Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive223

Question
I clicked on Presidential Erection 2012 talk page and noticed DevonJ (who last I heard was "leaving", JPatt going so far as to hang the RETIRED template up on his user page. Dear Devon, the minx, came back to talk politics though the lying little bastard said that he was apolitical. Okay so far. But when I check the history of the page I don't see his edit. QUESTION Is there something about to go badly worng on CP or is this a "normal" wiki thing? 01:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * Oh yes you do . It was just seem to have been made by the assfly but signed by devonj.  Liberal deceit anyone? Oldusgitus (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh shit! Dude, anyone else would be BLOCKED for that shit. WTF Andy, seriously. At least try to not be blatantly hypocritical... I mean at least put in some plausible deniablity in there... -- 14:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like Andy finally understandd the value of sockpuppets. Are we going to see dozens of little AndyClones running around CP now? 15:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Genghis suggested oversight in the "This is the CP proofreading service" section (which was connected to this section through the theory of their wiki slowly breaking), and I first rejected it, but then I took a closer look at the Recent Changes
 * (diff | hist) . . m Talk:Presidential Election 2012‎; 18:19 . . (-1) . . Aschlafly (Talk | contribs)
 * (diff | hist) . . Talk:Presidential Election 2012‎; 16:56 . . (+188) . . JimFullerton (Talk | contribs) (→Question: )
 * (diff | hist) . . Talk:Presidential Election 2012‎; 16:45 . . (+309) . . Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (→Sarah Palin: I don't agree. Palin picked the more anti-life candidate, and of course she did not have to pick anyone at all.)
 * Compare that with the current history of the page:
 * (cur | prev) 18:19, 17 February 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) m (8,567 bytes) (+236)
 * (cur | prev) 16:56, 17 February 2011 JimFullerton (Talk | contribs) (8,331 bytes) (+188) (→Question)
 * (cur | prev) 16:45, 17 February 2011 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) (8,143 bytes) (+309) (→Sarah Palin: I don't agree. Palin picked the more anti-life candidate, and of course she did not have to pick anyone at all.)
 * The "diff" link of Andy's edit in the RC is broken (but the one in the history is not), and the diffs have vastly different sizes, so something was indeed fudged. However, my memory tells me that Oversight leaves the Recent Changes untouched, so any oversighted edit would still show up. Did this change in some update? --Sid (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

shlafly wrongly calls high schooler homeschooler, praises him for sexism anyway
I was a wrestler in high school. I've seen girls hold their own. This boy was just a coward. . Link to high schooler refBrxbrx (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Andy is saying that the student undergoes homeschooling, but rather, he just has homeschool values in him. But it's a stupid statement nonetheless. If a public school student does something bad, then they're a victim to the nasty, liberal public schools. If a public school student does something nice and good, then it's clearly the influence of religion and private, at-home education and parenting. Public schools would never teach kids how to be good. Pah.
 * As for him being a coward, I don't think so. I believe him when he says that he does it for his faith, and I say that the boy's actions are commendable (and I say this as an atheist). If someone doesn't want to fight with and/or grind up against a girl because of their religion and moral values, then good for them. Heck, dropping out of the tournament because of a girl would make him seem more cowardly than if he lost. The girl has clearly beaten other boys, so it isn't anything to really be embarrassed about if he had lost to her. ~Super Hamster  Talk 03:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. But I think the decision to forfeit just because his opponent was a girl is sexist, regardless of religion (i.e. his religion is sexist). He also made a fresh Homeschool Values article.  Actually, it's always extra embarassing in our still somewhat sexist society to lose a match to a girl.  One guy on my team did, we never let go of that.  Silly that Andy must attribute everything good EVAR to his personal values.  God forbid someone he disagrees with actually accomplish something nice somehow.Brxbrx (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's commendable at all. In fact I think, if there were any justice, the little prick should be barred from competing ever again. What he did was deny his opponent an honestly earned victory or loss, so any triumph she may have been entitled to is now tainted with the feeling that she may not have earned it honestly at all, but was only awarded the victory by dint of her sex. He must have been aware beforehand that he had entered in to a tournament open to both sexes, and if he didn't know then it's still his fault. The time for getting on his high horse was _before_ he entered, not during. Once he's signed on the dotted line, he should have stuck to his word. -- 03:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that you put it that way, I agree with you. While I wouldn't mind someone dropping out of something due to religion reasons, he must've known that he could very well be paired up with a female to wrestle, so he shouldn't have signed up if he knew it was a problem for him. ~Super Hamster  Talk 03:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The only explanation is that he hoped somebody else would knock her out of the competition before he had to face her. That's cowardice, not principle. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Letting the infidels do your dirty work is a time-honored religious praxis
 * was it the fear of Hell or just of springing a boner?
 * I read somewhere that he was home-schooled, but allowed to wrestle in the high-school team: the best of two worlds...
 * and then there was is the story of the Iranian wrestler / judoka who didn't want to go on the mat with an Israeli: this was about religious reasons, too, but apparently the wrong ones
 * 07:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don’t know enough about this particular case to pronounce upon it – though Jeeves’ argument that the male student must have known the score when he signed up for the competition is compelling. I don’t think, however, that, speaking generally, it would be sexist for a man to have a principled objection – whether religiously based or not – to using violence of even the most highly regulated kind against a woman. Tylersboy (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Woah! So it's sexist to compete with the opposite gender as equals? Why? If it's wrong to use violence against women why is is OK to use it against men? The "principle" that this objection rests on is that women need protection from men and that, in itself, is sexist. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn’t say that I had an objection to mixed wrestling: I don’t. (And, for fear of being misinterpreted, I might add that I have no especial interest in it either.) I rather indicated that I could respect the scruples of someone who did object. Those objections might very well be based on an old-fashioned and arguably sexist desire to “protect” women. I do not think, however, that that would always necessarily be the case. I’m not at all well versed in feminist theory, but, as I understand it, much of it relates to a widespread male desire to subdue and control women. I’m unclear whether this desire is supposed to be entertained by many, most, or all men – I imagine it depends on the theorist – but a man who recognised such a tendency in himself might reasonably opt not to encourage it. Tylersboy (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no. I don't think that works. You can probably get some of the crazier elements of AP feminism to support this position, but that's because they are crazy. You can play this game everywhere once you've started. Bob isn't racist, his 500+ person company doesn't employ non-white workers because he's aware that he might have a tendency to mistreat them, so that's OK then? Not sold. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the line (quoted from the kid himself) that does it for me: "...It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa." With, I guess, the (only very slightly) unspoken implication that other sports are right to keep girls away from the men doing manly things. I have to agree with Jeeves; the kid is an asshole. Whether he thinks he's being good and polite for doing it is irrelevant. I don't think any punishment should be levied against him since, as far as I know, forfeiting a match is a legal thing to do in the sport, but his reasons for doing it are nothing but assholish. Which is probably why Schlafly supports him so much. X Stickman (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @ 82.69.171.94: I don’t think I buy the analogy. If Bob fears he might mistreat his non-white employees, he must be aware of the possession of some racist tendencies. If he’s already in business, he must nevertheless abide by the rules and refuse to discriminate – just as the student in this case should have stuck to the rules of the tournament he had, presumably voluntarily, entered. But if Bob has not yet set up his company, and really doubts his ability to apply the proper equal opportunities standards, he would be well advised not to go into business until he can conquer his bigotry. And aren’t there some significant differences, usually at least, between what goes on in the office and what takes place in a wrestling ring? Tylersboy (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A male who is unable to treat women as his equals should keep out of mixed wrestling until he can conquer his sexism. No, it doesn't matter whether it's in the wrestling ring or in business, an inability to treat women as equals is sexism. Dressing it up as chivalry is just bollocks.
 * This does, of course, raise the interesting question as to why the majority of sports are segregated. Partially this is historical but mostly it has to do with the physical differences between men and women. Men's bodies are better equipped for a great many sports. As such, in these sports, there's not a level playing field. However, I applaud Iowa for putting the lie to much of this, for showing that women can compete as equals in a sport formally seen as purely masculine where they are given the chance and not disbarred "for their own good". Jack Hughes (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, the girl could hold her own. I've seen some decent female wrestlers.Brxbrx (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah the sexism is astounding. I am all for boys vs. girls in boxing and girl vs. boys hockey or football. Why does this not take place yet? We must break that glass ceiling for the sake of fairness. --76.241.145.190 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Think I’ll bow out rather than digging myself a new – or a deeper – hole. I still don’t think that racism and sexism are precisely analogous, and I’m still not wholly convinced that a reluctance to enter a mixed wrestling contest must necessarily be regarded as contemptible, but I’ve certainly been given food for thought and willingly vacate the field – or ring. Tylersboy (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all very well to say that it's sexist to segregate males and females in sport but let's face it, in general men are stronger and more athletic than women. That's not to say that some women aren't better at sports than many men but the question is do you force the sexes to compete against each other at all levels? I have no problem with young kids competing on equal footing but the differences are accentuated post puberty. Many women don't want to compete with men because they enjoy the sport and would get crowded out if men were allowed in to their teams. So is it all right for women to have their own single-sex teams but also allow them to join the men whenever they want? Somehow that seems a bit one-sided. I often visit a women-only spa and we would certainly not like it if we were forced to admit men. I can well imagine a young man feeling very uncomfortable wrestling a girl if certain parts of her anatomy are being thrust in his face, after all Greco-Roman wrestling has some strong homo-erotic roots. 18:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lily, you tink Greco-Roman is homo-erotic, have you ever checked out Turkish oil wrestling? I don't think I'd remember the Armenina genocide in the midst of all that myself. --Leotardo (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * in this particular case, the girl could have handled herself. And I've seen some decent female wrestlers in my day.  Brxbrx (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrestling a girl in front of a gymnasium full of people would suck. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, so I would. Reminds me of when I played lacrosse. One time I totally flattened this chick. Only figured out she was a girl after the gasps from the stands. She started crying, so I felt compelled to take it easy on her for the rest of the game. She probably shouldn't have been there. Neither should female wrasslers. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of that Monty Python sketch where there's a boxing match between John Cleese, in full-on animal mode, and Connie Booth dressed up in gingham and pigtails. Basically, he flattens her over and over again. Gender equality is great, but ignoring differences in this kind of contest is plain silly. I'm afraid men are always going to be able to piss higher up a wall, and that's just the way it is. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * LOLwut? You're channeling Andy Schlafly, right? 19:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to reiterate that many women can outdo men in strength, speed and stamina but the Gaussian distributions of the sexes have different mid-points. 20:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if women were matched in all categories, it still wouldn't be appropriate for boys to wrestle girls in highschool. Hell, it's hardly appropriate for boys to wrestle boys. Do you realize what goes on during a match? It's almost disgusting. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that we should only allow boys to wrestle with girls and not allow them to wrestle with other boys, unless that's what they're into... --Opcn (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @NR - seriously? You're seriously calling me Schlafly for stating the fucking obvious?–SuspectedReplicant retire me 8,45pm est 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * you were wrong. this young lady is a champion, forfeit or no.  Just because most women migh tbe weaker than men doesn't mean that those that want to can't hold their own. Brxbrx (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. The existence of an exception doesn't mean we need to rewrite the rule.
 * If the guy knew she was in from the start, then he should have fought her. If he didn't, then it's fair enough to skip. Seriously, people. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate which hardly has anything to do with Conservapedia (beyond the starting point). Should we move it over to the seldom-used RW sports forum? 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC) All I have to say is that I am forfeiting matches vs every single Athlete of the world every single second and strangely I get no praise for it. Sen (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the CP proofreading service
Now doubling up as CP's security service. Conservatrival still not blocked (7:32GMT) I think you missed one Johnny. -- Ψ Gremlin  07:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 21:59 (CP Rec Changes time) Jpatt blocks LarryV
 * 22:31 User Conservatrivial creates an account and goes on a page blanking spree.
 * 22:59 Jpatt uploads file
 * 23:04 Jpatt welcomes Andrewcarlisle‎
 * 23:06 Jpatt welcomes StephennE‎
 * This is very, very weird. The user is blocked, just like RonnieR, they just don't show up in the recent changes --Sid (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too. I think that they have removed blocks from the RC so as to hide the user names. They ought to remove the account creation as well. 09:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. This raises two issues - one, they'll go to any lengths to hide anything that might possibly make them look bad over there (except Ken's emissions) and Andy is obviously giving the sysops greater access to the server. We've already seen that they can turn account creation and editing on and off, something that wasn't there in my day. -- Ψ Gremlin  10:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The blocks by Andy and Jpatt are still in the RC, though. Unless they disabled showing them after Jpatt's latest block, this is either somehow Addison-specific, or their wiki is slowly breaking. --Sid (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going with slowly breaking1.!13:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * Inserting from other thread, the post by DevonJ was actually made by, and not likely an indication of a failing wiki. -- 14:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My wikifu is not high as is obvious at times but that's about what it looks like to me. So do we now have some kind of evidence that assfly is socking up on his own blog? Oldusgitus (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that Devon is Andy's sock. Could Andy have rescued something from an oversight? 15:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will defer to the wisdom of the mob, but wasn't this the kid who got 12/90 on Andy's homowork? C ® ackeЯ
 * Genghis, your intuition was very likely right - something has been manipulated, though I don't know enough about Oversight to say "Yes, that was it!" with certainty. I left a detailed rundown in the relevant section so the more knowledgeable people can weigh in. --Sid (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re the title: RW has always been CP's proofreading service. If we weren't around they'd have twice as many embarrassing mistakes even without the work of parodists. 14:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, I miss Ken
Ever since he went on his 90 day sabbatical at 17:47, Feb 1 2011, I've been pining away for his wit and wisdom. Holding out until May 2nd isn't going to be easy. CP is so lonely without him. Where will we get new and creative arguments for the existence of God without Ken? Hey, I just thought of one&mdash;the "argument from sex". Basically, women like ponies and theists, so, if you want to get laid, you'd better believe in God. But only Ken could write such an inspired essay. And maybe even come up with persuasive pictures to illustrate it. And we need an article on "Atheism and Moral Depravity". But, without Ken, who will write it? I'm so lonely. Gauss (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keennnnnn come out to play-ay!   KEEEEENNNNnnn come out to play-yaaaaaay! --Leotardo (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't he state somewhere that his 90-day-project didn't work out? Can't find this entry anymore (surprise!) 08:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was in his Horrible Horace resurrection (with additions) which, of course, he has now deleted. 10:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Impossible! Say it ain't so!  Ken said he was taking 90 days off.  He wouldn't lie, would he?  Next you'll probably tell me that Operation Grassroots and Operation Flying Fortress weren't brought to a successful conclusion.  Or that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist.
 * Seriously, it looks as though he is making a good faith effort to overcome his obsession. He went something like 15 hours recently.  It seems a little like people who want to give up smoking and, to help steel their resolve, tell their friends that they are quitting.  Gauss (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tsk, when an upstanding Christian missionary extraordinaire like User:C misdirects a hell-bound atheist, it isn't "lying" it's Glorifying Jebus showing the gift of the Holy Ghost known as ah, er, righteous truthiness (or something). 06:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ

Look's like some major news has broken
He uploads a picture he later deletes. Very important stuff. -  π    10:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the ones too lazy to do their own pasting into the address bar. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This Infuriates Me
This is so untrue and uncalled for. Yes, some teachers hate their jobs and hate their students, but to make such a statement like that makes me want to drive to Andy's house (a mere 30 minutes away) and punch him in his stupid ugly face. The teachers are protesting unfair cutbacks. They make much less then they deserve and I have no problem with them having awesome benefits. The only way to make the boards listen is to protest like this.

BTW, I'm sure Andy would kick any student out of his homeschooling class if they decided to only pay only half. Does anyone think Andy cares about his students? Senator Harrison (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how you feel about the unfair cutbacks, you don't cancel school over that shit. The education of the children comes first.70.171.17.135 (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * One or two days out of their entire time at school is not going to hurt them, especially when you consider the time they could have spent learning Latin instead of finger painting at age 5. On the other hand a continually degraded system will hurt them. -  π    21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Senator Harrison: Are you saying that people actually PAY that clown Schlafly to educate their children? Even if they want their kids to have a religious education, surely they must be able to find someone more competent than Andy. Surely. The Real James Brown (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Anonymous: Yes, you do. Like I said, things had to build up to get to this point. No one will listen unless something drastic is done. Besides, the days get made up. And even if they dont, like π said, missing two or three days wont hurt anyone. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, it isn't just "cutbacks." The state is going to essentially revoke any collective bargaining rights for state employees.  If this plan became law, they would only be able to negotiate wages, which could not rise faster than the CSI.  Having no power to negotiate for health benefits, pension changes or working conditions, leaving them completely at the mercy of district administration and the stage legislature.  I'd be pretty pissed myself.  A little anecdote: The district I used to work for is going through a major problem right now.  The new superintendent decided that teachers were gonna report weeks early with no pay because they need more "training."  It went to arbitration, where the arbiter said the teachers were right, either they should be paid for the days don't count.  The superintendent completely disregarded the result and since it's not binding, there's nothing the teachers can do.  The district is now losing long time faculty as a result..... The whole point of this: collective bargaining rights are important for workers.  06:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, none of you are fucking parents (or at least good parents). 70.171.17.135 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, ad hominem. -  π    05:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, BoN, as you said above, the education of the children comes first, which is why I want the happiest, top-rated, most exceptional teachers teaching my kid -- you get what you pay for, and good education doesn't come cheap. P-Foster (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BoN, teachers are children too. And also parents. They need a decent wage for being responsible for your children during their formative phase. I'd like people in that position to be concentrating on doing the best possible job, not being so pissed off with poor wages that they skimp through to 5pm. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Adventure game
Ever since I first played Beneath a Steel Sky on the PC when I was a mere teenager I've been completely hooked on point-and-click adventure games. The Discworld games, day of the tentacle, and lately the Sam & Max series have had me hooked. Unfortunately my insane lust for these games is too much for the current stock in the world, and so while idly browsing the tubes, I came across this supremely awesome application meaning I can make my own.

So this got me thinking, I love a bit of coding, and RationalWiki has a good share of artists and comedians (read: script writers), and so my mischevious side took over, and I'd like to suggest we create "Conservapedia: Trouble in Andyland"! What do you think? We could have old andypants going on an adventure to break into server rooms to reroute all traffic to CP, perhaps filing some FBI reports, even contaminating the vials in Lenski's lab, in order to achieve world domination! How about a mission to infiltrate the white house and swap Obama's birth certificate with a Kenyan one, or sneaking some extra pages into the science curriculum? Luckily he'll have his good friends "creepy" uncle ed, and the ever so unhinged Karajou to help him along the way.

Who's with me? 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Big point and click fan here (Machinarium = best ever!) Count me in. StarFish (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Machinarium was fucking awesome. 21:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Machinarium soundtrack is awesome too. Well worth the price. --Kels (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi kels, you're a bit of an artist no? 22:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I love the concept and I have played around with AGS in the past, so yeah, I'm interested. Vulpius (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds amazing. I, for one, hope that one of andy's goals involves sneaking at least one gun into every household in the world. X Stickman (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And this thread is on WIGO:CP because...? 23:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A student artist, yes. However, as such I'm pretty busy.  Current load is 15 seconds of hand-drawn animation over the next seven weeks, including backgrounds, plus the usual demands of my other courses, most particularly pre-production for my student film next year, which will involve about three times as much animation.  That said, wouldn't you be mainly looking for pixel art for an AGS project?  --Kels (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just pixel art for backgrounds, objects and characters. This could be awesome! I've made a (currently unfunny) first mission as an example. @Ghengis: Just because it's to do with CP. Should I move this to the bar instead? 09:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Today we played "identify this V8", and got 15 out of 19, would have been 16 if John had shut up and listened to me on the last Hemi on offer. Does that count? 08:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Bi[b]le as Bestseller
Andy has once again used the claim that the Bible is the all-time best-selling book in his MPR entry on Borders' bankruptcy, and implies Borders should be selling it more prominently.

Okay, I have no doubt that "the Bible" is one of the most owned books in the world. However,


 * You could also say that about the Koran and Quotations from Chairman Mao, which would drive Andy into apoplexy if they were prominently displayed at his local Borders.
 * (Okay, that was true at one time about the Little Red Book. I have no idea if it still is.)
 * Quick, who is the leader of all Chinese cats?
 * Chairman Meow.
 * There are numerous versions of the Bible, including the KJV, the NIV, the RSV, variants on those depending on whether or not they include the Apocrypha, various versions with commentary, etc etc etc. Since all of those are counted separately in best-seller lists, they are probably not, in and of themselves, best-sellers.
 * Best-seller lists are based on the past week's sales, not the all-time lists. There may be plenty more Bibles in print than the latest John Grisham or Stephen King tome, but they're probably not out-selling them at any given moment. It's the same reason you won't see Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on prominent display at Best Buy (excluding the recent re-release): it's certainly been a huge seller, and will probably be for years to come, but there's albums currently out-selling it.
 * Bibles aren't generally bought on impulse, nor are they likely to lure someone into a Borders if they walk past the window. Current best-sellers are.

MDB (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You forget that in Andy's world, the only book you need is the Bible and book-stores should only exist to sell Bibles. Not like those nasty commie Gideons just giving them away. Sometimes Andy make the Taliban look like a bunch of slightly misunderstood blokes. -- Ψ Gremlin  09:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The most baffling part for me is that Andy is teaching economics. --Sid (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're using the words "teaching" and "economics" in their broadest possible contexts? -- Ψ Gremlin  10:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have read this in one of those amazingly reliable "Did You Know?"-type books, but isn't the bible also the world's most shoplifted book? X Stickman (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would wager that it's one of the world's most smoked books given that rolling papers sometimes run out. Bible paper is second to none in an emergency.--Brendiggg (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This idea that the Bible is a best seller might well be out of date, or possibly never true in the first place. I suspect the Bible may be one of the world's most printed books, but that most of the copies are given away rather than sold. Certainly, no one version of the Bible ever seems to come close to being a best seller on Amazon. In the UK, even the Qur'ran (in English. Naughty non-Arabic speaking Muslims!) beats it in terms of the best selling religious book. It's just one of those books that bookstores sell a slow trickle of and keep reordering, hardly the stuff that'll save a retail store from loss if you put it front and centre with the new releases. -- 12:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty good point actually. I'd be willing to buy that the bible is the most/one of the most distributed books in the world, but not the most sold. I've come into possession of countless bibles in my life (all legally) but I've never once bought one. I remember in school there was a group that came about once a year to hand them out, which was somewhat fun because it turned into a bible fight after they'd left. X Stickman (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's "naughty" muslims buying those Qur'rans, we had at least one in my school library. A translation was understandable to the main student body whereas the archaic Arabic was not. If you consider that the school is going to have to replace that Qur'ran if a student scribbles on it, or rubs mud on it (you've met teenagers right?) I'd guess they probably buy one or two per year. Whereas the Arabic Qur'ran in a family home presumably might be several generations old. Also anyone who is serious (or momentarily serious enough to place an Amazon order) about comparative religion but doesn't know Arabic is going to order the translation too. It's not as if anybody actually speaks Arabic as it was when the Qur'ran was fixed, any more than people still talk or write like the KJV. A translation offers the chance to be clear without resorting to a separate interpretive accompanying text. In Islam changing the original text is forbidden, but mainly with the intention to stop dangerous lunatics like Schlafly. If you don't like what the Qur'ran says now, imagine how much less you'd like it after a few centuries of tampering by the usual suspects. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most churches will have Bibles and hymm books lined up on the pews. Even in a fairly modest sized one they may have not far off 100 of them at any one time, perhaps replacing them every few years depending on use or if a new version/translation gets offered. Add to this the number that the Gideons have managed to leave in hotel rooms. It's certainly going to be widely printed and sold, but only in the sense that the dictionary is also widely printed and sold. 13:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And despite the good work of the Abimelech Society the Gideons keep putting millions of them in hotel bedrooms. I would even hazard a guess that many of the Bibles which are actually bought are destined to be "gifts" for others. 13:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting aside---as a prototypical socialist institution, libraries that use the Library of Congress system file Bibles under religion category, specifically the call letters "BS". I'm sure AssFly would rail against it if he ever actually visited a library and noticed.64.30.2.130 (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. Whenever you visit the library, you should helpfully refile the holy books under "Fiction, Religious" -- 16:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a best seller not necessarily because everyone wants to run out and buy a Bible for their beach reading. It's because you have organizations like the Gideons buying hundreds and hundreds of thousands to stock in hotel rooms, missionaries forcing them on natives, etc.  --Leotardo (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

bibles are free, anywaysBrxbrx (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bible Babble Blargh. Meh. (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Complete aside: the US State Department codes for diplomatic license plates all begin with two letters. For the USSR, it was "FC". Officially, it stood for nothing. Unofficially, it stood for "Fucking Communists". MDB (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy might like to take serious note of Jeeves’ “religious fiction” suggestion next time he visits his local liberal bookstore. At the time of going to press the Borders website puts “Christian Romance” right at the top of its category list.Tylersboy (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have yet to "buy" a Bible, and yet I own eight. Owning eight that were probably all given away for free does not make it a best-seller.  PS, Andy's an idiot, but you knew that.  08:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Wikipedia doesn't seem completely convinced either.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Contary to Andy's claim the Bible also doesn't make the list of the 100 most influential books either. Jewish scripture and the Quran to, however. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But the “Jewish scripture” in question – at No. 2 on the list – is also referred to as the Hebrew Bible, and the New Testament is at No. 18. Tylersboy (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See - Schlafly skimming doesn't work. :) -- Ψ Gremlin  12:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That list is a book title. It's just one man's opinion. --BobSpring is sprung! 12:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocking since TeamKiller "left"
500 blocks from 20-12-2010 to today (18-02-2011), (60 days). The next 500 took a bit longer, going from 28-08-2010 to 20-12-2010, (114 days). Based only on this limited evidence it looks as if TK was actually a moderating influence on other sysops; he never did lead the league in blocks, (amiright?) 22:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * The burning question of course is how often/long account creation and editing had been enabled in those time frames. --Sid (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually did think of that after I cobbled-up the post but had put so much werk into it I didn't wanna not post it. 22:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * That's exactly it. It was closed for ages at a time until fairly recently.  22:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TK a moderating force? I don't think so... 22:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Block Blather Blockhead Blargh. Meh. (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They aren't lobbing those huge-o-fucking mongous range blocks. --23:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of relevant charts (IP blocks over time, IP blocks by TK, monthly number of blocked editors by TK et al.) can be found here. 06:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

At Conservapedia, the number of blocks depends more on the number of accounts created per day than anything else (take a look here). TK's last days coincided with a policy of making account creation nearly impossible. In fact, TK was one of the busiest blockers of editors and IPs alike. 22:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Attention peons
I need a Conservaleaks logo for the anniversary edition. Go and get it done. Mountain Blue 06:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * CP's logo squeezed through an hourglass seems to be the obvious choice... 06:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or: CP's logo with the colors draining out...I don't have photoshop on this 'puter otherwise I'd come up with a different reason not to be the one who actually produces it. 06:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * I was thinking along Cracker's lines - CP's logo, but with the RHS running down, like water or melted wax. However, as my artistic skills don't extend beyond match-stick men and adding funnier captions to Karajou's cartoon, I too shall abrogate any responsibility for getting it done. Just... make it so. And now: tea, Earl Gray. Hot.-- Ψ Gremlin  06:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like this? --[[Image:Cyan mowse 2.png|25px]] λινυσ (☮) 11:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC) [[Image:Conservaleaks (Linus, 0).png|alt=Probably a bit more distortion would be ideal.]]
 * One could, of course, go the crude route and have the Conservapedia logo standing at a toilet taking a leak. Given the general opinion of TK around here, this would also appropriately symbolize the source of the leak. 06:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking even cruder than that. Maybe a crude likeness of andy squatting over conservapedia logo bestowing on it a hot and runny load of insight fresh from where he get's em. --Opcn (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)




 * Your pictures are awesome as far as the craftsmanship is concerned, but they send the wrong message, especially the second one. Taking a huge runny dump on the planet is what Conservapedia does, people. I see you have no idea where to go, exactly like me. . Mountain Blue 15:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that Andy's face could be worked into the layout somehow, and that maybe the conservapedia logo could be swapped for the world. --Opcn (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, since you have all of you failed me, you useless turds, I've changed my mind. We're not going to have a logo, we're going to have a title card. Mountain Blue 01:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bfg.png
 * To be shown as a double feature with Fahrenheit 403: The Forbidden, perhaps? Tylersboy (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You just wait and see, honey. You just wait and see. Mountain Blue 10:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For how long? Oh, the tension is building up.... 10:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It might take a while, we're still negotiating with Stephen Fry over the audio book version. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the Conservapedia logo leaking on our brain... 20:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ...of liberals? GTac (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * :-) no, I thought of our File:Silverbrain.png instead of the globe, and CP's logo instead of the bleeding ass... 22:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There were more atheists in 1859 than there are today. Darwin, for instance.
I actually have very little to say about that insight. I just wanted to experience what it felt like to type such an absurd sentence. P-Foster (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it makes perfect sense. Atheists have been shown not to appeal to the ladies, especially not to Hispanic ladies, who make up an increasing percentage of the world's pool of human female reproductive capacity. It is obvious there must be considerable evolutionary pressure against... oh, wait. Mountain Blue 15:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe its because of.....or maybe....uh...i will figgure somthing out.--Thunderstruck (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said, and I fully concur. It’s definitely down to the… um… erm… well there’s the… Look, if you don’t understand it open your mind. I bet you deny other stuff also. Honestly, this talk page is all talk, talk, talk. JumboWhales (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Andy once said that atheism is more prominent nowadays in the US, although that was a few years ago. (And yes, that was me.) 19:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The things we learn
It's amazing where one bit of stupidity on CP will lead you. I clicked through to the CP continental drift article, which is a typical mess (though still better than a lot of articles on that site). Here, I learned that " Atheists mocked the concept for about 100 years (see scientific bias), until finally accepting its truth in the 1960s." Scientific bias, huh? Let's see what that's all about:

''Scientific bias is the assumption that a theory is true or false without evidence one way or another, or the attempt to dismiss or discourage research efforts to confirm or deny the theory - often on political or ideological grounds. This is generally seen as an obstacle to applying the scientific method.''

In other words, "scientific bias" is when scientists say things we don't like. Sounds like a classis Schlaflyism, but no - Ed Poor created the page. What's more, he has since returned several times to expand it, indicating that he understands that stub articles need work. I guess he just chooses not to do so. Thanks, Ed.

Amusingly, the article has nothing on continental drift, though it does have a bit on reparative therapy (that being the reason Ed created it, no doubt). The footnote to that section leads to an article that is mainly about how awful studies of such programs are. On the plus side, it seems that Uncle Ed finally found out how to include footnotes. That's progress, right? 江斯顿 What is it now? 19:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed is probably more anti-science than Andy,but mostly out of ignorance. His latest trick is quoting from some blog site that says the Church was pro-science around the time of Galileo (and even supported him). Despite all his claims to be an IT bof, Ed's grasp of science, like maths, is rudimentary and being insecure, anything he doesn't understand scares him and by belittling it, it makes him feel better about himself. Then again, we're talking about a man who believes a Korean fraudster has a direct line to God, and has to hold a handkerchief whenever he has sex. -- Ψ Gremlin  19:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dammit Psy, that last phrase is going to give me nightmares. 19:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I used to think I was a genius until I moved to London and I realised I was just surrounded by halfwits. Ed should broaden his horizons if his ego can handle it. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Copright violations of the w People of the World
I see Joaquin has launched on another masterpiece - the People of the World gallery. Except that in typical CP fashion, it's a bit of a fail. You'd expect it to show people in their national dress. I mean I doubt all Moroccans waltz around in military garb and most of the pictures could be of anywhere. The 2 Japanese kids are only Japanese cos he tells us so (hello? kimono?) and as for Thailand... well. As with most things Conservapedian, good idea, terrible execution. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * the best part? The Ayatollah Khomeni shot. P-Foster (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the Cossack (I think) and the old lady who looks as if she's afraid he's about to knife her in the leg? Tylersboy (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For “Cossack” read, apparently, Dagestani. And the background to the photo is actually quite interesting. Tylersboy (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't 'all rights reserved' mean that 'fair use' does not apply? Oldusgitus (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're wrong; it works the other way round. Being able to claim fair use means you don't have to care about copyright at all. You have to meet certain conditions to be able to claim fair use, however - your work must be of a certain level of artistic or scientific value, you are using the picture as one of several examples and not as the foundation your whole work stands on, etc. The details are subtle and subject to differences of opinion. People who treat FAIR USE as a magic incantation that makes the rules completely go away frequently get their noses bloodied. Mountain Blue 18:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But they forgot about Poland! George W. would be upset. Composure1 (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh please, PLEASE let them put a pic of Obama under Kenya. -- Ψ Gremlin  17:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd comment, but there's no way I'm going to top that. Vulpius (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At least he nailed it with the US by using a picture that only shows TRUE Americans. GTac (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The guy he picked for Canada doesn't seem to be a CP kinda guy, ifyouknowwhatImean. --Kels (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a representative shot. Or maybe they inadvertently posted proof of global warming. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Karajou will be in his bunk. --21:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Years later I'm still mystified that Jack hasn't bothered to learn the least thing about copyright. It's always "fair use," even if it's just a picture in a gallery. And even if it's got a free license. What a weirdo. 23:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I like that "aboriginal man" is David Gulpili... 02:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone else do a double take on the cuba picture? Looks like the girl on the front row is smoking a *huge* rollup. X Stickman (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I simply couldn't resist adding capture tags; this sounded too rich to pass up, but I'm in a location that seems to be 403 forbidden 100% of the time. α Talk 08:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled by his headline banner picture. I know he kleftied most of the pictures from a UK Seventh Day Adventist site but all those black kids and their parents (obviously from some African church) should not have the tag "In GB". Also in his Ethnic Groups Gallery, surely Mennonite is not an ethnic group. 10:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and when I think of Jews, this is exactly the image that springs to mind. 18:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These day, when I think of Jews, the image that springs to mind is Natalie Portman getting off with that chick in the ballet movie. -- Ψ Gremlin  18:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in my happy place. P-Foster (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ten internets the the person who replaces the "Germany" picture with something involving Hitler or Nazis instead of... soccer fans? How is that representative of Germans again? -- 19:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Brxbrx (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We missed our one year goativersary!
Last year conservapedia gave us back the cp:goat for valentines day, but we forgot to celebrate this year. --Opcn (talk)
 * Calm down. 4 tildes are enough sunshine. -  π    10:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The American public grows increasingly...
Do you think there's any correlation between the Assfly's arguments that the American public is growing increasingly conservative, and his argument that the human race is growing increasingly stupid? I wonder if he's even thought about it. He's a creationist, so I suppose he specialises in not thinking about the implications of his ideas... -- 19:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A sock! A sock! My cuntree for a sock! -- Ψ Gremlin  19:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's general practice at CP to retcon and oversight anything they said in the past that conflicts with their current narrative, but in this case he seems to be pushing both of these ideas at the same time. If confronted he'll probably just generate another "insight" about how intelligence is actually atheistic and relativistic and eeeeeevil and how faith is the true driving force behind everything positive in the world.  Then he'll loudly declare that he's the most intelligent person in the world or something.  Or he'd just ignore and have someone ban and oversight the inquiry.  Yeah, that last one seems more likely. «-Bfa-»  19:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Account creation *is* open, Psy...P-Foster (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It'll go like this:
 * The librul scum are regressing to a race of Epsilon clods.
 * Conservative übermenschen like himself will bestride the Earth and admire the autumn foliage.
 * --Robledo (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my neck of the woods is blocked until the entropy death of the universe. I wonder why. Actually there's a funny Popeye rant in the soon-to-be-released ZB stuff, where he goes, "I don't care. I'm blocking him, simply because he comes from the same country as that Psygrimlin." So nice to know I still dictate policy over there. -- Ψ Gremlin  20:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that he claims conservatism is on the rise specifically because of the fact that there are more conservative words. 4chan invents words every day, therefore, 4chan is the greatest single social force on the planet. X Stickman (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument that the human race is growing stupider is simply wrong. We may be growing more reliant on technology and therefore lacking the hands-on know-how to do things without it, but we certainly aren't getting dumber. Increased nutrition helps us develop mentally and we receive an enormously large amount of education compared to other periods in history. Also, since when was there ever any evidence to back up Andy's claim? 21:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bolshoi shit. Meh. (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't buy the increased nutrition argument; ever since Ronald Reagan forced school kids to eat ketchup people are definitely stupider as witnessed by high dropout rates and lower SAT scores. nobsdon't bother me 01:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, Rob. On your last commie hunting trip to soviet Russia, did they capture you and brainwash you in to becoming a super parodist? I know they can do that, 'cos I read about it in The man with the golden gun and Ian Fleming would never lie to me. -- 02:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, if people are becoming increasingly conservative in to the future, it follows they must have been increasingly liberal as we go back in time. So, were the founding fathers a bunch of anarchists or communists? -- 23:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, conservatism actually increases both forward and backward in time: people were more conservative back then, and they have been becoming more conservative ever since. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, this leads to the conclusion that conservatism is non-conservative. Now I'm confused. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I’ve often wondered how it can be that the exponential expansion of conservative vocabulary must signal the inevitable triumph of the right when so much of it appears to have been generated in response to new and ever more ghastly manifestations of liberalism. Tylersboy (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know where to put this, so I'll just leave it here. It's about framing the liberal/conservative discourse.
 * "Democrats help conservatives by not shouting out loud over and over that it was conservative values that caused the global economic collapse: lack of regulation and a greed-is-good ethic." &mdash;George Lakoff
 * Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a citation for Andy saying people are getting dumber? Thanks...MisterAngryBear (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Its here. Ace of Spades 22:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care what everybody else says, Ace. I think you're great. Thanks. MisterAngryBear (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What do other people say? I can only assume it's nasty but accurate. Ace of Spades 22:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just Wondering . ..
. . . and please ignore if this is ancient history, but on my last attempt to connect to CP, instead of the usual 403, I got "Internal Server Error" instead, and a characteristically charmless message: "The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@conservapedia.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error." Any significance in this? Tylersboy (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The usual way to build a service like Conservapedia is to have two pieces of software hooked together. The web server, the most popular of which, Apache ("a patchy web server - get it?") comes with a message very similar to what you described, is very, very good at serving web pages, but doesn't know much about the specifics of wikis. The other half is the Wiki software, which doesn't know very much about the web, but tracks changes, handles user credentials and so on. If that part breaks, the Apache part doesn't always know exactly what's wrong, so it just reports this generic "internal" error. So, this doesn't mean a lot, perhaps someone at Conservapedia broke something, or it was just random chance. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I cruise CP via RC, I'll run into a 500 every, oh, say, 40 viewings or so. They do come in bunches though. 01:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * Always been like that. Undersized or (more likely) badly configured server, clogs easy and clogs often. Back when we ran clickbots we found out that one sloppily written script on one shitty dialup connection could completely tie them up. They thought we wanted to DOS them when we actually did our best to keep them alive so our clicks would register. Mountain Blue 03:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So, not evidence of an intriguing shift in CP policy then - *sigh*. But my thanks to all. Tylersboy (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Boring!!!
No longer WIGO-worthy but another snowfall and another Schlafly rant against global warning. Oh, and for good measure let's add some silly punctuation. 16:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha. Hilarious that he has to go back and increase the number of question marks from one to three, as though he had made some sort of mistake in not giving the question enough sensationalist bewilderment. ONE / TALK 16:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the next one down: God proves his existence by rigging NASCAR races. Tylersboy (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * God hates starving heathen children in Africa, but loves good ol' fashion, god fearin' NASCAR crews! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And the next time there's a terrible crash and drivers die will their sky-daddy get the credit for that as well?Oldusgitus (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Imagine that!!! A snow storm!!! In the upper Midwest!!! In February!!! Which is winter!!! What are the chances??? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's funny how he mentions, and yet doesn't register as odd, the fact they've had 30 inches' too much snow. -- Ψ Gremlin  17:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You forget - the possibilities that global warming might be causing increased evaporation, which causes increased amounts of water vapour in the atmosphere, which causes increased precipitation, which, in winter, falls as snow, or that this is simply an exception to the general trend, which is less snowfall overall during winter, due to rising temperatures, are too complex for someone like Andy. For him, the fact there's more snow than usual in one area, or a few areas, must mean that temperatures are actually dropping worldwide, and therefore global warming is a hoax.
 * True, if it was colder than normal, then there is usually less snow as the atmosphere can hold less water vapor. No coincidence that the largest, heaviest snowfalls occur right around the freezing mark. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

81.151.254.165 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Heres my favorite part. 50s-60s last week, and it might as well have not happened because alot of conservatives would have to take back some of the stuff said about global warming.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken, Ken, Ken....
It hasn't been 90 days yet. Lying makes Jesus get angry. Why are you making Jesus angry? P-Foster (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, Lies make Baby Jesus cry. Everyone knows that.-- 21:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And every time Jesus cries, a priest rapes a little child. -- Ψ Gremlin  22:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

CP's lack of patriotism
Isn't it supposed to be Wikipaedia that's supposed to be anti-Yankee? So why does it have a note about today being Washington's birthday and CP completely ignores this in favour of Andy's nonsensical vanity project of a word list? -- 23:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So...
...what are you most looking forward to in 2011?

Personally I think 'Biased BBC' is going to be chock full of lols. --


 * "Founding Bloggers" should be good. After all, who can forget George Washington's statement before crossing the Delaware that "OMG! I cant liek beleev teh english didnt liek bild a brij heer! OMG! LOL!" –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, so which cocksucker fucked up their tags to cause " ~ " to not resolve? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Everything was Iscariot's fault, but don't tell teh Christians that. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What the fuck did I do? That was exactly the same as every other comment I've put on this page. -- 05:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, OK, checked the history, my bad. Conservatively I'm going to blame elves for that fuck up. Or conservative elves. Either way elves had something to do with it, shifty little bastards. -- 05:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of those are blogs I considered writing about here until I realized how insignificant they were. Come on, Legal Insurrection? That's the "dijon is elitist" guy. If he's done anything else of significance, it's news to me. 江斯顿 What is it now? 05:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wanna see Ace of Spades 06:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here you go, pretty sure that's the one he meant. I'm looking forward to seeing if one of these bloggers is going to return the favour and write something nice about CP...but I guess he's in for another disappointment. Röstigraben (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When Jpatt writes the Ace of Spades article, I hope he includes a link to this. It would go over gangbusters on their family friendly website. 江斯顿 What is it now? 17:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Im lookin forward to Right Change and Koch Brothers. Who wants to bet the article will mostly be about how these poor billionaires are being forced to pay taxed by liberal scum.--Thunderstruck (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Very good JPatt, add a new article to the list of new CP articles for 2011, except for the fact it was created in 2007. -- 01:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Dates of Words
I swear Andy's been on the piss. There's no way somebody sober could write that drivel and not want to chop their hands off afterwards. I could go on, but I'm risking a severe headdesk injury. Andy has just shown me that he can plumb new depths of stupidity. -- Ψ Gremlin  21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "why its real name of lizard is not used today" - because they're NOT FUCKING LIZARDS you fool. Just like alligators and geckos aren't lizards.
 * "continental drift - that's surprisingly recent for such a simple concept; wonder what held it up?" is that an attempt at humour? This from a man who thinks the Grand Canyon formed in 40 days.
 * No exclamation points in the Bible. I hope CBP has some.
 * Why the fuck should "foul play's" origins have anything to do with baseball. Does the moron not read Shakespeare?
 * It's amazing what you can come up with if you have absolutely nobody to criticize you. It's like someone stuck Andy on a deserted island but gave him the chance to record every rambling thought that comes out of his head. 21:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me guess; he sees dinosaurs as lizards, right? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 00:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On the '!' in the bible... feel free to search the KJV. The first one is at Genesis 17:18 "And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!"  Tossing it at grep reports 305 of those exclamatory points (though, that is lines with a '!', there maybe multiple ones on the same line, who knows???).  My favorite one is: Luke 11:52 "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."  --Shagie (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

An aside on the dates of the words thing. Lets look at a fun word... Hunter. At m-w it says the first known use is in the 13th century. My brother (who has learned some Sanskrit) told me about this word. Lets look up the verb 'to kill' in Sanskrit. { हन् }	{ han }. Scroll a bit down on the page for the "one who does" and you get हन्तृ	hantR m. killer. The '-tR' ending roughly translates into "one who does." "Hunter" is a very old word that far precedes the 13th century, unless you think that Sanskrit was still spoken then and that we borrowed from them at that point into English because it didn't exist before. --Shagie (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy hell. This is an entire article dedicated to "did you know I'm a moron?" on behalf of Andy:
 * corvette &mdash; Perhaps you thought a car company in Detroit invented this name for a sports car? No, I have a modicum of intelligence
 * fission &mdash; Looks like nuclear fission is not a new idea after all! Fission = nuclear fission. Phone = car phone. Instrument = medical instrument.
 * John Hancock &mdash; Why did it take more than a century for the famous signatory's name to become a colloquialism for "signature"? Because there's an entire world outside of the United States.
 * theism &mdash; Nearly a hundred years after "atheism" (1587). Perhaps such an obvious position that no word was required until atheism became more widespread? Excuse me while I stab myself to death. – Nick Heer 07:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aaaaand once again I'm left godsmacked by Andy's stupidity. Teh stupid, it buuuuuurns! Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Um... geckos are lizards? Wikipedia backs this up on both the wp:lizard article, and the wp:gecko articles. At the very least, the Lizard article states that Lizards are all extant species of the Superorder Lepidosauria (which Squamata is an order of, and the family Gekkonidae is under the order of Squamata) that are not also from the order Sphenodontia, and are not snakes. (Yes, this makes "lizard" a paraphyletic term.) -- 18:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rant below this line
Egypt and Libya's riots "overhyped." What a total fucking idiot of a man. 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is that? Senator Harrison (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * here Junggai (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one of them there "why do I waste any of what precious little time I have left to live thinking about what a moron says" moments for me. Really, why should I care about the opinions of an idiot? P-Foster (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a fun idea, can we all play? Some other overhyped events: Reagan's 'tear down this wall' speech (took 29 months for anything to get torn down), the use of atomic weapons on Japan in WWII (peace treaty with Japan didn't take effect until 1952!), the Emancipation Proclamation (took from Jan 1863 to the enactment of the 13th Amendment in Dec 1965 to eliminate slavery everywhere in the US), Gulf War I (still working on that one), Magna Carta (immediately repudiated, took ten more years to enter English law as the Great Charter of 1225), Columbus discovering America (took him eight months to make a second trip), D Day, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, etc., etc. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Somebody winning a car race is Real News, but several protests overthrowing multiple-decade dictators aren't? WTF? Barikada (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy can't score political points and push his agenda through a bunch of Ay-rabs fighting for liberty. But a god-bothering home-scholar? That's just perfect for him! -- Ψ Gremlin  07:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all about opportunity costs. Mentioning the insignificant little uprisings in the Middle East would take valuable main page space away from their usual hard-hitting investigative journalism, like the millionth repetition of "It's cold, therefore there is no AGW" or the not-at-all gossipy story about Obama's expensive vacation. Throw in the advertising space needed for Andy's insights and Ken's awesome essays, and boring stories about non-American, non-Christian activists simply can't make the cut. Röstigraben (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Look everyone, Andy made a typo: " If David Cameron is speaking with Mubarak's success, so what?" - that means we can dismiss everything he has said without any further discussion. 10:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Rob off his meds?
I mean, sure he's always been weird. You have to be weird to be attracted to CP. But, as answers to questions go, a weird circuitous link to a google search for "google.com" strikes me as much odder than he usually is. There are times when I wonder if Rob is just as fucked up as Kendoll. -- 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's more him being a computer illiterate rather than a loony (in this case).  23:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob was dropped on his head as a child by bunch of commie-haters and he has never been right since. 10:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

JDWPwns Andy's
Just a quick little jab leaves Andy's arguments in threads. --Opcn (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought he was banned. Ace of Spades 23:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He probably will be soon... 23:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of short-term blocks, one infinite block, all lifted early to give him a second chance. I'm not sure what makes him their golden boy. He looks like he's blocked because he's hardly ever over there. 江斯顿 What is it now? 00:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no way he'll be left alive after that. That was the clearest and cleverest argument I've seen on CP in weeks. 00:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He posted a link once to the church in Vienna he plays the piano for. He was mentioned, by name, on the page about their choir. If I remember correctly there even was a picture of him. He is basically the only editor outside of their inner circle they know to actually exist. Mountain Blue 01:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy asks for a similar declaration from the protests to that of the Deceleration of Independence. If one was to compare this protest with the Boston Tea Party (December 16, 1773) and look at the date of the Deceleration of Independence (July 4, 1776), we've got to give them at least two and a half years to get around to figuring out things.  There also was an outright war (not just a protest, but guns and such) as early as April 1775.  Haven't seen a civil war in Egypt yet. So far, they're doing better than we did at peacefully throwing out the former administration. --Shagie (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to be on the side supportive of Andy, but in a way, he does make a point: the Declaration of Independence was the marking of freedom of religion and speech etc, which is in contrast to the Egyptian revolution which was merely a protest to get rid of a 30 year dictator. They were only (essentially) asking him to leave; which Mubarak subsequently did and thus the protesters got what they want and now it's over. Compared to the Declaration of Independence, which led to a the Revolutionary War, they are apples and oranges I think. Rationalize (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken here. As far as I remember the Declaration doesn't mention freedom of religion, or of speech, or of anything else, at least not explicitly. It largely just asserts that a people has a right to stand up against incompetent rulers. Freedom of religion etc. are an amendment to the second constitution, ie. they were formally codified many, many years later, as an afterthought to an afterthought. Mountain Blue 02:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see your point. True, but I still think that a bunch of highly intellectual men declaring independence from the world's largest superpower (at the time) has more significance than a protest requesting the removal of a tyrant. --Rationalize (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Rationalize on this--> even if the Revolutionary War had failed, the DofI would still matter today as a document that set out a very different idea of what a nation could and should be. The Egyptians have kicked out a dictator, something that is wonderful in its own right, but has happened a hundred times before. Intellectually, ideologically, they haven't done much of anything to set out a vision for themselves or for humankind, or to push the idea of a liberatory discourse in new directions. Odds are that they will either end up being right back where they started, under the leadership of a military thug, or they might kick the bums out and find themselves at the wrong end of a Washington consensus/World Bank/IMF/structural adjustment neoliberal shaft. Given the lack of a clear expresssion of what they want besides "no more Mubarak," they are hardly "making the world anew." P-Foster (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I obviously agree with Rationalize the Declaration was significant. I didn't mean to rip into Rationalize, I merely wanted to point out that Andy is being his usual ignorant self. Saying the Egyptians merely didn't like their dictator is like saying the Americans merely didn't like paying tea taxes. The Egyptian situation is a wee bit more complex than that, although I wouldn't blame anyone on your side of the pond for not being aware of that.
 * As for the Declaration: significant as it no doubt is, if the revolution had failed it would have been forgotten. It doesn't contain very much, if anything, that hadn't already been discovered by the Greeks, and then rediscovered by the Italians, the Swiss, and the Germans during the Renaissance. Jefferson, Payne et al. liberally lifted from prior art, and they were completely open about that. They were trying to start a country, not applying for tenure; the more respected old philosophers had said exactly the same thing they were saying, the better their chances. Coming up with something truly new would have just been stupid. They imported close to a ton of books from Paris specifically so they wouldn't get their blockquotes wrong.
 * I know American kids are taught to believe America invented everything from apple pie to the alphabet, but the Declaration simply wasn't as philosophically seminal as you like to thump your chests for. Mountain Blue 04:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguing that Andy is being ignorant is like arguing that water is wet. Sure, you are going to be right, but who cares? --Opcn (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you have a point there. Mountain Blue 04:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not just lunatics like Schlafly who have this belief in the importance of bits of paper, it seems to be a common American meme. Fred Clark had a long rant which basically insisted that Egypt needed a Bill of Rights based on the same notion. I have a feeling that early American leaders would be dismayed to see that so much US history is basically taught as a series of documents, rather than as changes to a real society made of people with the documents as mere artefacts of that change. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had kind of the same feeling for a while, partly because I keep seing lists of The X Most Influential Books or The Y Most Harmful Books that have Mein Kampf on them. Dudes. Nobody ever read that thing. It was printed and given away in huge numbers, but nobody ever read it. Its sole value was in allowing party members to believe their Führer was some kind of scholar. He wasn't. It's a dumb book and practically unreadable and didn't convince anyone who wasn't convinced already. If the guy had sucked as orator as much as he sucked as a writer he'd never have gotten anywhere. People were not won over to Nazism by philosophical treatises; people were won over by the punchy slogans and the hypnotic rallies and the welfare programs.
 * It must be some kind of class marker thing. Americans don't read very much, except for a few intellectuals, so everyone who fancies themselves an intellectual believes they have to be about books all the time. This is probably how diarrhea like Ayn Rand keeps getting sold. Mountain Blue 12:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, some serious misconceptions about what is still happening in Egypt I see. For a start, right from the beginning the organisers of the protests were calling themselves a pro-democracy movement, not an anti-Mubarak movement, and although it isn't getting a huge amount of coverage right now, there are still demonstrations going on in Egypt as a less than subtle reminder to the army that if they don't create a fair democracy the protests will start again. And as to the importance of these protests to the whole of North Africa, check out this map. Right now that's twelve North African countries that have or are undergoing demonstrations and protests demanding a change to business as usual.

Best of the Public
Surely Andy should be lauding the actions in the Arab world, as a bunch of average Joes kick established regimes in the nuts. Oh wait... they aren't his kind of people... -- Ψ Gremlin  06:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Christians they ain't. Mountain Blue 06:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. You are, of course, referring to Andy and his peons... Fawlty (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. Mountain Blue 20:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What sucks for conservapedia
With TK gone I found a proxy and made a new sock (I told them I had socks before when I really didn't) and got on and wrote up a cool bit of insight. Then I deleted it, I figured the idea might be worthwhile, and benefit people, and I don't want it to come from conservapedia and not from me. F-you conservapedia! It was/is a really good insight that I am sure they will agree with. --Opcn (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Step 3, PROFIT.
Step 1. Make up a phrase and write an article about in on your blog encyclopedia. Step 2. Do a google search for that previously unheard-of phrase ....P-Foster (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be a "?????????" somewhere in that sequence of instructions, but since "?????????" accurately summarizes the clusterfuck that is the Secularized Language article, it's ok. 04:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know--> the alternative formulation was Step 1 . Make up a phrase and write an article about it, then do a Google search for it. Step 2. ?????....but it didn't really work, to me. P-Foster (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At least Ken focused on getting articles regarding actual things like "Homosexuality" to the top of Google. Andy, on the other hand...(By the way, I WIGO'd this) ~Super Hamster  Talk 05:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Magical Ed
Isn't Ed Poor just the greatest!:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Magical_sitcoms_of_the_1960s

By the way, I've been gone for a year or so; anything happen while I was away? Simple (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything happen? Hmmmmmmmm, do you remember TK? Ace of Spades 01:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [[File:Goodpost.gif]] P-Foster (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read about TK; he once blocked my favorite sock. It seems odd that ED Poor seems to have been silent about TK's demise.Simple (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aside from the whole TK thing, we've had a few new secret-discussion-group leaks, parts of the planet have been 403-blocked (meaning that they couldn't/can't even view any pages anymore), account creation and night editing windows became completely unpredictable, Andy's insights became weirder and weirder... oh, and welcome back! --Sid (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Ken's rambling screeds have gotten very strange indeed. Ace of Spades 02:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ken looks to be a little deeper into his psychosis. Andy's jaw must be clenched even tighter. Ed, my favorite CP syspop, seems largely unchanged.Simple (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Typical Ed, "all with pretty ladies having the magic". 10:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh... I missed the PZ Myers Kendoll special. That guy is seriously f*cked up, or is he trying to be funny? --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 20:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

rare visit to CP
I don't visit CP much (probably a good thing), so I'm just asking here: is it usual for a main page story about Wisconsin's political crisis to be illustrated with a picture of a footprint on the moon? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What i mean is, even on this page it seems to have passed without comment. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's an attempt at humour; you know, the kind Jesus invented. Also, it's probably a good indication of the state of CP that something like that is seen as not worthy of mention. -- Ψ Gremlin  13:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah that happens pretty often. A similar mistake ended up with the supposed biblical scientific foreknowledge of quantum tunnelling being illustrated with a grizzly bear. ONE / TALK 13:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Kendoll's pictures with captions on the front page have considerably raised the bar for crazy over there. The Assfly just can't compete, I'm afraid. -- 17:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup.  Atheism vs. Ponies beats Moon Footprints vs Unions.   DogP (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ponies win. Muahahaha. Hateboy (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * but atheism vs ponies was an essay, not the front page. or does nobody there care about (or know) the difference anymore? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Iduan
I see he's back for another round of abuse. No mention of any probation this time, however. -- Ψ Gremlin  19:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For pretty much the first time ever, I departed CP on my own terms the last time I left - I simply didn't have time to edit. (Whereas before I had departed either because I was blocked or because I was juvenilely discontent with being denied sysop rights.)--Iduan (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You still don't even have night editing. How's that feel? 01:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

They NEED to find another TK
The lunatics are running the asylum. And don't call me out for pointing out obvious parody. It's the boss's new pet article, and he bloody well knows it's there. P-Foster (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, who calls islamic terrorism a "man made disaster"?--Thunderstruck (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a right-wing kerfuffle a few years back after Janet Napolitano used the phrase "man-caused disaster" in reference to terrorism. I assume that's what they're getting at. 江斯顿 What is it now? 04:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I nominate DouglasA dams to become the next TK. He had some great deleting sprees, perhaps he can bring back those? 04:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When I clicked through and saw that, I really, genuinely did LOL. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 10:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a word
on the NZ earthquake yet on MPR. Maybe that's also "over-hyped"? -- PsyGremlin  09:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What, there is a NEW Zealand now? There was nothing wrong with the old one. -  π    10:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just talked to some friends in the Ashburton/Methven region. They don't seem to be planning any pamphlets, manifestos, or declarations of liberty so far. Why care for people who can't be bothered to even try. Mountain Blue 10:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy's just waiting until he reads "Ace McWicked in earthquake horror" so he can declare it's retribution by his Christian God! 10:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Other front page story; "New Zealand Alcohol sales plummet 40%" 11:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * weren't they having a go at "atheist New Zealand" a while ago? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No no no no, you see when emergancy workers begin digging new zealand out, Andy can sit there, drinking his coco, and laugh at how no athiests are down there helping. --Thunderstruck (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All the wounded are being sent to non-atheist built hospitals.--76.241.145.190 (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the cathedral was destroyed. Just sayin...Ace of Spades 19:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How did the mosque fare? 19:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure but the large baptist church also collapsed. God want's out of NZ. Ace of Spades 19:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe CP are actually sticking to their own logic for once. According to them, god was responsible for that teenage 20 year-old winning a race, so he must also be responsible for the NZ quake. Can't go highlighting the big man's nastiness!   19:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick Ed Poor Quiz
Here's a single question to see how well you know Uncle Bad Touch!

In a talk page with the following sections (not including the untitled section): Guess which is the one with a comment from Uncle Ed? Award yourself one Internet if you get it right! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Washington's Birthday/President's Day
 * 2) A few questions
 * 3) The Saint's Days
 * 4) Perversion diversity
 * 5) Dead/Passed
 * If you write it, he will cum. -- PsyGremlin  15:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that he wasn't drawn towards the gif of the dancing girl, which has inexplicably appeared further up the page. ONE / TALK 15:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Y'all're gonna be out of internets givin' 'em away like that boy!  20:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Who You Calling Crazy?
Andy adds "Possessed/Crazy" to the secularization list. I know that he thinks good conservatives are a bastion of mental fitness, and atheists not, but does Andy think that the mentally ill are, in fact, possessed by the devil? --WJThomas (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially yes. Any mental issue can be directly attributed to a lack of prayer and can be solved by reading the Bible. In the worst cases, you don't need a shrink, you need an exorcism. -- PsyGremlin  17:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Possessed/crazy is really something special. I'm so glad Andy built another laugh factory! Occasionaluse (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ha. So that's what he meant. Zero in mental health problems, voluminous in demonic possessions. -- 19:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So that's why Andy has ignored suggestions about the troubling state of Ken's mental health. He doesn't need psychiatric help, he needs an exorcism! Vulpius (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How didn't I spot this before
The North African riots have spread to CP. They're rioting over there and it's the Schlaflys leading the charge. It's the End Times man, it's the friggin' End Times.-- 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Waits for comically exaggerated response...
Obama Orders End to Defense of Federal Gay Marriage Law. That is all, really. Conservapedia hasn't noticed just yet, so here I am waiting, because this will surely be WIGO worthy. ScientificRigor (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And please don't bother me about the headline; it's really a tortured headline, as one of the commenters noted. ScientificRigor (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Obama Administration announces that it will no longer defend a key provision of DOMA in court; conservatives are describing this default as a 'wake-up call' for the importance of social issues." Wow, a normal news blurb, without much or really any grandstanding.  Do you think whoever wrote that reads RW? ScientificRigor (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Brings popcorn ;) --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 20:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I, for one, am glad that this wake-up call has been heard. Social issues will be key in winning over the youth vote in 2012. Keep up the good work, GOP! Occasionaluse (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The "reaction is muted" because Karajou and JPatt don't know what to think until told by WND, or Rush or Beck. Once the fire gets kindled under these three, by gum, K&J will certainly be glad to give us a piece of Rush's, Farrah's, Beck's their mind. TeaPartyPlanner (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [[file:goodpost.gif]] -- PsyGremlin  23:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you say Beck? SOMEBODY GET ME A CHALKBOARD.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Saint Washington
This whole conversation is hilarious. Is Andy really going canonize George Washington? Ace of Spades 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What the fuck? Church of Satan? Eh? Ace of Spades 21:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy's not actually reading, just replying. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That talk page section made my week. Pure, undiluted trip straight into the Twilight Zone. --Sid (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * nice to see Andy fighting bravely against logical thought FairyCupcake (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Andy thinks Washington is a saint... in the Church of Satan!!??!? Fawlty (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I really hope this becomes a recurring motif. Andy would be ten times more hilarious if he were railing against the Church of Satan instead of plain old liberals. 00:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he's not railing against them. Say what you like about Satanists, they're not atheists, they're probably not liberals, and they apparently have a lot of time for good ol' George - all plus points in Andyland. Tylersboy (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My fucking head exploded. That was by far the dumbest fucking conversation I've read in a long time. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * er.... WTF?! (BTW: Definitely WIGO worthy, IMHO) --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 01:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * YESSSSSSS Rationalize (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I love JPratt's comment at the bottom of the page. Dude, have you even met a Pagan? --Kels (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * hahaha Rationalize (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I... You know what? Pack it up. We're done here. George Washington is a Satanist Saint (Saintanist?) according to Andy. I clicked through, because there was no way he really said that, but here we are. There's nothing left. Barikada (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is proof positive that Andy drinks. He contradicts himself in a way that only a hammered retarded college punk would. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just booze? I'm thinking something far stronger. MDB (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy's intoxicated with power. The similarities between him and Gaddafi last night are uncanny. 14:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Two goats to whoever coined "Gaddafly". You're awesome. Mountain Blue 14:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * John Adams predicting founding father worship: "The History of out Revolution will be one continued Lie from one end to the other. The essence of the whole will be that Dr. Franklins electrical Rod, smote the Earth and out sprung General Washington. That Franklin electrified him with his rod—and thence forward these two conducted all the Policy, Negotiations, Legislatures and War."  --Leotardo (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer the version from 1776:
 * Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Don't worry, John. The history books will clean it up.
 * John Adams: It doesn't matter. I won't be in the history books anyway, only you. Franklin did this and Franklin did that and Franklin did some other damn thing. Franklin smote the ground and out sprang George Washington, fully grown and on his horse. Franklin then electrified him with his miraculous lightning rod and the three of them - Franklin, Washington, and the horse - conducted the entire revolution by themselves.
 * [pause]
 * Dr. Benjamin Franklin: I like it.
 * Barikada (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, 1776, one of my favorite musicals, and not (solely) because it involves my name being sung repeatedly. (I am "Mister Adams". Please keep the "obnoxious and disliked" jokes to yourselves.) MDB (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Now we know where Andy learned math.
From big phy's radioblog thing, Half of our children are below average! or what amounts to it. She is complaining that so many fail to meet the 32 cut off for the ASVAB, but ignoring the fact that the ASVAB score is a percentile. By definition a percentage as high as the cut off percentage is going to fail. --Opcn (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I always thought of that as being a silly part of political correctness, making sure that every child was above average. But then everyone always thinks that they're a better than average driver. 09:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for motorcyclists. Who know that in reaction testing and hazard perception testing they ARE better than the average driver, out-performing even police drivers and beaten only by police motorcyclists - on average of course :-). Oldusgitus (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 95% of professors think that they are above average. Roger thinks that 6=5 --Opcn (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most men have more eyes than an average number of eyes!


 * It's been a scare/praise tactic by both ends of the spectrum for years: "Half our (insert population segment of your choice) are above/below(delete as required) average." To the mathematically naive (most of us) it sounds either horrid or terrific . 10:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * To some extent I think that's a consequence of how politeness works. Calling someone average or something technically equivalent, eg. mediocre, is a grave insult. It follows that someone who actually is average or below average must be a failure. Mountain Blue 10:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice catch, Opie. "OPCN: Listening to Stupid so We Don't Have To" Mountain Blue 10:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Conservative Deceit© Senator Harrison (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hold on a moment. 95% of professors can be above average assuming that the other 5% are so abysmally bad that they bring down the average. But 95% can't be below the median. 21:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if there is little actual variation between non-abysmal professors. Though I think it was median average not mean average. --Opcn (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Saint George Washington
So I just love Conservatives addition to the talk page Secularized language for bringing up that we should have an annual parade for Saint George Washington on cp:Talk:Secularized_Language. I think Andy and Co have totally lost it and aren't even trying to make an encyclopedia anymore. Its dying a slow painful death. and all seem to be invited to watch. I give the Secularized language page another week to week and half until it is abandoned like cp:Worst_College_Majors and many others. Quazywabbit (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even better though, is it's not Andy alone. Excluding the parodists, the loyal sysops are also capering through the streets, eager to show that it's not their Brother Leader who's mad, but rather the bemused onlookers, watching the parade go by. Somewhere, however, I feel Karajou is having his own private headdesk moment. -- PsyGremlin  17:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to notice that Andy is actually a really bad Catholic, possibly even a heretic (in this case, proposing George Washington's sainthood is highly controversial, since he was *not Catholic*). This may warrant an essay?WilhelmJunker (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It also warrants socking up and editing CP's article on Washington to reflect his proper status as a saint. P-Foster (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He's a terrible Catholic. People were once talking about whether he's an apostate, and that argument can be made since he arguably rejects features of the central tenets of that faith, but most of his beliefs are heretical. I was following some user over there at the end of last year or earlier this year who I think was blocked who was basically showing Andy up about his creationism. Fun stuff. 18:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll probably find Andy doesn't know what he is. he was obviously raised Catholic, and no doubt still attends Catholic Church, out of fear of offending Mama S. However, somewhere along the line, he's gone over to Evangelical Christianity in his mind, but as with all things Schlafly, has only skimmed over their tenets, choosing a few select, out-of-context phrases to incorporate into his religious hodge-podge. Add to that the fact that he sees his political beliefs as being a central part of his religious beliefs... and you've got a recipe for disaster. -- PsyGremlin  18:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was fairly clear from the way he endorsed a single Puritan church near his house during the Haiti/charity laughfest that he's been attending it. So you're right about him being raised Catholic, ostensibly still partially identifying as Catholic, and think he's also gone over to the Calvinists. 18:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He can't possibly still be Catholic. It would put way too many limits on his own theological endeavours if he had to check each one of his insights against Catholic dogma. Andy will never accept being part of a hierarchy in which he's not the final authority, so he has to go it alone and make up his own stuff. Pity there's nobody crazy enough to follow him. Röstigraben (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm too lazy to look it up but basically you're exactly right. Schlafly won't give even the statements of a pope the time of day if he disagrees with them unless their ex cathedra. He's not Catholic. 19:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't producing your own Bible translation a "burn at the stake" offense in the Middle Ages? To be fair, they've lightened up a bit since then, but still... MDB (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. Lightened up. I see what you did there. -- 20:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I swear, that was an accident and I didn't even notice it till you pointed it out. MDB (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's beautiful anyway. Mountain Blue 20:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Andy is catholic, I don't think he's even christian. Andy is just Andy. He's created his own system of religious/political beliefs and is stealing the names he uses for it off other systems, like "Conservative" and "Christian". X Stickman (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct our Stickman, that's it in a nutshell. I really don't think you could find even dozen people who hold all of Andy's views (hence why everyone is a liberal).  Hell, even some CP sysops think he goes too far (although they express such in a very spineless manner)  23:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone should convince Andy to emulate this guy and get himself declared Pope. MDB (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Look what I found...
I'm not sure if this belongs here, since it's been around for a long time, but the Conservapedia article about Doom apparently reveals that the video game features the evil Al Gore. Mr. Anon (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was about to make a snarky comment, but then I clicked on the linky for "gore" and, well, waddaya know. Good find! -- PsyGremlin  20:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking again, it seems that the link has been around since the creation of the page. Mr. Anon (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dumbfucks from Dumbfuckistan?Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 02:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. "one of the shooters practiced for the event by creating Doom levels resembling the halls of the school with monsters to represent classmates and teachers. However, due to a lack of conclusive evidence," ... dear gentlemen on the other site: I would have never thought I'd say this, but it has to be said: We have the levels. We win. Look at the levels in question and you'll see they look nothing at all like the Columbine High School. Quit spreading vague allegations and outright misinformation when there's evidence at hand. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Countdown to another "best" conservative word
Fleebagger With obviously no idea about the *ahem* root of the word :) -- PsyGremlin  14:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Andy has no idea about the meaning of tea-bagging and thinks it's just a play on tea-party. Although I admit that I only came across the term about four years ago when I saw Billy's Dad is a Fudge Packer.  15:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hope I won't be misunderstood if I say that I only know what it is through having seen John Waters' Pecker. Tylersboy (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen Kirsten Dunst's Dick. I found it overly long. Mountain Blue 19:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's great b/c it's a small sign of humor on the rightwing, something they sorely lack. --Leotardo (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was my impression they were calling themselves that, at first, without knowing the sexual term existed, and that that fact was a source of derision from the unwashed lib'rul masses. It's just that some of them take it as a badge of honour now. -- 23:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

...which, of course, explains Bugler, Rod Weathers, and Samwell.
Shorter Andy--> People who believe in God are easy marks. P-Foster (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At least we can't fairly accuse Andy of telling but not showing. ... of liberals? (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My favorite Andy comment on that talk page is that there was anti-religion bias in 600 A.D., which was only 500 years before the Inquisitions started. It was a very secular time, indeed, stupid medieval liberals. --Leotardo (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is by far my favorite article on CP at the moment. Though I'm a little confused why this is an important issue, since I thought the English language was becoming more conservative . . . --TinOl (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Secularized Language"
Oh Andy, your stupidity is showing. First let's copy your crap, so you can't change it.

Go look at the Hays Code, section five to see why 'Thank goodness' replaced 'Thank God'. Hint: the Hays Code was drawn up after pressure from and in consultation with various church groups.

And the whole 'Resurrection Sunday' bit? Let's check what the festival is called with someone who might know. Does anyone want to guess what the Pope him-fucking-self calls it? -- 04:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And the final proof that CP is rabidly anti-science, scientific theory and heresy are synonyms. -- 04:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my gOD! Do they actually think we liberal lamestream homosexual atheist etc people don't know the very real difference between abortion and birth control ?  Gauss (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is epic. According to the tenants of Andyism (praise be his name), Secular Opinion is the secularized language redefinition of Blasphemy, and Scientific theory is the secularized language redefinition of Heresy. Pure gold, pure gold. Please... continue --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha. A bit late for a Sunday insight, but welcome never the less. Now I've been alerted to this powerful conservative insight, I for one will certainly be using "perverse" whenever my mind tells me that "diverse" is the correct word. I'm going to start now. "Conservapedia presents a perverse set opinions on a range of interesting subjects." -- 05:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, when I make a "personal choice" between creamy and crunchy peanut butter, what I am really doing is being immoral, thanks Conservapedia! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, which one of you is obvious parodist Peter Uker? stop wigoing your self.


 * This fits in beautifully with his standard screeds but has an extra little tweak of Andy genius that makes it a classic. I wonder what he makes of the word "felching"? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, JPratt just can't resist jumping aboard the idiocy train. I'm not even a yank and I know president's day isn't (generally) celebrated on Washington's birthday, and is specifically designed to honour at least two presidents, Washington and Lincoln. I think I can thank Bill Bryson for that one. I'm also smart enough to know that the celebration of one or more presidents has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or the lack thereof. You moron. -- 07:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My excessive manliness prevents me from squeeing, but if it didn't I would squee and piss myself. Manliness does not prevent me from pissing myself. --Opcn (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) I'm waiting for 'foolish' to change to 'liberal' or 'atheist' to become 'scientist.' άλφα Talk 08:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On the whole “‘Resurrection Sunday’ bit”, I grew up in a clergy home and this is the first time I’ve encountered the phrase. I suppose that Andy’s vapourings on the subject have been prompted by this sort of thing, a line which WP would seem to support up to a point. Britannica (subscription only), however, disputes the pagan connection and alludes to a “widespread consensus that the word derives from the Christian designation of Easter week as in albis, a Latin phrase that was understood as the plural of alba (‘dawn’) and became eostarum in Old High German, the precursor of the modern German and English term.” Whatever the truth, Andy’s still talking bollocks because the word has been kicking around in the vocabulary of English-speaking churches since at least the ninth century and can therefore hardly qualify as the recent euphemistic creation of godless liberals. Tylersboy (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the seventh century (at least). The date of Easter was fixed at the Synod of Whitby by that well-known secular, atheist, darwinist, liberal St Hilda. (Congrats to whichever parodist is responsible for this pile of donkey droppings.) The Real James Brown (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that I've seen it, I wonder why he didn't come up with this a long time ago. Clearly, the rottenness of modern language and the lack of an English-conservaspeak dictionary must be the reason why his insights don't catch on! Thankfully, he's got a lot of eager parodists to help him out in closing this gap. Röstigraben (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have seen Resurrection Sunday used in lieu of Easter by many Fundamentalist Baptist churches because they view the latter term as "pagan". The fact the Catholic Church has been using the term Easter for centuries only cements this view (Fundamentalist Baptists tend to be extremely anti-Catholic). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely: the first link I provided in my original post was an illustration. But why should Andy, who's supposed to be a Catholic, get his knickers in a twist over it? Tylersboy (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake – it was actually Martyp . But Andy, in failing to delete it in subsequent revisions, gave it his implicit imprimatur. Tylersboy (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Gesundheit
I'm blowing up over "Gesundheit", because that is simply the standard response in German for a sneeze. If you don't like the use of "Gesundheit" then complain to the German-American population, who carried it over from their historical language. To note: Spanish uses "Salud!" which means THE EXACT SAME THING. They have been using these phrases perhaps as long as if not longer than we have been using "Bless you". It's not like people just invented these responses to piss on your happy religious language... -- 18:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think Satanists got this bent out of shape over HeavenO? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly, this is all part of liberal Germany's agenda to atheisize(???) America. With any luck, Nazis, communists and some idiot named Sid are involved. ;) --Sid (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we strongly believe in the separation of Church and State. So long as they're not using it in classrooms and he doesn't get federal funding to promote it I'm cool with it. Mountain Blue 18:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The other thing is that saying "bless you" is a flipping superstition carried forward from the Black Death, when a sneeze was a good sign you were soon going to be black and horrible and in those superstitious, non-medical times, a blessing was about as good as you'd get. Given that the Plague is scarcer these days than Ken's sex-life, there's no point in saying it, other than as a meme carried forward from the Middle Ages. -- Ψ Gremlin  18:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. People still get the plague. Kendoll will never, ever get sex. -- 19:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa there! All it takes is one of Ken’s “articles” to rise in the Google rankings and he explodes in sexual ecstasy, or as near as he can manage. Okay, it’s not technically sex as such, but that sort of thing leads to all sorts of unpleasantness anyway, possibly involving evolu... erm… creation. Actually, I now need a mind scrub, very, very urgently. JumboWhales (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's sex. It's unisex.-- 01:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So what we’re seeing with his new “articles” is an autokengasm then? I’ve scrubbed, I really have, but the grubby just won’t go away. JumboWhales (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, the Spanish also use "¡Jesús!" when people sneeze.. and it is not used in a negative way. Rationalize (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah! I was raised in a heavily German settled area of the country (and can trace fully 1/2 of my lineage back to Germany) so Gesundheit was always standard.  On an interesting note, when I was in HS, we had a German foreign exchange student.  Durring her introduction, first day of class, she sneezed.  The chorus of "gesundheit" followed.  She thought we were making fun of her!  In fact, most people in the class didn't even know it was German to begin with, it's just "what you say".  Hilarity was had by..  well, me, in all honesty.   14:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An anecdote: A couple years ago my boss sneezed, and I said "Gesundheit." "What the hell does that mean?"  "It's an old German expression.  It means something like 'here's to your health'."  "Well I'm Italian, and when Italians sneeze you say 'God bless you'."  I got a laugh out of it. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Another: An elderly relative, now late, would usually respond to "Gesundheit!" with "nicht Gesundheit, aber Krankheit."
 * She had served in the 1940s as an army nurse in Okinawa, and later in Germany, knew the difference between description and well-wishing, and had a dry sense of humor. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Easter
According to Andy secularised Easter should be Resurrection Sunday but the secularised spring break should be an Easter holiday not a Resurrection holiday. And talking about holidays, he thinks that holiday should be Holy day, they both mean exactly the same! I need a vacation! What a dick! P.S Halloween is from all Hallow even(ing) not hallowed eve. Auld Nick (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You sure about that halloween thing? My understanding is it's a contraction of All Hallows Eve, or the day before All Saints Day. -- 19:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Kind of sure & but it is apparently originally from Scots . Auld Nick (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So "Spring break" should be Ressurection Sunday Holy Day. I'm sure that'll catch on. ONE / TALK 09:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It'll be a real mood-killer in Fort Lauderdale (or wherever it is these days that Yank kids go to get drunk and laid. Besides school.) -- PsyGremlin  09:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Washington's Birthday
Awesome. Washington was kind of a saint, and he is overlooked because of his Christianity. One parodist inserts it, another questions it, and Andy looks like an idiot defending it. P-Foster (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Schlafly added it in the first place. P-Foster (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pagan -> Secular
Jpatt uses a definition of pagan ("one who has little or no religion") not found anywhere else. He could at least look it up instead of pulling it out of his ass. --Leotardo (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They really are anti-intellectual. They cant even bother looking it up... Pagan comes from the word meaning "country people" referring to those who held on towhat is now known as Roman or Greek mythology in ancient times. Rationalize (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Although Jpatt's definition is unhelpful and CP's list is stupid, you are attempting definition by etymology which is an invalid rhetorical device. The first dictionary I picked up (a British dictionary) lists "a person without any religion; heathen" as the second of four definitions for the word "pagan". I would guess most people using it this way weren't thinking of atheists in the modern sense, but there's the connection. Etymology is a very unreliable indicator as to the meaning of words, you have to guess in what sense it was used by whoever introduced it, and then how it shifted with use over perhaps many centuries. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah but we know damn well that what assfly means by non-religious is non-xian. So by his definition everyone in the world who does not fit into his narrow, wingnut, bigoted view of what xian really means is non-religious.  Unless he is now going to admit that satanists are religious, they just follow a differnt brand of religion than he does.  Now that would be fun, if my sock were working I would try to tempt him into admiting just that. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be worse. He could have defined them as devil worshipping, baby eating, scum who will be condemned to the fires of hell forever.  Give him points with coming up with something (to my ears at least) fairly original, even if it is useless and fundamentally wrong. -Tygrehart

Turkey Day
Really? Ace of Spades 20:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Come on guys, this is boring, OBVIOUS PARODIST IS OBVIOUS. Which of you easily amused puerile ebaums throwbacks was it this - oh, yeah well, never mind. Hateboy (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, RSchlafly is Andy's brother and NOT a parodist. Ace of Spades 21:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given some of the things he's added to CP, I think we have to consider the possibility he might be both. -- 22:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That&hellip;&hellip;is fucking hilarious. When your own brother starts shitting on your blog it's time to pack up and leave.-- 01:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Starts? Verily, he hath shatten thereon many times before: I'd give linx but I'm 403d. 01:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Ah, but past shattings twas mere dribblings twixt registry of the RSchlafly and the day's finest, steaming leavings.-- 01:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hast thou read our witterings on t'fellow? TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]] 01:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Why yes. Indeed, twas I who revealed that RSchlafly doeth hold to the passage, ' ’Tis true; and therefore women, being the weaker vessels, are ever thrust to the wall:&mdash;therefore I will push Montague's men from the wall, and thrust his maids to the wall' , and calls it naught but a communication problem.  But such utterings are the folly of a sibling Prince seeking unction from King and Queen Mother both, and such mention of the heresy of relativity merely the ramblings one could associate with some such figure that seeks prominence within the court.  But Turkey Day?  Such is the talk of the Fool in his full motley, not the measured words of one who missed ascension to the Crown of the Kingdom of the Schlafly.-- 01:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is this knavery! ONE / TALK 09:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Christian language in action
"What providence! A Bible study gent held a miraculous blasphemy that Hallowed Eve is pagan!  I got into it with another gent when we were toasting Lincoln on Washington's Birthday like it was Shrove Tuesday.  There is little perversity of opinion; it's his abomination as much as gravity is heresy.  When he talked of marrying a second wife with child, I said that sin is a sin." (Quote: Andy Schlafly) --Leotardo (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "The United States Department of State (or State Department) is a Cabinet-level agency of the United States government that deals with foreign sodomy." Tylersboy (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow.
Let's not make the parody too obvious.. Marriage certificate = just a piece of paper? Rationalize (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it seems they are all parodists. For Jpatt, "man-made disaster" is the secular term for "Islamic Terrorism".--Tlaloc (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're laying it on mighty thick today... but what's Minimo Lider gonna do? Banhammer his brother? Mountain Blue 02:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, Andy's making the parodists look bad . 江斯顿 What is it now? 04:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WTF
Is the entire CP crew drunk today or something? Because I couldn't make any sense out of this turd of a article. Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 03:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a total clusterfuck. "The state" is Christian language, but "the government" is secular. Best edit ever--was that JPatt? And, while I know it's bad form to toot one's own horn, and I apologize for it,but although I've had a crappy couple of days, I did get Aschlafly to say something incredibly stupid, and that makes me feel good. P-Foster (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Independence Day
Was a religious holiday until it was secularized into the 4th of July. Not a parodist. Andy. P-Foster (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply overwhelming. 06:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose we can now look forward to Andy rewriting George M. Cohan's insufficiently patriotic song along lines such as these:


 * I’m a Yankee Doodle Dandy,
 * A Yankee Doodle, shout hooray;
 * A real live nephew of my Uncle Sam’s,
 * Born on Independence Day.


 * It scans somewhat better than some of Andy’s lyrical efforts, but it’s still a bugger to sing. Tylersboy (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

St Valentine's Day
Just getting back to this. It must really get Andy's gourd that just about the only time the full name is used, is in connection with the word "massacre."

Also, this whole thing with saints - isn't that a Catholic thing anyway? I mean sure the Anglicans have St Mary's Church etc, etc, but they don't actively engage in worshipping saints, nor to they (or any other denomination) raise people to sainthood. Which always conjures up a wonderful image for me - some bloke in the Vatican shouting up to God, "Look, can you just shift over a bit, there's this John-Paul fellow and he's coming to sit at your right side too." -- PsyGremlin  08:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a Catholic thing, and I believe that Schlafly is Catholic. But this idea of "secularized language" in the first place is rather bizarre.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Anglicans (or at least the CofE) regognise most pre-Reformation Catholic saints, and have canonised one themselves: Charles I (I wish I was making that up). I don't know if they have intercessionary prayers. Probably one of those high/low church things.86.153.111.39 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ken breaks a streak of not editing that was more than 13 hours long
Maybe he even got a full nights sleep How long until someone snaps and takes down that fucking gif? --Opcn (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to see Ken is on the ball when it comes to responding to updates in the atheism/evolution debate. -- PsyGremlin  09:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like either Ken finally got the hang of Oversight, or somebody is getting tired of his editing orgies.
 * Patrol Log:
 * 05:17, 23 February 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) marked revision 851628 of Talk:Secularized Language patrolled (automatic) ‎
 * 04:58, 23 February 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) marked revision 851627 of Talk:Secularized Language patrolled (automatic) ‎
 * 04:36, 23 February 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) marked revision 851626 of Talk:Secularized Language patrolled (automatic) ‎
 * 04:33, 23 February 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) marked revision 851625 of Talk:Secularized Language patrolled (automatic) ‎
 * 04:32, 23 February 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) marked revision 851624 of Talk:Secularized Language patrolled (automatic) ‎
 * 00:57, 23 February 2011 Karajou (Talk | contribs) marked revision 851621 of Talk:Secularized Language patrolled (automatic) ‎
 * Edit History:
 * (cur | prev) 04:58, 23 February 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) (16,351 bytes) (+1356) (→Washington's Birthday/President's Day)
 * (cur | prev) 00:57, 23 February 2011 Karajou (Talk | contribs) (14,995 bytes) (+303) (→Washington's Birthday/President's Day)
 * And Ken's leaps of logic make the St. Washington section perfect. I guess we can assume that the CP sysops are true Christians, too, so they must all be saints! St. Schlafly must be happy! --Sid (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There was only one man who could have made that section crazier and there here was. -  π    11:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose this full night's sleep is evidence against my theory that Ken is actually 5 crazy people living together in a basement. Oh well. 03:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The perfect test to illustrate Poe's Law
Print out the current list without looking at the edit history. Or give it to a friend who doesn't know who added what. Then take a pen and highlight every addition by an obvious parodist. How many did you get right? --Sid (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As clarification, I consider this the perfect test because unlike the Relativity Counterexamples (IIRC), there actually are several parodist entries here, so you don't lose by default the moment you pick up the pen. =P --Sid (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Benp
Some credit is due to Benp, the master parodist who started the whole thing. I think this guy was also instrumental in making the Best of the Public what it is today. --Benod (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Public sodomy, international sodomy, business sodomy...
This one's either proof that JPatt is a parodist, or just an example of how incredibly stupid it is to look for what they consider to be a secular euphemism, only to disregard that the same word is used in a lot of contexts. Man, this article has really brought out the worst of CP's insanity and the best of the parodists' creativity. Röstigraben (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What concerns me more is that my folks have just gone on holiday with a bunch of sodomites from overseas. Does that mean Bill Clinton gave Monica one up the chutney chute? -- PsyGremlin  15:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, he was no saint like Washington, just a regular sinner faced with life's temptations. I think we can all sodomize to that. Röstigraben (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought Jpatt was a parodist? Ace McAntisocial (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Christchurch
Either Roger has no clue how headlines work, or he's being a malignant cunt again. Christchurch -> New Zealand city.

For fucksakes, you suppurating pustule, the headline is to inform listeners, who might not know where CC is (like most of Andy's home-scjhollars) and the opening sentence reads "Rescue teams in New Zealand continued to search for survivors Wednesday after a powerful earthquake rocked downtown Christchurch..."

You FUCKING moron. -- PsyGremlin  15:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Vot ze fuck. Any industrial accidents in New Jersey latetely? Some kind of pharmaceutical plant? Because if it isn't something in the water it must be the fumes. This page is a smorgasboard of pure, unadulterated insanity such as the world hath never seen. Mountain Blue 16:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Add one". No, CNN was summarizing, like they always do, in headlines. They are not creating a "secularized language" . Stupidity is genetic, isn't it? Rationalize (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is all kinds of stupid. Honestly, Roger has to be jerking Andy's chain. Also, over 70 people are dead with the number to rise and the only coverage it gets is this fucking stupid edit? Bunch of fucks. Ace of Spades 19:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My theory is that Mama Schlafly told Roger: "Your brother is looking like an idiot on that encyclopedia thing of his. Could you do something about that?" and everything he could do to help is make Andy look less stupid in comparison.Vulpius (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I sometimes wonder why Mama Schlafly doesn't simply order Andy to pull the plug on that thing. The damage he does to the family's reputation is colossal and it's not like he doesn't need the monthly allowance. Mountain Blue 01:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Liberals also changed the names of many "Gropecunt Lanes" in England many years ago, but not a word about it on CP. Jimaginator (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Incredible. Rationalize (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger's just being a dick - not even he, or Ed, or Kenny could be THAT stupid that they think the name of a city is, errrr, somehow secularized into.....uhm....wait.....  Actually it's so dumb I don't think I even understand what the accusation is?   Does he think that the church, which was called Christ Church, is being maligned by the town being named after it?   What the fuck does he mean?   Does he really mean that because CNN didn't include the name of the city in the headline, that it's secularizing?  I notice Fox News is doing the same thing, you fucking numpty.   These people need mental health help.   DogP (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Goddamnit! --> Fuck!
Somebody please add that to the list. 02:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Family Values" ---> "Hateful close-mindedness." 03:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Conservative Bible Project" ---> "what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'" MDB (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Holy Shit!" --> "Shit!"  15:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Holy Cow!" --> "WHAT THE FUCK!!!" my name is slugboy 03:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)