Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive169

Andy sets a world record in crazy

 * User: Uh here is proof Obama didn't use teleprompters to talk to children.
 * Andy, making history:

Liberals are trying to dampen the ridicule but pictures don't lie. Obama had the teleprompters there, and using them to speak with reporters would be just as absurd even if the liberal explanation were true. In these two sentences are contained EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ANDY.


 * Liberals Everything is politically motivated (no I mean everything)
 * are trying to dampen the ridicule Liberals are highly organized schemers who conspire to score political points over trivialities
 * but pictures don't lie. my first impression of any subject is always the correct one and I will defend it to the death
 * Obama had the teleprompters there If any part of my argument is true, the conclusions must be correct
 * and using them to speak to reporters would be just as absurd if multiple arguments can prove what I want, I'll accept whichever's convenient, or all of them even if they're contradictory
 * even if the liberal explanation were true. anything that contradicts me is a desperate attempt by liberals to avoid the truth

Historians will remember this as the Schlaflyburg Address. Wodewick Welease Wodewick! 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My god that entire section is priceless. It was deceitful for Obama to set up teleprompters to address reporters in an elementary school, because that creates a false impression for viewers that he was speaking from his mind rather than reading from a script.
 * Top notch crazy. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 04:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Aren't we talking about the "messiah" here? The most "intellectually-gifted" president of the 21st century? The one who liberals think is so smart he can stave off global warming with his mere appearance in Copenhagen? The one who's just called "The One"? If he's so intelligent and so brilliant as they say, then why on earth does he need teleprompters at all?
 * Three things, Karajerk. First, it may be splitting hairs, but he's only called "the messiah" and "the one" by mocking conservatives. Second, to be the most intellectually gifted president of the 21st century at this point wouldn't be that hard. Third, the earth did go under a cold spell while Obama was on his way to Copenhagen. Just sayin'.... Junggai (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My view of Obama is very nuanced in that I like him but I don't think he's the second coming of Christ. --  = w =  07:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By god, that conversation just seems to become a positive feedback loop of their own craziness! --GTac (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts from my fuzzy little head... MDB (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This has the potential to become Obama's equivalent of "invented the Internet" or "couldn't spell potato", especially since its become fodder for comedians. There is a rational explanation, but the myth is already out there.
 * Of course he had a teleprompter to speak to reporters -- he probably had a prepared statement, which is usually the case for such events.
 * The right wing yank-fest over Obama's use of teleprompters is a classic of the complete paucity of their arguments. Presidents have used teleprompters for years. (I under Ronaldus Maximus preferred note cards, but really, what's the difference?) But for some reason, its an outrage Obama uses one. is
 * I can envision their response to the Gettysburg Address: "written on the back of envelope? How deceitful to let his audience think he was speaking from the top of his head! Damn hippie with that beard." (Of course, a take on conservatives critiquing the Gettysburg Address has been done...
 * Well if it's an address, it's not so strange that it's written on an envelope... --GTac (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Boo! 15:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of years ago, I took a weekend trip to Gettysburg. I set my Outlook vacation message to work to say I was "traveling four score and seven miles to spend the weekend at a Gettysburg address." MDB (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy Shit
I was just reading about O'Keefe, the guy arrested for trying to wiretap Senator Landrieu, and look what he says after being released on bail (about halfway down the page): "The truth shall set me free." Has this guy been reading Conservapedia? He just about stupid enough to. DickTurpis (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's one of the most famous Biblical quotations, and has a long history in America. Odds are slight that it has anything to do with CP.  I'll agree he is deceitful and dumb enough to fit the bill, though.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 14:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My secular upbringing thwarts me again. I never knew that was from the Bible. And while I knew it was not an Andy original, in my mind it has become so associated with CP that it's hard to separate the two. Well, if O'Keefe describes himself as trusworthy then we'll know for sure. (Though I never really thought O'Keefe was likely a CP reader, just that it was an odd coincidence. Now that I know it's a common phrase I guess it isn't much of a coincidence after all.) DickTurpis (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I commented elsewhere, I always associate it with Jehova's Witlesses. 15:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why won't CP cover the news? All those whinefests about how the "liberal media" refused to cover the ACORN issues, brought about by the same man, where's the outrage that he was caught trying to wiretap a sitting senator? We're waiting, TeaKakkke. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CP wont cover it because CP is inherently dishonest in presenting the world --Opcn (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Andy has already claimed him as a conservative over the ACORN flap. Meaning, that he does not engage in deceit of any kind.  Well, this was pretty damn deceitful, therefore, publishing this would make Andy seem wrong and the universe would collapse.  21:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See my talk page for why SirChuck is dead wrong. And I did comment on the story on Main Page Talk. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 23:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * TK is wrong (surprised?) "it seems the gentlemen in question were actually investigating the odd phenomenon of reports from citizens that whenever they called the Senator's office to complain about her support of Obamacare, they always received a 'busy signal' day and night." No, TK, the gentlemen were arrested because they stated they were representatives from the phone company to do work on the phone lines. "Authorities said two of the defendants posed as telephone repairmen in hard hats, fluorescent vests and tool belts and asked to see the phones at Landrieu's office; one of them had a tiny camera in his helmet. A third man is alleged to have waited outside in a car with a listening device to pick up transmissions. The fourth, James O'Keefe, used his cell phone to try to capture video of the scene inside, authorities said." Basel was seen manipulating the handset of the Senator's office phone. In two different areas of a federal building, the three men inside the building identified themselves as employees of the telephone company. That's a felony.
 * Your "comment" was passing off bullshit lies and arguing the liberal media was wrong in its reporting. Look at the federal agent's affidavit. No matter how you try to pass it off, the three lied about who they were and a fourth had equipment to receive audio transmissions. Only the delusional would assume they were innocent and trying to do something positive for a senator, given that O'Keefe is already going to be in court for wiretapping charges in Pennsylvania. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica
Conservapedia hates Encyclopedia Dramatica. TK blocks Girlvinyl and Michaeldsuarez (me). Girlvinyl's block summary was simply Bye while mine was POV editing/Removal of valid content / adding material without citation: ED editor inserting nonsense, pop culture.

I asked Aschlafly to unprotect that article myself, and Aschlafly honored my request.

DMorris nominated the Encyclopedia Dramatica article for deletion, so I offered to rewrite the article. DMorris then said that a complete rewrite was needed, so I did a complete rewrite.

TR then appeared from nowhere and reverted my revisions and removed the Deletion template without leaving any comments on the deletion nomination page. TK also protected the article using the excuse High traffic page. The protection didn't may sense since there's wasn't any "high traffic", since I didn't call for /b/ackup, and since he also protected it for 5 hours.

It should also be noted that TK has made a series of questionable revisions to the Encyclopedia Dramatica article. He removed the "need citations and sources" templates ; he nominated the article for deletion, but then he apparently changed his mind. TK also needs to start using the "preview" button ; "Template:Locked" doesn't exist.

I'm not sure why I'm banned. DMorris asked me to do a complete rewrite, and I did. After TK, DMorris then tells us that the Conservapedia-ED comparison should be removed. I find this ironic since my rewrite removed that comparison. If DMorris wants that comparison remove, he should revert the article back to my version. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "High traffic" might also be that a considerable number of hits to the page are being logged. When we linked the Conservapedia Commandments on the WP page for CP, to say that they aren't used as the guidelines for the site (even though the WP article said they did), TK locked that page for "high traffic" as well. If you want to edit a more serious wiki, feel free to do so here. CP is TK/Andy/Ed/Ken and whichever morons follow each one, if any. Oh, and the parodists, so obvious to us outsiders, that they create more fun to watch. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hate to break it to you, Michael, but DMorris isn't a Admin at CP. Are you not an editor at ED? If you had that kind of interaction, normal, rational people would have emailed explaining all that instead of posting here. All my contact information is on my CP user page, for everyone to see. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 00:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * TK, "normal, rational" people avoid interacting with you like the plague. Because you are a disgusting, lying piece of shit.   06:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * TK, stop ignoring my previous posts to you. Or shall I take them to your talk page? If you're so bored with CP because Andy's getting all the attention and no one cares about you that you have to spend most of your time here now, then at least entertain me more. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * TK, where did I say that DMorris was a sysop?  Yes, I'm a ED user. If I had wished to hide that, I would've chosen a different user name. Also, you barred me from sending Emails via Special:Email, so  I assumed that you wouldn't welcome Emails from me.  --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DMorris is a parodist! Keegscee (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

KJV vs. Conservative Bible
Passage: Luke 11:53-54

KJV: "And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:

Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him."

Conservative Bible: "As Jesus told them off, the scribes and Pharisees furiously interrogated Him about everything,

plotting and seeking to quote Him for a politically incorrect remark to use against Him." &mdash; Unsigned, by: Night Jaguar / talk / contribs
 * Damn liberal tricksters, always trying to mess with the Holy One! &mdash; Unsigned, by: Human / talk / contribs 05:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet they said The Message "bastardized" the Bible. Irony meters, etc. Wodewick Welease Wodewick! 05:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Capt with trepidation. --  = w =  06:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to fear. Capturebot is smart. --  = w =  07:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Héhé, two birds with a stone, they justify the 'enhanced interrogations techniques' so popular to the neo-cons and their self declared 'political incorrectness' not a bad job for a single verse... Alain (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Capitalism WIGO Fail!
In a misreading of what is literally the first solid and well reported news piece I have ever seen on conservapedia as being disparaging someone F'ed up a WIGO. It mentions Liberal and some people doing a good thing for themselves. It doesn't say anything about them that is bad, It's a news story that points out that not everything liberals do is evil, if it had been conservatives we would have considered CP mentioning them like that to be a compliment. CHILLAX --Opcn (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The WIGO was more about hate than any factual comment, totally using supposition to decide what it meant. Conservatives admire what the Google founders did, creating a market where there was none, and creating tens of thousands of jobs. The news section at CP isn't encyclopedic, it merely presents thought-provoking, sometimes controversial items, to get people to discuss. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 08:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You might remove the "liberal" designator from the newsbite if it is as irrelevant as that. 06:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the thoughts you mean to provoke are "What the hell?" and "Are they serious?" you've done admirably. Barikada (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "...to get people to discuss." which, ultimately, gets them banned. -- 09:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rat traps do provide food for rats ... Opcn (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It really depends on how someone wants to discuss, and if they post like they do here, they would be banned on most sites. But the idea that they are made to trap others is not correct. That's just a happy by-product sometimes. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 09:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So things like having this and this on the front page at the same time isn't trollbait-- you seriously believe both are accurate? Barikada (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. The news items aren't about being "encyclopaedic", "factual" or "accurate", it's just about being thought provoking and controversial. You know, like 4chan. --GTac (talk) 09:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * TK is becoming worse than MC. Lets vandal bin him. Boring, lying tart that he is. Acei9 09:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing that annoys me the most is his unfunny, overuse of the smileys. 09:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't the vandal bin for people who spam, not those who's actions elsewhere and opinions we find extremely disagreeable? --Opcn (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Folks, I'm gonna have to agree with Opcn. TK may be argumentative at times, and a flat out troll at times, but we pride ourselves in keeping the 'high ground.'  If you don't like what he's saying, then argue back, or even ignore him, but lets not drop the B-word until he acts like a vandal.  Lets use the true value of the First Amendment.  "Free Speech: It lets us know who the idiots are."  - Ravenhull (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you could describe this place as "high ground" by any means. That said, I subscribe to the viewpoint that TK is not being sufficiently entertaining on these 'ere pages to warrant having her around. MaxAlex Swimming pool 11:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand if TK comes to RW looking for entertainment because he's growing bored with CP, but that's his own damn fault for banning every new user to come along, before they could develop into long term personalities he could play his bullying/manipulation games on. Meanwhile having him here breaks the fourth wall and reduces MY entertainment of his CP hijinx.
 * I wouldn't put it past TK to be thinking a step ahead, cultivating socks on RW so that when he's done with CP he can come here, be "forgiven" by those fake personalities and start a new drama game. After all RW is now a larger and more active wiki than CP.
 * I say "go back and play in your sandbox TK." A ban of the PERSONALITY "TK" is materially harmless to the person Terry K. as we and he both know, given how many socks he has. All it does is stop that PERSONALITY from trying to play drama games on this wiki.
 * With that explanation, I am moving us to DEFCON HCM 5 and leveling an hour long block on TK every time I see him make a talk or mainspace edit. Wodewick Welease Wodewick! 12:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure hour long blocks are exactly the kind of thing TK was trying to stir up. MaxAlex Swimming pool 12:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * TK, how can the news items provoke discussion when you ban people for 90/10, complaining, liberal arguments, etc.? You don't want a discussion, you want a trollfest. That's the problem with the CP crowd: You have to think like Andy, agree with Andy, or you don't get to stay. That's not a discussion in any sense of the word. Impress us by getting rid of that 90/10 rule and arbitrarily banning people because they say things you don't agree with, and maybe I'll consider that the news list is there for provoking discussion. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In communicating with TK elsewhere I've consistently noticed that he considers the rules at CP to be very different from the rules here. I tend to agree. While I disagree with how things are run at CP and how the rules they talk about and the rules they act on are as different as night and day I do really think we should stick to our own rules. Yes, he might not be funny here; yes, you can have your sour grapes; no, that isn't a reason to block him. Rational wiki doesn't have the highground on every issue, but it was created to give people a place to speak about the issue and TK the person can say things here he cannot say as TK the sysop on CP, so we should let him speak here. What is the worst that could happen? --Opcn (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have read through some of these, my naive young thing. 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Odd, I don't see much "funny" above at all. Where is it?  --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 23:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a certain dark comedy about the way you kept being given second, third and fourth chances, you would then continue to cause trouble and pursue vendettas, and yet were given yet more chances. 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And it didn't bother anyone else that the header is misspelled????!!! [sad] PS, fuck you, TK. Destructive non-entity that you are. 05:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * TK, no one at CP gives a shit about you. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ray Comfort and the YouTubers
Will the Conservapedia atheism and evolution articles be mentioned during the interview? I can answer that for you, Ken: no. I remember reading something somewhere from Nephilimfree where he said something along the lines of Conservapedia's not a reliable source. Dagless (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's actually a reasonably good chance one of them will. Ken seems to have a quid pro quo going in which he plugs some tard's blogs and videos on youtube and they in turn mention Conservapedia. With 4 fundie idiots in a room it's hardly impossible one will bring up CP with all the nonchalance and inelegance of a radio DJ peddling Metabolife. I'm sure Ken will let us know. DickTurpis (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And the seven or eight people who aren't listening in to laugh at it will rejoice in the glow of another piece of shit on the landfill which is American fundamentalist Christianity. Dagless (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ray Comfort and the YouTubers." Sounds like a really shit 80s pop band. 15:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahahahaha! Well-put, SJ. 18:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I love how news items always take place in the fucking future.  05:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, should we safely assume future involves fucking?   00:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Human: What about Ken's regular future? 01:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Karajou really is that batshit insane
I didn't notice this before (but since Taj has given it a category today, it came to my attention), but Karajou really is that insane. He thinks the moon landing is a hoax? Besides the rocks we carried back, there are mirrors on the surface of the moon, and we can measure how far away the moon is by bouncing a beam of light off them! What's more, the whole "no stars in the background" argument is a sure sign of complete ignorance. Do you see stars during the day here on earth? Besides the sun, of course? You can't see them on the moon during the day, either, because of the sun. But since the moon lacks an atmosphere, there's nothing to scatter the sun's rays, thus there's no color to the sky like there is on earth. I bet the page stays up for the homeschoolers in Andy's eventual earth science class to use. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Capt. --  = w =  20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems he falls short of actually endorsing this view, though it's hard to tell (he certainly does nothing to refute the bogus claims). He calls it a "hoax" in the edit summary, but in context it seems he means "alleged hoax", and is referring merely to the allegations. We should try to find out, as it would be hilarious if Karajou were this insane. DickTurpis (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * EC) Yes, he is. Many moons[sic] ago (12?), I nominated Moon's talk page as a favourite article. They're just batty when it comes to anything they can't touch. 16:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Moon-landing-as-hoax must be one of the most debunked conspiracy theories out there, along with JFK and 9/11. If CP really take a stance on it being anything other than Crazy McCrazy from Crazytown, then they are simply confirming their status as confirmed nutjobs. -- 17:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * JacobB reads RW. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Capt. --  = w =  20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course JacobB reads RW. He's one of us. DickTurpis (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Taj's categorization spree has also brought this gem back to light. No mention of Bush, who pushed for the corporate welfare for Wall Street before Obama was even elected? Must be nice to redo history and reality whenever necessary. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no surprises there - we have always been at war with Eastasia, after all. 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Taj is doing a wonderful job of bringing forth the insanity. The only "famous example" of scientific fraud is something that isn't scientific fraud? Come on, YECs love to push the most famous fraud, Piltdown Man. Pathetic, CP. I want to see that added by the end of business today! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

conservo-detector
Re: the latest WIGO, didn't the actual author get banned? I can't remember. -- Coarb (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark left after the entire KSorenson awesomeness. I think TK then blocked him and Andy unblocked him. Either way, he's gone. Keegscee (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That particular sock is gone, of somebody who may have had only the one account, or who may have a dozen. 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the person, I think: . -- Coarb (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's him. Edited a lot of math articles, got blocking rights and then resigned.  Smelled like a parodist to me; I'm pretty sure he had at least 2 other accounts over there.  -- JLauttamusdiscussion 01:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So they want to use the software created for them by someone who got chased off the site? And this software is suspected to be compromised if anyone with bad intentions would know of its source code? Sounds like nothing could go wrong with this at all! --GTac (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy was so impressed by MarkGall's creation that he drools over anyone who uses it. 16:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nutshell series
I like these. Logic Funneh does not require verbosity!

Poor FrankC though. He still doesn't get that adding citations to Conservapedia is a bannable offense. <font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 04:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is indeed an excellent WIGO. I just wish Andy hadn't tainted the word "concise". I really loved the happenings around FrankC, these kind of posts are my favorite. He doesn't compromise, sticks to the point, doesn't get distracted by the bullying and doesn't really give them a reason to ban him, EXCEPT that his facts go against their opinion. With cases like these their deceit is undeniable. They didn't have an answer for his factual posts, they couldn't pin him on some ridiculous rule, they banned them out of cowardice and deceit.
 * I'm giving FrankC a slow clap of appreciation. --GTac (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Likwise. It was an excellent post through and through. Facts are a real bitch, huh? I've always wondered about the behind the scenes talk between the admins. I wouldn't be surprised if Andy actually goes crying to TK to revert facts so it looks like he never saw them. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Frank's edits are still up on the cp:GPS page. These inconvenient facts shall not stand!!! TK! &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"you" and "this country"
St. Ronnie's 1982 SOTU, for comparison:


 * "this administration": 5
 * "this nation": 1
 * referring to America as "her" rather than "us": 1

-- Coarb (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been 28 years since that speech. The liberals have distorted its original meaning. Keegscee (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A new "clueless"! (And the f'ing President, no less!). Diffy please so I can add (easily)?  06:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I got it, nevermind, but thanks. 06:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan Translation Project
At the time, Ronald Reagan didn't have access to words that have been coined since 1982, such as "Islamofascism," "War On Terror," and "Segway." A modern translation of his State of the Union speech would have to take this into account, clarifying the original meaning with these powerful new conservative words. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 06:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So we should translate Reagan's speeches using these new conservative insights? Makes perfect sense. 16:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No slight against Obama
However, Bill Clinton delivered a joint address from memory for several minutes when the teleprompter broke in, I believe, 1993. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You never know, maybe Obama may have been able to as well. The teleprompter is that, a prompter. I doubt anyone reads straight from the thing, otherwise they would be staring straight at it the whole time, rather than looking around the room. 07:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You know who was VISIBLY and AUDIBLY reading from a teleprompter? Governor Bob McDonnell from Virginia. Fafuxsake, he looked like HowTheWorldWorks talking about free market capitalism on YouTube and EVERY TIME HE LOOKED TO THE LEFT OR RIGHT we were left hanging at the end of a sentence. You could see the realization come across his face like he was thinking "Hey, I know I was homeschooled but, a sentence shouldn't end like that..." *looks back at the prompter* "Oh yeah! That word! That ends it!" *says word*. Now, Andy, THAT is what it looks like when a public speaker "simply reads what is written". Fuck you. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC) (PS - Kudos to the president for announcing the end of DADT. It's about time. That policy is stupid.)
 * @Pi: I've heard that they are trained to look back and forth between the 3 prompters so it looks like they are looking around the room. If you tape a speech by any President and fast-forward it, you can see that this is what they are really doing. And that goes for all Presidents in the last few decades. 16:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest toon
My god, KackyPants just gave us the best parody template ever! 09:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Link for the lazy. I'm astonished at this week's toon! It is NOT about climate change, AND it even has traces of an actual joke in there instead of boiling down to "I HATE LIBERALS, THATS THE JOKE"! Of course, the people actually suffering from "Barackaspeechaphobia" are the people at CP, since that name implies a fear of Barack's speeches.. --GTac (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the worst toon yet. Where did all this "Barack Obama can't talk extemporaneously" bullshit come from? Do they not remember the buttocks-spanking he gave "veteran public servant" John McCain in, hmm, all three debates? <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 13:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In Conservaland, McCain won all those debates, just like Palin gave Biden a beating he'll never forget. Vulpius (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Prove there were no teleprompters, liberal. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that why McCain was wandering all over the set? He was trying to block Obama's view? Vulpius (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to use that. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed no one else has said that toon is a racist charicature.
 * It's not overtly racist, just potentially racist. 15:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just free from liberal bias. -- Lauttydautty we likes to party 16:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing I'll say for KJ, he can't draw hands for shit.  16:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are those microphones in your hands or are you just happy to see me?--Remarcsd (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

...is that comic sans? That's comic sans. God damn. X Stickman (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since CP craps on copyright anyways, someone should tell Karajou to steal a font or two from Blambot! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. The only joke I see is parody of right wingers going apeshit over Obama using a teleprompter. But to say that the guy can't speak without one is ridiculous. He's a fabulous debater and extemper. I sat in on some of his lectures at the University of Chicago law school - he would engage really tough questions from students intelligently and without the least bit of condescension. He owned McCain up and down those debates. Roundly. Painfully. I think some of the criticism of his "elitism" is frankly because he's a little wooden (like Gore), which does distance people who can't see past it and freaks them out when he does "urban" stuff like fist bumping his wife. I happen to see a real guy behind all that, but hey, I'm a liberal so I fall for all kinds of liberal deceit. 18:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Karajou, while it is dreadfully unfunny, at least there's something approaching a traditional joke format in this one, a marked step up from previous efforts. H. Randolph Twist (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's awful timing on Koward's part, putting out a "potentially racist" cartoon just as JPratt puts up an overtly racist news item about the same subject. I will give him an infinitesimal bit of credit for actually making a joke, and relevant to something on the site it appears, but that's about it. And yeah, he's lousy at hands but hands are really tough. I'm not so hot at them either. --Kels (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

With friends like that ...
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Joaquín_Martínez&diff=750001&oldid=749419 == Hello, my friend! == ] "It is good to see you this fine morning, Joaquín! I also was pleased to read the news from Honduras . The people there deserved a break! -- ṬK /Admin/Talk 09:20, 28 January 2010 (EST)" I presume the Honduras ref was the ex pres leaving. 01:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt on our "affirmative action President"
What a prick. Is he ever going to stop deluding himself? 23:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a trick question, right? --Kels (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What delusion? Obama IS black isn't he? It stands to "reason" that the only way a black could be elected is by affirmative action. Jimaginator (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is Andy's ISP?
Reading up on one of the blogs I follow (legal stuff for photographers) there is the question of when is an ISP immune to copyright infringement? There are three parts to the test in the DMCA. The key in the tests is that "upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material" (Aiii) and "upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity." (C). It might not be a bad thing to point out to Andy's ISP all of the copyright infringements going on within CP. If Andy won't take those images down - maybe his ISP might be interested. --Shagie (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt it will make a difference - people infringe copyright every day and don't get caught. Why would they target him? 23:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Notifying individuals isn't a bad idea, particularly if their work is being used in a context they'd likely find unpleasant, but contacting his ISP seems a bit unsporting. Although our content doesn't have any bearing on the illegality of CP's regular misuse of copyright protected content, it would seem hypocritical to go for the nuclear option without being confident that RW's material is all correctly licenced. Besides, you can't file a formal DMCA request unless you're authorised to act as (or on behalf of) the rights holder. You could offer them a friendly tip, but the ISP wouldn't be under any obligation to take action. That's my armchair lawyer take on things. -- 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the DMCA apply to the hosting company, not the ISP, if they are different? CS Miller (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is "does a friendly tip kick them into the area of being notified" - its not a take down request, but rather if there is a friendly tip to the ISP and then National Geographic come in with an infringement suit and find that the ISP was advised that there was copyrighted material on the machines. Not so much a "We demand you take CP offline" but rather "notification has been sent to National Geographic that a web server you are hosting has copyrighted material without any attribution or reasonable claim of fair use and you might want to point this out to your client."  --Shagie (talk)
 * It could be a case of contributory copyright infringement, but I'm not sure how the US courts would handle that kind of thing. I know that you're pretty good with adding licences to images you're uploading, but realistically RW is not exactly perfect. We've still got a lot of images to sort through. It could be hypocritical, but there are some key differences.
 * We have demonstrated good faith with previous copyright infringement claims by engaging the claimants and making changes where necessary. Most of our infringement appears to be for silly little things, smileys and such. We can demonstrate that we're taking steps to correctly licence our stuff, and have deleted content that's obviously illegally posted here. I'm not aware of CP having done anything similar.
 * RW is a non-profit set-up, while CP is being used for Andy's homeskooling business. The allegedly educational aspects of his business may give him some leeway, but it's certainly not a get out of jail free card for people like fairuse Karajou to spend their time pillaging pictures to slap on the turds that are their articles.
 * Overall I'd be reluctant to go down the host/ISP route. It's up to you, but I'd rather just notify the copyright holder and let them decide what to do. -- 15:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DMCA requires the copyright holder or assigned agent (and theres a legal definition of assigned agent) to file the claim. The hosting company can ignore anything else. Notifying the copyright holder with all the info is the best option. (picture, url for pic, email for DMCA filing, whois for hosting company email) some interpretations say you must mail, harcopy via snail mail, many sites accept email filings. Hamster (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Grammar fail
Nice catch. Normally I don't like making fun of a person's tyops, but in the context of a man who A) uses typos and minor grammatical errors as an argument and B) is advertising a writing class, this is absolutely perfect. Corry (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why the hELL does he write these "lectures" on line. He'd have a little more credibility if he dropped them on the page as fully edited things. (laconic (pronounced: luh-KAH-nik) really? Strange accent there, Andy.) 02:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My favourite part was the link from the home page. It's a link to this page which has the heading "Welcome to Students." Now, I know he probably means a shortened version of "I wish a warm welcome to students", but was "Welcome, Students!" too difficult? This writing course should go really well. Nick Heer 03:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will Andy be using IPA phonetics, or does he reject their internationalist bent? <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 03:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is like last time, it will be a series of increasing length essay bashing liberals. 13:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy makes such an issue out of people's typos (which are mainly on talk pages anyway) just because he uses Firefox's spelling checker. However, that doesn't catch homonyms, grammar, punctuation, or typos which are still proper words. So by all means, mock the miserable git for his writing errors. 15:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He only takes people up on typos etc. when he's beaten on a point. - Oh wait a minute - that means every time someone disagrees with him. 15:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing and SAT Verbal Skills lectures
As writing is a large part of what I do, I've eagerly been waiting to see what Professor Schlafly has to say about it. Writing Lecture One gives me a good clue: it's written like a high school book report. There's not much grammatically wrong with it, aside from a few inappropriate placements of commas; but most of it consists of simple declarative sentences with no life or warmth to them. The person who wrote that has no special skill with the English language. He shouldn't be teaching it. - Cuckoo (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You got one extra word there, Cuckoo. He shouldn't be teaching.  Period.   14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember... This is Andrew Layton Schlafly, Esq., BSE, JD that we're talking about here. He can't even speak with life and warmth. Even the guy's laugh sounds like a robot being forced at gunpoint. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree with Cuckoo more, the lecture flows like a river of bricks. 'Writing is...' 'Writing is...' 'Writing often...' 'Writing is...' 'Writing can..' 'Writing is...' 'Writing has...'. What a wonderful variety of statements. EddyP (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It might actually be OK spoken by a decent orator, but written it's just a sequence of random bullet points. 16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still working on a project today, but hopefully I will get to ripping the page to shreds. Hardly anything he's brought up in that lecture pertains to improving writing *or* the verbal aspects of the SAT I test. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Might want to wait until he has "finished" it - that would be when he "assigns" it to the new class. Maybe the reason it reads like a bullet list right now is becvause that's all it really is - notes to build the "lecture" from.  I'm sure the final draft will be equally hilarious...  02:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Google/China
Anyone know what's going on with this? Ken takes his usual handful of revisions to get to an entry. Then wipes it out ? &mdash; Unsigned, by: Worm / talk / contribs
 * The ways of Ken are mysterious and not to be fathomed by the base humanity on Rationalwiki. Know ye not that he is all powerful when it cometh to Google and Alexa? 14:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell (apart from CP), Google is threatening to pull out from China on the basis that China wants to censor Google's search capabilities and all that jazz. Besides that, there have been reports of chinese government attempts at hacking Google (one or the other). Conservative is thanking Google for not censoring search results, since <insert Conservative's terrible article> is number 1 among searches. He removed it because either A) He was wrong, and it wasn't anywhere near number 1, B) Google is a liberal organization (scroll down about two-thirds) and WE CAN'T BE PRAISING DEM LIBERALS, or C) Someone told him to stop being retarded. [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]<font face="Comic Sans"><font color = "Green">Norseman  Cyser Melomel  14:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (C). Someone pointed out that by censoring results like "homosexuality" the Chinese were enforcing their strict moral code and stopping people finding pro-homo info. Ken's article just got caught in the crossfire. MaxAlex Swimming pool 15:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Password thief?
What would make JacobB suspect my IP of thievery? 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The guy's a turd trying to make a name for himself. He's referred to getting password change emails, which list IPs, as attempts to steal his password by "password thieves," which couldn't be farther from the truth. You can't change someone's password without access to the associated email account. It wouldn't surprise me if JacobB was using his having received such emails as an excuse for blocking other IP addresses. On the other hand, were you sending him password reset requests from you home IP address? If so, that's stupid. Don't do it anymore. 18:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How would he have gotten your IP, if not in a password reset email? 19:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never emailed anybody on CP. It seems like something that could get creepy real fast. I do go through a college network, so maybe they range blocked it? They won't let me sock up anymore. 19:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure at least 1 IP address of yours is blocked. Have you IP edited here? 20:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not wigo-worthy...
...because its not funny or obnoxious, just an example of how CP spins things.

Hillary Clinton said today that she doesn't want a second term as Secretary of State because its such a demanding job.

How does Andy phrase it? Hillary Clinton announces she'll resign as Secretary of State if Obama is reelected for a second term. Now, at the level of Secretary of State, "resign" usually implies leaving due to scandal or dispute with the boss, not just she doesn't want to keep doing the job. Andy's phrasing goes even further, almost making it sound as if her "resignation" would be to protest Obama's reelection.

MDB (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In other "Not wigo-worthy" news, cut-rate parodist AlexWD plays to the crowd by insinuating that global warming is less credible because bin Laden believes in it . &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Preserved from the memory hole. CS Miller (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, in terms of achieving public acceptance for global warming, having bin Laden endorse the theory isn't good news. I mean, if you were a Hollywood producer, you really wouldn't want to see this review:

"'Two arms raised way, way up! Best picture we've seen since Triumph of the Will. All true Aryans should see it again and again!' -- Adolf H. and Eva B., Berlin News-Picayune" MDB (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely it follows that bin Laden's support of prayer in school and religion in government would undermine the credibility of CPs advocacy of these things? -- 17:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly -- bin Laden is supporting the wrong religion in those matters. To CP, that's the key difference between their religious zealotry and bin Laden's. MDB (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That, and possibly the fact that CPers have not killed thousands and thousands of people. 18:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't attempting to permanently twist and distort the mind of impressionable children and teenagers count? Besides, I'm pretty certain that OBL and AndyPandy have the same attitudes about the female of the species being educated (they should only be educated that their place is in the kitchen baking non-Mohammed shaped cookies).-- 18:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Does attempting to permanently twist and distort etc. etc. count as what? Being equal to bombings trains and subways and flying planes into buildings and dinghys laden with explosives into ships?  No, I would say not.  I'm as anti-CP as the next girl, but saying the only difference between Andy's wingnuttery and bin Ladens is the god they worship is pretty wingnut itself.  19:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, don't make me get the Sarcasm MarkTM out, Camembert.-- 22:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whereas Andy has not personally killed anyone (to the best of my knowledge) other Christians with his views have, and continue to do so. Throw in that when something like the Tiller murder occurs, Andy and his ilk cheer it.... I say fanatism period is a bit of a wash.  01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding book citations to CP
is now close to verboten, because a community of, hm let's say twenty or so active non-parodist editors is quite understandably too small fact check their own wiki. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 04:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Twenty? You greatly exaggerate the active usership of Conservapedia, methinks. DickTurpis (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * TK: "If I have to choose between a more lax citation, but one that is easily verified, or one more complete, but not available to easily check, it really isn't a contest as to which I will permit to remain." ...so don't add anything that isn't common knowledge. Otherwise people would think Conservapedia is some kind of reference source, like an encyclopedia or something. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick!  10:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again TK manages to single-handedly dumb-down CP. Anybody else notice how quick the man who always says 'this is Andrew Schlafly's project and only his' is to make up destructive policy on his own, with no input from his fellow sysops. In fact, he's of the opinion that the Blue Room is not there to debate policy. -- Psygremlin  11:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's so lame. Hell, I've gone to the Uni library to check out PJR's loser refs, why can't TK do that? = Lazy + Stupid.  Also, who cares what TK thinks?  11:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why stop there? I don't think they should include any citations at all.  Just put a pile of links that have something or nothing to do with the subject at the end of the page.  Leave it up to the readers to sort out how to figure something out.  Wouldn't that be encouraging learning? -Lardashe
 * You don't learn much from reading a source. It's much better to write one. --Sid (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as there's lots of pictures of Hitler/Gore_burning/Obama_in_whiteface it doesn't matter if it's referenced or not. 13:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the ranking in a popular search engine starting with "G"! The higher it is, the truthier the article is (unless it's Wikipedia, of course), regardless of sources. --Sid (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gasp!* Karajou sides with the peons . How long before we get a "you should have consulted with me via e-mail before giving in to your liberal instincts and posting that?" from TightKnickers? -- Psygremlin  16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * MLA-style is very liberal-leaning, by CP standards. It's for English and other liberal arts majors. AP or Chicago should be more preferable for conservatives, one would think? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Psychology and Science are both forbidden there. I think that eventually all you will be able to cite is chapter and verse from CBP --Opcn (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Has anyone seen Ed quote from a scientific journal or scholarly book? He usual uses the first thing he finds on a blog. 05:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Bilingual education" according to Ed: "Education that makes you bilingual"
Ed uses scare quotes just because he doesn't get the difference between bilingual education and learning a second language. --Sid (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now with CP article by Ed, who tells us what the term SHOULD mean and that it's the fault of liberals (duh) that it now means the opposite of what he wants. --Sid (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This could be the beginnings of a new category: "How stuff ought to be, according to Ed." This is right up there with his confusing masterwork cp:Essay:Women wearing pants, but at least he had the good sense to put that in to Essay namespace. -- 14:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw! Look - he's even run off to Andy. 'Master! Master! Lookee. I haz new articles forz youz.' He's kinda cute when he fawns like that. -- Psygremlin  14:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Capt. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  16:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Another day, another Ed stub
Nuff said a) The man does not respect the wiki he works on to deliver tripe like that. b) Surely by now he's learnt that, like WP, nobody is going to jump in and turn his steaming pile of faeces into an article. -- Psygremlin  16:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean unlike WP?  01:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even read like it was created by human hand. Maybe Ed's acquired a stub-o-matic bot that'll create an article and pop in a vaguely related sentence while Ed gets on with whatever it is he does. -- 01:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

TK's cellphone driving WIGO
TK's typical right-winger point obviously is that Nanny-Statism and excessive legislation is a Bad Thing. But is the suggestion SERIOUSLY that it's not a good idea to prevent driving while texting and the like?! Lord knows, every single study ever done - and personal and anecdotal experience of everyone I'm sure including TK himself - indicates cellphone use while driving is as dangerous, or even more dangerous, than driving while loaded. Would you have the ban lifted TK, and then what about removing the DUI offense, eh? (Would be useful for me). As usual with these fucking right-wing dipshits, they have such a small brain they can't see beyond the "Stop Big Gub'mint!" argument. Thickheads. <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It would have been sensible to not make the ban. Laws like that do nothing but teach people nobody cares if you break laws. --Swedmann (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a ridiculous position to take, and completely illogical.  Are you going to remove the DUI laws?   How about we have no speed limits, can drive on any side of the road we like, add knife blades to our wheels, and do lines off the tits of hookers while we swig from Jack Daniels bottles?   I suppose that makes for a freer society, but I'd guess your taxes are going to have to go up to pay for the big increases in morgue and disability budgets.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 23:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody will obey it so it was a big waste of everything to make it. Laws should be easy and consistent. Speed limits are fundamental to driving, while having illogical "do not touch the arbitrary magical item, it's bad" laws undermine the respect towards safe driving and other laws. It's not a big effect but it exists. If they made all new cars have hand-free systems I wouldn't complain, but this doesn't make sense. --Swedmann (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * do lines off the tits of hookers while we swig from Jack Daniels bottle - I'd much prefer J&B to Jack Daniels. Acei9 23:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, technically, I'd much prefer good Grappa or perhaps Black Bush, but I thought Jack Daniels suited the image of rails off hooker's tits.  It was a writing thing, you know, not a booze choice.   Work with me on this one Ace.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lifting the DUI would work for me. But they only argue against "big government" when the govt. is doing things they don't like. Big government getting in the way of abortions and gay marrige is A-OK! Acei9 22:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, DP, I would like to point out that most of the studies on this issue are seriously flawed and there have been many studies that prove the opposite: that cell phone usage has no greater effect on driving than other acitivities divers engage in (applying makeup, shaving, eating etc...) 23:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What about compared to drivers who engage in the activity of just driving? 05:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Phonics
Andy's Phonics list is brilliant. You can really tell form the opening line that it's Conservapedia:

Here is a growing list of mistakes that result from a lack of reading by phonics.

He's putting the fear of God into your belly. "You haz made miztakez without phonicks!!!" 14:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone with a sock want to add the following:
 * Relativity | Relativism = Relativity used in a physics sense is sometimes confused with relativism, thus causing poorly educated people to reject relativity because they believe it's somehow related to cultural relativism. -- 14:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This was added by AlexWD and reverted shortly thereafter by Andy. For once he explained his actions on the talk page . CS Miller 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC). And was WIGO'ed by a BoN anon. CS Miller (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hang on, who the hell confuses Lieberman with Libertarian? Is Andy basing this list on a conversation he had 20 years ago while stoned in the back of a camper van? -- 14:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You fool! Lack of phonics obviously causes dyslexia and breast cancer. Open your mind! God's peed! Vulpius (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Better is "amendment" versus "agreement". That's just a baffling mistake to make. MaxAlex Swimming pool 14:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why it's on the Liszt. 16:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Butt ore ewe shore abut tat? -- Psygremlin  16:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought, for some reason, that conservatives hated phonics as a means of learning to read. It is a late 19th century innovation, after all. Beyond that, the idea that mistakes will be made if you don't learn with phonics is as ridiculous an argument as that against phonics that learning it will lead to mistakes. We're talking about learning to read English, after all. We have words like "enough" and "colonel" and even "Thames" that sound nothing like they should under phonics, and that no one would remember how to spell or read without just using them a lot and remembering. We also have large numbers of words from a large number of different languages, each of which has its own pronunciation scheme. Consequently, there is no perfect way to learn how to read this language. It just has to be done in a systematic fashion while leaving sufficient room for the general willy-nilly of the language. Kaalis (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A central part of Andy's worldview is that there is a perfect way to do everything. He really doesn't like nuanced approaches. Broccoli (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Add that the perfect way is the way he does things already. Or the way he just thought up if it's not something he actively does, like succeed at anything. --Kels (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Phoney Phonetics

One reason why I cannot spell, Although I learned the rules quite well Is that some words like coup and through Sound just like threw and flue and Who; When oo is never spelled the same, The duice becomes a guessing game; And then I ponder over though, Is it spelled so, or throw, or beau, And bough is never bow, it's bow, I mean the bow that sounds like plow, And not the bow that sounds like row - The row that is pronounced like roe. I wonder, too, why rough and tough, That sound the same as gruff and muff, Are spelled like bough and though, for they Are both pronounced a different way. And why can't I spell trough and cough The same as I do scoff and golf?

Why isn't drought spelled just like route, or doubt or pout or sauerkraut? When words all sound so much the same To change the spelling seems a shame. There is no sense - see sound like cents - in making such a difference Between the sight and sound of words; Each spelling rule that undergirds The way a word should look will fail And often prove to no avail Because exceptions will negate The truth of what the rule may state; So though I try, I still despair And moan and mutter "It's not fair That I'm held up to ridicule And made to look like such a fool When it's the spelling that's at fault. Let's call this nonsense to a halt."

Attributed to Vivian Buchan

Auld Nick (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So it is Andy's opinion that Gore should have won the election but lost because of confusion over the ballot?
 * Woot. AlexWD raised the relativity/relativism thing. Should be interesting to see how this one plays out, assuming TK doesn't just stomp in to spare Andy's blushes. -- 23:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a growing list of mistakes that result from reading by phonics.  23:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy's edit to the talk page re relativity/relativitism hints at another echo from the past. 12:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Lovely new conservative words
The 2000s are coming along slowly, but this suggestions is excellent. Now only if there were some piece of equipment by which the degree of irony could be measured... MaxAlex Swimming pool 18:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * didn't you even read it bro? it says it's LIBERAL behavior.  HoorayForSodomy (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember being given a talk about cyberbullying in the 7th grade, back in 1999, so I think it predates Andy's target years. --Opcn (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy's ability to connect everything bad to liberals never cease to amaze me. <font weight="normal" color="red">Etc 10:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Crappy fit of conservative words
Hopefully this will work I broke down the words into 50 year segments, and what do you know, turns out shoehorning the data into one measure of exponential growth will not make it fit another measure of exponential growth. I haven't tried to fit a curve to it yet but I can't see it being anywhere near perfect. I probably should have passed this off to someone with a sock to post up on CP but I suspect it would get burnt anyways. --Opcn (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee I haven't looked at that list in a long time. There are some dumb words on that list. Phonics from the 17th century didn't mean the teaching style Andy prefers (or his mummy sells books on) originally. Rapture, I assume that Conservatives are looking forward to this event on April the 1st (too easy really). 09:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Segway. Segway? 09:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel like I was just retina fucked Pi. --Opcn (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the irisicle penetration and orgasm, Opcn, I like your graph. Very funny.  11:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Basic Statistics and Conservative Words
Opcn: Thank you for making the table. Aschlafly's hypothesis is:

H0: The number of conservative words follows a geometric progression and roughly doubles every century

This hypothesis is consistent with the observed numbers of words over the centuries:

But how does Aschlafly get his numbers? I can see two possibilities:

Ho.m.: Aschlafly stumbles upon a conservative word and determines the year of its origin. As the words are distributed according to H0, the observed pattern emerges.

Hc.m.: Everytime, Aschlafly finds a conservative word of the 16th century, he looks two words of the 17th century, four words of the 18th century, eight words of the 19th century - and won't stop until he find sixteen words for the 20th century. This search is obviously independent of the actual distribution of conservative words.

How can we test these hyoptheses? If Ho.m. is true, the geometric procession should be mirrored by the decades - independently from the centuries: for one word in the fifties, one should find 1.07 word in the sixties and so on.

Quite a difference. In fact, a &chi;²-test shows that this hypothesis has to be dismissed (for &alpha; = .05).

As for Hc.m.: in this case, one would expect a uniform distribution on the decades, i.e.,

As this hypothesis can't be dismissed (again, for &alpha; = .05), one may conclude that the way Aschlafly gets the numbers has nothing to do with a real distribution: it is probable that he pulls them out of his ass.

14:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Larron" (if that is your real name, I doubt it), you're clueless. Your comment clearly shows your verbose liberal style. I can tell by the way you spell : "Hyoptheses" that you went to public school, and probably support the censoring of classroom prayer. I would encourage you to read or translate the Bible for 5% your spare time, it does wonders for all of us. Godspeed. Andy Schlafly

Guess the admin
"I do worry, of course, that saboteurs and cranks will put fake references into articles, for the sake of POV-pushing. A famous black conservative has complained about this. I hope some of our homeschooled contributors will take the time to pull books down from shelves and check offline references."


 * Sentence #1) complete misunderstanding of the topic
 * Sentence #2) vaguely disturbing non sequitur
 * Sentence #3) exhortation for someone else to do the work

Yep, it's Uncle Ed. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 10:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In some parallel universe Wikipedia user #188 works diligently in his sandbox to produce fully formed articles before moving them to mainspace. He avoids mentioning himself in the articles, and when it's a topic he doesn't understand he acknowledges his limitations, allowing an expert to offer a critique. He comes up with suggestions, and then leads by doing what he suggested, instead of relying on others to run with his amazing ideas while he sits on his arse. He probably also has a really cool beard.
 * CP has a rich history of citing blogs and other opinion pieces in support of their articles, and it's painfully obvious that the only reason they don't like citations from books is that someone will have to get of their arse to go check them. I can understand that attitude on a more laid-back site, but it's really odd to see on a site with a mission such as theirs. -- 11:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That whole page has now been memory-holed. Typical TK. 16:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to research this, lest brain damage ensue. But does anyone know exactly what he's referring to when he claims a "famous black conservative has complained about" "saboteurs and cranks" putting "fake references into articles, for the sake of POV-pushing"? - Poor Excuse (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (And for that matter, why negritude is an issue here?) - Poor Excuse (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good word. I'm going to find out if the negroes like it. Who should I call? 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a black Ghostbuster? What was his name? Maybe you could ask him. Junggai (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Winston Zeddmore played by Ernie Hudson. Right, I'll ask him abotu negritude. 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Full props to Poor excuse for name-dropping "negritude" as I'm reading about Aimé Césaire. Cosmic co-incidence. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)Remember MLK was a conservative. I think he said this, on that subject, I might be wrong but can't be bothered to check because I'd have to go to a library to see a transcript.


 * “And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
 * I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and accept that online references are better when used in an online encyclopedia. For it is the saboteurs and cranks who would use fake references to push their point of view, if we would use sources written on paper, with the ink of the liberal.”


 * Internetmoniker (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. MLK was a conservative--a conservative who likened the war in Vietnam to an imperialist venture, who thought that fear of communism had undermined the true values of the American Revolution, and who thought the war was diverting resources and energy from a government that should be more firmly involved in a project of societal reform. (See Singh, Nikil Pal. Black Is a Country: Race and the Unfinished Struggle for Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004, 1-2.)


 * I believe the appropriate CP logic to this is: MLK was Christian minister. Christians=Conservatives. MLK=Conservative. Internetmoniker (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong their IM, it's not simply the Christian status that makes MLK a conservative. Andy (and those who think him) are more than happy to label someone Unchristian when they don't agree with their views.  The reason they cling so hard to MLK as a conservative is because they need him lest they appear racist.  MLK was a registered Republican who was killed before the party swap of the 1970's.  Even though everyone and their brother recognizes that he would be a liberal Democrat today, the GOP (and by extension, the crazy conservatives) hold on to him as a way to say "look, we're not racist, even though we speak in racist code language and endorse policies that hurt Black America, MLK agreed with us."  20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Andy reformed on complex numbers?
Hermitian matrices are described in terms of the complex conjugate, which Andy is afraid of. -- Coarb (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

CBP revisited
I know Andy's off on another obsession now, but really he ought to be made aware of this:

http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/theology/research/centreforthestudyofliteraturetheologyandthearts/latestnews/

It doesn't mention Liberal bias, so there's room for a nice presentation by him.

Fretfulporpentine (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy shit it's you. Didn't know you still perused CP/RW. HoorayForSodomy (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Brian! How's Mrs Ugler? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to see you out and about, FP. That is an interesting article, let's hope it reaches Andy's ears. 14:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the question we're all asking ourselves.
Really. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "What a crass insult. Go fuck yourself." – Nick Heer 05:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazing how long it took Andy to reply to that. One would have thought, after the time lapse, he would had a more intelligent reply (than one with a typo - TK, go fix it!)  05:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I haven't been paying close attention. Isn't/Wasn't AlexWD a regular contributing editor-in-good-standing?  That whole talk page seems to indicate a complete breakdown that would get anyone else banned for life.--WJThomas (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed that he didn't get blocked for that. 13:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

TKour de force
Better version of WIGO:

"TK is smacked by the  over book citations. TK pretends to back down, but the next day he consigns the whole page to the memory hole, adds his stance to the manual of style as if the discussion never happened, and puts an intimidate ban on the offending user complete with "Retired" banner."

The point here is TK's perfidy. Debates or good faith discussions with the guy are pointless, he will just do what he wants, hoping that no one will notice (like the time he used a "vandal" IP block to shut out another CP user as well). If ever confronted on this expect lots of "MYOB," "Andy trusts me," and week long blocks for "prevarication and making up screenshots." (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC) JDW was apparently not cowed into submission so I bet TK is burning the midnight oil plotting ways to Politely Remove him. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 01:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's "an intimidate ban"? 82.23.209.253

Y'all actually support that idiotic parking proposal?
I'll concede that bill has no chance in hell of passing, lest the Democrats are willing to be the new permanent minority in California. Parking is either a local issue or a private issue, not a state issue. Hell, it's trouble enough to keep enough quarters in the car to feed the meters without raising the price of parking. And the notion that increasing parking meter rate will ease congestion is bunk. All that will do is lead to the creation of more ugly parking garages. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * god (extra lower case) forbid that anyone should, like take a train or a buss in or anything... --Opcn (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice red herring ... ConservapediaEditor (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually he has a point. If Californians know they can't park free, they may stop and consider alternate transport.  However, I think this is the wrong way to go about.  07:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are much better ways to encourage that goal, including tolling of incoming roads, and expanding public transportation routes. By increasing parking fees on the streets, all you do is push people to park in garages, or in the case of what happens here in Dallas, drive to the nearest rail station with no parking fee a couple miles away from downtown and park there.  That may reduce congestion, but it does not reduce pollution. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Toll increases waiting time, and if implemented ex novo one has to build lots of expensive infrastructure and hire new employees, whereas higher parking fees are just a change in the firmware of the vending machines. Perhaps people parking at a railway station will have a tiny spark of inspiration from seeing the choo-choo's passing by every day. — Pietrow   ☏  08:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problems with tolls are already laid out above, plus they have the unintended problem of diverting drivers around your city rather than through it. Expanding public transportaion is a good idea, but if there are no new riders, the city starts losing money by the bucket.  California, especially, is a city tied to their cars.  There will never be a major change in the way people get to work if they don't have some reason to do.  They'll never give up their cars.  Here in Denver, the RTD fixed that little parking problem by charging anyone who parks in one of their lots (unless the car is registered to that district) and that cleared up that free parking problem right away.  Besides, there aren't that many large scale garages in LA with open spaces (most of them rent by the month like NYC) and I'm sure the city can block the building of any new ones.  Like I said, I don't agree with the method, but it does have its own updsides.  08:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * London's answer is the congestion charge which, although not universally popular, has noticeably not been dropped by Boris. I has made a huge difference to the centre of town and, as a keen cyclist, I'm pleased to see just how many have reached for the two wheel answer. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He is planning to drop the western extension, though, and even that's taking long enough. There are contracts and other things in place for the main zone which he couldn't just wipe out without paying Capita the big bucks. So, don't take Boris' "inaction" as tacit approval of the scheme. MaxAlex Swimming pool 10:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Boris doesn't approve of it, I agree, but that doesn't make it a bad concept, and as long as enough of that money goes to improvements in public transport I think it'll remain quite popular. I'd like to see the idea implemented elsewhere in the country, with money going to real improvement in transport. Cities that could really benefit are Birmingham (CENTRO desperately needs serious, long term funding commitments to finally get Metro and commuter rail up to scratch), Liverpool to finish what was started with Merseyrail, Manchester (to get the tram extensions done), and Bristol to get any kind rail based mass transit going ASAP. As for California, I agree parking is a local issue, but the reasoning is sound. However the proposal itself is fail. Instead of offering incentives to curtail free parking, a better scheme would be to impose a small state wide tax on parking facilities, with that funding ring fenced for funding public transport, particularly heavy commuter rail in LA which was nothing more than abad joke when I was there (1997). --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 13:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Red Ken
Wait, isn't Google China blocked in China now or something? So, are Ken's articles soaring with the nobody who can read them? I'm so confused. But not quite as confused as 🇰🇪 is. -- 08:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The pitch is that it has contents *important* enough for Chinese government to block google because of it. Ergo, it matters not whether anyone can read it or whether anyone in China understands  English.   12:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rob Has His Mind In The Gutter. Again.
Cummunism? Is that what Rob does after looking at picturs of Kara in her Yellow Dress? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe, Freud would've had a field day with Rob. 12:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a semi-Freudian Psychology student and I have a field day with Rob.... He's the perfect mix of paranoia, blind ideology with strong attacks on something he doesn't understand, and creepy sexual behavior (who looks at non-porn porn? honestly?)  18:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rob? Rob? ROB! It still says "cum" on the family-friendly wiki. Stop gazing longly at naked girls and fix it. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama calls healthcare collectivism "a Bolshevik plot" according to CP
Only he doesn't.... Mick McT (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No surprises there. 13:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy's smoking-lung cancer bit & Godwin
I was just reading this cracked.com article, which had something that made me think of Conservapedia.

Remember how one of Andy's favorite phrases is about people and companies denying the relation between smoking and lung cancer? Well, you know who also wasn't blinded by this liberal deceit (according to cracked and wikipedia)? Hitler!

That's right, this time I envoked Godwin's law. What you gonna do about it, 🇰🇪? --GTac (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But...but...liberals censor school prayer! 14:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And the bible from their daily lives. 14:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Nazis used junk science to support their racial theories and to achieve power - our own leaders have done the same to seize power and crush our liberties. - Kind of unrelated, but that the #2 response to a WND question about global warming. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Our leaders don't really use junk science, they ignore real science when it doesn't work in their favor and base all their decisions on irrational fear and politics. Just sayin.  22:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a nasty feeling that politicians were abusing science for political ends long before Hitler was even born. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus invented comedy and Hitler invented abusing science for political ends. Get your facts straight, librul. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought of Andy
the last panel especiallyOpcn (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone listen to Kens Creationathisms summit? Did they mention conservapedia?
I tried to listen, but then after 15 minutes I had to go any kill myself --Opcn (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the link? I'll listen. 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Opcn (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the power of W3C, I declare that site as a sin against web design. <font weight="normal" color="red">Etc 21:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe they hired Ken for web design? --Kels (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear Chirst.... I didn't know Stevie Wonder was designing websites. 21:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Reminds me of Bud Uglly. I guess that dates me. Whatever. Those were the times. Mountain Blue 22:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that their 'Wicca Exposed' page has links to Chick Tracks as 'refs', I think we can safely classify this page... - Ravenhull (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heck, it's on jesus-is-savior.com. That alone should ring bells. If you haven't heard of that site, you don't read FSTDT frequently enough. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The homework assignment wigo
Maybe we should strike this one? I think the students should be kept out of wigos. They're the victims here. The fun is in the wingnuts, not the kids. Internetmoniker (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not maybe--definitely. I'm pretty sure picking on the students is not on. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How many students are there on CP anyway? I just find it absolutely bizzare that any parents would seriously consider enrolling there kid in a class that uses CP as an exam hall, and Andy as the examiner. *facepalm* --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 00:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a pity, that "thing that attics stop for" was pretty funny. Oh well, yeah, leave the kids alone.  But when Andy grades it there might be some good laughs.  00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * #Hey, Andy! Leave them kids alone.# CS Miller (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice... 01:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What does "thing that attics stop for" mean? This is baffling. --Fawlty (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a typo. It's supposed to read "addicts." 12:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I may be the only one holding this position here, but I'm not much for leaving those kids alone at all. They're part of CP and if they do something stupid, I'd laugh just as hard in their face. You may argue that some of them didn't choose to be there, but that's all the reason for me to ridicule them for following Andy's insane agenda. These aren't 5 yo's, in my eyes they're old enough to learn that writing down mindless crap will get you mocked.

But I'll go with the status quo if that's how you all feel. Just wanted to put my 2 cents in. --GTac (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I vote for "keep the kids out of WIGO's." I'm willing to make an exception for Andy giving an extremely lenient grade to a very flawed homework answer, but even then, the focus should be on Andy, not the kids. MDB (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If we go by mental age we couldn't report any of CP's funnies, there's barely one of them over the mental age of 14. 13:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Haitian Children WIGO
This WIGO about the Christian group having legal troubles in Haiti for taking kids without permission is unfairly phrased. CP doesn't seem to be defending the Christian groups at all, but the WIGO definitely implies they are. MDB (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. CPs write-up on this doesn't support the tagline we've used. -- 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a key rule for writing WIGO's is "the fact CP lists something as 'In the News' does not necessarily mean they are taking a stance on it."
 * And as far as the actual story goes, I'm willing to chalk it up to an honest, well-intentioned mistake. MDB (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's very confusing to read a CP news article that's ostensibly free of editorial bias. I need to lie down a while. -- 13:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

apple eating wigo
I though the question was pretty fucking stupid as it was not a closed system. Andy's response seemed quasi-reasonable. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I found it funny because one person talks about Jesus's miraculous healing, and Andy counters with very rudimentary equivalents. Is Jesus's healing equal to eating an apple or taking an aspirin now? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't tell what thermodynamics have to do with telehealing, since Andy's concept of it seems too vague to be contradicted by entropy. On the other hand, the response was a lot weirder than the question. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How so? He is saying that there are clearly methods of healing that don't contradict thermodynamics laws, so why should the miraculous method have to. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.112 / talk / contribs
 * I just meant that his examples were weird, not that he was wrong about anything in particular. The topic itself is what doesn't make sense. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He was trying to illustrate that the system isn't closed. In a rudimentary way, he did that. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shit has to stop. It's not applicable in nearly any of the systems for which it gets raised - they're rarely "closed" systems in the sense required. Andy's discussion reflects that he doesn't understand this. 18:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In real life it is typically beneficial to ask what the other laws of thermodynamics are when ever anyone brings up the 2nd law. If they don't know chances are that they don't understand the 2nd law. As for healing, I think that jesuses healing was probably very similar to apple eating or Aspirin popping. --Opcn (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming Andy's Electrical Engineering course of study was like mine, he had to take a Thermodynamics course, and would know the laws. (And if he was like me, he hated thermo for non-majors. At least at my school, the various Engineering departments assigned their worst instructors/professors to teach the non-majors courses.) MDB (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lancet Retraction
Any ideas what this news article will mean at CP? TheMayor (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just more assertions that liberals bullied maverick Best Of The Public researchers to discredit their work. The usual blah blah. --Sid (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, RFK Jr. Fell for the link so Vaccines do not cause autism, in this case CP's stupidity accidentally pushed them into having a reasonable opinion.--Opcn (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocks in 2009
Just a few numbers: 20:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a way you can factor out our block-wars (e.g., any block under 32 seconds does not count)? 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 315 seconds would probably be a better number. What defines an "active" editor? --Opcn (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Active may be a misnomer: lots of editors are blocked without leaving any trace, i.e., an edit in the database - those I called inactive. Active editors made a (surviving) comment in 2009. 20:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather show blocks lasting longer than a day. Just a guess, but I bet 95% of all blocks on RW are less than a day, while 99% of all CP blocks are more than a day. Unless those block wars against MC, TK, etc. lasted longer than I thought. [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]<font face="Comic Sans"><font color = "Green">Norseman  Cyser Melomel  20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point is made way better this way: We regularly block each other tons of times for shits and giggles, and we still only have less than a hundred more blocks than CP. --Sid (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Does the pic help? 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What does "blocked editors" mean? "Current blocks" still fits on one screen...  00:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As many editors were blocked several times at RW, the 5910 blocks involved only 609 individual editors. 07:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So 309 people received infinite blocks? or a handful of people received multiple infinite blocks? How do block issued to force login factor in? Also, do we have the data for all time? I would imagine that the traffic slowdown slowed down CP blocks until the Colbert bump. --Opcn (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * there were 309 infinite blocks: it's very probable that some were made for the same editor. I didn't check
 * these are only blocks of editors, not of IPs. So the blocks issued to force login don't factor in at all.
 * of course, as MC's HCM speeds up our blocks... 09:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 09:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look, and can't quite get the same figures as LArron (which is certainly my own failing), but quite a few of the infinite blocks are for MC, with the others spread around generally. Would need to do more work to see how many of those are still inplace, but I would guess that not that many.  For instance Ace got at least 9 infinite blocks, and I'm fairly sure he's still here ;) -- 10:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it's a glitch on my side: blocks for negative amounts of time ("yesterday", "-314s", etc.) were counted as infinite: The number of blocks made explicitly for an infinite or indefinite period is a meager 134 - according to my numbers...

Here is a list of those who were blocked at lest twice for infinity: 11:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * and the most common combinations (infinite blocks)? Ace blocking MC (9), Goonie blocking MC(7) and Ace blocking Ace (3) ;) -- 13:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice idea, I added a column to the table! 14:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for comparison: A list of those who were blocked at least three times in 2009 at CP (no, not only indefinitely) 14:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see a trend here: TK "doing Andy's bidness" of blocking prevaricators and troublemakers! 16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

14:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The blog that respects freedom of religion...
...doesn't seem to do so when they heard the news that the an Air Force Academy allow space for Wiccans to practice their religion. --Dark Paladin X (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course not - then it qualifies as "forcing your religion on someone else." 03:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone's free to wear sunscreen be Christian equally. --Kels 03:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "We must coexist with evil, such as Wiccan beliefs"... and so must they... 03:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * *Headdesk* It's funny to watch them blow minor things out of proportion, but other times... you just pity them. Not just them, but for all of humanity. [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]<font face="Comic Sans"><font color = "Green">Norseman  Cyser Melomel  04:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Conservapedians only support "freedom of religion" insofar as that means, "the State stays out of our wingnut churches," which in turn means, "the State does whatever the people in our wingnut churches say." 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * young fit women dancing naked every full moon, whats not to like. The demon summoning and hardcore demon sex might be off putting. Hamster (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You seems a little confused or joking, it is hard to tell. 05:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Paganism has to get a little more cultural clout before beautiful women will become pagans in volume, and seeing as how neo-pagans run screaming whenever someone mentions the word mainstream, this is a pipe dream. 05:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, one of the hottest girls at my high school was a Wiccan. And yes, we saw her naked all the time - the tool shed behind the theaters, the dugouts, etc...   she's a UU now, with three kids...   weird...    05:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pagan, Christian or atheist? (And another thing: why would the Conservapedians make such a big deal out of this if the Buddhists already have their place?) 05:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting away from the CP hysteria (almost want to create a pic of a 'chaplin' with a pentegram on his collar just to give them a heart attack, but they don't need the help), this is a positive thing to me. It was only a few years ago that there was a big todo at the AFAcadamy due to right wingers trying to shove Christianity down the throats of a couple non-Christians there, and the brass trying to blow it off. - Ravenhull (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that the one that Mikey Weinstein went so emphatically against? 06:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, that was when it hit the news. - Ravenhull (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I dabbled in Wicca for a while, until I realized I found it extraordinarily stupid. While I wasn't especially inclined to notice the women, I do remember that some were reasonably attractive, but I don't remember any as especially hot. (Word of explanation: Just because I am not attracted to women, it doesn't mean I can't appreciate that a woman is attractive.) MDB (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree Wicca is "extraordinarily stupid", and more than a tad intellectually dishonest, but it is a religion and so in s secular country like the US is meant to be, it's followers should have exactly the same rights as followers of other faiths. Coming back to the WIGO... I just love this nice bit of slippery slope argument... a true Jpatt classic... --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My description of Wicca as "extraordinarily stupid" was in no way meant to suggest that Wiccans don't deserve the same rights to practice their beliefs as do any followers of any other religion, and I'm sorry if my statement implied otherwise. MDB (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wicca is a religion, ergo it is "extraordinarily stupid" by definition. But as has been said, if your going to 'respect' certain religions, you've got to respect them all.  Here in the UK, a 'Pagan Police Association' has recently started - good for them!  If the extraordinarily stupid Muslim Police Association exists, why shouldn't they have a piece of the action too?  I'm still hoping a Pastafarian Police Association will pop up soon...  16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bunk; religions must stand or fall on their own merits, and Wicca has less going against it than creationism. 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's you being incredibly stupid in a nutshell. "Religion stands on it's own merits! Wicca has nothing going against it!" Complete non-sequitur. You're an idiot, psuedoscientific, a paranoiac and a crank. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note the complete lack of arguments in your mini-rant there. Note also your stuffing words in my mouth. 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means, go ahead and list the merits of Wicca/Odinism/whatever. Note your disassociation from the burden of proof you just heralded. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I said that Wicca has less against it than creationism, by which I meant that the ideas of Wicca have not been blatantly falsified by 150+ years of geologic and biological science. There are arguments against Wicca, but they are primarily philosophical in nature, such as, "Wicca rips off every pagan tradition that doesn't run away fast enough," or, "We have laws of physics. Therefore, certain phenomena cannot be attributed to magic." 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that you did not list any of the merits of Wicca. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said there were any. 16:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You simply said it stood on them. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also said it could fall on them, or the lack of them... 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you are both feeling the same way essentially. How about "Wicca has no merit whatsoever as an explanation of the world, but still, it is less batshit insane than creationism". There, you can be friends again now. — Pietrow   ☏  23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

More inexplicable from Karibou
Latest Toon is not just weak, but really tremendously unfunny. "Shadow acquisition unit"? My, that's a baroque way of putting it. And he misses the big news: "Pawx T. Phil" predicted six more weaks of winter! Surely this must mean the game is up for the climate change denialist claque! MaxAlex Swimming pool 15:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You may have missed this story, which might make the latest toon make more sense. PETA has attempted yet another publicity stunt, suggesting that Punxsatwawney Phil be replaced with an animatronic groundhog. MDB (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps his least funny one yet (though it's sort of hard to say, it is anti-funny, like most of his others). Really, Karajou, could you set your sites any lower? Making fun of PETA is like shooting fish in a barrel. DickTurpis (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean sea kittens. -- Nx  / talk 15:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not an inexplicable joke, but a childish one. This is the sort of thing you'd see in a junior high newspaper, not something that makes the grand claims of trusworthiness that CP does. --Kels (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I kinda like the 50s style robot, although I am bugged by the fact it has wheels on the end of his legs. That just wouldn't work. Either go with a bipedal robot that can walk like a human, or one on 4 wheels that can move like a car. This one couldn't go up a hill without keeling over. As for the joke Karajou got stuck at "draw a funny robot". This one didn't need a speech bubble, it adds nothing. This is a problem with more of his cartoons, he thinks all cartoons should have a speech bubble so he draws one. Then he has the problem of filling those bubbles without the ability of putting something pertinent in there. So we end up with a robot-groundhog asking a real groundhog for a ? turnip ?? Internetmoniker (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At least the groundhog is cute. Vulpius (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the turnip is a reference to PETA opposing eating meat (but aren't groundhogs herbivores, anyway?) And the robot reminds me a bit of this famous robot. MDB (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "I am bugged by the fact it has wheels on the end of his legs. That just wouldn't work. Either go with a bipedal robot that can walk like a human, or one on 4 wheels that can move like a car. This one couldn't go up a hill without keeling over." The way-too-deep analysis cracked me up. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Deny the Segway and lose all credibility. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tachikomas make a mockery of your primitive notions of robot design. Barikada (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Tachikoma wheels are retractable (IIRC), so they can walk on their proper feet if that is better suited for the terrain (and the speed requirements). --Sid (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just me, but this is the first one I thought was funny. Maybe it's because his signature looks a bit like my old one (because of the grass growing on it)?  00:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that they just locked the wheels, but I could be mistaken. Barikada (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If they do replace Paux with a Faux Paux, then some ingenious kid somewhere will hack the thing. I'm just waiting for the gopher to poke out, look around, and say "You shall be assimilated. Resistance is Futile." to the assembled, now frightened masses. -- CodyH (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This toon is so last week Internetmoniker (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Possible that they just locked them. It's been a good while since I watched the series. --Sid (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Those liberal atheists and their assumptions...
Andy's slow motion bullying of BMcP continues: "BMcP, on this site when someone states something as true, he should be able to explain why he thinks it is true. It's not enough to say the equivalent of "my assumptions are the same as that of liberals and atheists and I don't even know what those assumptions are." If you have no idea what the basis for a claim is (other than the equivalent of "liberals say so"), then please find out first, reconsider it with an open mind, and only then consider posting it."

The very possibility that a star can be 8000 years old is apparently a very radical (and liberal and atheistic) statement. His standard for proof is very interesting though, considering almost everything Conservapedia deems to be true is the equivalent of "World Nut Daily says so." Junggai (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The amazing thing is bmcp never claimed it was 8000 years old, he claimed it was light years away. Does Andy believe the Andromeda galaxy is 4004 light years away at most?  22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, but you see, something 8000 light-years away would indeed mean that it is 8000 years old, because a true YEC believer doesn't believe in the Starlight Problem. Therefore, only a librul astronomer would discount the possibility that time-dilation designed™ by God makes all celestial objects in the mirror closer than they appear. BMcP is fucked. (BTW, your sig makes me hungry. Time to pull the Gruyere out of the fridge...) Junggai (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Pork pie & Stilton for supper: AFK 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(UI)Or BMcP can admit that the theory of relativity is within the assumptions and get over it, and since the theory of relativity is no longer correct, things can be assumed to travel at infinite speed (at least at some point in time), and as such the term "lightyear" is no longer meaningful. Q.E.D.  01:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong! Relativity has nothing to do with that, just the term light years does.  He's converting from parsecs, which are units of distance which don't depend on relativity but simple geometry. If you accept that the distance from the Earth to the Sun is 150,000,000 km, the distances of the closer stars  (ie, this side of our spiral arm) follows from simple geometry, and nothing else.   02:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Geo-metry is only useful for measuring the Earth. For anything else it iz librul deseets.  02:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the "assumption" Andy wants admitted here is the idea that lightspeed is historically constant. BMcP risks losing credibility if he continues denying that Jesus can make light travel at whatever speed He wants (in addition to changing the rates of erosion, radioactive decay, genetic mutation, continental drift, etc etc etc). <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 06:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it's been brought up before, but I really can't get my head around Andy's way of thinking with regards to miracles, or displays of divine power. His definition seems to be "something we can't do, but still within the confines of nature, i.e. they conform to natural rules", which is why he's so obsessed with enforcing this idea of historical consistency of the speed of light etc (with Jesus and the bible being the baseline). Why can't he accept the idea that god and/or Jesus, being *freakin' deities*, can change the laws of reality as they see fit? Why does he try to pick and choose what parts of science he accepts in order to make sure god and Jesus aren't breaking the laws of "reality" (his reality, that is), rather than saying "god can do what he wants because he's god" like pretty much anyone else does? X Stickman (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not just Andy, it is the entire field of creation "science" that does this type of cherry picking. Whenever they can "prove" something they use "science" (like the laws of thermodynamics for instance), whenever they can't they go for special pleading. Internetmoniker (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine Cheeses & Wine has it right above... There is no assumption about relativity, or the speed of light, in finding the distance to the Crab. The angular velocity is measured geometrically, and the radial velocity is based on the red shift (this assumes that a shift in a spectral line is caused by radial motion, and I've never heard anyone dispute that).  Everything else is geometry, and the distance is in pure distance units (meters, miles, what have you... light year is also a pure distance unit, with no time involved, but its name confuses people).  The only way that the speed of light comes into this is in working out the *age* of the nebula.  It's possible that BCmP hasn't realised that when he talks about distance, Ashlafly thinks age.  Why isn't Ashlafly concerned about large distances to other objects?  Simply because we know the exact year the Crab nebula was formed, and combining this with distance - and the assumption of a fixed speed of light - that gives almost exactly the year the Crab was formed (sorry, couldn't bring myself to say "created") --Fawlty (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a small wonder he hasn't brought up the naming convention yet. Why is it taking him so long? — Pietrow   ☏  23:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @Fawlty: If things (particularly light) can travel at infinite speed then the minimum age of any celestial objects can no longer be determined by distance from it (or any practical method since we can't yet take samples of anything there).  therefore the linkage is decorrelated if speed of light is assume to be finite.   23:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been a short week...
We already got a new toon again. And Kara already returns to one of his classic themes: "It snows, thus global warming doesn't exist." --Sid (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, did Kara actually just have a setup followed by a punchline? "Cold winter day == no global warming" aside, did Kara actually just do humor? HumanisticJones (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Humor? No, no. Not at all. DickTurpis (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Worse, look at some of the lines - I think his felt-tip pen is running out. Is there a fund somewhere so that we can contribute to a new Sharpie for him? MaxAlex Swimming pool 13:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with HumanisticJones -- if you accept their basic assumption that the harsh winter disproves global warming, the idea of Al Gore getting bent out of shape by some kids wanting to shovel his driveway isn't a bad joke. Not really hilarious, but its kinda funny at least. Its the underlying premise that's flawed, not the joke itself. MDB (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is an actual joke in there. Global warmists get amusingly angry when confronted with the new reality : snow. He did use it before though. Internetmoniker (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's effin' blizzarding here now. Just back from shop (cat food & Mars bars) & I was head to foot white. 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm, cat food and Mars bars! Yummy combination!  When will they appear on your zig zag zug?  21:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe his cartoons would improve tremendously if his pen completely ran out. Vulpius (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're exaggerating... I found the White House not too bad. You could certainly laugh with it if it weren't for the complete misunderstanding of weather/climate. — Pietrow   ☏  23:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

CP is now pro-gambling
It seems to me that CP has never been a fan of gambling.

Until now.

Since Obama has suggested not "blow(ing) a bunch of cash in Vegas", they're all for gambling. MDB (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * CP will support anything as long as it's against Obama. If Obama said "Smoking is bad!", Andy and TK would be crowing about how Evilbama tries to destroy the poor, poor American tobacco industry. --Sid (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Obama could endorse Spring flowers, fuzzy kittens and cute puppies, and CP would be demanding he apologize to allergy sufferers. MDB (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Page
I noticed a WIGO about the number of Obama pictures on the main page, but did anyone notice the situation on 27 Jan before JPratt archived MPR? It had seven. 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * They sure are classy. Here is another one for you TK. Internetmoniker (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Stealing this for Fun:Conservafake!-- 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, just this afternoon I was wondering whether I should start making posters of Andy with the text "Child Molester", just to show them how childish they're being. But then I realized that would be a more truthful poster than theirs, since Andy does molest children on an intellectual level. --GTac (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think just one that says "Gerbiller" would work well. There are rumors this one is true. DickTurpis (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to ElReg, the original image was used with attribution. CS Miller (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I meant without attribution. CS Miller (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about Conservapedia's problems with Einstein's Theory of Relativity
Hey, I just found this site. I don’t if this is the right place to ask this. The people of Wikipedia told me I should ask my question here. Anyway, I’m familiar with objections creationists & conservatives make against global warming, evolution, the big bang, & the scientific established age of the earth, but I never knew these people had objections against Relativity too, so this is pretty new for me & also, I’m not familiar enough with the theory itself. Discovering Conservapedia was the first time I’ve seen & got exposed to objections against the Theory of Relativity. Are there any responses against Conservapedia's criticisms of Relativity? Are any of their claims against Relativity valid? Here is the the link. Thanks for your help.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 71.98.169.172 / talk / contribs
 * Andy's brother Roger (Rschlafly on CP) has even told Andy his arguments are bullshit. It's not CP's criticisms of relativity, but Andy being the ignoramus on matters outside his scope, like normal. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy has a scope? Jaxe (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Take your time to read:
 * cp:Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 1
 * cp:Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 2
 * cp:Talk:Theory of relativity
 * There you'll find loads of knowledgeable people running in vain against a wall of ignorance... 22:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EDIT CONFLICTS!):The objections to relativity are all from one editor, namely the site owner Aschlafly. He believes strongly that relativity leads to moral relativism; primarily because they both start with the root word relative. He has not provided proof that the two are related. His entire argument stems from the Genetic Fallacy, He thinks that since the one is related to the other (in reality this is false) that since relativism is wrong (which he has not shown) that relativity must be false (again, this is a fallacy). Every other editor on the article wanted to see it changed, including many conservapedia Sysops and his own daughter and Brother Roger, both of whom know more about physics than he does. Andy considers himself an expert in all things, he is not. --Opcn (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What I don't understand is if Andy dislikes relativity so much, is why the cp:quantum mechanics page seems (to my limited understanding of subject) fairly accurate, when quantum mechanics has even more weirdnesses that relativity. I found (but forgot to bookmark) a page on WP that states that relativity precludes an omni-potent deity from being able to predict the future state of system; perhaps that is why Andy doesn't like relativity. However, quantum mechanics also states that it is impossible to predict exactly what will happen in the future; it can only predict the chances of each possible outcome. The classic example of this is the wp:double-slit experiment, which has been repeated with macro-molecules like buckyballs. (Does the ball have the wave-nature?) CSMiller 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weirdness has nothing to do with it, it is all the association in Andy's head. he is convinced, that's all. --Opcn (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He's done an Andy: made a pronouncement totally off the top of his head and now has to stand by it no matter what. He does it all the time. 23:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy like Quantum mechanics because it allows for action at a distance. As explained in the Bible. Acei9 00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. By the way, I really liked the debate between Johanan Raatz & Andrew Schlafly on the Archive 3 of Conservapedia’s Theory of Relativity talk page. That made it one of the best wiki talk pages I’ve ever read. One thing I noticed while I was reading that debate was that Andrew Schlafly doesn’t seem to realize is that most “creation scientists” actually support & embrace the Theory of Relativity (I went to the Answers in Genesis website & looked up the Theory of Relativity) although I don’t think they don’t understand it well in my opinion. I didn't understand their explanations about something called Dr. Humphreys’s White Hole Cosmology & John Hartnett’s Cosmological Relativity. They sound very wacko to me. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 71.98.169.172 / talk / contribs
 * unsigned said the magic word of the day, here's your Gerbil... Dont let Andy see it
 * @BON: Andy will nitpick on you via "although I don’t think they don’t understand it well in my opinion"... beware if you still edit CP.   01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

CP's denial of relativity is certainly a wonder to behold. As far as I know, Andy is the only relativity denialist, unlike other topics, such as the axiom of choice and complex numbers, in which various other sycophants have joined in the fun. Andy denies relativity at many levels. The confusion with "moral relativism" only scratches the surface of his craziness. While the connection with moral relativism is something that conservatives could rightly be alarmed about, Andy goes far beyond that. Even in discussions in which it is completely clear that the topic is just the technical correctness, he is batshit insane. He has some other non-technical problems as well:
 * The confusion with moral relativism is well documented.
 * He claims that the study of relativity can lead people away from reading the Bible. In one discussion he asked (KSorenson, I think it was) whether she would still support relativity if she knew that its study led people to read the Bible less.  He has argued with people, during discussions of the technical correctness of relativity, how much time they spend reading the Bible.  (I'm only saying this because you're a newcomer.  Those of us that have been around for a while know all about this kind of behavior.)  And, of course, he claims a negative correlation between Bible reading and studying relativity in college, these statistics being researched with his usual thoroughness.
 * On one occasion, I don't have the reference off the top of my head, he claimed that (left-wing, of course) professors teach relativity for the purpose of leading people away from the Bible. Maybe it's just me, but it seems an awful lot of effort for such a dubious payback.  All the books, courses, lectures, seminars, conferences, space probes, and particle accelerators, just to get people to stop reading the Bible?  The connection isn't well established, nor the motive.  And there might be more cost-effective ways, like firebombing some churches maybe?  (The preceding was a joke!)
 * He is in utter denial about the technical aspects. He denies that relativity explains the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and got in a big fight with KSorenson.  He refused to understand the numbers right before his eyes.  KSorenson left shortly after this, along with MarkGall and PatrickD.  KSorenson's departure was a great loss for CP; She, along with PatrickD, was writing up a wonderful article on general relativity.  (PatrickD seems to be taking this material over to Wikiversity.)
 * He insists that "nothing useful has ever come out of relativity", unlike quantum mechanics. When called out on the comparison, he moves the goalposts relentlessly.  He claims all of electronics and computers as trophies for QM, presumably because QM explains the behavior of the electrons and atoms that make up transistors and such, but won't accept the role of relativity in explaining the magnetic fields that make disk drive motors work.
 * He insists that relativity has nothing to do with the correct operation of the GPS satellite system, and gets into nit-picking arguments over whether the technicians uploading correction data for the relativistic gravitational time-shifting understand relativity. If they don't personally understand general relativity, then relativity has nothing to do with GPS.
 * He cites with great pride the few crackpot scientists that have denied relativity, including one who was involved in some Michelson-era measurements of the speed of light.
 * He cites a magazine article about an experiment comparing the comparative accuracy of relativity and the alternative Brans-Dicke theory of gravity, failing to note that the article explained that the experiment showed that Einstein was right and Brans & Dicke were wrong.
 * He carries on and on about the politicization of the scientific community, at the same time complaining about the leftward tilt of the Nobel prize committee and crowing over the fact that only one Nobel prize was ever awarded directly for relativity (Hulse/Taylor, 1993.) And he denigrates their research, pointing out that they are no longer conducting their experiment.  (Galileo is no longer dropping cannonballs off the Leaning Tower of Pisa.  Does that mean classical physics is wrong?)
 * He claims that it was pure (left-wing, of course) politics that caused Brans and Dicke not to get the Nobel prize, and caused their theory not to prevail.
 * He quotes Isaac Newton's statement "I feign no hypotheses" in support of Newtonian gravity rather than Einsteinian, without having any understanding of what Newton meant.
 * He confuses the (local) curvature of spacetime near gravitating bodies with the (very nearly) flat geometry of the universe as a whole.
 * He has this funny notion that the Bible "proves" that relativity is wrong because of the account of the Centurion's slave (some say it was his gay lover, but I digress) in John 4:46-54. Apparently Jesus performed a faith-healing of someone who was not immediately present, and the biblical account requires that the healing effect took place instantly.  There is no explanation of how the healing effect could be measured to microsecond accuracy, but I admit that I am not a biblical scholar.
 * He has also gotten into some utterly bizarre arguments with people about objects having different relativistic mass for accelerations in the direction of their motion vs. accelerations transverse to it. No amount of just explaining how the equations work were able to help him.

Andy's brother Roger has not drunk the anti-relativity Kool-Aid, and occasionally spars with Andy on the technical aspects of this. However, Roger takes a back seat to no one in denying Albert Einstein's role in it. He repeatedly edits the various articles to give major credit to everyone except Einstein. In one case he cites a paper by David Hilbert (I think) that predates Einstein's major announcement of general relativity, concealing the fact that the paper was co-authored by Einstein. Of course many people contributed to relativity, but Einstein's role was central, and all sensible people know that.

An explanation for the Schlafly brothers' disdain for relativity and Einstein is hard to come by. His liberal, socialist, internationalist leanings are of course major factors. His religion may also have played a role.

See also Conservapedia:Conservapedian relativity and Conservapedia:Einstein and Relativity, Censorship of.

Gauss (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Einstein (liberal) > Theory of Relativity >>>>> Moral Relativism >>>> Evil Liberal Things

is simple really, + Andy the engineer seems to hate Maths Hamster (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Opcn (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) ) Deny Einstein
 * 2) ) Profit
 * 1) ) Profit
 * Oh man, I forgot about the argument that "Jesus healed someone instantly over a distance, hence relativity is wrong"! So many things wrong with that one, like HOW WOULD THOSE BOTP OBSERVERS WHO WROTE IT DOWN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT THE EXACT SAME TIME AT TOTALLY DIFFERENT PLACES? --GTac (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, couldn't Jesus have violated relativity? I mean, he is, y'know, God and all, and it was a miracle. This is just one more example of the fundamentalist trend to limit God with their hatred of science, just like they limit God by insisting that He could only create life that doesn't change. MDB (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy's position on the Theory of Relativity (the theory of relativity is wrong and Einstein didn't invent it) is even more obscure than the view of the Deutsche Physik in the 1930s (the theory of relativity is wrong because Einstein invented it) or the 1940s (the theory of relativity is right but don't mention Einstein). The latter one is somewhat Roger's opinion - he doesn't like Einstein at all. 13:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)