Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive114

Parroting and High Marks
I absolutely love this: Surely Andy marks on content, not ideological purity! Innocently disagree with Andy's pet views? "How much of "modern science" did you develop, or do you even understand? How much of it (like claims about global warming) is junk? Regardless, your argument is illogical and unsupported." and "Again, there is little logic to your argument. Often language devolves rather than improving, for example." 10:53, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * And since when did unsupported statements become a problem? I thought those were required on CP.  Z3ro  talk  11:00, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * I have to appreciate the man's style, when he starts out with "...your demeaning comment about others is unjustified", and then goes on to make demeaning comments about his student's closed mind without any justification. --Kels 11:18, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * "You don't think ancient people were smarter? WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE, LIBERAL HEATHEN? You only get 90%." 11:36, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * "I give it my lowest score ever; seven thumbs up". Z3ro  talk  11:37, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * I like ReneeStJ 11:50, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Z3ro, a Simpsons quote? Andy's being particularly pathetic today. EddyP 11:52, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * If I quote anything, it's probably the Simpsons. Except for when it's South Park.  Z3ro  talk  11:54, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Also, I have to wonder. Is it actually possible to get below 50% on any of Andy's homeworks? And I don't mean 'Would Andy ever give one', I mean if it's possible for there to be such a crap homework that even under Andy's highly LIBERAL marking system it gets less than 50%. EddyP 11:56, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * There's only one way to find out. Create a sock and hand in the most "factually incorrect," "liberally-biased" homework ever.  "I think the Soviet Union was excellent because they removed that scourge of humanity known as "Christianity," allowed evolutionary abortions, and Gorbachev ended the Cold War, while Reagan was a prancing little gay fairy.  Also, language does not devolve." Score? 5/10! (and a 5 year ban)  12:04, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * He likes his language stuff, doesn't he? Where does he get it? It's not a traditional conservative thing, being obsessed with one language being better than another, is it? It's like the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis but loonier. Pseudomonas 15:05, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Andy: [Y]our demeaning comment about others is unjustified. [...] It's the atheists and public school students who don't know this. I think he's a parodist. Pseudomonas 15:08, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Okay, I keep expecting the link "Educational Index" to read "LOW". --Kels 16:37, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * I like how the best answers lost the student the most points - H3 and H4 actually displayed some thought and reasoning, which cost the student two pointzes in both cases.  ħ uman  18:23, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * So Andy's courses are a sort of reverse SAT? The lower the mark you get, the more likely you are to succeed. --Kels 19:02, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Man, the guy's even a dick to his own homskollars. No wonder he has failed at everything he has ever done, including now apparently homskolling since his class numbers are way down from last time. He can't get along with anyone. What sort of person would ask that sort of ridiculous rhetorical question to a kid? He's a sociopath. I'd love to ask him how he thinks it is objectively possible to grade a language so you can show if it is "improving" or "devolving." I'm sure the moron would tell me it is obvious that English is better than Cuneiform, and like 2+2=4 I deny it and lose all credibility, but I can't think of a single objective measure by which you'd show this to be true. Similarly, his whole "people are getting dumber" schtick. No evidence what so ever. My generation has its geniuses and its dunces, just like every previous generation. Just a shame the Assfly had to be in the latter category. --JeevesMkII 22:04, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * God, has this guy even heard of education inflammation? Where each new generation is expected to know even more than the one preceding it?--Nate River 22:15, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Andy is single-handedly trying to reverse that trend. --Kels 10:28, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Andy's got a new model, it's called wishful nostalgic Sapir Whorf. Language from a past that never happened was superior in every respect to the current tongue and this made the ancients (who are related to Andy) smarter. Andy doesn't go in for slang or lazy speech, so his language is also superior and, thus, he is smarter.


 * Of course Andy looks up to the Ancients. Look at who his heroes are, Regan and mommy, both of whom were around to see them.  Say...shouldn't true Conservatives be speaking the old tongues, and get rid of the liberal language bias?--Kels 23:53, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Since the whole point of Conservativism is that Change Is Bad and The Old Ways Are Better, this shouldn't really surprise anyone. --Gulik 17:23, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Successful Babylon!
I absolutely adore Addison's "model" answer: "I just want to comment on how large and successful the cities of ancient times were. For example, Babylon was larger than San Francisco, and Sumerian/early Mesopotamian cities were modern in all aspects except technology. When you think “ancient” you think cavemen or savages, but the ancient people were very much just as advanced as we are now. If they had had the same technology back then as we have now, they would probably have been almost identical to us today. " Only the severely ill educated consider the ancients cavemen or savages, and what on earth made the ancients "advanced" in any way? We mark our progress relative to ancient civilization. But Andy's response is golden: "they probably would have been superior (not identical) to us today. The achievements of the ancients far surpass ours in insight, and I feel their intelligence was inevitably superior also." You have passed the parroting test, grasshopper. Model answer! 12:24, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Did people have a higher IQ in ancient times than today?
This is one of my favorites. The average IQ is 100 by definition, so no, people didn't have a higher average IQ in ancient times unless they were so goddamn smart they broke the mathematics. --GTac 14:14, 8 February 2009 (EST)

If I was this persons father I would be extremely ticked off at Andy &mdash; Unsigned, by: D-Rock / talk / contribs 01:50, 9 February 2009

Better question, were ancient people smarter than the parents of Andy's students? BTW 139--Nate River 22:08, 10 February 2009 (EST)


 * Not another 130-140. You people know that test gives everyone the same score so that they pay their $80 to join the forum? - User   22:14, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Actually, IQ scores have been rising about ten points a decade for the last century or so. But it might be a matter of modern life "teaching to the test" in a sense.  ħ uman  22:17, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * The average should always be 100 as it is a quotient. It is set to 100 point average, 15 points per standard deviation, it does no tell you how smart you are it tells you how you scored relative to the rest of the population. Human is right though you can improve with repeatedly doing the tests as they are never independent, once you learn what they are looking for you will do much better. Our schools teach pattern recognition now which they probably didn't do a century ago. - User   22:23, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Also, they reset "100" every decade or so to the new average. Modern life itself is also a good teacher of IQ test type stuff.  ħ uman  22:35, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU... I know. I've taken tons of internet tests that range from 115-139. My sister (five years younger) took the same test after me and scored 127. I just was happy to be an almost genius for once instead of above average. Still, what would those parents score? 90's?--Nate River 22:22, 10 February 2009 (EST)


 * I have a hypothesis that anyone that completes an internet IQ test will get a high quotient because of the low scores of the people that gave up or just clicked random crap out of boredom. - User   22:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oooor, the online "IQ tests" just lie. Online ones routinely give me score from 150-177 (yeah, I freaking wish it was in that range).  Ever tried to get the lowest score possible on an IQ test? Some I've found refuse to score you below 100.  One gave a 70 to someone who got them all wrong (Odd, since 50 should occur as frequently as 150)  22:30, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I am under the impression they are put together by people who have no idea what they are doing. - User   22:32, 10 February 2009 (EST)


 * sigh, just had to take away my fun... I feel like I've been been taught the "No Child Left Behind" way. Still, if the IQ tests are based on modern education, would that not mean that it would be irreverent comparing IQ's from two completely different eras because of A)the accessibility of education and B) The methods of education?--Nate River 22:33, 10 February 2009 (EST)


 * That is the point. Andy's "mystery" is complete nonsense. - User   22:34, 10 February 2009 (EST)


 * I finally said something smart. Andy's just a pastophile and historical rapist. Think Andy smoke a cigarette after rewriting history?--Nate River 22:37, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Fun with Statistics
If you take the maximum score as either sixty or eighty, based on whether or not the student did extra credit, the minimum score achieved is 92.5%, the average is 98.62%, the geometric mean is 98.60% and the median and mode are both 100%. Depending on the grading system, either all but one student got an 'A' (with the other one getting a 'B+'), or they all got 'A's'.

If you take the minimum score as sixty, and give the students bonus points for extra credit if attempted, the minimum score is 96.67%, the average is 113.72%, the geometric mean is 112.60%, and the median and mode are again both 100%. By all but the strictect grading systems, every student got an 'A', with several 'A+'s'.

Logical Conclusion: Andy's grading standards are ridiculously lax.

Conservapedia Conclusion: Wow, home schooling produces utterly brilliant students!

MDB 09:58, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Night Mode all day long?
I haven't been able to edit CP all day. What gives? "This site is growing rapidly!!!!!" EddyP 13:24, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * They apparently had been open this morning (CP time), but no lowly peon has edited during the past few hours, so it looks indeed closed for the day. Maybe they're introducing Weekend Edit Rights now? --Sid 14:50, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Anyone care to compare no. of Wikipedia edits and no. of CP edits today? I'd do it myself but I'm too lazy I don't have the technical know how. EddyP 15:06, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * CP: close to zero. WP: significantly more than zero. You don't need much more precision than that to see the difference. Etc 16:31, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * 102 so far today. WP gets more than that in a minute. EddyP 16:58, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Church and Darwin
I wonder what they'll make of this? Actually I don't. Oxford = liberal/atheist, England = liberal/mostly atheist, Anglican = liberal/almost atheist, and, of course, BBC = liberal/atheist.

Still, it's worth noting that Aschlafly's own church, the Roman Catholic one, has been doing pretty much exactly the same. Ajkgordon 15:25, 7 February 2009 (EST)


 * I saw that a few days ago. It will be interesting to see how he spins it. --"CURtalk 15:27, 7 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wait, Andy's Catholic? Given that the Catholic church has said things like that Genesis is not meant to be read literally, evolution is a valid scientific theory, and other stuff that would make Andy cringe, I find that surprising. ENorman 17:14, 7 February 2009 (EST)


 * Have you ever seen Andy's parsing of what the previous Pope said about evolution not being just a theory? Believe me, he's got no problem at all believing exactly the opposite of what the church says on science, and claiming that he's in agreement. --Kels 18:03, 7 February 2009 (EST)


 * Handy link to the talk page Kels most likely had in mind. :D --Sid 18:37, 7 February 2009 (EST)


 * Oh, there's way more than that. Take a look at the talk.origins archives for "andysch".  He was on about that business even before CP existed. --Kels 19:01, 7 February 2009 (EST)

More entertaining, what's 🇰🇪's take on it? He's not so much the "liberal deceit" type as Andy, so his rationalizations should be fun to watch. --Kels 18:09, 7 February 2009 (EST)

CP to overtake WP
Does anyone recall way back Andy saying that by Date X CP will have overtaken WP as the web's number one encyclopedia? Assuming I'm not imagining things, can anyone remember what the date was - and are we past it yet? Matt 00:22, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Five years from a few months ago.  ħ uman  01:46, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm not sure if this is the one you're referring to (probably not), but as Human pointed out, he told us to check back in five years. Apparently, comparing Wikipedia to Conservapedia will be similar to comparing atheistic East Germany to the US, we'll have to take him up on that, especially since the US was formed as a secular state. -Re dba ck 04:18, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * I think cp:Image:Conservapedia_v_Rush_page_views.png which was captioned "Conservapedia still leads Rush Limbaugh!!" back on December 1, is a classic. Note Andy's characteristic double exclamation mark.  Note Limbaugh's and Conservapedia's characteristic plummeting trajectory.


 * Oddly enough, Alexa's historical data for that period currently shows rushlimbaugh.com having a substantial lead over Conservapedia--several times the number of pageviews and several times the reach. Presumably the data takes a while to come in. --Tony Sidaway 12:31, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * I remember comparing them. Rush's show blog is huge on weekdays when his show runs, and plummets on the weekends.  There was a one or two day spike on CP that got slightly above the Rush line on a weekend.  Note, also, that image's dates - that was probably Thanksgiving.  Rush on vacation, and people using CP to kill their boredom.  ħ uman  17:52, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Congressional vs. presidential popularity
It matters, according to Andy, but I bet he's flexible on that. Anybody want to note on Obama's page that his approval rating is 69%, while that of the Congressional GOPers is 21%? Coarb 03:47, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Hoax v. parody v. wandalism, redux
Since I guess my last comment way above was probably in a long-dead thread, here's an (already outed) example of what I call "parody" bordering on "hoax": Quaternion. I'm okay with outing it because (A) I wrote it; (B) it was that sock's only "interesting" contrib; and (C) multiple still-unblocked CP editors have noticed it already.

FYI, wandals, just because some do-goody editor catches your parody/hoax and edits it away doesn't mean you're permanently sunk. Just wait until the twit is banhammered or leaves in a huff, and then revert all his edits. :) It usually doesn't take more than a few months. --Marty 05:29, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * I loved that one. There just aren't enough King Solomon's Mines references these days.  12:06, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Did Jesus invent jokes?
It would appear so. Clearly Aristophanes (born c. 448 BC) was producing grim kitchen sink dramas. Fretfulporpentine 06:35, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * Every time I think that that man has run out of originally stupid things to say I am completely wrong. I think throughout each week "I bet there's no weekend insight this time round, I bet he's finally just completely expended all of his creative lunacy". And yet without fail, there always is.Bil08 08:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * In one of his works, Poetics, Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote about tragedy and comedy, so what do you think, Mr Schlafly? I'm sure we'd be able to come up with quite a commendable list of pre-Jesus comedy if Andy does indeed make the claim that Christianity caused comedy. But still, if it weren't for Christians, we wouldn't have the Life of Brian, so I suppose we need to thank them for that much ("He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!") -Re dba ck 08:33, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Even CP's stub article on comedy mentions Greek theatre. (But just for lulz, see humor.  I think this now makes my favourites list).   08:44, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh dear, that'll be bowdlerised now that you've brought attention to it - there's even "humour" in there. 09:01, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * I dunno. It isn't rude, or parody, or particularly inaccurate.  It's just funny.   09:09, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why is the question "what language did Jesus speak?" In an essay titled "Greatest Mysteries of the World"?DSFARGEG 09:56, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Is it just me, or does everyone when mentally answering his "mysteries" append "you fuckwit" to every answer? Like "How did people construct the ziggurats?" "By piling bricks on top of each other, you fuckwit." "Is democracy compatible with Islam?" "Yes, see the Maldives an exclusively Muslim democracy, you fuckwit." "Why was there the fall and decline of the Roman Empire?" "I believe Mr Gibbon wrote a number of books on the subject, you fuckwit." Its a fucking travesty that anyone this stupid and so incurious should ever be allowed in a classroom with actual kids. --JeevesMkII 10:45, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * I actually read it wrong, the question was "what language did Jesus preach?", regardless of which, Aschlafl Y, the answer to both questions would be the same. You Fuckwit.DSFARGEG 10:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * "Mystery" means "Not to be sullied by your tawdry so-called evidence, but listen to the Revealed Word of The Schlafly". The fuckwit. Pseudomonas 10:54, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Bah, what is this "evidence"? Things made up by so-called "archeologists", who are obviously biased when they find things that don't agree with Exodus, or the Great Flood, or the Very Obviously True age of the earth.  Obviously, such things can't be trusted, so even stuff that's been explained (like the Pyramids) are still Mysteries. --Kels 11:06, 8 February 2009 (EST)

< If you follow the edit history of the Mysteries page there is a funny name. Wonder how long it lasts. Генгис   11:30, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm surprised that name lasted at all. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  11:39, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Well, Andy, let me answer a few here, since I can't over on your blog.

In what language did Adam speak with God, and Eve? If they existed presumably a proto-semitic language.

What is the history of marriage? This is not a mystery, and is open to anyone who wishes to read about various marriage traditions.

Did (pre-Abraham) Hebrews in Egypt participate in building the pyramids? Highly unlikely. Civic work projects in Egypt were generally undertaken by the populace. Writing found in work camps implies that the workers were not slaves, as slaves were not taught to write. Egypt's ancient Economy never lent itself to supporting a large slave-based system. How did the level of literacy in Ancient Greece compare with the United States now? High estimates put Greek literacy below %15 whereas the United States has a rated literacy of roughly %99.

In what language did Jesus preach? Most likely Aramaic considering his audience, but hardly worthy of being called a "mystery."

Did humor exist prior to Christianity? Is this a serious question? Really? I mean, Aristophanes alone wrote 40+ works of comedy. Although I will concede to you that its hard to imagine something as hilarious as Christianity.

Why did Islam grow so rapidly? Because it expanded aggressively both in teaching and through conquest. It did not tolerate dissent from its beliefs, leading to authoritarian religious control. Couple that with the ethnic closeness of the groups who would become the earliest muslims and its not hard to extrapolate how that could grow rapidly.

Who was right, the Catholics or the Protestants? Probably neither.

Did people have a higher intelligence (IQ) in ancient times than today? No, we are simply more commonly schooled in modern times than we were thousands of years ago.

Why was there the fall and decline of the Roman Empire? Detachment from the citizens' obligations to the military, rampant corruption in Government, increasing, unrelenting pressure from forces outside the empire. Incompetent leadership, religious upheavals and a thousand other well examined and documented reasons. There was no one keystone reason.

EternalCritic 15:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * ...did humour...before...Christianity......bwah? What? WHAT? No. Nooo. It-- but...he...That's-- I...guh? This can't be a real person. -- 05:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Andy gets pwned - cue burning the evidence. Silver Sloth 09:16, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Cue broken record mode. Give it up, guys, the Schlafinator has spoken, his mind cannot be changed because he would have spent time thinking about something that wasn't true and time is money and 8 x 6 = 40 and... you know the rest. --PsyGremlinWhut? 09:32, 9 February 2009 (EST) PS If you have a read of cp:Noh theater it seems those pesky Japanese were having a good laugh in their theaters, long before they'd even heard of Xianity. --PsyGremlinWhut? 09:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Oh gawd, he locked the page to prevent further pwning!!! hahahaha, classic Andy. Neveruse513 10:12, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I think the fundamental question is this: just WTF does Andy define as "humor"? Heck, by disregarding the Trickster archetype, he basically rules out Bugs Bunny as humor. MDB 10:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

And remember, kiddies, since Andy has declared that mockery isn't humor, therefore [http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.! this isn't funny]. QED. MDB 10:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Incidentally that valued reliable source Dave TV has a list of the worlds oldest jokes. Silver Sloth 10:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Captain Passive-Aggressive
The whole Ben Stein thing is funny, and another example of Andy's ultra-authoritarian "Dissent = Censorship" attitude, but now he's seeing HSmom as the enemy. I'm pretty sure I've seen her say YEC stuff in the past, but because she disagrees with him about Stein, well... --Kels 10:21, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * "Aggressive complaining" is censorship? --Barikada.
 * At Conservapedia, yes. Over there, you're not in Kansas anymore. or rather, you are... Totnesmartin 15:33, 8 February 2009 (EST)

DeniseM
Denise has been talking very carelessly at CP recently and is fast approaching the danger zone. Will she ever realize the true nature of the beast? EddyP 12:41, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * These encounters are my favorite of the CP happenings, the expert who hasn't realized what a cesspool CP is versus Andy who will have to use deceitful Andy-tricks to get out of the argument since he knows shit. It's truly CP at its finest. --GTac 14:30, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Karajou
Once again it seems he has a paranoid affliction involving me somehow. I go on holiday for three days and come back only to discover that I have been using an italian proxy to create socks on CP. Well done Karajou - you got me again. You fucking idiot. Ace McWickedRevolt 15:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Watch your mouth- I may end up banning you again. I am Karajou, don't forget that. --"CURtalk 15:14, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Karajou would never lower himself to pretending to be you. 15:17, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * No- I am a sock of Icewedge, and Karajou is a sock of me. Subtle, aren't I? --"CURtalk 15:18, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wow. Can you direct me to the person who disguised you as a retired navy veteran and fooled the L.A. Times? Anyway, Icewedge wouldn't lower himself to pretending to be you either. 15:20, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * I put a lot of time and effort into this, PH. --"CURtalk 15:22, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * So Icewedge pretended to be you pretending to be Karajou? 15:26, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Precisely. Icewedge pretends to be me (I'm his sock) and I pretend to be Karajou (he's my sock). --"CURtalk 15:27, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * So who did the makeup when you met Stephanie Simon for the L.A. Times article? 15:29, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Stephanie Simon was in on the plot. --"CURtalk 15:33, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Did you go to Italy for your holiday? :P KlapauciusEsteemed Constructor 15:18, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * I thought CUR was TK. Or an idiot of some kind. And no, didnt go to Italy. Didnt even leave NZ. Ace McWickedRevolt 15:23, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * It's possible that Karajou thinks New Zealand is in Italy. Matt  16:50, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * TK is another sock of Karajou. I pull a lot of strings over there. --"CURtalk 15:24, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * He was in the L.A. Times article as well, so that must have been Icewedge pretending to be you pretending to be Karajou pretending to be TK. 15:27, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Precisely. Now do you get the implications of this? --"CURtalk 15:33, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yes. Icewedge needs to increase his standards. 15:34, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Okay, end of joke. --"CURtalk 15:35, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * CUR are you Benjamin Button or something? Because Karajou and TK are seriously old dudes. <font color=Blue>Генгис    16:16, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * End of joke. --"CURtalk 16:17, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Restart joke. CUR, you invoke too many people who would never waste their time creating you. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:28, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Plus, we're pretty sure I'm TK and I'm certain I'm not Karajou, you, or Amesg. Therefore you can't be Karajou pretending to be TK pretending to be [a one third?] CUR. Though I will note, in passing, a certain thematic resonance between your and Karajou's respective user pages, I'm certain it is just the work of the indifferent universe. Exasperate me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! Not the most impressive contributor here 23:28, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Right. Seeing as we're outing our socks here, I'm Conservative, Kotomi is my wife and on weekends our pet beagle edits under the name of Ed Poor. However, we might also all be Ames...
 * Are you saying that because your beagle has a habit of humping the legs of strangers? Exasperate me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! Not the most impressive contributor here 11:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Kendoll is at it again
Once it was certain. Now, there is a 'reasonably good chance' of waves of anti-atheist and evolution material hitting t3h innertubes. You heard it here first! EddyP 15:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Pity it's not "reasonably good" material. But the 2008 Ides of March will happen any day now... --Kels 16:08, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Ides of March? --"CURtalk 16:10, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * So, lets see 🇰🇪. I paste one of your gentlemen from over four months ago that says operation flying fortress and operation grassroots have begun and point out that they haven't actually done a damn thing.  Your response is to claim they haven't actually begun. So, you're not incompetent, you're just a fucking liar is that it? You're a dickhead, Ken. Your pathetic little operations aren't worth the disk space they're stored on. --JeevesMkII 16:11, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Jeeves, by using swearwords as over half of the words in that sentence, you make us seem no better than . --"CURtalk 16:16, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * You know what CUR, I was actually midly offended by what you have fucking written above. Even though your filthy screed was directed to Jeeves (who is a respected user BTW, unlike yourself) I think you a fucking dickhead to accuse someone of behaving like Jinx just because you dont like swearing. So go fuck yourself. Ace McWickedRevolt 16:35, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * CUR, by using "you make us seem no better" you make yourself seem no better than the trolls who tell us we're no better than Karajou because we don't let them troll every page. Ken's earned his profanities, and evidence suggests he is, indeed, a dickhead. --Kels 16:25, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh yes, no question about it. But I suggest that we try to avoid swearing every other word. --"CURtalk 16:38, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'm sorry, don't you have some furries to be trolling right now? When people exasperate you as much as Kendoll, swearing is not only permissible but required. You're rapidly heading in to that territory yourself. --JeevesMkII 16:41, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Cripes, don't point that thing at me! What'd I ever do to you, huh? --Kels 17:07, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * In the words of Robin Williams:


 * on the CIA's vague terror warnings* Every now and then, Rumsfeld will come out and say, *very serious voice* "I don't know where. I don't know when. But something awful's going to happen. Thank you, that's all for today, no further questions." Well, could you give us a clue? What is this, the Central Intuitive Agency now? Are you working with Miss Cleo? *Miss Cleo's 'Jamaican' accent* "Oh, no baby! I don't know where, I don't know when, but sometin awful's gonna happen! And definitely don't marry that fat man; he only wants you for your money, girl!"
 * Meh, I find Ken's Hitlerfication of articles funnier than his predictions of things that may or may not happen within the next five months in regards to sites he won't name pushing out material he won't elaborate on.
 * He should maybe watch movie trailers to get a clue how to make people curious (instead of just attracting people who need a laugh). --Sid 16:14, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Also, below where he talks about his mental stability, should that read 'KIND Regards'? And Ken, if you're reading this, you're welcome for my correction. EddyP 16:27, 8 February 2009 (EST)



Lessee. 1. Ken, people are linking your articles to LAUGH AT YOU. Remember the blogburst about your homosexual denial obsession? That's where the links came from. 2. If I cared, I'd care. I don't. 3. You said last year it was already started. You're a liar. 4. Prove it. Give us some detail. Oh wait, you can't because there ISN'T ANY. 5. Yes, you were successful in making EVEN MORE PEOPLE LAUGH at your crap article. And again YOU ARE A LIAR because people have repeatedly told you what's wrong with it, and you stuck your fingers in your ears and said "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". 6. Liar again. You said it was already running last year. 7. No, we think the idea that creationist sites will post creationist material isn't news. It happens constantly, and it's generally 100% lies that amount to nothing. As will the blue smoke you're selling now. As has EVERY SINGLE ONE of the big events you've told us were coming for more than a year now. 8. Maybe true. I don't particularly care. You'll stupid it up again presently, so we'll be able to laugh about something besides your crap articles and impotent bragging. 9. I gave you a detailed critique a while ago, and you failed to respond. Your facts are lies, and your writing is unreadable. Nobody reads your stuff for facts or information, they read it because you're a buffoon and they want to laugh at you. 10. Oh, that's an easy one. We speculate on your mental state because of your obvious lack of social skills, empathy, common sense and general lack of any ability to write clearly. That, and we think you're an obnoxious buffoon and it's funny to make fun of you. We're not attacking you, we're mocking you. You do quite a nice job of making your arguments look ridiculous all on your own. There. That's way more attention than you deserve, but it was fun. --Kels 16:52, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * But I suggest that we try to avoid swearing every other word. Fuck that shit. No fuckin' way. Shit, I fuckin' love goddam swearing. TheoryOfPractice 17:46, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Damn fucking straight dude, swearing n shit is fucking awesome. Ace McWickedRevolt 17:47, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * Shoes thrown at cats again, & now linking to this picture. Superb.   18:03, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * You know, I think that was funny for about 10 minutes when someone came up with it in 1943. --Kels 18:50, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Oh Ken, did I forget to mention how you're an ENORMOUS FUCKING COWARD who refuses to stand by his words and jacks off to bullfight videos instead? Because you are. --Kels 18:39, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Ken, you are a dumbell, frog eating, kitten huffing dork. Those are the most severe swearwords that I think I will ever say about him. --"CURtalk 18:47, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Seriously Ken, stop lying. You don't have any "eggs". You never did. All you have are a pack of lies, smears and misrepresentations about things you personally don't like. And you write about them so dishonestly, and so badly, that people come to the site specifically to laugh at your hideousness. There is no Operation Grassroots. There is no Operation Flying Fortress. You started ranting about "big things a'comin'" over a year ago with your first "Ides of March" thing in 2008, and you've never once shown anything either substantial or aiding your cause. The blogburst about your obsession with homosexuality did more than all the SEO bullshit you've ever done. I would seriously bet money that nothing you ever do in your life will ever have a damaging effect on evolution, atheism or homosexuality, or the practitioners of any of them. You're stuck on a Z-grade blog with some encyclopedic window dressing, pretending to write an article because you're consistently out-argued anywhere you don't have a ban button to hide behind. I'll be honest, I would pity you if you weren't so damned unpleasant. --Kels 18:56, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * I pity everyone there. They are wasting their life. --"CURtalk 19:00, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Kid, we're all sitting at the same monitors reading the same internets. Pot, Kettle, Black. TheoryOfPractice 19:01, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yeah, but his monitor thinks it's a gryphon/minotaur/dragon crossbreed. --Kels 19:04, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * My fave furry FTW! :-) TheoryOfPractice 19:08, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Huh? Explain, please. --"CURtalk 19:02, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Hey Ken - I'm curious as to what you think of this. Google "andrew schlafly teacher" or "andrew schlafly homeschool" and let us know where they are ranked for you. I get #1 and #2, respectively for our Andy article. Do you think if we changed the title of the article to include the word 'teacher' it would help our efforts in Operation Barnstar? Thanks, your thoughts appreciated. <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  19:04, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Ken, your answer fails to address Operation Barnstar?  What do you think of our successes with Operation Barnstar on the internet?  <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  19:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Ken, other users are noticing your overuse of the Red telephone.  How will you explain it?   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  19:52, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Actually if you simply google "andrew schlafy" you get RW as your first hits. Genius, I say, genius. Hactar 13:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Ken, you're so full of shit your eyes are brown. I wouldn't believe you if you said the sky was blue without proof, so make with the proof. Prove that you're doing any damage of any kind to homosexuality, atheism or evolution, and not just drawing ridicule down on your side. I don't actually expect you to provide anything, but then that's why you don't have credibility in the first place. --Kels 20:02, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Ok who else thinks it's time to break out the bots and push Ken's evilution page to a full million just to see what he does? I think we could do it in a day haha --BoredCPer 21:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Keep in mind that a good number of those pageviews Ken is so proud of are from bots artificially inflating various page counts to screw with him. So aside from the few loons who actually believe his hogwash, the great majority of those hits came from people laughing at him and...nobody at all. --Kels 21:24, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * I see 🇰🇪 is back on his denying that he spams forums under pseudonyms kick. Come off it, kendoll. You are about as subtle as a housebrick. For example, are you denying that this is you? Spamming Irish forums coinciding with your "Irish eyes are smiling" nonsense on Conservapedia. That's a bit of a coincidence isn't it? I guess you must just have a spamming angel. --JeevesMkII 01:31, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Heh nice find Jeeves. 01:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh, I'm just DELIGHTED with that find Jeeves - thanks!  I'm thrilled to see my countrymen hand him his ass on a plate.   The total Ken-ness of 'markg's language is so blindingly obvious - "I will have more to say in my next post regarding the last post of nozzferrahhtoo and adamd164. I do have some matters to attend to but in the meantime I suggest..." and "I do find it telling that you have not pointed out one factual error of the atheism article located here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism".   I mean, COME ON Ken.   At least try to disguise your barmy writing stlye.  Operation Irish Eyes me arse.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  03:38, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh look kendoll, it's you. Then you wrote some crap about Doug Jesseph and went on a spamming spree, it's you! And it's you! You really aren't fooling anyone you know, all you have to do is figure out what you've got a bee in your bonnet about and search for that phrase and conservapedia and your spam just jumps right out. And since you can't write worth a damn, you stock phrases are incredibly obvious. --JeevesMkII 02:58, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * And he's pwned at every turn: beautiful! 03:31, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Google: petermoore conservapedia - he's been at it since 2005. No change in tactics at all. 04:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Nice catch, the both of you. Although it's not that difficult to find Ken's oh-so-sneaky aliases, given that nobody else is out there spamming CP links.  Have you ever noticed that, Ken?  The only "people" who post links like that to message boards and comment threads are people who write exactly like you, and always on whatever topic you're excited about (like Ireland).  Face it Ken, you're not an international superspy. --Kels 06:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh man this is just lovely. When I saw the link I expected some post that may have been Ken, but this is just priceless, it's so bloody obvious! And I love how he first just pasted the link hoping it would crush the atheists and when they laugh at him he gives the oh so typical "I noticed there was not a cogent rebuttal offered for any of the criticisms of atheism in the article. I would remind forum posters that appeal to ridicule is a logic fallacy.". COULD YOU BE ANY MORE OBVIOUS? --GTac 00:26, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Easy Edit break
So, to sum up: Ken's various Operations seem to consist of posting ill-disguised links on a few message boards, drawing hits and ample ridicule, and calling a single person. Grinding down evolution and atheism indeed! 11:17, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * You've got to wonder how those calls go, don't you. If they're anything like the messages he leaves on other people's talk pages, you can see the other party squirming, torn between social convention and wanting to get rid of this raving loony as soon as possible. "Hi, you don't know me, but I'm Ken DeMeyer, God's secret weapon against homos, scientists and atheists. I'm hoping you can help me promote my poorly written screeds which consist of quote mines loosely joined by snippets of ill written prose." --JeevesMkII 11:47, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Ha! Ken's babbling textual stylings got edited by Hsmom and PJR. Guess we're not the only ones who have issues in regards to the articles about evolution that are achieving 494,00 hits on the internet that are climbing rapidly!!!! <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  21:07, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * That was sweet. Too bad they kept the "content" of the post. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:08, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Jpatt
Okay, seriously, bwah? --Sid 16:07, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * I was gonna comment on that before, but I didn't feel right about outing a parodist like that. But I uess if he's being this obvious... --Kels 16:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * I hope Jpatt is a parodist (But if he is, he's a bad one. Then again, he got this far with his act, so I guess that actually makes him a good one? I'm confused by Andy's upside down standards for promoting people...). But by now I fear he's genuine... --Sid 16:17, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Seriously, I still have my doubts about DeanS. --Kels 16:28, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * My X-Ray vision shows that Jpatt is the real thing. A total pratt. <font color=Blue>Генгис    16:33, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * No, if he was really a parodist, he'd have gone the whole Jack Chick and made no distinction at all between satanists and muslims. After all, isn't Islam a satan-inspired trick to make mankind worship the moon or something? --JeevesMkII 17:14, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Ah, now I remember where I've seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6FSnWhGtOI&feature=channel_page


 * These are OLD lies. JPatt, seriously, if you're not a parodist, please try to entertain us with lies we haven't seen before. Dance, my little monkey! It brings me great entertainment. AwesomeJack16 20:07, 8 February 2009 (EST)

And speaking of idiots we hope are parodists...
Foxtrot: "AndyJM, I do not at all appreciate your reversion without discussion on the talk page. This is not how our wiki works, and based on your past history I'm going to say that you cannot make edits to the mathematics articles without first obtaining approval of your proposed edits from User:ASchlafly, myself or User:Ed_Poor."

Bonus Lulz for this coming straight after "Please try to keep your talk at a minimum."

I'm actually surprised that AndyJM is still around after being treated like this basically the entire time since joining. --Sid 16:44, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * The cp:Continuum is a prime example of Foxtrot's math - maybe even better than his cp:Center. Take the examples of wikipedia's article for a continuum:
 * sets which are order-isomorphic to the set of real numbers, for example a real open interval, and the same with half-open gaps [..]
 * the affinely extended real number system and order-isomorphic sets, for example the unit interval
 * the set of real numbers with only +∞ or only -∞ added, and order-isomorphic sets, for example a half-open interval
 * the long line
 * Only one of these is covered by Foxtrot's definition. And have a look at the definition itself:


 * <font face="comic sans ms">Mathematically, continuum can refer to the real line, its cardinality $$\mathfrak{c}$$, or any continuous connected dense linear order without endpoints.


 * Clearly, he should explain what he understands under a linear order, a dense order, and a connected set or a continuous set. All of these are not trivial, and the last one is arcane. <font color="black" face="georgia"><font color=#101010>l'ar <font color=#505050>ron  <font color=#707070>sicut <font color=#A0A0A0>fur <font color=#B0B0B0>in <font color=#C0C0C0>nocte  18:18, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I love Foxtrot's reasoning about what makes a number. Who wants to add to the CP pages on rational numbers that rational numbers aren't really numbers, since they're defined as equivalence classes of pairs of numbers?

For those of you playing along at home, the lexicographic ordering on the complex numbers is dense, linear, and without endpoints. It does not require the Axiom of Choice to construct.

Foxtrot's innumeracy is not unusual, or even sad. Many wonderful people wouldn't know a Cauchy sequence from a Dedekind cut. What is really pathetic, though, is his arrogance. Coarb 19:02, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * The set $$\mathbb{C}$$ with the lexicographic ordering $$<_L$$ is not a continuous set in the sense of this definition (I like the line The phrase "continuous set"  is not used in the Western literature... best.) Example: Take $$\mathfrak{X}_1 = \{ x | x <_L 0 + r\,i\;\forall r \in \mathbb{R} \} \cup \mathbb{R} i $$$$= \{ x + y\,i | x \leq 0, y \in \mathbb{R} \}$$, $$\mathfrak{X}_2 = \overline{\mathfrak{X}_1}$$. Then, any element of $$\mathfrak{X}_2$$ is bigger than any element of $$\mathfrak{X}_1$$, but $$\mathfrak{X}_1$$ has no biggest element, while $$\mathfrak{X}_2$$ has no smallest...
 * However, as Foxtrot hasn't defined continuous set (the link goes to continuous function :-), that's a moot point<font color="black" face="georgia"><font color=#101010>l'ar <font color=#505050>ron  <font color=#707070>sicut <font color=#A0A0A0>fur <font color=#B0B0B0>in <font color=#C0C0C0>nocte  01:03, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * This is why I follow CP. The whole thing is just an enormous irony factory. User X says, "I know about Y," makes a series of edits that demonstrate they don't have any idea what Y is, then harasses and belittles anyone who dares to contradict them.-- 19:38, 8 February 2009 (EST)

De jevu all over agin
The above reminds me of this. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Cracker / talk / contribs 18:02, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * "This user sees things that might not "be there." is what you see on that linked page. Apt for most any conversation/conclusions made here, by people who have walled themselves off from any direct knowledge of the subject because they refuse to have any kind of direct contact, other than on their own wiki, where admins routinely remove all comments they don't agree with to the memory hole, unlike CP where most admins are not given that ability. At least they block users outright, rather than harass or consign them to some "vandal bin". Yes, yes the protests will start about how you don't abuse that. But the public only has your own self-serving words that you don't.  Hardly transparency.  --193.200.150.152 18:32, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why do you hate America? Chris Fanshaw 18:50, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Furthermore, what're you on? --Barikada
 * Hm, that IP seems familiar. I think I've seen it at RWW.   21:47, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think it's a proxy. 21:57, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh, come on, it's either TK or someone doing a most excellent impersonation of him. I blame Sid ;) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:33, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * There is no getting around the clever deductions of a drunken sot err, clever bureaucrat/wikimaster is there? No matter everyone knows that most here are merely socks of Sid, AmesG or AuldNick! My hat (if I wore one) is off to you, Human. I guess the considered response of the management here is to ignore statements of fact that cannot be refuted logically because of all the evidence to the contrary, left laying around. Maybe RW needs version 4.0, completely sanitized of everything that could be used to show RW is nothing but a kids vandal site... --193.200.150.29 00:27, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * You are more than welcome to look through our deletion log to see if there is anything missing and I will tell you what it is. Other than RA's user pages and the Andy article talk page (his address was removed from the record) I can see little has been removed since we installed the extension. However there is no record of your oversighting so we can't do likewise to you. We have had people leave the vandal bin and make sysop so we hardly have harassed them into leaving. Finally fuck off. - User   01:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * I love the "statements of fact" comment considering all that BoN did was make some random assertions. Still, I think we'd better not feed the troll, at least until it provides any sort of proof. --<font color="#99CCFF">Arcan   ¡ollǝɥ  01:20, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Not just any proxy, Huw.  00:34, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * "most here are merely socks of Sid, AmesG or AuldNick" Yup, our BON friend is TK, repeating another of his delusions. --PsyGremlinWill RWW ever realise I exist? 05:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wow. Just wow. I'm rather polite and well behaved and you follow your usual nasty demeanor, and insult me. What an asshole you are, Gremlin. Don't allow your issues, caused by childhood toilet training, lead you to making those kind of unwarranted insults. You do a good job imitating TK all by yourself. --67.159.44.138 06:35, 9 February 2009 (EST)

"My usual nasty demeanour?" Come out from behind your BON and say that. (PS don't you think calling me an asshole and referring to toilet training sort of casts doubt on your "polite and well behaved" statement?) --PsyGremlinWhut? 06:46, 9 February 2009 (EST) PS. Asuuming BON is TK, allow me to quote from a SDG posting (yes, the same one you opened to the public) you made on 6 Jul 2007: "One needs to remember that most users at RW have one or more socks there. Yes! One or more.  Taking that into account, their actual, real members is about half what is showing.  And of that amount, how many are what can fairly be considered active?" Anything else to say, you malignant hypocrite? --PsyGremlinWhut? 07:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

TK steps in!
Get it before it gets burned! Coarb 19:14, 8 February 2009 (EST)


 * Huh, didn't see that one coming! --Sid 19:17, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, not really. He didn't remove the same comments from "Talk:Continuum"...-- 19:43, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * You rang? --Sid 20:36, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, it's nice to know my input is appreciated... Also: Asking Roger to mediate seems like a deliberate slight to Ed Poor, given that Ed has declared himself grand poobah of the "math" articles and lately has spent his time running around reminding anyone who will listen that he wrote a policy on civility.-- 20:42, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wow, TK gets rid of CPAdmin1! What a douche... <font color="black" face="georgia"><font color=#101010>l'ar <font color=#505050>ron  <font color=#707070>sicut <font color=#A0A0A0>fur <font color=#B0B0B0>in <font color=#C0C0C0>nocte  01:17, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Haha, since when is Tim anything resembling a liberal? Unless you read liberal to mean "Anything to the left of Limbaugh, Coulter, and McCarthy," then Tim's pretty conservative. But Tim's a cool guy, eh debates on RW and doesn't afraid of anything. ENorman 08:07, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Not only a liberal, but a vandal too.  09:12, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Sorry to see Tim go, but the worst part of being banned by TK is that he leaves this on the user page. The thought of TK handing out blessings from God is more than a little unsettling. - Simple 11:43, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * LOL. "This user has left Conservapedia. God bless." Does anyone else read that as "This user has left Conservapedia. Thank God."? --Marty 13:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I love how TK says not only "the circle is now complete", but ALSO "So be it".User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 19:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

CPWebmaster "fixes" cp:User:Joaqu�n Mart�nez
It took me way too long to figure out that that's what CPWebmaster was up to on Recent Changes. JM's username got hosed by the server upgrade, because of the accented letters. --Marty 01:18, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Logical people might have wanted to pick the correct MySQL database character set in the first place while restoring the operations, but now, I guess the poor database has gone to "only a ninja with direct SQL prompt access can fix this mess" stage. Let's just give them some more time and they'll soon reach the "patching cold DB dump with vi and a toothpick" stage. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:37, 9 February 2009 (EST)

PJR
Just wanted to alert people to the fact that PJR is a resident of Victoria, I believe in a rural area, where 131 people have perished in bush fires. I note he hasn't edited in a few days, but hopefully this is simply because he has more important things to worry about. Philip if you do happen to pass by, maybe just a quick edit to let us know you're OK?

Matt 03:46, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * PJR lives in a town south-east of Melbourne, an area which I believe is not affected by the fires. However, I'm sure that Philip is the sort of bloke who will be helping in any way that he can and therefore has more important things to do than edit CP. <font color=Blue>Генгис    04:03, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Nonetheless, Phillip, as a Kiwi with family living in Victoria I must express my condolences with having to deal with blackouts, water shortages, fires, disrupted public services and extreme heat. Ace McWickedRevolt 04:15, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * He'll also have family and friends in the area to worry about. Totnesmartin 08:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Where is your God now?DSFARGEG 10:07, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * I don't meen to be all hollier than though or anything but DSFARGEG (if that is your real name) that's pretty low. StarFish 11:12, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * It was mean, I admit, and I actually like Phil, but seriously, I'd be questioning my beliefe if me and my family were in danger of being swept up in forest fire. In fairness I do hope him and his loved ones are safe.DSFARGEG 11:29, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * If you read the bible, bad things happening to good people is kind of a runnning theme. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  11:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Just like a missionary trying to sell the idea of God to someone who's in distress is low, so is this. Pseudomonas 14:01, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Update: PJR has made a single edit (concerning the fires) to CP. Matt 16:59, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Good. I liked that guy. Rather tolerant. Sort of reminds me of Tim. --"CURtalk 21:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

God Continues to Punish the world for Conservapedia's Bias
It is sad indeed that God has decided to punish Austrailia with major bushfires for Conservapedia's Bias. Once again the punishment has missed the mark. Jimaginator 10:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * With 170 people dead, is this really something we should be using to poke fun at CP? It smacks of bad taste in my book. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:29, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Strife, poor blokes...
 * I would hope most RWers would like to disassociate themselves from trying to prove a point (however valid) with a still unfolding tragedy on this scale. We are rightly appalled when they use school killings etc to try to make a point. In our haste to bash CP lets not end up becoming them. I can only speak for myself: I want to take a big step back from the comments above. There are plenty of less contentious examples we could use to make the same argument. StarFish 11:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * If this argument had been proposed on CP (even by a parodist), this would have been ok...but I don't really give a fuck anyway. People die. Constantly. Sometimes you might even know them. oh. noes. Neveruse513 11:12, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Hey I'm sure you're right. CP would be happy to use something like this - but that's because they're mostly really unpleasent people. So yeah: In our haste to bash CP lets not end up becoming them. StarFish 11:14, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * We'd be in danger of becoming ED, not CP. I'm all for not becoming ED. Neveruse513 11:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Why not just edit on ED then? Hang on. No that was a rhetorical question. I'm walking away from this one. Have fun with it. I'm going to edit about Jesus being a stand up comedian. It makes me sound less pompous. StarFish 11:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Truly, it was not my intention to offend anyone, and I grieve for those lost. Rather, I am sick of hearing how God guided the plane that went down in the Hudson to safety (but didn't cause the birds to fly into the engine I suppose), and the gays caused the WTC attack, and all the spiteful and wonderful things attributed to God without a shred of proof. No, I don't want to become them. That's for sure. Apologies. Jimaginator 13:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Glad you guys worked that out. That was embarrassing.  I edited the header so the old version won't appear next to my name... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  16:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Seems like some people have in fact been making these comments in seriousness rather than jest. Only difference is that "Conservapedia" has been replaced with "abortion". RyanC 07:05, 10 February 2009 (EST)

The Divine Comedy
Where exactly is the Assfly getting this idea that Jesus invented humour? I can't remember anything Jesus is reported as saying in the Bible that could even be characterised as droll or witty, let alone a joke. Is there an apocryphal text where Jesus does stand up at the last supper or something? "And James the lesser, he be all like 'love thy enemies', but James the Greater he be all like 'yo, fuck you unbelievers, Imma gonna get neolithic on yo arse.'" --JeevesMkII 11:17, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * The whole thing is hilarious. And some good questions are asked:
 * May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--CPalmer 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * A true Schlafly answer could by: If you have to ask, you aren't a real Christian yourself. Godspeed. -- 11:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh, it's definitely shaping up to be an early contender for WIGO of 2009.  Classic Andy "I know comedy" Schlafly.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  11:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * And lo Jesus spaketh to the multitude saying 'A funny thing happened to me on the way to this Mount of Olives. You've been a lovely multitude, no really you have. My name's Jesus thank you and goodnight' - Bonkers StarFish 11:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think Andy was watching Bill Hicks' Jesus routines and got confused, as he easily, and frequently does.DSFARGEG 11:31, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Surely you mean "My name's Jesus Christ, and I'll be here all eternity, try the loaves and fishes!" --JeevesMkII 11:35, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I love how he starts his repsonse with "To anyone with an open mind...". Good old Andy. Straight in with an implied "If you don't agree with me you must be closed minded." StarFish 11:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * My personal favorite is his utter dismissal or every shred of evidence added that counters his claim with "They're not true humor." I've never heard Scottsman invoked over an abstract concept before..... And someone else mentioned this, but that god awful Born Outside the USA things better go, mockery isn't humor. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  11:46, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * I was impressed by this one too. He really is a complete tool, there's no denying it. <font color=red face="Tahoma"> A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 11:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * With everyone demanding his definition of "humor", it should be quite interesting to watch him avoid defining it. Although, we've had two or three unanswered pokes to the bear. If these people do one more, this will become a 90/10 issue. If no one else says anything, Andy will probably run away. I'd say we need some socks to keep bringing this up every hour or so. Neveruse513 11:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * I do daresay that Mr. Schlafly does deserve some credence to his claims. Without Jesus, we would not have the greatest source of humour this world has seen... Mr.. Schlafly.
 * The interesting thing to my mind is not that he's refusing to engage in argument/see reason etc, but how did he even come up with this idea in the first place? I'd give anything to know what thought process led him to consider that 'mystery'. When did he suddenly go "wait, it was the BIBLE that made the first comedians! it's so simple"seventhrib 12:29, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * (EC)I've spent a good part of the morning trying to figure out exactly what he considers humor.... He obviously doesn't like sexd jokes or mockery. He doesn't appear to like wordplay or parody, and we know he doesn't understand Irony, so I don't know what's left.... I suppose it'd be like the old Kant jokes: A (Chinese Person) was visiting England, where he saw for the first time a barrel of ale opened.  He was shocked to see all the foam flowing out of the barrel.  When asked 0f his surprise, he responded "Oh I wasn't surprised to see it come out, I was just amazed at how you got it inside in the first place."  At this, Andy chuckles and it brings him great joy. <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  12:30, 9 February 2009 (EST) PS, To add to Seventhrib's point.  I wonder what Andy thinks people did before Christ... I mean, the need for entertainment is a basic human need, and laughter is one of the earliest forms of etertainment, does he think people were just all stick assed serious and suddenly Jesus came down and introduced the Modern Comedy Club?
 * Probably racist or gay jokes? And I don't mean the usual kind that actually take the piss out of the racist (Such an an aeroplane is going down, so the pilot gets on the speaker to the passengers; "we need to lighten the load and throw some people off. To be fair, we'll go in alphabetical order a, b then c. So all the Asians, Blacks and Chinks get the f**k out.") rather than the race (a gay man walks into a bar. He hurts himself and it's funny because he's gay and God is punishing him... come to think of it, that's exactly Andy's sense of humour). <font color=red face="Tahoma"> A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 12:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Could be another great CP meme - "alleged humor". Neveruse513 12:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

(undent) It's tough looking for laughs when everything funny is liberal humour. Poor Andy, he can only laugh at jokes based on prejudice and hatred :( seventhrib 12:46, 9 February 2009 (EST)

OPEN YOUR MIND BY CLOSING OUT ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES. SO SAYETH THE ASSFLY EternalCritic 12:47, 9 February 2009 (EST)


 * I'd wager, from a basis of total ignorance, that the first laugh was either sexual or slapstick, or both. I can imagine Ugh stepping on a primitive rake and getting the handle in his face to the amusement of Ogh. 12:56, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * I keep thinking of the (fictional) example in Quest for Fire, where a young woman mocks an old man for not being able to consummate (or even start) an attempt at sexual congress. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  16:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * I see what he means, kind of. Christianity is one of the biggest jokes around!(Ba-dum-dum-bah) EddyP 13:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)


 * Has nobody linked him to his own Blog's entry on humor? EternalCritic 13:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)


 * This seems like an even more unusual statement of his, considering his recent song parody. Perhaps something similar from antiquity could be located? -Lardashe
 * On a more serious note, would we even recognise puns or word play in ancient manuscripts? It's possible there are side-splitters throughout some old texts that we simply don't recognise because we've never heard the spoken language. Hell, many Shakespeare comedies aren't funny any more, though we can intellectually recognise they contain what would have been funny jokes, simply because the referents no longer exist in our language. If only a few short centuries do that to our own language, what is the effect on languages from millennia ago? --JeevesMkII 13:38, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh god don't bring the changing of languages into the CP debate, Andy is confused enough as it is! ;-p Also, you people don't seem to understand, this is one of the GREAT MYSTERIES OF WORLD HISTORY. Think you liberal nimkepoops can just solve world mysteries? You need to open your mind more. --GTac 14:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I bet that the following two points will be made by Andy: -- 14:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Laughter does not indicate comedy. Stupid people (liberals) will laugh at anything.
 * Only filthy liberal atheist scum would suggest that humour is subjective. Relativism is always wrong, even when applied to comedy.

This might be hard to respond to. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't hear any more from Andy or his apologists. But I sure hope we do. Neveruse513 15:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Unfortunately I think we're getting close to revert/ban. The cure-all response for all hopelessly lost arguments. StarFish 15:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * I agree there will be blocks and erasures followed by denials and new forbidden topics. Next week Andy will claim victory on the topic by claiming no one could raise a credible counter argument. Or he'll take the sissy way out and start saying he was talking about "quality humor" which only artist's like Rush Limbaugh and Andy recognize. Exasperate me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! Not the most impressive contributor here 15:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * The FBI doesn't like any pre-Christian jokes.... 17:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Andy takes liberal jokes seriously. Exasperate me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! Not the most impressive contributor here 18:44, 9 February 2009 (EST)

EZ edit added
So Andy apparantly defines humor as Trading Spaces. I think this explains alot. <font color="black" face="georgia">Z3ro talk  17:55, 9 February 2009 (EST)


 * That is this Trading Places, yes? Not sure it's particularly Christian or anything, but I'm suspecting Andy is pulling an Ed here.  He probably watched this or some similar comedy and thought "Christianity has created everything that's right and good in the world. h Hell, it even created the world itself!  Comedy is good, so Jesus must have made it!  I wouldn't be able to enjoy it if some filthy atheist did it, so it had to have been Jesus."  And the rest is, as they say, idiocy. --Kels 18:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)


 * Y'know, he mentioned Trading Places, which, iirc, can be described as "hijinks ensue when a rich guy and a poor guy exchange roles for a day". Now, I'm not an expert is classical literature, but my Spider-Sense tells me that has to be an ancient plot. Can some classical scholar confirm that? MDB 07:06, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * TvTropes dates it back to Mark Twain, but my trick knee tells me it's probably even older than that. --Gulik 02:08, 11 February 2009 (EST)


 * Trading places? That theme reminds me of something. Pseudomonas 05:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)


 * I find it ironic that Andy apparently likes Trading Places -- that's hardly a good conservative movie. It stars Eddie Murphy, who is notoriously foul-mouthed, it includes the use of marijuana, has a naked woman, and there's at least something of a class warfare theme. Andy, does Mama Schlafly know you're watching such a libb-burr-ull movie? You'd better hope she's not reading your CP postings too closely; you might end up grounded! MDB 08:49, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Out of left field
"I'd give anything to know what thought process led him to consider that 'mystery'." - me too. Usually, it's not too hard to figure out the "basis" for Schlafly's rather odd notions. But this one is tougher. Any ideas at all on how he could have gotten from some semi-sane concept he ran into (and perhaps misunderstood) to this bizarre claim? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  16:59, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * I'd wager it was something in his personal life, possible an argument with someone. Somebody brings up some point, Andy says christians are the best at everything, somebody makes a joke, Andy says christians invented humor too, Andy writes encyclopedia article about it.  At least, that's how I imagine most of these "insights happen".  <font color="black" face="georgia">Z3ro  talk  17:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Andy: "Christianity will make you win at things you're not even supposed to win at! Like yelling! Christianity will make you win at yelling! Or maybe instead of yelling something else, like jumping or waving!" --Sid 18:20, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Andy: <font face="comic sans ms">It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.
 * If it is thinkable, it is not impossible. If it is not impossible, it is true. -- 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Andy's statement (in that same 'it's interesting how strenuously...' comment) that only 'much of the above' is not humour is unusually equivocal for him. It seems like after AlanE says something very politely that it is nigh impossible to disagree with, a tiny amount of uncertainty appears. He did his best to cover it up with one of his knee-jerk closemindedness accusations, but it was definitely there, and I reckon there was potential to exploit it. Sadly ShawnJ immediately said something that is 100% guaranteed to permanently put his back up. Dammit, ShawnJ! seventhrib 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

It's connected with his song parody, his motivation I mean. Some people said his song wasn't funny so he knows he found a sore spot and he is going to kick at it for a while. Remember, he is is a rather typical internet troll in many regards. This is a prime example of trollish behavior. All his god bothering stuff is purely window dressing. He's a catholic for heaven's sake, not a true scotsmen christian. Exasperate me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! Not the most impressive contributor here 18:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * So tl;dr Andy has no sense of humor. Fundamentalism and conservatism have sapped away every single aspect of his being. I'd tell him he should go to a shrink, but of course all psychologists are liberal and therefore evil, atheist, and probably support state-funded abortions and gay marriage. ENorman 19:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Does anyone else want to get hold of andy and: "Dont" slap "be" slap "so" slap "fucking" slap "stupid," slap "you" slap "pillock." slap?  19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, yeah, of course. Ever since he got his first internet connection.  People have been doing just that for years, so he finally made his own little trough in a corner of the 'net where he can be right, right, right all the time. Interesting theory, Sheesh, I guess I could see that connection happening. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  19:31, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Personally I think a reason for why he wants to connect comedy to christianity is that he wants to claim that everything civilized is invented by christianity and comedy is a pretty big part of being human. --GTac 23:44, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Andy's Enemies List

 * Barack "Overachiever" Obama
 * PZ Myers
 * Richard Lenski
 * Richard Dawkins
 * Jon "3-hours a day" Stewart
 * NEW! Aristophanes (unfunny libural)
 * NEW! Plautus (unfunny libural)
 * Everybody on this site

Since Andy has self-proclaimed himself the comic authority, I would love to see him do standup. 19:56, 9 February 2009 (EST)


 * So a conservative walks into an online wiki and says "I have perceived this website biased!" At which point the admins say "You can fix it provided you have credible links."  So the conservative spouts back "Well I guess ur just a durty librul!11  I will grow my own site rapidly and internet haunt it will myself!"


 * *Cue tomatoes* --Snotbowst 20:01, 9 February 2009 (EST)


 * Andy displays his gentle humility in discourse . <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:03, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * The only possible correct answer to that can be "potato". --JeevesMkII 23:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

I hate to play Devil's Advocate (teehee) with regards to Andy, but there is at least a couple of attempts at lightheartedness in the BIble: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1165/are-there-any-jokes-in-the-bible That said, I doubt that Andy Schlafly is intelligent enough to figure all of that out, so I wouldn't dwell too much on it. Photovoltaic Array 21:56, 9 February 2009 (EST)


 * Does anyone else think Andy stumbled into this new insight completely unaware of who Aristophanes is, and completely ignorant of the concept of ancient comedy? He admits he never heard of the Wasps, which is a well known play. It seems he did his typical write-before-you-think idiocy, and, when contradicted with absolute proof he's wrong, instead of being a human being and admitting an error, has to go into complete denial mode. DickTurpis 23:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * However he got there, watching him twist in the wind while observing him thinking he is "winning" in some weird way, is pure comedy. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:29, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Humor was obviously invented by the bible. Little known fact is that Jesus didn't just created all that bread and fish, he actually pulled the fishes from behind people's ear! And that just the new testament, there are plenty of examples in the old testament too. Remember that prank they pulled on the egyptians where all the first borns were killed? Oh how they laughed! --GTac 00:15, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Maybe Andy went to rent one of those Mormon DVDs about Christ but accidentally took home The Life of Brian? Matt  03:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Can someone maybe quote him some jokes (possibly the more political ones rather than just knob gags) from the Birds or Lysistrata or The Poet And The Women, preferably in Greek, and see what he says? He's allergic to saying "I don't understand that", and his bullshitting would be fun to watch. Pseudomonas 04:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Someone did quote from The Frogs (Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, at which the audience never fail to laugh?) and it did not suffice. Kinda hard to refute...It's obviously not pre-Christian humor, so I guess it must be an interpolation or mistranslation...Perhaps jokes and laughing could have had totally different meanings at the time.


 * I think we're at the point where this is dead and will be forgotten/burned by teh Assfly. Assfly has never been wrong and will never be wrong. This will be no exception. Neveruse513 12:35, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * On closer examination, the source used for The Frogs is from MIT, which uses the BCE notation. Obviously, the libruls have altered the documents in a sick and twisted attempt to steal comedy from Christianity. Neveruse513 12:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Here's what I'm confused about. Why hasn't he just accepted the answer? By putting it in as a "mystery or unanswered question" implying he doesn't know the answer. I'll admit when I'm wrong, but I odn't think I'd vehemently defend ignorance. EternalCritic 12:44, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I don't see what's confusing? You may admit when you're wrong, but this is Andy we're talking about. Vehemently defending ignorance is what Andy's all about! --GTac 12:51, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * It's the ability to admit when you're wrong that separates us from Assfly. Perhaps he even secretly knows he's wrong. But I think he applies his legal background to the academic arena. To him, this is a court case that he cannot (and will not) lose. <font color=#FF0000>Neveruse513 12:54, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * What's confusing is he's already admit he doesn't know the answer, and defending "i don't know" against evidence, even for Andy just seems retarded. EternalCritic 12:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * It does seem very strange, even for Andy. It's nice to see him pushing the envelope for willful ignorance. Really, it's astounding. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 13:01, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * So, was dumb and dumber a biography of Andy and Ed? EternalCritic 13:05, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * EC, you misunderstand "mystery." Most of Andy's "mysteries" are poorly veiled assertions about history, where no one backs him up.  "Were ancient IQs higher?" Andy asserts they were in countless places.  Was there prechristian humour?  He evidently thinks not.  Did Jesus preach in Greek? Yes, since Greek was a magical language of power.  How did the literacy level compare? MUCH LOWER, YOU TWIT.  I hope someone brings it up, so he can go on about how illiterate liberals are compared to Greek slaves.  16:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Are you fucking serious? EternalCritic 17:19, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I wish, but we've learned too much to doubt anymore... 17:31, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Well, it seems Andy has wrapped this up nicely with his Atheists=Humourless comment, and it seems right to summarize in dramatic form.

Andicles Rex: Scene CLIV:
 * Andicles: The muses tell me humour did not exist before Christ, I should blog this.
 * Chorus: Sure it did, it's part of the human condition. Look at these examples of humor.
 * Andicles: Those are stupid and grotesque. I mean something specific and elitist.
 * Conservapedian 1: What?
 * Andicles: Not telling.
 * Conservapedian 2: Parody?
 * Andicles: Not parody, except when I write it. Liberals are stupid and like parody and watch Comedy Central three hours a day after public school.
 * Conservapedian 3: What about Aristophanes?
 * Andicles: Never read it, or anything classical, but I know that the Greeks laughed at stupid, grotesque, sexual things. Also, they were much more intelligent than us.
 * Conservapedians 4-9: Wait... what? Never mind. So what do you mean by humour?
 * Andicles: I already told you.
 * Chorus: No you didn't!
 * Andicles: Trading Places.
 * Chorus: Huh?
 * Andicles: You are all clearly atheists and you dislike that this brilliant insight blows your mind. Also, atheists can't comprehend humour.
 * Chorus: Well, WIGOing we go!

Scene. 17:31, 10 February 2009 (EST) (I suddenly enjoy my classical pseudonym more than usual)


 * That should be saved as a fully footnoted article! Brilliang, fucking brilliang... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:53, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Special page hidden or just a bad server?
So I was poking around the special pages and was able to access most of them, with the exception of http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MostLinked. Is this page hidden? And if so, why? (All I get back is a blank page, no message to mind my own business or stay out of things mere mortals were not meant to know, so I'm tempted to chalk this up to incompetence.) Hactar 13:16, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Just a bad server. Neveruse513 13:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Err.: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:SpecialPages; no probs, straight there. 13:27, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * see the "www"
 * er, screwed up the page I meant to post. Fixed it. (It was supposed to be the most linked to pages) Thanks Toast. Hactar 13:59, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Looks like we're enjoying some good ol' downtime now. Neveruse513 14:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Thing is, that's the only page that seems to be "down." I can get to any other page I'm looking for.  Hactar 14:38, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Strange. 14:56, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Shoutout To Ken
This page is almost at 500,000 page views. That means that all info on this page is factually accurate, completely serious, loaded with MOAR HITLER.

See you in the Google rankings!--Snotbowst 15:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)


 * Ah, but people come to this page to laugh at the funny comments. People go to Ken's articles to lau.....oh wait, you've got me there. EddyP 15:05, 9 February 2009 (EST)


 * Since the first post in this section there has been 32 more page views. This site is growing rapidly!  --Snotbowst 15:18, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * We're also the go to guys for gay ninja mercenaries. Well, us and world nut daily. I'm sure my cheque is in the post. --JeevesMkII 15:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh, and thanks for re-uploading the Mr. Dartler image and front-paging it a couple of days ago... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  16:56, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Be aware of upcoming "Operation Ninjas Will Have Gay Relations With Your Daughters and Then Turn On You in a Fit of Mercenary Rage" Many gay ninja mercenary organizations will be stepping up to confront the ragged dogmatism of straight pirate assassins.  Also in the coming days "Operation Make Up Operations", "Operation Lie About Operations", and "Operation Operation That Does Nothing and Never Comes" will go into full effect. Also Heil MOAR HITLER!


 * If there ever is a movie made about CP I want to play Ken.--Snotbowst 19:56, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * How about a mini-series? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * I bet if we pitched it as a sort of mafia drama (which CP is kinda) HBO would pick it up -Snotbowst 22:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Don't think we need HBO, since the show can easily be "family friendly". I'm thinking of pitching it to AMC. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Not if that homosexuality page is accurately portrayed. seventhrib 06:02, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, the show wouldn't "show" the website, really. Also, all HBO gets you is swearing and (mild) nudity.  But, yeah, whoever wants to cash up to produce it can have it ;) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:51, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Successful troll is successful
Score. --Marty 22:31, 9 February 2009 (EST)


 * Andy's gotten himself a pretty unique view of public school life, hasn't he? Mercifully free of facts, too. --Kels 22:33, 9 February 2009 (EST)


 * Whenever I see an unfamiliar name taking Andy's side out of the blue, I wonder who of you it may be --GTac 23:47, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * In most cases, probably not one of us. Andy spoofing is an internet-wide sport these days, I suspect. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * We are like retired athletes, we have been there and done that won the prizes but we are old and not as quick as we you use to be, so must now leave it to the younger people to do it; all we can do now is commentate. - User   00:08, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I never even bothered to lift a finger, Andy was always funny enough on his own. But, as you say... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  02:12, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, a parodist in any case. --GTac 23:58, 9 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, certainly. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  02:12, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Also, did anyone see what was on cp:Charles John Huffam Dickens before Jallen deleted it? The really funny thing is that those were actually Charles' Dickens middle names. Well, no, okay, the really funny thing is the name "Charles John Huffam Dickens", but still... --Marty 23:04, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Aww, why'd you come out? Looked like you were on your way to sysopship... Neveruse513 00:18, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Heh. :) POSTSCRIPT: ...And blocked. Hi Terry! --Marty 00:21, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Could have gone on for a while: Aristophanes' texts -> translations of Aristophanes' original texts -> dating and authenticity of original texts -> accuracy of dating methods used -> ill-conceived notions about dating -> and the BOOM...the poor guy's trying to explain the nuances of radiometric dating to a moron -> Andy kisses your ass and tells you what an open mind you have -> ???? -> PROFIT Neveruse513 00:32, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Bah that didn't need to be added to WIGO.. In fact, why the hell were two new WIGO's created on the same subject: One to display someone's parody and one to show that a parodists is banned. Besides it being redundant (three wigos for the same topic), I really dislike WIGO's on parodists. --GTac 01:42, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Noobs have a bragging problem? PS, what were the other two WIGOs so I can make sure to vote them down too? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  02:08, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * The first and second WIGO at this moment both fall under the 4th "HUMOR IS CHRISTIAN" WIGO (dont downvote that one, thats the original and its awesome!) --GTac 02:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Make that 2,3 and 5? Might want to use words instead of numbers to set the targets here. Thanks, though. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  02:14, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Make that 2 and 4! Yes, using words would be a lot more efficient but what am I, made out of words?? (I was too lazy) --GTac 02:19, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Hmm.. apparently I have groupie? For the record, User:Marty = cp:User:GarthA ≩ User:Tealish, and I didn't think it was worth WIGOing either, just wigotalk:ing about. I wigotalk: a lot of stuff that's not worth an actual WIGO entry. --Marty 03:52, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Was the intent to get Andy to argue in favor of relativism? (granted, there are distinct fields where "relativism" applies differently, but Conservapedia is great at conflating them) If so, then well done. --Interiot 09:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I did notice that the discussion was leading that way, but honestly that's far too abstract to be my goal. I just wanted to dangle the idea that the Ancient Greeks were basically funny squirrels onto whom we're projecting all this complex behavior, and see whether Andy bit at it. --Marty 13:10, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Obvious troll is obvious. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 14:35, 10 February 2009 (EST)


 * Yeah, someone isn't following the parodist's guide. A good parodist would likely use this as one of the safe times to respectfully disagree with Andy. This guy also did another no-no which I'll have to add to the guide. DickTurpis 15:16, 10 February 2009 (EST)

freedom from religion doesn't exist
Someone more clever than me should WIGO this. Alecwh 01:51, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wow, that was fast. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  02:09, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Hey, I need some way of entertaining myself at this hour. And continually refreshing the recent changes on Conservaedia does the trick! (And in no way is that depressing.) Alecwh 02:15, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh, that was sarcasm. I should probably check timestamps next time I post stuff here. =P Alecwh 02:24, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Jackboots on
So, it's now official. You can be banned just for being a member of this site. Seems a bit totalitarian to me.--Kriss AkabusiAAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1 06:56, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Oh look, Cupcake is reading us and trying to defend his actions of making up his own rules for banning people. No doubt he'll have the excuse of the mysterious "e-mail from Andy" but I bet 10 bucks he hasn't run this past the other admins. Way to go, TK, your plans to bring CP down are still running according to plan. --PsyGremlinWhut? 07:12, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * So what's to stop us from pointing out a positive CP member's comments as though it were our own sock's? Would TK blindly start banning people we pretend are ourselves? Only time will tell. --Irrational Atheist 08:33, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Brilliunt. Neveruse513 08:37, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * In related news - FairyCake's rangeblocking orgy begins to pay off - RJJenson finds himself on the wrong side of a block. --PsyGremlinWhut? 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wait, if he was blocked, how could he edit to complain about it? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  18:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Also, the easiest way to find out your IP address is to log out of a wiki... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  18:01, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, TK is exactly the sort of moron who would block people just for being on rationalwiki. He's insane and unstable, I wonder what Andy'll do to make him stab him in the back this time. --24.176.254.243 08:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, I wonder if TK will block my sock sooner rather than later - frankly updating all their categories for them on my road to sysopship is getting tiring. --PsyGremlinWhut? 09:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think it's pretty clear you're in fact CPalmer, what with the suspicious name (obviously a spoof of Bengal's star QB Carson Palmer, chosen for the mockery of having CP in the name) and the incessant cat-ing. Neveruse513 10:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I wonder how they're gonna square this with their "we don't block user for comments on other sites", or if they're just going to pretend there isn't a contradiction. <font color="black" face="georgia">Z3ro  talk  10:24, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I think Karajerk safely put that myth to bed by blocking people for comments they made on WP during Ed's failed bid for admin. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:31, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * This is very predictable. Tk's already blocked or driven out most people who use both sites (still one or two around).  This just makes it a little more permanent.   11:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * "My IP address is 192.168.01 or 192.168.0.103." Wow! And mine is 127.0.0.1! A little bit of an odd block diagnosis if you ask me. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 04:42, 11 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) I'm still there.... I keep two or three pairs of wool knit socks in the dresser for cold nights. I just do a decent job of altering my style <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB 
 * Honestly, PsyGremlin... Do you really think all this cat-ing is worth a sysopship? <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 13:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Uh... Doesn't this ban reason go against Diff #15? Barikada 17:09, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Add it to the article on it. - User   18:01, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, it does. That's because the "rules" on CP all have an important, unspoken clause: "...unless this rule would make it difficult to make a Liberal SHUT UP, in which case it can be ignored completely." --Gulik 03:08, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Why does CP have this article?
This one. Firstly, shouldn't the page actually be 5th millennium BC? Isn't the single year, 5000 BC, only 0.1% of what the article means to cover? And finally, why bother with the article at all? The effective coverage should only be October 23rd, 4004 BC to December 31st, 4001 BC, right? What's this 5000 BC stuff? There are nearly 997 unused years in there. 08:08, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I see your 5th millenium BCE and raise you a thousand Bondurant 08:34, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Andy doesn't really give a shit what millennium the world started in, just so long as you agree with him (or disagree with him in the case of libruls). Neveruse513 08:55, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Nerveruse513 - what a strange name that is! How can you deny the clear logic that the Earth was created in 4004BC? You must be a liberal / fascist / communist / atheist / French / owner of a Japanese car / non-gun owner / public school graduate to believe such nonsense. Godspeed in your efforts to debate this elsewhere. Bondurant 09:06, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * How long before the 5000 BC article gets moved to 5th millennium BC? Better yet, what are the odds that 6th millennium BC gets deleted?  How about the snarky sock that rewrites 5000 BC/5th millennium BC to included only the "three-and-a-quarter-years" of that millennium?
 * And, why is the article for 4th millenium BC still redlinked? These are the formative years of the world and universe.  Somebody should write something.  09:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Come to think of it, do we have any specific evidence as to whether Andy is a 6,000 or 10,000 year YEC? 09:52, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I saw a conversation with him on talk:World History Lecture One where he apparently had zero idea what he was talking about with respect to biblical chronology. Neveruse513 09:55, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * The History Lecture suggests mankind orignating approx 3500 BCE. Since he's obviously a Biblical literalist, assume he believes the world dates from a few days beyond that. 10:09, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * From talk discussions, he's not sure if it's the j00z 3700BC, Ussher's 4004BC or the traditionalist Catholic 5199BC and he doesn't care. He says it's impossible to know and can in no way, shape or form be reliably proven. He keeps it open so he doesn't close any doors behind him in an argument. Neveruse513 10:18, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Now wait just a damn moment... the world population was 5-7 million during this time? 4 YEARS after the world was made?! O_O
 * The best part is that you've gotta figure that means there were 5-7 million newborns to toddlers. I think we might have the real reason that Cain killed Abel.  10:13, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Awesome, so not only does he believe in super evolution, he also believes in SUPER INCEST! In only 4 years, Cain sired over 40,000 children with his own sisters, while he and they were only toddlers. That's Biblical morality in action. --JeevesMkII 10:21, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Clearly, he denies the dating of those remains to preserve his initial conception. They're probably all flood victims, regardless of the strata they're in. As Kent Hovind taught me, the stratification we see is totally normal for flood sediment. Standard fundamentalism. Neveruse513 10:27, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * And the almighty lord did smile upon the babies humping each other... [[image:wtf.gif]]
 * My favorite FTW there: "sedentary horticulture". ORLY? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  18:08, 10 February 2009 (EST)

When idiots talk tech....
Oh dear. I wonder when cpwebmaster will come along and put them out of their misery. --JeevesMkII 08:49, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I love how Andy is looking for "insights"--instead of "ideas" or even " a clue..." TheoryOfPractice 08:52, 10 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent)I found myself suggesting to a colleague the other day a way they could gain "insight" into a problem they were having. I then felt kind of dirty afterwards. Damned Andy! alt 13:33, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Wait--"colleague?" There's a Rationalwikian with a job?!??!?!??!! TheoryOfPractice 14:14, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * It's quite endearing isn't it? StarFish 08:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * HA THEYRE A BUNCH OF FUCKING TOOLS 65.60.9.250 09:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Redundant observation there, BoN. 13:56, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * So his IP address is 192.168.0.1 - or maybe 192.168.0.103 - hmmm... something tells me that the address that's presented to the intertubes might be somewhat different. I bet he also has the address 127.0.0.1 Silver Sloth 09:17, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * No! I'm 127.0.0.1 ! 12:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Silly! Trent's the only one from 127.0.0.1. 14:23, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Idiots, the simplest way to find one's IP addy is to fricking log out of a wiki! And voila, it's on the top right of your screen.  Also, if he was blocked, how was he able to edit to complain about it?  (I know, I said this all up above, but it really belongs here) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  18:10, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Human, as RJJensen is a sysop he could unblock himself in order to complain about it. Whether he then reblocked himself so someone could unblock him is a "mystery" worthy of a Sunday essay. <font color=Blue>Генгис    04:25, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Musical comedy
Drblonde got blocked by Andy for editting musical comedy. My question to Andy is whether musical comedy is one of those true forms of humor? 09:49, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Whatever he did has been deep-burned. What was it?   09:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Blanked the page and made a cock joke. Not funny. No surprise it was torched. Neveruse513 09:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * The edit wasn't of much importance. It was that he did it to musical comedy.  Now that Andy has weighed in on the history of comedy and humor, I think he needs to go back and edit these articles with his interpretations as to whether they are true humor or not?  10:04, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Any points he could have scored by bringing that to Andy's attention are immediately lost because vulgarity ≠ humor on CP. Neveruse513 10:12, 10 February 2009 (EST)

"Cpwebmaster"
= Andy. Mei 11:21, 10 February 2009 (EST)


 * = ≠ Andy. He is moderately competent at something. -  User   17:35, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * & he's left the building: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:PhilipB&diff=443217&oldid=442957. I guess that explains the dearth of new namespaces. Mei 18:33, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * He just shifted names, basically. Check CPWebmaster's contribs. However, the namespace issue had been suggested even back when I had been unbanned, and nothing ever happened. The only namespaces that had been created were for Sysops and contest-related issues - both of which had been basically pushed by Andy, and only because they wanted to have a Secret Area to discuss. Andy's not interested in having namespaces for debates, essays, lectures or homework because he wants a high mainspace article count. --Sid 19:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Doh, of course! So that's the reason for his mismanagement. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  19:39, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Ed's Sense of Humor
Ed always cracks good jokes. EddyP 11:30, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * From his own source, different types of bible humor: These include: puns, wordplays, riddles, jokes, satires, lampoons, sarcasm, irony, wit, black humor, comedy, slapstick, farce, burlesques, caricatures, parody, and travesty. What is Andy gonna say?  <font color="black" face="georgia">Z3ro  talk  11:33, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * I dunno, but I bet he's pisssseeeddd!!! Neveruse513 11:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * It's probably me, but I don't get this line at all: "We mortals note that even omniscience and omnipotence do not prevent one from being hurt by straying children"... Omniscience and omnipotence won't save you from getting beat up by some dirty kids? What kind of pussy is this god anyways? Or are these the 5-7 million toddlers which were mentioned in a discussion above? --GTac 13:07, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Commandment #11: Thou shalst not hurt god's feelings. 13:52, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Ed joins the googlehits bandwagon. Has Ken's disease become infectious? 14:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * If they want to up google hits, they should at least choose a decent article, something like Tokyo Rose or the like. 19:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

What is real humor?
So Andy is very good at defining what humor isn't (ie, anything before Jesus), but what is it? Does he ever give any specific examples? The only one he seems to reference is Trading Places. At least now we know that Andy is a fan of Jamie Lee Curtis's breasts. I guess we have something in common after all. DickTurpis 17:29, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Assfly appears to have cited Merriam-Webster (3A FUCKING ONLY) for the definition of humor, which he says is "absurdly incongruous". Someone cited Cicero and his use of "absurd paradox". I bet it doesn't count. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 17:32, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Of course it won't count. Nothing will. Any discussion with Andy can basically be summed up with "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose. *flips coin*" --Sid 17:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)


 * He's defined it negatively as "not grotesque," "not sexual," "not parody," and positively as "absurd," and in wonderfully elitist fashion, as something funny which you have to be smart to get. Definitionally, he's talking about intellectual absurdist humour, which Trading Places is not, and which he almost certainly wouldn't get or find funny. 17:37, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * For the first time, i just can't read it anymore. It actually makes me angry to read. EternalCritic 17:39, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Andy is often crazy, retarded, just plain nuts, and all sorts of other descriptors. But this is one of those few, those rare, those boggling times when his thinking is completely inscrutible, and absolutely no non-parodist on the site agrees with or even comprehends him.  17:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Balls to the wall nutjobbery I'd say. EternalCritic 17:46, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * What really grills my cheese is the smug sarcasm Andy brings out sometimes, as in this instance. "We've all learned something today. Athiests aren't funny. How unfortunate." Didn't he once describe sarcasm as the Rhetorical Device of Great Satan Himself, as well? seventhrib 18:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Shouldn't the latest humor WIGO be added as an update to the already epic WIGO just a little ways down? Could someone do it who won't break the wiki? <font color="black" face="georgia">Z3ro talk  17:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Remember the mantra: "It's Okay If A Conservative Does It". --Gulik 03:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * I added it as a separate WIGO because it was so fucking out there it deserved its own entry. Ace McWickedRevolt 17:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

It seems Andy is drawing a major distinction between run-of-the-mill humor and good humor. The former existed before Christianity, but I think we can all agree that Good Humor did not. DickTurpis 18:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)

A bit off topic, but with the lastest WIGO, it's rather clear where he's going; he's simply dehumanizing atheists (actually, all non-Christians, but he wouldn't notice) by stating that they can't feel humour because it comes from God, just like when he stated they can't feel love. NightFlare 18:17, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I think that he's going to try to pass the whole thing off as deep satire to catch those oh-so-darn-serious atheists. "Ha ha, they thought I was serious! /jk!" That seems like his only face-saving option at this point. Let's see what develops.--Martin Arrowsmith 19:16, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Poor Andy appears to have never read Douglas Adams... - Cuckoo 19:27, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I think we all know where Andy is going with this. Many people consider Obama humorless and unable to tell or laugh at a joke. Since he is humorless he is therefore not Christian and probably Muslim. Argument ended. Patrickr 22:14, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Andy refutes himself
When this article was written, did Andy realize that the Hebrew Bible predates Jesus, thus proving that humor DID exist before Jesus?-Diadochus 20:14, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Andy has not edited it at all (yet) - also, it's brandy-new. There seem to to be two rivers of humours flowing through the valley of CP right now... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  20:27, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * Yeah, I was thinking about that as well. Andy will probably just say, "Jesus was with God in the beginning, but he was playing hidey-hole then". And then bam, no mo' logical inconsistencies. AwesomeJack16 23:15, 10 February 2009 (EST)
 * What sorts of Humours in the rivers? I'm guessing bile is one of them, but is the other choler or phlegm? --Gulik 03:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)
 * Well, Andy's certainly not phlegmatic, but maybe he's out for blood. (He's at least somewhat sanguine, yes?) --Marty 04:29, 11 February 2009 (EST)