Conservapedia talk:Liberal Intellectualism

My favorite part right now is still Andy counting... One, Two, Many! And, yes, he was responsible for adding a third bullet point under "There are two primary motivations...".

This whole "essay" makes a mockery of thought, let alone "intellectualism". The author's, of course. human be in 21:52, 5 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Organized his points in my sandbox, feel free to add any criticism. -- H [[Image:Vista-epiphany.png|9px]] ji machong  22:26, 5 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Funny Hoji, I just misread your note as "I organized his pants in my sandbox".  Oh how I laughed until I stopped.   DogP  20:47, 6 September 2007 (CDT)


 * I just pasted in the "just before being burnt down" counter essay by Bayes at CP, below Assfly's, using the same table formatting as ashfly's. It's not the be-all and end-all response, and of course, like most of these bilge pumpings of Andy's, the "original" will keep changing and being added to, as trolls, vandals, and IceWedge gang members teach him more about the tawdriness of liberalism.  Still, I welcome a side by side when it's ready - but can we keep these two "temporal" examples intact for their concise beauty?  Perhaps as a subfile, or version two (or one), or something?  Thanks, I look forward to the results of the SbS, and Goatspeed!!! human be in 20:42, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Never mind, see: Essay:Liberal Intellectualism Parody and have at it here, where the group effort should be. human be in 21:11, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

The way that Andy kept on misquoting Shakespeare was brilliant. I loved how he reused the same (wrong) quote twice in such a short period of time. He really must think he's clever.--Offeep 20:46, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

minor issue
Right now, the "reponse" is not RW - it is bayes on CP. Please do not deface it. SockofGulik added: Which we don't want to lose, but should be played with over at Hoji's sandbox, I suspect. Thanks, and please don't be offended by my desire to keep these two chunks exactly as they were on CP. human be in 21:01, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Pretending that Science supports their assertion that a 2000+ year-old compilation of fairy tales is intended by God to be used as a biology, physics, and history textbook.
 * Oops! Sorry.... --SockOfGulik 21:01, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
 * No problem at all, you did what looked like was expected! I think (please chime in here) that I'll copy what's here now to Essay:Liberal Intellectualism Parody to preserve it.  Leaving this article to be what it should be, the point-by-point teardown of assfly's regurgitations.  Sound good? &mdash; Unsigned, by: moron / talk / contribs &mdash; Unsigned, by: human / talk / contribs
 * I done did it. Knock yourselves out here! human be in 21:09, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Unfortunately it's not true, but...
After that experience, it's really tempting to think that Andy is pulling off a master satire with CP. He knew I had a physics background from the relativity fallout, unless he just forgot about that (possible I suppose). He HAD to know that I would call him on pulling the ridiculous Oppenheimer stuff, and he did it anyway.--Bayesupdate 21:21, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry, that's like thinking Bushco could have pulled off 9/11: too much evidence they couldn't organize anythign bigger than a kegger without screwing up to believe it. Unless Andy is a mastercubed satirist, and even is an expert at continually looking consistently clueless...  Hell, Andy welcomed my "nadhob" sock over there without realizing it was the backwards of one of his sysops! PS, As you note above, I enshrined your short-lived reponse to E:LI for posterity. human be in 21:43, 6 September 2007 (CDT)