Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive167

More Conservapiracy
the GNU FDL, which requires any reuse to be licensed under the GNU FDL, including a link to the license. not properly documented. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Knock it off already. Didn't you know that even if there's no rationale stated it's fair use? FAIRUSEFAIRUSEFAIRUSEFAIRUSE? FAIRUSE? 07:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a CP meme. Joaquin even claims Fair Use for pictures which have been put explicitly in the Public Domain. 10:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture?
http://conservapedia.com/File:Fried_rice_by_Adonis_Chen_in_Keelung,_Taiwan.jpg &mdash; Unsigned, by: 24.19.166.106 / talk / contribs


 * Well it will certainly be interesting to see exactly how they are going to commentate upon or parody a plate of food..... 07:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Caption: "Potatoes". Done. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this finally confirm that CP is parody? Vulpius (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is Jacob getting at here? Is this somehow going to be used to parody multiculturalism? 13:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh ooh! *buzz buzz buzz* The answer is it's a 100% frivolous claim of fair use because the image doesn't link to anything commenting or parodying it, not even its upload summary. 15:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Answering further, I think whoever asked this question is jumping the gun a little on this one, if my answer is what he was looking for. Woohoo058947982 only started working on these particular Chinese food articles yesterday, so JacobB's frivolous fair use isn't any more frivolous merely because CP's intended use is impermissible: window dressing in an article. Why can't they just comply with copyleft licenses like decent human beings?  15:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's called "Copyleft", and is therefore morally tainted. Overt theft is more Conservative. --Gulik (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. 20:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmmm, dim sum. I had some once in NY, somewhere near the Met. Yummy! 21:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's the advantage of living a 20-minute drive away from NYC. 03:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article?
Heading unchanged into its 3rd week now. Maybe they've given up. Maybe there are no more acceptable articles (if they come to this conclusion, there might just be a god). Maybe because they don't know that the Liberal Democratic Party that got trashed, is actually conservative. Maybe Joaquin is sending a signal to somebody. Enquiring minds want to know. -- Psygremlin  10:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What a coincidence! Though he forgot to actually link to the article itself... --Sid (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Sid (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tee hee! 15:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Article of the Year
Either Evolution was voted in agin or 🇰🇪 is simply too lazy to post his other opus nauseum as AotY. It's been 381 days. 21:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC) CЯacke ®
 * Ken's likely still waiting for green light for Operation Diving Turducken before announcing the new article of the year/decade/whatever. My personal bet is still that he'll try to get both year and decade covered on the frontpage with two of his babies. --Sid (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 🇰🇪, darling, if you decide to make a certain article that starts with E the article of the year and the article of the decade, don't forget to make separate sections on the main page for each and include at least 1 picture of Hitler per. You might also throw in a picture of Michelle Obama and mention that any racism she's been subjected to by all the fucking rednecks in this country is due to evolutionary racism (even though the hillbillies are all young Earth creationist fundie shits like you). Sokay. You have our permission. 21:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Sid - Ken seems to have already launched Operation Flying Cockring. You must have missed his recent shout outs on a Whorehouse of Knowledge. 21:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Humans = apes?
Juliet sqabbles with Alex. Has anyone tried this on aSK yet? 10:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy stamps his mark & TK does what TK does with the debatable comment: "I am not an Ape! I am a man!" 12:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did TK read the (terrible) "Superman: At Earth's End"? (Or, if you're curious, here for a full, bitter, hilarious and spoilery rundown of the comic that puts the panel into context.) --Sid (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * yes TK, knuckledraggers are men too, don't worry. Your monobrow is safe. -- Psygremlin  13:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone feel like making a picture of Assfly looking like an ape? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 87.115.17.183 / talk / contribs

The perceived extra "specialness" of humankind has always baffled me. Instead of trying to find our place in the universe, we must be more than that somehow. Sure, we have more brains, but I can't outrun a horse. So what? If we encounter ETs someday, and they don't have the Jesus story, it will make us even more "special" than the crummy old aliens. Andy: Something is what it is. Defining that is not a bad thing. Keep your paws off me, you damn dirty ape! Jimaginator (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Humans are special. WE are all descended from Noah. He was a great Boatbuiler in Gopherwood and sailed the seas with his wife and kids and a few pets. It seems odd to me that there is no holiday, not even a religeous one. I propose a NOAH DAY holiday and t-shirts saying "I survived the Flood" on one side and "I am NOT an Ape" on the other. We will float paper boats on any pond, stream or lake available and toss straw men into the water to represent all the drowned peoples. Hamster (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * March 31st gets my vote for Noah Day. Better get cracking, folks, it will be here before you know it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not double up with St. Swithin's Day? --Kels (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That animals page on CP makes me cry. There's so many things blatantly wrong with it. Ed just added to the stupid on that page today. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Two for One Day!
In a moment of brilliance, DanielPudenda manages to combine a Ken article, with an Ed stub. The boy is destined for greatness. -- Psygremlin  11:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * * sniff* It's... beautiful! --Sid (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno...it's not short enough to be a Poor stub and not crazy enough to be a Ken article. 13:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all the more baffling that nothing links to that little sharticle stub since the failure of atheists to do a single useful or practical thing in this history of the known universe (that's 4004 BC to you, friend) has been a topic of scintillating discussion on CP as we all know. So it's not as if the stub appeared for no reason. Where are cp:Atheists don't help little old ladies cross the street, cp:Atheists tracked dog shit all over the new carpet, and cp:Atheists don't build rockets that go into space, which is a liberal boondoggle anyway. 15:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

CP feeds straight lines to New York Times
"Hey, the NYT called us amateurs!" I don't see how that is anything to brag about. Furthermore, "repeatedly" is an inflationary way of saying "twice," which is enough for me to call bullshit right there. Both times the CP quote is immediately followed by a "maybe so, but..." which can only boost CP in a Streisandesque kind of way. Andy has his head up his ass, and doesn't care who gets to see it there. Or doesn't realize it. News for you have I none. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I love how it says the NYT quoted CP to explain "a principle of economics"...um, no they didn't. They quoted your entry on Ron Coase. 16:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And the references were in the context of how conservative GW denialists see the issue, hardly "relying" on Conservapedia for information. 84.87.218.188 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or how "the NYT uses CP as an authority!" It's an OP-ED piece! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Socialist Bible Project
Andy reveals his true, socialist intent to bring the original intent of the Bible to anyone, even those who can't read it in the original Greek. No doubt they'll read a poorer version or have to wait ages for the page to load because of all the people trying to read it as a result. And there'll be scare stories of typos or homoerotic passages (one of which I put in myself). When will they learn that a privatised Bible is the only way to go? EddyP (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Humans are not Eukaryotes?
I hate to defend Ed but this does make a twisted sort of sense from a creationist POV. There is after all no such thing as Eukarya, just God parsimoniously repeating design elements like mitochondria in specially created kinds that have nothing to do with each other. The problem here is not that Ed's logic is wrong, just that creationism is stoopid. Wodewick Welease Wodewick! 23:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Except that scientific classification is just categorisation based on physical features. Even if we were all designed according to the whims of a Creator, the scientific classifications would still be perfectly sensible. No, the problem is that Ed is a cretin. Johann (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, chaps. Read it again.  It doesn't deny that we are members of the Animalia kingdom in fact it implicitly accepts it.  The comment denies that the term "animal" is applied to this particular member of the Animalia kingdom.  And, in common parlance, it isn't.  So the comment is correct.Toffeeman (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (victim of malicious EC) Personally, the whole "how dare you call me an animal!" business strikes me as not only stupid, but pride of the highest order. But then, the whole damn religion is based on "I'm better than you", so that's hardly a surprise. Personally, I'm proud to be an animal and an ape, it means I'm part of something way huge and awesome, the whole family of life.  It's something to be proud of, not get away from. --Kels (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Toffee, Animalia includes human beings, because humans are animals by biological and technical definitions. We are composed of eukaryotic cells, are multicellular, and do not have cell walls. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they use "kingdoms" when they talk of baramins? Trying to impose a scientific order on a creationist perspective seems like ... well, something that's a bit silly. 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bonus Ed: "Granted that the human body is mammalian, let us not lose sight of what sets mankind apart from animals. We need not adopt the views of Nietzsche here. Calling a person an animal is always pejorative; if liberals object to use of the term 'redneck', I can't see how they can tolerate classifying human beings as animals." Human beings are animals. I can tolerate that. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, Ed. They can tolerate it because they're not...what's the word...fucking stupid? --Kels (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Animalia is a biological term and, of course, we are members of Animalia. Animal is not a biological term and covers a different set of entities for which different things are true. For example you get to own and eat animals, animals do not get the vote and animals don’t qualify for a whole host of rights.  The peculiar subset of animalia that is humans can be neither owned nor eaten, do qualify for the vote and whole host of other, species specific, rights.  So the term ''animal’’ is useful.
 * But this ignores the straight logic of the statement. To define “animal” as “the subset of animalia that excludes humans” simply doesn’t deny that humans are part of animalia any more than “crap teams are that subset of football teams that excludes Everton” denies that Everton are a football team.
 * Animal is used pejoratively, though not always (at least I don't think Mrs. Toffee saying that I am an animal in bed is pejorative). I think Ed mixes up the colloquial use and biological use of the term.  Biologically we are animals, socially we are not.Toffeeman (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * God tried to set Adam up with an animal helpmeet, he finally created Eve when Adam refused to pick one. Does that show Adam was an animal in Gods opinion ? No cell walls ? what holds the squichy bits in place ? Hamster (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have never met a liberal redneck and, as a liberal, don't object to the term. It's highly descriptive these days. 01:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever everybody thinks about scientific families vs baramins etc, the fact is that Ed agrees that we are animalia but not animals, and he agrees we are mammalian but (presumably) not mammals (since a mammal is a kind of animal and we are not animals). To me, this is just moving the goalposts - the difference between "animalia" and "animal" has nothing to do with people, he is just trying to redefine words here without afterthought. Etc 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy believes that non-church charities line ACORN's pockets
Just how far does his paranoia go? And Red Cross's CEO makes $565K a year, thus making it a bad organization? They organize half a million plus volunteers each year through thousands of disasters all over the world, and 92% of their donations go to relief and humanitarian work. Yes, the Red Cross is a great organization. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely Andy's not suggesting that market forces be expelled from the charitable sector? That's commie talk! -- 00:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, this stupid argument is not uncommon. When working full-time for a charity organization, you always encounter people that hate you because "make a living off other people's suffering". Yes, just like doctors, firemen and policemen. Etc 02:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy accuses major charities of corruption. His preferred alternative? Send money via snail mail to "Dayspring Ministries" in New Jersey. If I wrote a check to them on the evening of the earthquake, it might still not be there today. The ministry runs an orphanage and a school, both wonderful charitable enterprises but not the personnel needed for an emergency response effort. So Andy basically took the opportunity of an earthquake to pimp some ministry he probably knows from church, while dissing the Red Cross. Wodewick Welease Wodewick! 02:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RJJensen
He's crossed TK and said some very un-conservative things today. I predict he won't last another week. 03:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * which is good 'cause CP loses any credit it had left. Dr. Jensen's name was probably the only feather in their hat... JeffD (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the hat is made of horseshit and concrete, I doubt that feather has any impact anyway. [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]Norseman  Cyser Melomel  04:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * TK invited an email exchange (so he could play his admin power games). RJJ responded by calling out TK as a nonconservative who "passes" the same way Bugler did, by bashing libruls. Effectively calling him a parodist. I smell a in the very near future.
 * Not to mention RJ made some very constructive edits to Islam and Antoine Lavoisier earlier today, the sort of contributions that would make Conservapedia a decent conservative encyclopedia if, say, it weren't run by Andy Schlafly, Terry Koeckritz and Ed Poor. Wodewick Welease Wodewick! 04:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember the old adage. "If you add a teaspoon of wine to a barrel of sewage, you get a barrel of sewage. If you add a teaspoon of sewage to a barrel of wine, you get a barrel of sewage." --Kels (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, if you add the best of the public to Conservapedia, you get Conservapedia. Wodewick Welease Wodewick! 04:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I approve the above messages. 05:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is RJJenson? I saw him telling TK to read his book, so I assume he's not some troll in his mother's basement. -Ravenhull (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * very much a prof, which means he falls foul of Andy's Prof values and Best of the Public... so no doubt his days are numbered. Especially as he too is calling out TK on his duplicity, lies and general uselessness. However, seeing as he does block vandals (and everybody else) the best, as well as give Andy and Ed the best blow-jobs, RJJ has no leg to stand on when it comes to accusing TK of wrongdoing. Andy will just do his la-la-la-la can't hear you routine. -- Psygremlin  08:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think TK will have a much harder job in persuading Andy to de-sysop RJJ than he did for some of the others. Besides being a significant contributor of content he has a public profile and I think Andy won't want to lose him unless he really starts going against Andy's party line. On the other hand major reversions of RJJ's work by Andy might piss the old duffer off and as he's not a member of the sooper-seekrit-sysop club he can't cajole the others into supporting him. 10:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * so much for my prediction that he'd be out by Christmas... :( Totnesmartin (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope RJ doesn't share your point of view; from where I'm standing Andy would be more than happy to get shut of him. It would only take a small argument for Andy to turf him out. MaxAlex (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

PSY--that is a different Jensen, and since the link contained his cv/home address/professional info, I'm sure he does not want to be associated with a discussion about CP. RJJensen from CP is a retired historian who taught at a few different places and wrote a few articles, recently on labour history--the guy you linked to is an economist at Notre Dame. See RJJ's CP user page for who RJJ is...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, he's still at it today - RJJ wants out. Subtle digs poorly executed. Hope Andy isn't watching.... MaxAlex (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think RJJensen finally got fed up with the stupidity. Anyone who has some intelligence is sooner or later. He's going down the same path as PJR, TimS, Kotomi, LearnTogether (remember him?) or any one of the many sysops that quit or were railroaded out of CP. Bye Jensen, you did a good job, now go find a project worthy of you. <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 22:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Did Geo just kick Ed's ass for... copyright violation?
Interesting: Now, the history is gone so there is no sure way to show that Ed created the template, but considering that he edited it twice and then was the only one to use it, I think it's a fairly safe assumption. Did anybody see it before it was killed? Was it some Wikipedia template? --Sid (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed auto-patroled his edits to "Template:Post office monopoly"
 * Ed inserts the template into an article. It's the only page that includes it.
 * Geo deletes the template ("Copyright violation") and removes the inclusion
 * RJJensen is on the case! Poor guy... <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 02:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as RJJ's been foolish to stick around CP as long as he has, I don't feel sorry for him. 03:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good spot, Sid! I have no idea why that Jensen fella's still there.  Is he a well know prof in the states?  03:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the template was restored with an edit comment that short quotes were not copyright violation. Hamster (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why create a template for that? I don't get it. It's just a quote, why not just put it into the article the regular way.
 * I wonder if this is more common. If I try to edit the evolution article will I just see: ? Internetmoniker (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an  Ed  thing.  He  does  that.  Sometimes.  Okay,  often.  Shuddup. (Bonus lulz for this hilarious template: "Don't worry, it's okay to admit that we're right, even if we have to change the rules in the middle of the discussion.") --Sid (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My favourite is Liberal style, which just has example of liberal bias included onto it. 21:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Direct and to the point
Just thought this was worth a cap! 03:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice cap - I laughed, although I'm not really sure why. 03:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I know what you mean, Tet. It's not hilarious but there's just something 'nice' about it.  03:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So a parthian shot is any departing post that doesn't compliment CP before leaving. -- 17:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I love Andy's comment just above that "Using the same IP shouldn't be a problem, if edits are legitimate". Andy, you might want to share that memo with TK and Karajerk. -- Psygremlin  17:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

movie/slapping women
Good writing on that one. I was on my way to WIGO it when I saw that it already had been WIGOed. It literally made me LOL.

This is the stuff good WIGOs are made of: confused, self-righteous, bloggy Andy. I hope someone challenges him on it so he gets all indignant and gets backed into a corner, making absurd assertions like "Jesus invented humor" or "Obama's bad dancing proves he is a Muslim". Coarb (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Somebody could just say, "Mr. Schlafly, not slapping the ladies is one of those conservative values..." and then watch the fellow squirm. 05:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, given that Andy was raised by Mother "marital rape is ok" Schlafly, he probably sees a bit of face slapping as foreplay. -- Psygremlin  10:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It could explain why conservatives tend to be kinky fuckers (well, I'm basing that on one episode of Sexcetera that visited a fetish club in the Bible Belt, it's just all that social repression taking its toll!). 17:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about Rock Hudson's homosexuality?  Is it OK for gay men to slap women?   Or not?   Or is that a different point?   I'm confused, Andy, help me out here.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 02:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Weakly Toon 21
if we recaption it, change the board around and such. As it is, it barely makes sense unless you understand CP. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno, it makes the great point that the public at large is generally ignorant about science and misinformed about evolution, therefore things like opinion polls are not how science should be settled. What?  What do you mean that wasn't what he meant? --Kels (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that as well Kels; it's an excellent example of just how little creationists understand the theory of evolution. 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By opinion and hearsay I assume that he means extensive fossil/geological and genetic evidence. Corry (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind that no judge has actually been asked to make a fiat ruling that evolution is a fact (Indiana Pi Bill, anyone?), only that it is unconstitutional to teach religious ideas such as creationism in the schools. 05:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the best weekly toon yet for parody! The scientist's expression inspired my version. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 08:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why K doesn't just send the drawings over to us uncaptioned for the finishing touches (words) since as a team we work so well together. 21:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A WIN FOR CONSERVAPEDIA!
Andy declares victory against a site that's no longer active. Or it could be the owner let it expire and it's available for sale. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ANDY FTW!!!!!! Corry (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick, somebody buy it and point it at RW! Coarb (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't wait for Andy to somehow take credit for Coakley's near inevitable loss next Tues (worstcandidatevar). <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 08:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed on WP
WP: "Hello Ed Poor! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons." Quelle surprise! 12:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Down, girl!
Daniel1212 has just "written" (quoted a whole load of crap actually) Complementarianism to justify women being kept in their proper place. What does that make me think of? 15:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (lovely bit from the talk page :"let me say that i think women are like butter on toast, and we men are the toast ") 15:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, my. I wonder what they could be referring to, miss Toast? ;) Mr. Butter 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh heh heh. But I'm not surprised that Daniel1212 is such a misogynist - he is obsessed with 'homosex', after all. 17:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Uncle Ed will take him under his... wing and groom him properly. Btw... would it be remiss to insert a 'spreads easily' comment at this point? -- Psygremlin  17:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Psy, It would. 17:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I find women more like honey on a warm summers evening, or Godzilla depending on circumstances. That article at least did not explain that Rape in marriage is impossible for a Christian family, because it is the duty of the woman to submit. I dont remember a woman ever wearing a head scarf during sex though, Is that normal ? Women are generally physically smaller and weaker than men, thus are dependant on men for those tasks, and yes , on average their brains are smaller. Not saying anything else about that, just little brains :) (always willing to help someone complete his arguements) Hamster (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He argues that "complementarianism" has historically been the conservative theological position. Uh no, the early and medieval church's historical positions, following Plato, is that women are accessories to reproduction. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 23:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Liberal trap
Ha! Another slap in the face for liberals (and women too probably) from Andy. First a reference in his edit summary. Then another I-pull-it-out-of-my-ass article. How long until we get a best new Conservative word? (I'm still waiting for "quite good conservative words" and "useless conservative words". TK, please mention it to Andy next time you have some pillow talk). -- Psygremlin  17:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow Andy - psychological projection much? (He basically defined quote mining and attributed it to liberals). 17:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * RJJ FTW 17:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh: RJJ disagreed with TK and Andy; he's done for sure. 17:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This Great Insight has led to a hilarious editing chain in the Palin article:
 * DanielPulido: "Master has invented a new term! Must use!"
 * RJJ: "Why do we even stress that Couric is liberal? I'm sure conservatives would have liked to know what Palin reads, too."
 * TK: " Couric is liberal! So we must of course stress it! Duh!"
 * At this rate, I would honestly be surprised if RJJ lasts until Easter. --Sid (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Easter? I'll be surprised if he's still here at the end of January. 17:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * EC) Great minds, Tet but I said Monday. 17:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IT'S ON, BITCH! -- Psygremlin  17:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OH SHIT!! This is going to be good! 17:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thought I was the first to notice that! Oh well. EddyP (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for WIGOing it though. 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The exchange keeps getting better and better. Andy has reached the point where you honestly have to ask why Palin let anybody interview her in the first place if there is no good answer to something as simple as "What newspapers/magazines do you read?". But apparently Palin is SO smart that she knew in advance that it's better to fumble and fail instead of giving a balanced answer. And do I get this correctly that there is no conservative newspaper in the US other than some local stuff? What? --Sid (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, did RJJ just call Aschlafl. Y a dimwit ? Internetmoniker (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it funny in general in how Andy, who we have seen has the highest respect for the female intellect, is such a fan of St. Palin. Probably the 'liberals fear (i.e. we laugh at) her, so she must be good' phallacy. -Ravenhull (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw! Is widdle TK all butthurt?
Clearly grumpy because he has no banhammer and oversight here, TK is taking it oUT on CP users. Oren1neu1dag (how did he get past own name & surname?) - member since Dec 6 - asks that an article be changed in the same tone of voice that TK uses. TheKunt's measured response? Die! -- Psygremlin  17:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus he nuked the guy's user page and talk page. 17:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Must.cover.up.Unmember.was.doubleplusungood.-- Psygremlin  17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * hmmm, that's weird. Can't say I understand why that was done, the editor only made a few spelling type corrections... guess he didn't make his banhammer quota this week. <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 21:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To understand why it was done, just remind your self that it's TK we're talking about. The man's a complete cunt. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy shows decency and humility (not WIGO worthy)
I know, I'm as surprised as you are. 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Decent maybe, but by using the majestic plural I think he's far from humble. Internetmoniker (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the thread, and this rates a "ho-hum" in my book. The term was on Andy's "questionable" list to begin with, so giving ground on this doesn't cause Andy to lose any face, and as a bonus he gets to use this as an example of his being open to be corrected.  If ChrisY had tried to correct him on one of his pet topics you'd be looking at red links to where his account used to be.  --SpinyNorman (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Incoherent is now a conservative word! I can think of a couple of others for you if you're going that way Andy: Stupid, Illogical, Dumb, Ugly, Moronic etc... all words that describe liberals.
 * He updated the word total as well, we now have 16 in the 1600s which means we'll see 32 in the 1700s, 64 in the 1800s and 128 in the 1900s. This all fits nicely with the article, which has about those numbers for all these centuries. But what's this? Only 6 in the 2000s? (preliminary of course, nice to know this century isn't over) We need 256 in this century to adhere to the geometric growth of his essay. I'm not an expert mathematician like Andy but are we not about 20 words behind at this moment? Are we going to get a "conservative word-boom" in the 2090s to make up for this eventually? Or:(Insight!)the new conservative word growth has reached its peak! Internetmoniker (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The rapid decline of conservative word growth is likely to be 95% due to Obama and the liberals holding congress. Acei9 19:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell, Ken
He's just put a link on the mainpage to a YT video by HowTheWorldWorks. I've not been on YT for a while, but if I remember correctly, this guy is a proper nutter/idiot and has been embarrassed by Thunderf00t several times. PS. It took me a while to find the first difflink, as Ken took five goes to post this two line edit. 00:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good job his computer is mysteriously working again, eh? --Kels (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He is always putting links to YouTube on the mainpage and he doesn't care if they are discredit idiots; agrees with him = correct. 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Forthcoming Lies
We can easily anticipate some lies to follow when one of the "news" places like newsmax or wnd gets ahold of this study called "Why Are Professors Liberal?". The study concludes that there is no significant discrimination - it's mostly a matter of perception - but I'm sure there's enough here to cherry-pick. Before they do, here's the real story: During this period 326 GSS respondents with non-missing values on our outcome variable were employed as professors or instructors in higher education, and we examine how much of the gap between their politics and those of other Americans can be accounted for with variables associated with each of the hypotheses. We find that these variables together account for about 43 percent of the gap, and that the most important factors are advanced education, the disparity between professors’ educational levels and their incomes, the fact that a higher proportion of professors than non-professors have no religious affiliation or are Jews or non-theologically conservative Protestants, and intellectualism operationalized as tolerance for controversial ideas (not of a liberal nature). --<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy stupidity wears off on another equally stupid target
That word doesn't mean what you guys think it means. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely it does, as long as Obama is Nappy? 21:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Um ... I'm pretty sure it does yes it was a victory for some, but a show stopping defeat as well. What Andy does not understand is that you cannot had 30-40 waterloo's, it is just one. --Opcn (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside. Wasn't The US rather on Napoleon's side? I'm (obviously) no historian but comparing Obama to Napoleon would appear to be counter to the CP ethic surely? Don't know what I'm talking about - ignore me. 07:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While He did sell us Louisiana (territory, much bigger than the state) I don't think there was a whole lot of care for him, outside of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sphere. Also Professor Wikipedia tells me that he is the fucker who introduced the metric system so basically every time someone thinks of Napoleon well Jesus cries. --Opcn (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's time to countdown to another CP strike!
Time to make those numbers go down, fiercely. The CR crowd is probably done with the site for now, and there's no repeats coming soon. So... agree/disagree? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and after three days, the saloon bar will be full of CP watchers going on about how bored they are. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Disagree: I want to see RJJ's last days on CP. 22:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * me too! (see comment above) about Jensen <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't stop the me from getting free setting thruthness! Internetmoniker (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "In the next 60 or 90 days, Conservapedia may be introducing some new things which could further the trend of increasing web traffic to our website." Operation Blundering Idiot is a-go, Ken! 22:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, who cares what the numbers are? Will "outsiders" take CP more seriously because it gets lots of visitors? I doubt it makes much difference. MaxAlex (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like his computer issues don't prevent him from making over a dozen edits on the same news item. Guess that only applies to sites where people can actually reply to him. --Kels (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevar! I couldn't bear to miss tortured phrasing like: "repeat visitors who often visit Conservapedia". The worst thing is that this was the result of a correction. Did Conservative ghost-write Hovind's thesis? -- 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I just assume do the opposite of striking and make their server explode...again. 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again fulfilling my pledge to my friend Kels, I am against any silly boycotts of CP. History has shown that all they do is kill our traffic. 01:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. No strike, please.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree.  A LONG time ago, strikes were interesting as we could actually see the drop in their traffic, but now they're a well-linked source of internet laffs for countless sane people around the world.   After all, Andy's been on the telly twice, and Human sorry, Trent hasn't been on the telly at all.   Our traffic is a piddle to them, and we would miss out on our fun.    <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 02:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NO!, Bad Cgb07305! Killing their servers on purpose is very illegal and I'd rather you did not violate any laws here. If you are going to make trouble do it elsewhere, or better yet not at all. --Opcn (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How about a compromise - we make all conservapedia links point to the Coral Cache, that way those of us coming from RationalWiki will see the cached version of the page, essentially bypassing Conservapedia and its hit counter. It's extremely easy, i.e. http://example.com:8080 becomes http://example.com.8080.nyud.net That would be some win for everybody except Conservapedia. Livingabomination (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Admiral Schlackbar
Andy can't let go of this ITSATRAP business. A question about where you get your news "has no real value except to spark baseless criticism." Hmm, I wonder what he thinks of Glenn Beck's question "Who's your favorite founder?" Palin gave the exact same answer: "All of 'em." Then she floundered for thirty seconds before she remembered who George Washington was. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention that Glenn Beck called her "All of 'em"-answer "Bullcrap". That's right, Glenn Beck said her answer was bullcrap. And all that in the shadow of the statue of liberty. It's enough to make the proud American eagle cry. Internetmoniker (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, she did manage to rescue herself with Washington. Pietrow (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean by managing to remember the name of one of them? 01:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Finally showing their true colours
Daniel1212 has just added a link to the Haiti article, that takes us to a lovely article containing such gems as "Of course, we need not look as far as Haiti to understand the link between race and civilization, and what it means for America. Haiti is nothing more than Camden or East St. Louis writ large, and without the surrounding white society to support it. Africans remake Africa wherever they may go."

Jenno has just removed it, and I recon it could be consigned to the same place as the talk page that pointed out TK's lying and theiving... 05:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Check out how Jensen has tried to whitewash that--and how AlexWD has tried to call Daniel out on his talk page. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting--Daniel took out the link from TK's talk page, and TK put it back in . And then praised it. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It has disappeared. Pity for TK Capturebot is faster than he is. 07:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A link to that article for posterity(although mind that it is, as mentioned, a link to a site more sickening than CP). Daniel1212 acknowledges he didn't read the last line of the article. The first paragraph could have given him a clue too though, the term "white supremacy" being an obvious red flag. Internetmoniker (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is nice of us to keep TK[spit] Up to date on his wiki, isn't it? 09:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That site is truly revolting. I'd be inclined to delink it. Shows what Dan is, ignoring the hate filled adds & links on the page. Wonder if he's got it bookmarked. 09:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Whaddaya know? CP isn't the only place to consider Wikipedia biased. (link removed as per discussion below. DamoHi 09:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CP is a joke. Amren, Vdare, Stormfront, etc are not. I agree with Toast, let's not link to them any more please.
 * Dan1212 is backpedaling faster than Joe Biden. "I am not a racists," eh? Well you're a Free Republic goon... That's how you found the link, in this thread. I don't see much daylight between Freepers and "racists," they both think Obama is a scaaaary black witch doctor. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 10:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've de-linked per request. It is indeed not a site for lulz, although it does give an insight into how selectively TK scans texts. Another part of being an admin he isn't good at. Internetmoniker (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I must admit I don't totally follow/agree with the logic for delinking, but if that is the general consensus, who am I to disagree? I have delinked as well.  DamoHi 11:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Eff me ! Dan. Worthy of a full quote here:

Thank God, it was to my horror when i realized what i linked to. God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," and i don't care what color a man's skin, but religion and ideology are the real issues. “America, America, God shed His grace on thee” is so true. The foundation of a country, and its leaders, is so critical, and Divine providence was so manifest in ours. Also critical is how the succeeding generations are raised as well.

As far as what is good is concerned, we here have much entered into other man's Godly and God-inspired labors and wisdom, and some seek to preserve such. The heritage of Haitians is decidedly and tragically different. While i have never been able to document by reliable sources the "that the nation of Haiti was dedicated to Satan 200 years ago", the former "gem of the Caribbean" has evidenced the devil's influence, who comes to steal, kill and destroy. But idolatry is the mother of all sins, and as judgment happens, America is not immune, even according as Jesus said. (Lk. 13:3)
 * What is he on? 14:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like all highly authoritarian people, he is adept at producing word salad.
 * I read this book a few months before I discovered Conservapedia and, let me tell you, it is worth a read for anyone who wants to further understand what's going on inside the mind of a Dan1212 or for that matter, a PJRaymond, Ed Poor, Karajou, RobS, etc. It's the same diagnosis for all of em: high levels of authoritarianism coupled with dogmatic religious beliefs. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 14:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is funny. It would have stayed on TK's talk and the Haiti article if nobody pointed it out. Daniel thinks some tl;dr biblical passage somehow exonerates his stupidity. If they're that adamant, why aren't they going after TerryH's racism? <---NOTE: DO NOT LINK :P [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]<font face="Comic Sans"><font color = "Green">Norseman  Cyser Melomel  16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the : "“America, America, God shed His grace on thee” is so true. The foundation of a country, and its leaders, is so critical, and Divine providence was so manifest in ours"; bit that really made me wonder about his sanity. 18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm, why have the links been removed? Does someone think some poor RWer may click on them and turn in to a white supremacist?  Or maybe someone might mistake RW for a white supremacist website, owing to a couple of links to crazy articles surrounded by comments describing how crazy said links are?  Get a grip.  18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's to avoid giving more links for sites like Google to see, and thus pushing said page higher up in Google results and such.-Ravenhull (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All this delinking stuff is stupid. Didn't we already come to that conclusion with the Fred Phelps article? Anyone with a brain can tell within a few seconds whether they'd prefer not to read the page they've just opened and it's oh so hard to close a tab, isn't it? The only reason anyone requests a delink is either because
 * a) They don't like the site being linked. Too bad, the link isn't going to force you to visit, so just don't click it.
 * b) they want to protect others, which is just stupid, it's like making it illegal to run with scissors. Let people look after themselves.
 * Then there's the whole issue of censorship, blah blah blah. Shouldn't it be up to the original poster to decide whether they want to place links? And should we complain just because we don't like what's been linked? Jesus, it's not that hard to not click a link and it's just as easy to close a page if you decide you don't like it. As for the whole Google thing, who are we, Ken? Are we going to sit here and let out actions be dictated by what Google's reaction will be?
 * [[File:rant.gif]] Odd Sock (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed reaches rock bottom...
... continues to dig. He's not even trying anymore. -- Psygremlin  18:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for him to start an article which has quite literally nothing on it. 18:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Really thought it said "government intervention hampers erection by competing barriers to entry." -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  18:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mei-chan has a dirty mind. This, too, could be useful. -- Psygremlin  18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My new fave is Black redneck culture. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I laughed for a full minute at that one. Nice find! 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sebasitan Pinera No really, He's not even trying anymore. No wonder user188 is getting his ass handed to him on WP. -- Psygremlin  18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mei's mind is perfectly clean. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  18:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the original entry has a references section, and uses it! For Ed, that's a miracle. In fact, I believe he is improving. Sebasitan Pinera is more his usual style. Pietrow (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * His usual style would be to put the link in as a ref and not but the
 * is a crappy browser without address bar in perl. Perl's not the coolest or freshest language, but CPAN is huge and there's a module for everything. You could mail the above thing to anyone on just about any platform and they could run it. VB is old, unexciting and ugly. --Swedmann (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, let me help you out there with a bit of VB. Want to add an address bar to your browser? Add a text box, a go button and three lines of code:

Private Sub cmdNavigate_Click Browser1.navigate (txtAddress.text) End Sub
 * That was so hard, I don't even know how I managed! How about some back and forward buttons?

Private Sub cmdBack_Click Browser1.GoBack End Sub Private Sub cmdForward_Click Browser1.GoForward End Sub
 * Gee, you sure were right, VB isn't easy. I don't know how anyone could learn such a difficult language. As for CPAN, do you really think that a community makes a programming language? Even if it were so, VB has a large community and is supported by MSDN. However, the only two reasons for wanting a large community are for help (fair enough, but maybe read the documentation next time) or to copy other people's code samples, which I don't think is very exciting at all. If you can't program without having to get your source code from others, what's the point? Why not just download a compiled version and skip the programming altogether? 17:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything you just said was wrong and idiotic and misses the point, although my example wasn't too good. Here is a face recognition script in a niche language R, a quite short one. Yet no promising ghits for vb. You can do $BROWSER http://www.google.com in sh too. How can anyone like a language with 'End Sub'? --Swedmann (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I decided to check RW after I couldn't get to sleep. Now I feel strangely obligated to respond to this crap once again. I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything wrong, but by all means keep telling yourself that. While quite impressive (did you download it from CPAN?), your facial recognition script misses the target. I'm discussing which program language I enjoy to tinker with, on the weekends or maybe a bit in the evening. Where the fuck does facial recognition fit into that? Facial recognition - if I came up with the algorithm myself - is not a weekend project which I could complete in my spare time. Maybe you don't understand that I don't like using other people's code, other people's algorithms, I don't find it fun; and unless I were to do so, do you really think I'm going to need a language capable of achieving facial recognition? In case you haven't noticed, which I don't think you have, this page is here so that folks can come and ridicule a group of people who have the extreme mindset: "I don't like X. Therefor, X is bad and nobody should like X." When dealing with Conservapedia, X can be defined as Atheism, homosexuality, socialism or pretty much anything that crosses their minds. Define X as VB however, and look at how well you fit into the shoes of those we're here to ridicule. All for the sole reason of "I don't like VB". I'm going to leave this discussion here, as I feel it's going terribly off-rail, I don't think it's going to go anywhere and I don't think you are willing to see how moronic it is to ridicule someone because they don't like the same programming language as you. 19:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Redback, you are not an idiot. Make the best of it. Learn to play the flute. But first Redback, please forgive me. I'm sorry about all this, Redback --Swedmann (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hugs and kisses, now I'm off to learn how to play the flutethat I created in VB using mid files, bwahahaaa! 19:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just comment that there is a _reason_ that UseNet put the programming-languages discussion groups in the alt.religion hierarchy, and leave it at that. --Gulik (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems I was wrong...
...when I said no one uses Conservapedia as a reference. One person does: the man who writes it. I think my brain has just been broken. DickTurpis (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just saw that. "Say Andy, where do you get your information from?" "Me!" 19:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think you can really count him, although it may explain a lot Hamster (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish he'd say what he really thinks. His knowledge comes straight from God, and manifests itself through Conservapedia. DickTurpis (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not too surprised or amazed. Of course he's going to say that, it's not like he would ever admit that his blog is shite. 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Say Andy, where do you get your information from?" "Me!"
 * Really, that explains everything you need to know about Conservapedia. And right-wing nutbars in general. --Gulik (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor silence(d)
He was very active on the 18th. On the 19th, he slapped Jake with his gauntlet and threw it to the floor. Since then, nothing. Does this soap opera only run every other day? MaxAlex Swimming pool 11:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, he's back now, phew. Who knew Edward Woodward was a conservative? MaxAlex Swimming pool 13:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If he keeps up at this rate, 90% of CP will be stubs. 13:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's great watching Ed in full flow. Dozens of little edits, each one making Conservapedia a little bit worse.-- 15:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 33000 pages on CP, 18000 are less than 1000 bytes. 15:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And he's back to his usual creepy self as well. Röstigraben (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He can't even remain consistent in his thoughts within a single sentence. 16:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that's creepy compared to this creepy. And anyone who disputes that Muslims are child molesting pedophiles, well, you can just look the facts up on Wikipedia! MaxAlex Swimming pool 16:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have thought there are many examples of changing morality one could use (cannibalism came to my mind), but Uncle Ed just has to go down that road. -- Psygremlin  17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ed
You argue that democracy is an equalizer because the disadvantaged can use their vote to achieve quality, and you seemingly consider that a good thing. So, then if the "disadvantaged" voted to implement confiscatory taxation on incomes over $100K and directly transfer the money to the working poor, you'd think that's all fine and dandy? MDB (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't know about Ed, but the standard conservative response to that question would be that government intervention to redistribute wealth are a bad way to promote equality, possibly because they reduce opportunity and incentives to work.-- 16:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Government is the boogie man.  17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read that sentence a few times and I can only see it as an argument for democratic socialism. This rather underlines a feeling I have had for a while that Conservapedia does not so much espouse conservative values, as hate "liberals". They have no positive or even coherent philosophy, only "it is wrong when a democrat says it". If Obama had uttered the exact same phrase he would be called a Marxist all over the front page. 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're spot on. Conservative values seem to mean very little to Conservapedians in general, it's all about bitching about them darn liberals. Anything a liberal does, even if most normal conservatives see no problem in what they're doing, is a disgusting act of depravity that angers god Andy. There are many instances of people being booted from CP who appeared to be good (as in, not batshit crazy) conservatives, but just happened to have one or two views that are more on the liberalism side of the spectrum. As soon as the L word appears, the user disappears occasionally turning up here. You're right, infinite number thing that does my head in, Conservapedia doesn't give two shits about respecting conservative values, only about nitpicking at anything that has ever been named, referred to, or simply thought of as liberal. For IPU's sake, the head moron over there wants the word liberal removed from the bible, enough said really. 10:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. Andy's beliefs, like the tea-bagging "movement" are not founded on supporting much of anything, its just about being opposed to the liberals, Big Bad Barack especially. A prime example is the Chicago Olympics. To my knowledge, no one on the right had expressed any opposition to Chicago getting the Olympic bid (and if they did, I'd guess it was locals who didn't want the hassle that comes with being an Olympic City.) They sure as hell didn't say a word when Bush the Lesser gave a mild "yay, Chicago" endorsement during his Presidency. As soon as Obama got involved, though, the right went ape-shit. And they didn't even raise coherent objections to Chicago's bid -- it was, quite clearly, "Obama wants it, we're opposed to it." So, they openly cheered when an American city failed, because they wanted Obama to be humiliated. And then they ask "why do liberals hate America?" MDB (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Take that Bethe example. If he had not publicly endorsed Kerry they would not care a physicist had been quoted in Wikipedia's article on the SDI, instead on an engineer. 10:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually having read it again it was put in by CPalmer. Is he in Andy's good books or not, I don't keep track any more. 01:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)