaps there is no harm in not understanding anything about the universe we live in. I guess it doesn't really hurt that you can't do back flips, brain surgery or speak french, either. But it'd be a lot cooler if you did. Neveruse513 13:51, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * What is truly frightening is that Andy seems to have absolutely no concept that anybody can Google black holes and find x-ray imagery of them, courtesy of your friendly neighbourhood Spiderman NASA. Of course NASA is a dangerously liberal organisation who has made up every discovery they ever made.  No doubt Andy also believes that the ISS doesn't actually exist, or if it does it is some dastardly librul plot to take over all teh world's airwaves and broadcast non-stop gay propoganda.--stunteddwarf 13:52, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "NASA" fails to open their minds and realize that there could be underlying errors in the fundamental assumptions of their maths. As such, I wish them and their calculations a sincere Godspeed. Neveruse513 13:58, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Forget all the black holes codswallop, this is the real gem there - "Real science observes first, then derives math to explain the observations". And he claims to know "how science works"? Again, the man is a Class A Nincompoop. DogP  15:46, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Guy, you gotta remember their goals. It is critical for Creationists to redefine science (isn't it called the "wedge document, or something") so that they can bring god into the class room.  Science cannot work "as it is currently done", or they lose.  I think the Discovery Institute writes at length on the very open goal of re-defining science and how science works.-- 17:00, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Andy is still on the blackhole thing? I remember arguing that one back when I was still able to edit.  Like months ago.  --ScottA 18:12, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Homework Seven is trickling in...
...And among the highlights are the answers to question 7, Current events: Who would you describe as "Machiavellian" today, and why?

Three guesses as to whose name the two students who have so far answered the question gave.

If you said "Barack Obama", you win!

Student Three says (getting a key fact wrong): Barack Obama, because he approves of things, like the Fairness Doctrine, which is unconstitutional and immoral, which he wants to use to destroy all opposition to his ideas.

Student four goes into much more detail: ''I would describe Barack Obama as Machiavellian! Lecture Seven states: "A 'Machiavellian' politician is a cunning person who will say or do anything if he thinks it brings him political benefit." This is exactly what Obama does. Making promises left and right, claiming change in every ones life, he flaunted his words endlessly, not caring whether what he said was actually true or going to happen. All of this he did in an extremely cunning yet appealing way, because he knew it would get him places. And in the end, it paid off with the reward of being the President of the United States.''

Ah, the number one rule of education: write what your teacher wants to hear! I predict high grades all around. MDB 16:01, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Of the three with answers at the moment, all have described Obama as Machiavellian. Anybody else see a theme going on? ENorman 17:14, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Andy probably went off on it for 30 minutes in the classroom...  ħ uman  20:06, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Well, you know what I found quite funny, is how much of a back bend Andy had to do when Obama not only talked about respect for vets, but unlike the republicans, actually DID something about respect for vets - like agree to actually pay the benefits bush had taken away, and you know, get them real medical coverage and you know, see that they actually got to go to school. But being a democrat that all is lies, the only reallll support of troops must come from Re-pubs.-- 12:38, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

"2. Martin Luther: who was he, what did he do, and when did he do it? Martin Luther was a catholic monk"

Oh, very bad answer. Minus one. Barraki 15:22, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

From the new homework answers...
''With an alphabet of only 26 symbols you can make billions of words. Almost all of the letters are based off of straight lines with the exceptions of O, C, U Q, G and S. I think the reason English is so widely known is because of America shipping out goods to the rest of the world.'' Oh no - and I can see the inevitable Schlafly response, "Great insights, may use as a model! 120/100!". I pity the future. Ace McWickedRevolt 16:07, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * We have a future? Truly we can all take a lesson from your great optimism. 16:14, 18 March 2009 (EDT)


 * The student left off B, D, J, P, and R, though those are partially based on straight lines. The shipping goods part, though, isn't that far off the mark. America's major role in world commerce practically requires speaking English if you want to trade with American companies. (Of course, the classic American "we won't learn you language; you need to learn ours" attitude contributes to that, too...) MDB 16:19, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Well, while Americas role in commerce requires English - it doesnt require the spread of the langague at a major level. Shit, all they need do is speak to the Harbour Master in order to berth their goods. The entire Pacfic region, parts of Africa, Europe, Japan, India and even China had english brought to them by the Brits not the yanks. Ace McWickedRevolt 16:54, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Is that really 'american'? How does the rate of second language speakers compare in other english-speaking countries (e.g. Britain)? Neveruse513 16:21, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Isn't English dominant as much because of British rule for a billion years, as because of anything the Americans have done? And, if it's due to the Americans - it's about arrogance, not any "benefit" of the language.-- 16:53, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * WfG you have forgotten the BILLIONS OF WORDS hang your head in shame. Mei 16:57, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Sighs. true. but don't there have to *be* billions of words, to write billions of words?  I think even the most gracious of counts on English puts us at just under 1 million words if you include all the fixes (plurals, tense, etc).-- 17:02, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * If that were true, it would be given less than full credit. As it will surely be awarded full credit, it must be true. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 17:04, 18 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Arrogance? Well, there is no doubt some of that and is and has been by other English speakers as well. The Brits in their empire were "arrogant" enough to leave a legacy of English all over the place.
 * But surely it's more to do with trading power and cultural influence. Wealthy nations (and you could almost describe all Anglo-Saxons in the UK, Ireland, the US, Canada, Australia, etc. as a nation) will export and import more than poorer ones, will travel more, and so the language spreads. Along with popular culture such as Hollywood and the music industry, I think it's a little OTT to describe that as arrogance.
 * I remember a study done a while ago on the perceived laziness of Brits not learning foreign languages. But if you take away English, most other European countries were just as bad, e.g. not many Germans speak Spanish. Ajkgordon 17:05, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Sorry, I guess by arrogance I meant "we have the guns. WE have the money.  If you want our money and don't want to be shot, deal with us *our* way".  That's true of any power, as you said.  It's just that in the last 400 years, one of the major powers was always an English speaking country.-- 17:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)


 * It's not arrogance if somebody learns English - or legislates that their children learn English - to fulfill one's economic self-interest. It's true IMO that there is some arrogance in Americans' low priority on learning foreign languages, but it is also true that economically we have had fewer incentives to learn them.  With more and more Spanish speakers coming into our country, Spanish instruction is gradually increasing (at the middle school I teach at, for example, Spanish is required, as it was at my previous middle school.  [The quality of both Spanish programs is, however, debatable]).  In terms of dealings with foreigners as opposed to immigrants, however, it's sad but true that there is no huge incentive to become fluent in anything: so many are already fluent in English.  The "AMERICANS = ARROGANT" meme explains only so much, but as usual life is more complex than that.  Bluefish 17:19, 18 March 2009 (EDT)


 * PS: speaking of arrogance, in both schools I've taught at, there were issues with parents saying basically, "Why should my child be forced to learn Spanish just so s/he can talk to a bunch of damn immigrants?" Xenophobia is real in America, and is indeed part of our attitudes on language.  Bluefish 17:21, 18 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Bluefish makes the point I was trying to make -- I'm originally from the American South, and that attitude is distressingly common. MDB 18:02, 18 March 2009 (EDT)


 * (EC)I would have thought it's as much to do with others wanting to learn English because they want to do business with a wealthy country and/or appreciate the volume of popular culture. I still don't think it's particularly caused by English-speakers' arrogance. And besides, I've found a surprising number of Anglo-Saxons know the language and culture of the foreign countries where they do business. Ajkgordon 17:32, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * So has America started exporting goods again? Awesome! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  18:56, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

أستمتع تعلم لغات جديدة ، وكان بامكاني ، أحب أكثر من مجرد تعلم اللغة العربية. هذا قد يكون الوقت المناسب لأقول إنني لم الإسبانية ، ولكن

I enjoy learning new languages, and if I could, I would love to learn more than just Arabic. This might be a good time to say I failed Spanish, however... 17:50, 18 March 2009 (EDT)


 * FWIW, I'm starting to learn French so I can read comic books. I have my priorities screwed on tight! --Kels 21:27, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * When I first moved to Mexico, I read comic books all the time to learn Spanish...the language was simple and the pictures gave you a clue to unknown words. Nothing wrong with that. Czolgolz 09:32, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * See, I never got that the language of commics was "easy", at least in french. It's very street, it's very punny, it usually works on subtle levels. (I mean things like TinTin, not Garfield). I'm so much more lost in Asterix than a date with DeBeauvoir.-- 09:38, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Heh, that's why reading comics (books and web varieties) in French is a long-term goal, rather than something I expect to do immediately. But there's so much good French stuff out there, I've gotta try. --Kels 09:52, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Hey, the very little bit of German I know comes from reading comic books set during WWII. "Schweinhund! You would dare to defy your fuhrer!" MDB 09:39, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * That reminds me of the days of the very un-pc "Warlord" comics. "Take that, Sauerkraut!" "Die, Nip!" --PsyGremlinWhut? 09:50, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Huh, when I think of "Warlord" comics, I think of the Seventies Mike Grell fantasy series that was an homage/rip-off of various Hollow World/Lost Earth stories. But as far as WWII comics go, you can't beat Sgt. Rock, by Robert Kanigher and Joe Kubert. MDB 10:07, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Hahaha
I think I drove TK crazy trying to face my challenge of finding my socks. The two accounts he axed aren't mine. Keep trying teacake! ENorman 18:10, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * That's not "driving"; that's a quick stroll down the block to 7-11 to pick up a soda. MDB 18:39, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Could you explain to me why the fact two vandal used a single IP 98.216.75.231, it is then necessary to block 98.216.104.0/22? If they are using a single IP that is the one you block not everything near by. - User   18:46, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * TK is a proponent of the "slash'n'burn" principle. If he was a dictator (his fondest dream), he'ld be the kind that drops nukes to take care of pesky protesters.--stunteddwarf 19:13, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Protestors? He'd nuke litterers! ''(come to think of it, I might too :)    )  20:14, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * No only would he nuke the litterers, he would then procede to nuke any litter, litter related personell and anyone who ever referred to littering and then deny littering ever existed! BadgerBadger 20:33, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * To solve a problem, use gun. If that don't work, use more gun. Dakka solves everything. ENorman 21:22, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Dammit, you had to remind me of this............. 21:34, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Dakka's good but choppa's betta, smash the humies! WAARRRGGHHH!--stunteddwarf 22:01, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Come on, fess up... Conservative and JessicaT are your two high-profile socks, right? --Irrational Atheist 01:17, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Conservative's mine, but I only run him when drunk or half-asleep. I forget who is running JessicaT. I used to know, though. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  02:03, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I had a pleasant dream last night... I was doing a lot more than "running" JessicaT... and don't forget, I'm Karajou on my days off. --PsyGremlinWhut? 03:30, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Human, don't forget that we share Conservative, and that you gave me JessicaT a while back ;) 15:49, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Gentlemen, Don't Look Behind That Curtain
Ever wonder where 🇰🇪 gets his ideas from? Listening to this debate, one of the participants sounds oddly familiar...-- 22:02, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
 * 🇰🇪 has "ideas"? Really?  I thought he was just a YECbot let loose on the innertubes. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:55, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Wow, thanks for posting that! Quite an entertaining debate in a schadenfreude way, I cringed almost every second Boteach spoke, and enjoyed seeing Hitchens tear him apart.  Boteach was an absolute embarassment to theism; no wonder Ken idolizes him.  I'd love to see Hitchens up against an intelligent opponent with real points and rebuttals rather than the same tired nonsense, a C.S. Lewis, really.  01:18, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Woof! I also found it entertaining, and cringeworthy in places. I think Boteach started off fairly well, in the sense that he had planned out a course of argument and stuck to it. Hitchens and Boteach both started out with very nice arguments, neither of which really addressed the other one's position; but whereas Hitchens in his followups kept providing additional enlightening and amusing arguments equally close to the mark, Boteach kept wandering farther and farther afield. The last ten minutes or so are particularly cringeworthy; the moderator had by that point turned completely against Boteach (in that he had recognized Hitchens as the correct choice for conversation at a cocktail party, and was feeling alternately sorry for and annoyed with Boteach), and actually interrupts Boteach's diatribe against Roosevelt and Truman with "But what does this have to do with God?" There's also the bit where he blows his nose into the microphone just as Boteach refers to the Amalekites as "an ethereal concept" (while literally waving his hands in the air). I do wish Hitchens would learn to shut up when he's in the lead, though. The bit about "the rabbinical high court" was pure Monty Python argument; Boteach would say something, and Hitchens would jump in to contradict him, and Boteach would contradict him, and so on. Hitchens should have just shrugged, given the audience a long-suffering look, and left it at that. --Marty 03:49, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Man, I just watched a bit more of Boteach's debate performances, and I do mean performances, and I'm utterly appalled. The man goes a long piece to come off as PJR-esque reasonable, but his arguments tend to be full of appeals to emotion, lack of imagination, a LOT of reductio ad Hitlerium, and the William Shatner school of debating: If you want to get your point across, SCREAM LOUDER!  I have no idea how anyone who spends as much as two seconds thinking about it would be convinced at all by this guy.  Why does he keep getting invited to debates, anyway? --Kels 14:15, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Dawkins on the up
I see the hilarious click-bot people are now targeting cp:Richard Dawkins.--ConservapediaRoolz 05:59, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Heh, it's worth bearing in mind that now they know how to do it, they're probably running their own clickbots to present some articles as popular... Fox 07:42, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Andy could just modify the database and save trouble. Since Ken announced that he'd be sure to notify the interwebs when Dawkins hit 1 million, I await his declaration of victory vs. atheism on the internet.  Ole, ole, ole!  13:50, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Jpatt
Nice touch from whoever runs this sock. The "Man is not the descendant of monkey" article resplendent with KJV evidence would do wonders for the Master Plan. Fox 07:57, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Technically monkeys and humans diverged from a common ancestor. So if the KJV is right, God is a protosimian. ENorman 08:23, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Surely the work of a parodist! StarFish 08:42, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Loving the assertion: "Man's biological roots are dust, not ape, chimp, nor gorilla". Parodist? Nay never! Although I'd almost forgotten about the time Ames Jpatt almost slipped up with their too-hearty endorsement of fellow traveller WalksAmongUs way back when. And for a while used the same signature as Caius lol Nice to see that he has put that all behind himself and got those size 9s firmly under the table XD Fox 08:44, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * how long before Ken links to it? 08:51, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Jpatt and PJR, if you're reading this: in regards to your conjecture on man's descent from monkey, the term "monkey" in science refers to the catarrhini parvorder. I can assure you that you are well with in this parvorder. You are a monkey. We all are. Don't let your colloquial connotations dictate your beliefs when it comes to scientific discourse. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 11:42, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Yeh now I'm convinced too that he is a parodist, it's a bit too obvious with this one. I do really like this parody though, on top of it trying to support a hilarious claim with bible quotes it uses really shitty quotes too.
 * So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27 (God did not create monkey in his image). Where does it say that God didn't create the monkeys in his image too? Seems like he's making up the quotes to support his argument!
 * And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 2:19 (God formed every beast...and monkey.) Magic man dunnit!
 * And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him. Genesis 2:20 (Man named every beast- including 'Monkey'. No other previous historical connection existed). He named them, so no other historical connection existed, so no connection existed, so man didn't descent from apes? In the end it always returns to "cause the bible said so".


 * Also notice how PJR is forced to support the idiot:
 * On the other hand, as "monkey" and "ape" are general terms, that supposed common ancestor, if found, although being classified as a different species by scientists, would likely be referred to by laymen as a "monkey" or "ape" anyway. So in that sense, Jpatt is correct.
 * But in a REAL SENSE, he is completely wrong in every aspect and retarded if he weren't a parodist! --GTac 11:48, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Like there's no possible way "his image" could refer to being eukaryotic or something... <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 11:57, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

One for our friends at CP
Don't know if here is the right spot for this, but this article is something to get the CP knickers in a twist (I'd post it over there if I had any socks). To wit, the government of Australia has worked up a list of to-be-banned web sites, and besides the usual child porn portals, said list includes "online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, [and] Christian sites..." I wonder if CP is on that list. Damned liberal Aussies--first gun control, now this...--WJThomas 10:24, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * They'll secretly be very pleased - it will effectively provide their Final Solution to the Rayment Question. Fox 10:34, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "This week saw Australia joining China and the United Arab Emirates as the only countries censoring Wikileaks." What the hell is happening over there?  Could one of our Aussies please fill me in?  Corryundefined 10:42, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I don't understand how you can say you have free speech if you are going to automatically limit what sites a person can visit.  Yes, things like child porn are horrific, and i suspect if i were depraved enough to want to know, i could find things even worse than child porn.  But, that said, isn't the law's responsibility to go the owners of those sites and arrest them - not just say "you can't see what you choose to see, cause we are going to identify sites we consider to be harmful?"  What happens when you block "legitimate" porn because it shares an ISP with child porn?  Or when you block religions about satan (which this article seems to suggest has been done).  As Corry said "what is going on up there?"-- 12:15, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * CP wasn't on the list as of August 2008, according to Wikileaks there. However, Encyclopedia Dramatica is on it. --Sid 13:21, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

@WJThomas - It's better if only current stuff at CP is discussed here (i.e. what is going on) so as to reduce the frequency of archiving. General stuff about CP can be brought up in the Saloon. <font color=Blue>Генгис   13:29, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Or better yet, at talk:conservapedia... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  18:43, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Er, yeah. That as well. <font color=Blue>Генгис    19:01, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Romeo and Juliet
For anyone wondering why this was deleted, it was because I inserted this little snippet about halfway through: '"Hail Satan!" quoth the raven, as he fell down the stairs. "Glory to his name!" retorted Jimmy, as he urinated on a piece of the true cross. Meanwhile the pirate captain, who had been engaged in all things piratical, growled "Up with communism!". Intrigued by this new development, the raven replied "Down with capitalism!". Jimmy interjected "Huzzah for Barack Obama, who will surely save us all!". It should be noted that Jimmy had been engaging in the vice of drinking and had by now lost the plot, much like ASchlafly. "Lol!" the trio cried together, warmed by the heat given off from the burning American flag.' Damn! And I thought I had finally found a use for all those old essays. But seriously, who reads it all the way through? EddyP 10:31, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I actually did read the entire essay looking for the punchline, and so did - apparently - JessicaT. Yet she didn't seem to find that section troubling XD Fox 10:34, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I thought you didn't WIGO vandalism?--ConservapediaRoolz 10:36, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * The point is not the vandalism but the dumbass sysop who proof read it, and still failed to see a chunk of parody spitting in their eye. Standards are getting lax there, mark my words. Fox 10:40, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * ;_; The general idea was that noone would read it, and noone would notice it. Alas, it seems that whenever someone new makes an edit at CP, everyone automatically considers it to be vandalism. Guilty until proven innocent. So three people actually read it? EddyP 10:43, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I think she was more concerned about where it came from, than what it said. Still, another cheap "hyuk" was had all round. And now all I get is "500 Server error" - think somebody cocked up the oversight? --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:47, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * So, someone vandalises Conservapedia and then immediately comes here to laugh about it, where he is congratulated by two other people. This is why people think Rationalwiki is a vandal site, and it seriously damages your credibility and thus any ambitions you might have beyond Mr Gremlin's cheap "hyuk".--ConservapediaRoolz 10:54, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Lol, hi Terry! Fox 11:05, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Which is why I'm against vandalism, especially linking it directly here. It only serves to give them more fuel to feed their opinion about us, plus any yobbo can chuck a brick through a shop window. Impersonating the staff... now that takes skill. --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:02, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm against wandalism, but I think Eddy proved a worthy point here. Conservapedia really is losing it. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 11:07, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Not really - the post (on a page that no casual visitor would ever find anyway) was deleted within the hour. That's not what I call 'losing it'.--ConservapediaRoolz 11:13, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Tweren't I who made the WIGO. I just did thnat at CP to see if they picked up on it. That and it's better than chemistry coursework. EddyP 11:15, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * You're totally right. There was absolutely nothing amusing about the handling of this. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 11:17, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

To be fair to RW, it doesn't look like the WIGO will score too high (currently on minus 4).--ConservapediaRoolz 11:20, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Teh sistum. It werkz. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 11:22, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * See, this is what I like about RW. I dont agree with every post, and there are users I don't like (ye I'm talkin about you,  bite me) !), but since we don't censor and memory hole everything that doesn't completely conform to groupthink it levels out pretty nicely. --GTac 12:00, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Considering just about everyone at CP reads us in secret, I really don't see how you could say that we are a vandal site.... A vandal site would be much more obvious. Do we have users that engage in vandalism?  Of course we do (I'm guilty of that in the past) but most people have moved on past that.  Don't fall into the right wing trap: Anything written in a newspaper/magazine/website can be attributed as their official stance. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  12:25, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * This has been said before, but I think it needs to be repeated: CP does not need to be vandalized (anymore) to be funny. Ed, Ken, TK and Andy do all the work for us. It's like watching someone commit suicide, except it's also funny. <font weight="normal" color="red">Etc 14:15, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * That's why the pleasure is in the parody which gets past them. EddyP 14:16, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Nah... I think the last exploit I thought was funny was that "speller" person. Bugler was a mite funny, since as said above, impersonating the staff takes skill.  Otherwise, the funniest and most amusing things about CP are what the "real" characters do without any prompting or interference. IMHO. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  18:49, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Coulter and Conservapedia on Ron Silver
One of the current In the News items over at CP concerns Ann Coulter's obituary for liberal turned conservative actor Ron Silver.

Okay, I have no objections to the memorializing a performer whose politics they admired. But...
 * 1) What ever happened to the conservative attitude of "shut up and sing" when it comes to politically minded celebrities?
 * 2) If you read Coulter's obituary... well, maybe I'm putting too much into it, but I interpret parts of it as being "back when I was sleeping with him". Not exactly a "family values" type of thing.... MDB 11:53, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Coulter has been linked with many political activists including Bill Maher(sp?) and has, on several occasions spoke about having sex outside of marriage..... So the whole family values thing only applies to your family, not hers. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  12:27, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Classic CP hypocrisy to admire her. Just like they admire Rush Limbaugh, who has been divorced three times, and was caught with rather large quantities of Viagra (and I've heard the claim he was coming back from a country with a reputation for sex tourism...) MDB 12:34, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I've tried reading a couple of entries at her blog. How anybody can like/look up to/revere/worship that hysterical fishwife is beyond me. Although, strangely, her and Andy both seem possessed of the same irrational Obama-hate (although she seems to hate everything). A thoroughly nasty person IMHO. --PsyGremlinWhut? 12:57, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * She is supposed to have said that she has free rein to sleep around because she is unmarried. Apparently the whole "Flee Fornication" thing passed her right by. 13:01, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Guess the comment
A shiny ha'penny to the man who guesses what Andy's comment will be on this student's question 7. EddyP 12:35, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Great! May use as model answer| As an aside, i can't see in any way how this guy was machiavellian. He certainly wasn't feared. EternalCritic 12:49, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Nah, I think he'll say "Your answer doesn't mention Obama! Why do you think I set this question?! (Minus two)" EddyP 13:00, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Everyone so far is wrong. I asked this question to a few friends and everyone said the same thing - Peter Mandelson.-- 13:03, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * One person said Bernard Madoff, who's probably the closest thing anybody has put so far. ENorman 15:40, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Not at all. The problem with this question is that Andy has taught Machiavelli completely incorrectly, as one would expect. I thought it was pretty much common knowledge in the modern day that Machiavelli has been wildly misrepresented, but I'll just clarify for anyone who didn't know. Machiavelli didn't say that one should just pursue power for the hell of it and kill/bribe everybody along the way.


 * Machiavelli wasn't particularly brutal, he just believed that a bit of lying and conspiracy was an unavoidable part of a politicians job (I'd call it a defining part) and so good politicians should be prepared to do it well, benefiting their nation and such in a kind of utilitarian way, whereas other thinkers emphasised how leaders should try and fulfil all of the virtues. Machiavelli in comparison to his predecessors on politics is a bit like European sex-ed in comparison to fundie American "sex-ed": Europeans take the approach "well, kids are going to do it, so make sure they do it safely", fundie Americans say "Kids and sex! How dare you suggest anything of the sort! Devil!" His contemporaries were too concerned with maintaining the obvious façade of the virtuous, divinely selected ruler to react to Machiavelli in any other way than turning him in to a monster. Machiavelli was alive during a time in which the Italy was divided, plagued by wars between cities, and being squabbled over by the greater powers. He wanted a ruler who could maintain a grip on power for at least a decade or two, so that the ruler could ideally unite Italy. He knew that neither of those were going to happen as long as rulers were torn between pursing unsuitable virtues and engaging in uncontrolled and excessive slaughter. Not only this, but Machiavelli was a supporter of democracy, which back in those days meant direct democracy amongst the elite citizens, and a strong communal and national identity amongst citizens, so that they would at the very least try and use the necessary evil acts they commit in life for the good of the city. He certainly wasn't a fan of tyrants, and was no individualist or egoist. Basically the common conception of Machiavelli is completely incorrect.


 * Now I accept that maybe in asking who could be considered a Machiavellian today we could excuse Andy for using it in the popular sense (i.e an extremely egotistical person willing to cut throats to get power/wealth), but given that he just gave a lecture with a section on the guy you'd think his students would be prepared to answer the question properly. Unfortunately, Andy was too lazy/unwilling to say, read a book or even go on (gasp!) wikipedia to make sure that he was presenting accurate information on someone he was teaching about. But that's Andy, the constant idiot.


 * Oh, and if I had to name a modern Machiavellian...I'd be lost. If Putin's rule and methods were actually necessary to maintain stability (as opposed to maintaining his and the oligarchs grip on the country) then he might qualify. If we're allowed to drop back a century, I think Lenin at least had the mindset of a Machiavellian, in that he believed that the evils he was committing were minor when considering what was in the interests of the people, and essentially unavoidable (in practice he exposed the flaws of the Machiavellian model). Bil08 17:46, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'd say FDR in the WW2 era? Also, Obama, for pretending to be a Christian in order to gain the position to lead the US out of the dark ages of neo-conservatism ;) (I'm half serious). <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  18:59, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Moar YEC YouTube networking
Says Conservative:
 * "Another video recommending Conservapedia's evolution article has been produced by a YouTube producer! The YouTube producer NephilimFree recently produced a video on Conservapedia's evolution article that can be found HERE"

The "producer" in question is just some guy in headphones rambling repititively for 8 & a half minutes, saying over & over how great he thinks the CP:evolution article is. Jump ahead to about 6:30, where he says "I was asked to review it by someone". Interesting - whoever could that be? Operation VlogSpam is picking up steam. 12:43, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Gentlemen. Operation preach to the choir with zero credibility and competence is underway! Atheism on the internet should expect a serious blow in the next 32 seconds!11!!! Watch as I whip out random graphics to awe you with my trisomy 21! EternalCritic 12:57, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * That guy don't seem right. StarFish 12:58, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Maybe it's Ken, now we're going to him spouting off in dozens of different bad disguises, rather than just socks. --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:02, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Maybe he'll do some live "Gentlemen" posts. That could be comedy gold. EternalCritic 13:07, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Hey now, lets not insult people with Downs Syndrome. --ScottA 13:09, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Godlings, is this guy for real? Atheists don't believe in god so it's hypocritical to like science fiction? W. T. F? I think conservapedia stupidity has reached supercritical mass. Hey, wait. Stupidity, check! Creepy old stalker guy look, check! Rambling on at length about things he doesn't understand, check! Is this the visage of kendoll himself? -- 13:10, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * NF has been around for quite some time. He's real alright. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 13:13, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm terribly excited by the idea of video Gentlemen posts. Ken - the world needs to hear and see you on this matter in regards to evolution on the internet. It will strengthen your argument and give you the opportunity to do MOTION GRAPHICS of DarHitLin pictures - imagine the power of the moving image! <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  13:17, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

(undent)

Yeah, Ken, you're gaining tremendous credibility for your work by finding guys like this to read your cue-cards. What I love about this video is the way he first establishes his own reputation as an idiot ("How can you deny that supernatural exists if you pay good money to watch superhero movies?") before endorsing Ken. If he left out the ridiculous lead-in, you might thing his opinion means something, but he was kind enough to show that he's a moron before praising Ken's work. Operation Stupid-By-Association is proceeding nicely. --SpinyNorman 13:50, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

When did the x-men gain supernatural powers ? I always thought the comics stressed that these were natural though not normal abilities ... but then I always knew that this was fiction ... love his pronunciation of EVILUTIONISTS 67.72.98.45 13:57, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Yeah, ironically enough the X-Men all got their powers through evolution. In fact most super heroes I can think of got their powers through natural means, cosmic rays, radioactive spider, that kind of thing. -- 14:02, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


 * This isn't even a real video! It's just like this stupid thing - if you don't have anything to actually show, don't make a video, if you just have a lot of text, write it down and post it on a blog instead. <font weight="normal" color="red">Etc 14:26, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


 * I know little about Marvel, but even I knew that X-Men used the "evolution" plot device. Which made the guy fail even before he got to the "Praise CP!" parts. Even more of a pity when there would have been SO easy targets like fricken Zauriel! Argh. The guy's only saving grace is that his X-Men/superpower parody made me laugh. --Sid 14:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Did Ken just look up the finalists to the Golden Crockoduck Awards? NephillimFree won fifth place for most deceitful creationist evar, which is second if you only count creationists that post on youtube. If you are reading this Ken Jezuzfreek777 could use a pal like you. User_talk:PainkillerUser:Painkiller 15:02, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I love the way he can't stop laughing at what he's saying. EddyP 15:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It's worse than that, it's a fake laugh. Very contrived and irritating. This guy has the charisma of a rotting squirrel penis; I can't watch more than 2 mintues at a time of his smarminess. DickTurpis 21:01, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Haha...my conversation with him got a little too real for his liking and he nuked it. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 16:01, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Those headphones he's got on - I'm sure they're so he can go "la la la I can't hear you!"... Totnesmartin 18:16, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

--Robledo 18:44, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


 * "Another video recommending Conservapedia's evolution article has been produced by a YouTube producer! The YouTube producer NephilimFree recently produced a video on Conservapedia's evolution article...". Aaargh! Ken, please stop writing! Now!  <font color=Blue>Генгис    19:13, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Nobody mention Ghostrider ...shhhhhhhh 67.72.98.57 19:41, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

GENTELMEN!!1!!!11! OPERATION GRASSROOTS IS IN EFFECT! I EXPECT POLAND'S EVOLUTION'S FUTURE ON THE INTERNET IS IN DANGER!!!11!!!

Ken addressing his imaginary minions. User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 20:44, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Ah yes, Supernatural...POWERS! dude. His smugness makes me feel warm and fuzzy. -- 22:08, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

NephilimFree apparently wants to "debate", so rather than do it on the talk page of a YouTube video, I'm "offering" to have the argument here, in the warm and sure knowledge that he won't even acknowledge my offer. --Gulik 20:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Uh-oh
It's a perfectly good article on Schlafly Beer, but somehow I think CodyH has committed wiki suicide. --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:02, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I don't see why. its perfectly informative, and really is non-partisan. Oh, wait. Its non-partisan. Sorry. Silly me. EternalCritic 13:12, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I saw this stuff at the Class 6 on post the other day when I was loading up with Guinness for St. Paddy's Day. I was tempted to try it out, but an irrational fear sprung up that they had liquified "Schlafly Syndrome" and bottled it. I stuck with the Guinness. The Foxhole Atheist 13:21, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Andys cousin TOM is both a lawyer and a brewer and may actually have a sense of humor as shown here http://www.schlafly.com/faq.shtml 67.72.98.45 14:25, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I lol'ed. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 14:30, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * You know what? After reading that, seeing the total dissociation of Phyllis from his product and getting a few chuckles from his humor, I'm sold. Beer store, don't let me down! The Foxhole Atheist 14:37, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "Which Schlafly Beer is the closest to a mass-produced light beer?" When I read that question, I have a mental image of ranks of CAMRA members' heads exploding in glorious synchronicity. The USA is indeed a strange place. -- 14:52, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Admittedly, its kinda nice seeing the sane side of the Schlafly fmaily. Amazing what not having Phyllis Schlafly genetics can do for people. EternalCritic 14:56, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It's the distaff side that's the problem. <font color=Blue>Генгис    19:26, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * OK, folks... The verdict is in. It's actually pretty damn good (as far as American microbrews go, I mean. As a soldier, I have been stationed all over the world, so I don't want any guff about what beer is "supposed" to be like from our European friends, OK?). If you can find some, try it. The Foxhole Atheist 22:09, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Perhaps we should serve it in the Saloon Bar? User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 22:28, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * but can you use the phrase "I feel like sucking down a cold Schlafly " ? 67.72.98.45 23:43, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * My Schlafly has no head...-- 08:26, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'll bet there's at least one Schlafly who'd give you some... EternalCritic 17:51, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * >.< EddyP 17:53, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * goldmine --Runderful 86.20.32.48

Questions, questions, too many questions!
I love this response by Andy, must be one of the worst questions dodges I've ever seen. BadgerBadger 13:49, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * That was a virtuoso execution of the Schlafly Slip if I ever saw one. I may just have to add it as a new example.  --SpinyNorman 13:54, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Andy's line gains even more hilarity when you consider that GFasten had already been banhammered by then. --Sid 14:39, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * For asking TK to upload the Stitwin picture. Source of picture: GFasten. Broccoli 15:36, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Ken and circular thinking
Talking of Boteach: It's an oldie, but I've just noticed this priceless bit of circular thinking by dear Ken, in which he manages to unravel the only bit of critical thinking I can ever remember him coming up with. He was a surprising opponent of Assfly's Dawkins-is-not-a-professor crusade, and back when it was all kicking off he actually stood up to Andy a couple of times in an attempt to get him to revise his position. But when someone else on teh internets very obviously quote-mines Conservapedia's own article to question Dawkins's post, suddenly Ken is convinced, and in a fine example of argumentum echo-chamberium uses it as a reference to back up Andy's original argument.

What gets me is that Ken genuinely seems to think this is additional evidence of Andy's position. Which either means his reading comprehension is so limited he can't see that Boteach is using Conservapedia as his source, or it means that Ken really believes that the more people say something, the more true it becomes. Charles SubLunar(mr) 16:24, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


 * In Ken's world, unless somebody explicitly says "Regarding the question whether Dawkins' position at Oxford was merely a post or not, Conservapedia's article on Richard Dawkins has stated about Dawkins' position at Oxford that Dawkins' position at Oxford was merely a post.", they didn't use CP as a source and you can never ever prove that they did because they totally didn't and this totally supports CP and means that Andy has been right all along because Shmuley said so and NYAHHHHHHHH! Oh dear God, I can feel The Stupid actually eating away my IQ points... --Sid 17:11, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Boteach is a pretty shit debater anyhow, from what I've been able to see in the three or four debates I watched with him this afternoon. Long on emotion, ranting, and MOAR HITLER, but depressingly short on actual arguments.  No wonder Ken likes him. --Kels 18:39, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Do we have Shmuley Boteach yet? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  19:15, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


 * I totally read that as Chumley. --Kels 20:34, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Lol@Kels!! :D <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 23:42, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Shouldn't that be written Cholmondeley? <font color=Blue>Генгис    15:02, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Clickbots
First there was that RodWeathers essay, now Richard Dawkins seems to be rising awfully high in the charts. What gives? EddyP 17:50, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

UPDATE I guess he does watch us. Ken must be crying right now. EddyP 18:06, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

MORE UPDATE It has 1400 views now Andy/ You won't stop it that easily! EddyP 18:07, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


 * I just noticed he deleted Law Terms D on March 5. Damn, she was so cute. <font color=Blue>Генгис    19:33, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * What do any of these really matter anyway? The "Popular Articles" listed on the front page do not represent the actual most popular articles, and how many people actually check the list? In any case, it's amusing that Andy deletes millions of views, while keeping them as part of his growing total.  19:49, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Unless it's a case like the "Top Ten is all about Homosexuality" effort, it doesn't really matter in any direct sense (I think) because of the reasons you mentioned. However, they don't like people pushing their buttons. According to Andy and Ken, pageviews are an indicator of truth and success. Andy fanatically updates the main page stats to show how "this site is growing rapidly" while Ken uses them as some sort of signal that atheism/evolution/homosexuality is being skewered on the Internet. It's a laughable premise, but more importantly, it's also trivial to show just how laughable it is by bumping pageviews either on completely silly "articles" or on articles where the counter is tied to some special event (like Dawkins just now). So it's more of a psychological slap than anything else. At least that's my view of it. --Sid 19:57, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It is more about the fact we can make them dance for us, like when people use to reset 's password just to watch him complain about it. Half the activity and administrative decision on that website is caused by incidental comments here. We are not even allowed to use it, but we exert a small amount of control over it. - User   20:08, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

Pi, we don't exert small control over Conservapedia. We exert enormous control over them. To paraphrase atheisic writer Terry Prachett, they're our puppett, we just get them to pull their own strings. User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 20:34, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Is there anything for which Prachett doesn't have a quotable on? - User   20:43, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * As clever and prolific as he is? I say no. Damn you, Alzheimer's! Why him? The Foxhole Atheist 22:14, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Pratchett, eh? The only thing I know about him is that I discovered, quite unintentionally, that the film The Hogfather, based upon his novel, is the ultimate film to watch while incredibly high. DickTurpis 23:45, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Law Terms D has always been my favorite CP art. Bummer.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 12:11, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It's back ahead of all the other Law Terms pages already though - and without the aid of clickbots, I would assume. Just what is it that gives cp:Law Terms D such mystical appeal?-- 12:30, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Maybe it's because unlike the other Law Terms pages, it doesn't contain any falsehoods or oversimplifications? --Gulik 20:20, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Hi Ken
Your wiki doesn't work like that. You need an extension installed to get it to work. - User   01:53, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Heh. Kendoll's reach really does far extend his grasp, technologically speaking. I bet he has a geocities homepage somewhere covered in animated gifs of jeebus, with midi background music. I really hope they install all the extensions he wants, though. He's going to turn CP in to a sort of Christian Encyclopaedia Dramatica, with loads of embedded video and autoplaying audio. -- 02:18, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh the video embed extension should be fun. He can really pimp his youtube videos then. And, not that I am advocating it, the potential for some devious people to add even more crap to CP would be limitless. - User   02:33, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * One wonders where he even picked up the idea to embed a sound file into a wiki page. Probably from RationalWiki as I haven't come across it at CretinoWiki or any of the other dross-houses Ken hangs out in. I know we have it in our Saloon bar but that's not an autostart. Does anyone have with autostart on their personal page? <font color=Blue>Генгис    05:42, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Of course, the real fun will be when he has the audio and video up and the clickbots kick in and Andy receives his next bandwidth bill... --PsyGremlinWhut? 06:09, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I found it! User:Phantom Hoover has the exact same code that Ken used. Watch out Phantom you're being stalked by Conservative!  Lily Ta, wack! 06:12, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * We keep "autostart" turned off out of respect for our (sometimes bandwidth challenged) users. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  15:45, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

A rare event
For once, I agree with Conservapedia's selection of news stories: its disgraceful that a school is making students settle their differences with bare knuckle brawls. MDB 06:48, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * How delightfully post-apocalyptic. Is Tina Turner the principle? -- 06:55, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure about this story. How many school have steel cages and - erm - what for? StarFish 07:04, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * My high school did; we used it for storing sports equipment. I spent a lot of time there, I was a football equipment manager (which is a nice way of saying "waterboy".) MDB 07:20, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, it's a disgrace. Everyone knows the American way is to do it with guns. Cantabrigian 07:29, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * That's the Conservapedian response! "If those students had been able to carry guns, they could have shot the teachers who suggested it!" MDB 07:47, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I see young Jess has Kendo down as a hobby. I wonder what Andy makes of school kids beating seven kinds of crap out of each other as a hobby. --PsyGremlinWhut? 08:15, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It's chivalry, innit? In the days of yore, two young lordlings would meet on the field to win the heart of a fair maiden. These days, due to inadequate stabling facilities at most modern high schools, there's just cages and pummelling. -- 08:29, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "Kendo"? On CP that raises some most disturbing images in my mind, none of which are related to Japanese martial arts. <font color=Blue>Генгис    08:32, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov. 08:34, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I love you Toast :) that was exactly the quote I was going to reference - it's my sig on quite a few forums anyway :) <font color="#000099">Worm (<font color="#000099">t  08:45, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It's been (one of) my mottos for about 50 years (?) since I first read Foundation. 08:53, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Thank you, Mr Khan, Sir for making me laugh out loud and get funny looks in the office. --PsyGremlinWhut? 08:48, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Personally, my favorite Isaac Asimov quote is Never let morality get in the way of doing what is right. Of course, if we're going all uncyc on this, my absolute favorite IA quote is "Three Robert C. Clarke's, operating in geostationary orbit, could produce enough shitterature to cover the needs of the entire world". The Emperor
 * "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell. Violence is sometimes necessary (believe me, I know all too well), but considering Orwell's time, one can understand that he was talking about GROWN ADULTS who should know better than to allow this type of shit to happen. Is it any surprise that this took place in Texas, the land of our previous puppet-dictator-for-life-wannabe under President Cheney? Seems to be an offical state hobby to set up a fight just to step back and watch the carnage... The Foxhole Atheist 09:57, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm going to have to disagree with Isaac Asimov (and, by extension, anyone who agrees with him); violence has its uses, and is able to solve problems that other methods cannot.  10:36, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Or, as Heinlein put it, and I'm paraphrasing, "You say violence never solved anything? I suggest you ask a Carthaginian." It sucks, but there are people in the world who are willing to blow up things and kill innocent people to achieve their goals, and sometimes, the only way to stop them is to blow up things and kill people. You can only hope you're blowing up less things and killing guilty people. MDB 10:38, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I would make a distinction between violence and the controlled use of force; violence implies emotional and unrestrained force which exceeds that which is required for defence. <font color=Blue>Генгис    10:48, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * An excellent point. MDB 11:05, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I disagree; trying to change the term of violence is to remove the evil that is inherent; even when we do something for the greater good (like war) we must remember that violence is still evil. Necessary, maybe, but still wrong, lest we use it too much and for the wrong reasons.  Smart people may note that my two post seem to be at odds, but that is the point.   11:18, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * That doesn't seem like a disagreement - Khant's distinction stills stands, we can simply say that the controlled use of force is evil to remain consistent. Runderful 11:45, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I can agree with that.  12:00, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Throwing in a quote of my own, Richard Jeni once said "My liberal friends always say War is not the answer, War never solved anything..... Well, it solved WWII." <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  13:20, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Only for the side that won... let's hope they actually were the "good guys". <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  20:35, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Not to the Nazi God. --Snotbowst 20:47, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy vs. History
So, it appears that cake is a fine substitute when bread is unavailable. Historical ignorance, or failing grade in home ec; you decide. 10:41, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * No wonder he looks like he needs to lose a few pounds. "We're out of Wonder Bread!" "Okay, I'll make a German Chocolate cake. It's a rational substitute." MDB 10:56, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * The gum I was chewing just launched out of my mouth and hit the monitor... Thanks MDB. The Foxhole Atheist 10:57, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm more worried about his phrase 'the germ theory of disease'. I think the concept of germs being responsible for disease has gone beyond theory now. But then I wasn't home-schooled so what do I know? StarFish 10:58, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * 1) the what theory of disease??? does he think "god did it" to punish bad sick little children who sneezed on eachother?, 2) hello, cake has suger. Does andy really think that the poor WHO HAD NOTHING (hence their desire to revolt) would have CAKE with the same flour as bread (which had run out), but also the even more expensive suger??????????????  I marvel that this man doesn't explode when he reads his "insights".  "i said WHAT?"-- 11:02, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * @WFG & SF- Andy's using the term "germ theory of disease" correctly (see WP). The cakes I can't vouch for.  Corryundefined 15:45, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * What a complete and utter dunce he is. Also, in relation to the smallpox infected blankets "myth", he assumes that one must know the science of something in order to make use of it. <font color=Blue>Генгис    11:04, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * What, you don't know exactly how your computer, iphone, and microwave work? And you still use them?   11:06, 20 March 2009 (EDT)


 * That's some of the greatest bullshit I've ever read: even if you are believing in phlogiston, you can kill someone with a gun. And biologic warfare was used in the time of the Greeks (e.g., Sparta vs. Athens)... 11:09, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Highly unlikely...the weapon of gun is largely defensive. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 11:12, 20 March 2009 (EDT)


 * Quiet, you! Phlogiston forevor, revolutionary justice, death to Lavoisier!  11:29, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * This isn't the same Andy who taught us that catapults were used to launch diseased/rotting meat into castles, is it? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  20:38, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * What's more, the idea of the distribution of smallpox blankets being a myth is demonstrably false. It was conceived and put into action by General Jeffry Amherst and Colonel Henry Bouquet during the siege of Fort Pitt in 1763.  We have their letters.  It's not just the fanciful imagination of Anti-Christians.  Stile4aly 14:32, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * While Andy is not technically correct in this instance, the "smallpox blanket" is a sort of historical myth in that what was at most a very, very limited tactic has somehow made it into the popular mindset as common occurence. This is unfortunate because it replaces a better understanding of demographic change in the Americas following 1492. Not that Andy really gets any of this. Also I need to take partial responsibility for this. A ways back, I corrected him in saying in his age of exploration topic that "a few well placed smallpox blankets" or some such nonsense led to disease epidemics across North America. He seems to have taken this and run with it to a stupid extent. Not that this specific instance really clears white Europeans of wrong-doing anyways. --CWaddell 21:25, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

For those of you that don't speak French, the word for cake and pig slop sound remarkably similar. While she may or may not have uttered those words, she definitly was not telling the people of France to have a moist pastry, she would have been telling them to eat pig slop. Someone should sock up and tell Andy this. Theemperor
 * Feel free to correct me, but I know of no word for "pig sloppings" "barn food", "waste", etc., that sounds like brioche.-- 13:12, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * My French is awful, so I won't try to spell it, but there is one theory that instead of "let them eat cake," she may have been offering them a special type of pastry made in the castle for royalty, basically saying if they have no bread, they can have palace food stores, but it's just a theory... As far as I know the consensus at the moment is that she never said anything even close to let them eat cake. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  13:25, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Really? A nephew had over a foreign exchange from France, and we were having a discussion about Marie Antoinette when he made that comment. I just had begun to learn French when he said that, so I didn't doubt it. Ah, well. He may have been joking, just like al deceitful French liber-socialsts. User:Theemperor/Theemperor
 * some history, cause it's Friday, and talking about nothing is so much more fun then doing the end of the week filing. -- the term used in the french quote is "brioche" which is bread, not cake, just fortified and sweetened with LOTS of butter, extra egg yolks, cream not milk, and sugar.  On Chuck's note, there is another theory that says she was saying "well, the cost right now is flour (there was some kind of wheat shortage that year), so as long as you have to spend huge amounts for flour, why not just have the sweetened kind at the same cost, for a once in your life time luxury.   But like you said, odds are it was made up, so they could have an excuse for having vilified the queen.  (oh, and as for deceitful french... my French hubby, and a russian best friend of mind tease me unmercifully into saying things that are "close" to what I want, but in reality say "I am full of shit". -- 13:37, 20 March 2009 (EDT)


 * I don't know, WfG... Gâteaux! and Répandez vos cochons! sound AWFULLY alike... If you're a rabble rousing peasant in the middle of a riotous mob who is going deaf because you're starving... ; ) The Foxhole Atheist 13:33, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * hehehe. Feed us, ya damn bitch, doesn't translate well into french, does it. ;-)-- 13:40, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * At the risk of sounding like Ed Poor ("can't someone tell me the 32 Eskimo words for snow?") I think that I'd like to know the two words which were so similar sounding before taking someone's word for it. There are already enough stoopid language stories floating round the internet (e.g. the word tips comes from "to insure prompt service" [T.I.P.S.] in Lyon's Coffee Houses) without more unsubstantiated ones. <font color=Blue>Генгис    14:59, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Coincidentally, the phrase under question was just on QI. Apparently, says S. Fry (may his name be praised), existed before Mrs French Queen allegedly said it & was attributed to her less than 4 years after her birth! ... or something ... (on in background & not really listening) 17:58, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * For what it's worth, somebody thinks along the same lines we are.--PsyGremlinWhut? 18:13, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * For what it's worth, the original is more likely associated with Marie-Therese, roughly a century earlier. The brioche semantics are a red herring. And talking of fish, when is the JessiCat sock scheduled to reveal as 5th columnist? I mean, come on, Postman Pat is almost mandatory viewing here... Fox 18:52, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * And Proctor and Gamble is a Satanist organisation and Mossad was behind 911. Right! <font color=Blue>Генгис    22:18, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Marriage Advice
Ed Poor offers marriage advice. What's next?


 * Dating advice


 * Investment advice


 * Movie reviews (oops -- already done that)


 * (add to this growing list!)

--Simple 11:14, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * My girlfriend is sixteen years old and looks twelve, something tells me that Ed would jump at the opportunity to give me dating advice User_talk:PainkillerUser:Painkiller 14:55, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Sigh! I do wish you guys wouldn't post things like that. <font color=Blue>Генгис    15:28, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * My girlfriend looks sixteen years old but she is twelve. Is that any better? <font weight="normal" color="red">Etc 20:47, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Hell, no! That could get one locked up for 20 years. I'm more in the market for 50 year olds that look 16 (or 40 if that's asking too much). <font color=Blue>Генгис    21:36, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * If you like, I know of a local club that has a bi-weekly "schoolgirl night", wherein young women dress up in their bestest schoolgirl outfits and troll for father-figure types (middle-aged and up).--WJThomas 08:12, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Just to make sure nobody was lost on the irony in my post above, my girlfriend is actually 28, a few months older than myself. <font weight="normal" color="red">Etc 11:44, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Strange, I see nary a mention of the benefits of the Holy Handkerchief. --PsyGremlinWhut? 15:17, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "If there is one thing young engaged couples need to hear, it's that a good marriage is not something you find, it's something you work for" ... and this from a card-carrying member of the moonies, where your betrothed is selected from a hat and dished out to you like a jar of jam at a village fete tombola... Fox 18:09, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy's SES application
The NJ DOE called me this morning and informed me of the costs associated with the redaction/transmission/etc of providing Andy's SES application. The total comes to $18.25, which I will gladly foot. I plan on sending payment this afternoon. It could take them a couple weeks to deliver the application. I'll keep you guys posted, cross your fingers! <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 11:57, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Bitchin.  12:01, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * You are as god. I predict at least a week of uninterrupted lulz out of this document. It'd be good if you scan the whole thing when you get it, then we can OCR/transcribe relevant bits for an article. -- 12:25, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Check is in the mail ;) <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 12:49, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * May I suggest, if you don't have the proper OCR software for the document when you scan it, put up the full pages on a free hosting service, then tag those of us willing to help to transcribe a page or two? I'm willing to help. --Irrational Atheist 17:18, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I will be happy to contribute in any way I can. --Irrational Atheist 12:50, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Neveruse513 is made of pure WIN! The Foxhole Atheist 13:07, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Very Cool. May Zeus sprinkle your loins with magic dust...Jimaginator 13:51, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Given Zeus' proclivities to attack women under the guise of geese, or bulls or other animals, are you sure that's a "win" for NeverUse?-- 13:54, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, this is a win for Neveruse. <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  17:54, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Definitely. Thank you.  Please to email me high quality scans of documents?  If server not enabled, follow a link to my webshites at my user page, find contact link and proceed.  Thank you very much.  Large amounts of win. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:32, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * If you email me high quality scans I can use my lawyerin' OCR software to textify it. CPNuisance 00:49, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Operation Iraqi Freedom
um... given that anybody vaguely associated with the Americans is dead the minute they leave the Green Zone, bombings still occur frequently, etc, etc, which war did they win again? --PsyGremlinWhut? 12:32, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Not a damn one, Psy. From my experience, we're in an unwinnable situation over there. The only thing that we can be successful at is not losing. If all foreign forces were to leave today, al Qaeda in Iraq would leave tomorrow. What we would be left with is a sudden security vaccuum which would quickly descend into bloodshed, genocide, and vengeance killing on the scale of what half of Africa is going through. Everyone with a moderate amount of power would instantly scrabble to gain as much as he could at whatever cost it takes. Iraq would become a bickering squabble of violently armed warlord states and it's all our fault. The reason that Saddam was left alone after Desert Storm was because it was easier to keep an eye on ONE lunatic despot than to try to monitor 30 or 40 of them. The Bush administration should have KNOWN this is how it would end up, but in true Republican fashion, they left the future generations holding the bag to sort it out. That's how it is and my kids will have to pay for it. Sometimes I really hate my job.
 * The Foxhole Atheist 13:04, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Didn't Bush the Elder explicitly say at one point that's why he wasn't going to push into Iraq, for just those reasons? --Kels 15:11, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

"'Trying to eliminate Saddam…would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.' - George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (Knopf, 1998)"

CPNuisance 15:32, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * EXACTLY. Now heap a first-hand understanding of the politics and logistics involved in it on top of the average American Soldier. We all went over there with pie-in-the-sky ideas that we would "win", but after a few months of seeing the situation up close and personal, we all realized all we could do was try to hold our ground. Period. Do our jobs and not die. Talk about job satisfaction, huh? At least in Afghanistan, there was the semblance of a PRINCIPLE to be fought for. Iraq was just to line pockets (KBR, Halliburton, etc.) with war-chest money (if you ask me). The Foxhole Atheist 15:41, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I particularly like JP's assertion that Iraq is our ally in the "war on terrorism." That is beyond ridiculous.  Corryundefined 15:54, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Iraq went to about the same time Bush was parading around on an Aircraft Carrier with a sock stuck up his codpiece. Being there has not helped.
 * The biggest problem is that once again, you've got a conventional army trying to fight a guerilla war - and those are never won easily, if at all. --PsyGremlinWhut? 16:05, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm sure I should Google this for refs but there was an article in the Guardian, pre-Iraq invasion, where the Americans ran some war-game simulations of operations in the Gulf with a former US admiral playing the opposition. He was kicked out after only a couple of days as he crippled the US fleet by sending in dozens of suicide-bomber Zodiacs, the US Navy claimed that he wasn't playing fair. <font color=Blue>Генгис    16:45, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

The whole "win" thing news item is immaterial anyway - it was posted by known parodist "Jpatt". Enjoy it for the lulz, and don't try to analyse it =) Fox 18:45, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Photomosaic Redux
The promised Chick Tract Hitler: http://s5.tinypic.com/14kd2s7.jpg Original image is PNG, 6.2 megabytes, 3492 x 4500 pixels; but I haven't yet found a free image hosting site that allows images to get that big, and I don't feel like uploading it in 1024x768 chunks at the moment. One detail here. --Marty 12:54, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Sendspace would allow up/downloads of it, although without displaying it. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:04, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Pretty epic win, I must say. Theemperor
 * I heartily agree. This is what the innurtewbs is for. CPNuisance 15:17, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * No reason we couldnt host it, send the file via e-mail..ttoulouse@gmail.com 216.221.87.112 17:17, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I can upload it to RW myself; I just thought 6.2 megabytes was a bit much for what's basically a throwaway joke. But since you asked... Image:ChickTractHitler-small.png! --Marty 23:27, 20 March 2009 (EDT) I see that this image is beyond MediaWiki's ability to thumbnail.
 * Trent, you need to decide if this might become a bandwidth/storage issue. Otherwise, very cool.  Marty, how about uploading a, say, 1.5 mB version or so and testing the thumbing limit? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:34, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * How about that, the only two images on the wiki larger than that are screenshots of the Conservapedia homosexuality artile. Obsessed much Ken? - User   00:24, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Fantastic work Marty.  Pure genius.   Now do it with Darwin pics.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  19:03, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

MAYBE THE LAST UPDATE: Instructions for creating Chick Tract Hitler (the REAL version, the one even I hadn't seen until I wrote the script) are here. System requirements: wget, ImageMagick, helluva lotta RAM, broadband Internet, patience, willingness to participate in what will probably look to www.chick.com like a DDOS attack. :) --Marty 00:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

The five biggest myths about Andy Schlafly
Referring this news item and the source it links. Both basically boil down to "people say Obama is cool and stuff, but he totally isn't!", and lacking any proper facts of course. --GTac 12:54, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * 1) Andy is a rapper. Untrue, Andy isn't articulate enough for this.
 * 2) Andy is can bowl a perfect game with both arms. He totally can't, since he insists on concealing his arms at all times.
 * 3) Andy is smooth. Actually his face is covered by those freaky eyebrows.
 * 4) Andy is smert. No he's not. "Smert" isn't even a word!
 * 5) Andy is a christian. He doesn't even believe in the word of g od.
 * I disagree with number four [This article] claims that smert is an ironic form of the word "smart" that actually means the opposite. How dare you say Andy isn't the opposite of smart! User_talk:PainkillerUser:Painkiller 14:41, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It's a creepy ad hominem, but I guess that's Ok (a) when you're criticizing the president (b) on CP. In any event, I fail to see how this opinion piece from a blog is "news." Making fun of retards and crippleds is totally more notable, especially when an elitist liberal does it!  Come on, cover the real issues.  This isn't the National Enquirer, it's Conservapedia - home of the hard hitting, unvarnished truth!  CPNuisance 15:21, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yeah, the GOP (and especially loonies like CP) lose a lot of punch by constantly throwing up a barrage of stupidity. When they try to criticize Obama for something substantial, and even for something deserving of criticism (private insurance for combat injuries?  Special Olympics joke?  WTF!?) the public isn't listening.  Focus on real issues, don't blow it all on inane bullshit.  This is why the GOP can currently be summed up in two words: "white noise." (pun slightly intended)  Corryundefined 16:03, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * No point to make but re "smooth":  'And he said, "But my brother Esau is an hairy man, but I am a smooth man."'  II Kings 14:1. Just something that came to mind. 18:10, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Colbert vs. Steele
Okay, speaking of rap and white noise, everyone who hasn't seen last night's Colbert/Steele Rap Battle must go watch it now. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/222214/march-19-2009/michael-steele-s-rap-battle-response --Marty 17:02, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Goddamn American content bullshit! Do they just, like, hate Canadians? Actually, it's the Canadian broadcasters who are responsible for this, so I suppose it's them who hate us...the Comedy Network website is not a good substitute. -- 18:05, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Excellent, excellent work. Now, if only we could make one of those for Andy. -Lardashe
 * We pretty much have, except it only delivers selected chunks of brilliangs with each iteration. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:07, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Now hang on. I'm in the UK but I watch Colbert religiously (torrent it and watch it on the train to work) - I'm pretty sure I've seen all this week's episodes. Is this a web-only thing? It can't be! I demand answers! --Runderful 86.20.32.48
 * Not web-only; it was on the show Thursday (March 19), at the usual time. --Marty 00:47, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Uncle Ed - Creepy
Ed Poor, Love-starved?. Just plain weird. Ace McWickedRevolt 16:06, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I need a word that amplifies "Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww." 16:11, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * And Etrundel gets to cool his heels for all eternity for querying Jess's taste. Jess is still Uncle Ed's good books. 9btw anybody here see Ghormenghast - any similarity between Ed and the cook with his "little, spittle boys" is purely intentional.) --PsyGremlinWhut? 16:24, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Random tangent, here we go: I adored the Gormenghast books when I read them, but I thought the TV adaptation was terrible. Jonathan Rhys Meyers ruins everything he's in.  Some of the cameos were OK, but it was still a failure.  Anyway, this is Swelter the cook, as Mervyn Peake invisaged him.  Any similarity to Ed Poor is coincidental.   16:35, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * ETrundel goes down the drain forever for making a small joke. Even Hitler vandals have to do less time. EddyP 16:36, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

There's more - lesbianism & "short skirts that would expose private parts". Thanks for that, Uncle Ed. 16:42, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Good job he didn't get to Fish Eye's antics, or Foxtrot would be in there too. --Kels 21:45, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

On an odd note, did Ed just make a coherently tolerable argument (even if he is wrong)?EternalCritic 16:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, he did. He has trained carefully in the weaselization of science for his "work" as editor #188 at "wikipedia". <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  (forgot to sign)
 * I love the bit on the end of the first paragraph - "Yes, it's a silly premise"...but of course The Bible makes perfect sense... Jammy 16:47, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Uncle Ed - Stupid
Good ol' Uncle Ed seems to be off the ball today; first he blocks ETrundel for making a joke, then he seems to believe that this userhad not come with evil intentions. He also creates an article containing almost negative amounts of information.EddyP 18:03, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "Life is beautiful" might just be the best Ed-stub yet. A title and a category - what else do you need? --PsyGremlinWhut? 18:16, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It's as empty as Ed's life. EddyP 18:17, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * He added a CATEGORY? Wow, #188 is finally getting the hang of this wiki thing. <font color=Blue>Генгис    18:23, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Just... wow. The "clueless" Jewish boy, Shmuel, who is an inmate of a death camp, carrying out forced labour... Yeah, clueless, Ed, clueless. He thought it was just a particularly rigorous Boy Scout camp, right? Hey, maybe it was?! Perhapsthat guy from Andy's church, Bishop Richard Williamson, was right all along: there were no gas chambers, and only 300,000 - tops - died, from flu or something. Clueless, Ed. Fucking clueless. Fox 18:24, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

How does he get away with it?
Addison is one of the physical, paying homeschoolers, right? Then how does TK get away with talking to him like this? Andy already sided with Addison over the e-mail thing (though I think there privacy laws about kids under 13), but TK is still on the kid's case. I would have thought Andy would say something since a good-hearted kid money is involved. --<font color="#99CCFF">Arcan  ¡ollǝɥ  00:22, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Someone get an image of that - quick. MIP has actually signed in - 00:33, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Got it. - User   00:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Okay; that level of douchebaggery from TK is horrible, whether he's a parodist or not *facepalm* MIP has actually signed in - 01:19, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Is he though? I haven't seen him answer any of Andy's course "tests", unless he uses a different username for that? --PsyGremlinWhut? 04:05, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I guess you're not looking hard enough, because he does his homework every week like a good little peon. He's actually one of the better students, answering questions in full paragraphs and occasionally displaying a minute flash of actual thought. -- 04:59, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

What caught me is that TK is "enforcing" the MYOB "rule" - in a conversation between two other people. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:45, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
 * And what does Ed follow up with? "Email me..." <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)