Conservapedia talk:Best New Conservative Words/Archive1

Texas sharpshooter fallacy
He does exhibit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy to the nth degree. 14:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - and thanks for the correction(s) in the essay: I always enjoy improvements of grammar/Orthography and style! 14:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "a bubble of maximal twelve light-years in diameter" 12,000 LY surely? 15:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct! Thanks, 15:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

KJV
Another (unimportant) point is that he doesn't actually allow the entire 1600s: only things after the KJV (1612). and he rejected a couple things because of this. So the fact that there are none from the 1600s (pre-1610) is a consequence of another rule he made up (maybe note this in the table?). Of course this is never considered when looking for exponential growth, though it wouldn't make too big a difference... --MarkGall (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For once, I don't think that A. Schlafly is to unreasonable here: the KJV marks the beginning of modern English. 13:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the way I read it. Modern English starts after the Great Vowel Shift in the mid-1500s. The KJV just happens to be written in that style and doesn't mark the start. Even if it did the KJV was started in 1604 and wouldn't have been expected to been created without some sort of popular base so there is no reason why the 1600s can't be extended to the full century. Of course as LArron has pointed out elsewhere, the whole concept of selection by century is barmy in the first place. 14:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiny point
Under "Best New Conservative Words" you mention "292 words (July 2010)", but under "Some Maths" you refer to "280 words (July 2010)". Maybe it's because I'm only on my 2nd cuppa, but I'm assuming the second number needs changing? -- PsyGremlin  08:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 280 words (July 2010) for which he gave at least the decade of their origin, and which were created between 1600 and 1999. 08:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (But I've got an unfair advantage: it already 11 o'clock, and I'm drinking my third Latte Macchiato...)
 * Lol, we need to put out an advisory. "Surgeon General's warning, lack of caffeine may result in skimming." Sorry about that. Now on 3rd cuppa and the world looks so much brighter! -- PsyGremlin  09:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Make note
I think its important that this article make note of the fact the Andy started counting from a totally arbitary point and that he stops looking as soon as his "geometric fit" is reached. AceX-102 10:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean, it doesnt make any fucking sense. AceX-102 10:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As soon as geometric fit is reached does that mean no other word in that centary can be added? What the fuck. AceX-102 10:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Handwaving
From reading the talk archive I love Andy "explaining away" why radar is conservative and radio, sonar and laser aren't. Maybe it's worth highlighting this sort of logic? Um... so if radar was first, how come it's Radio Detection and Ranging (or something like that)? -- PsyGremlin  10:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User: As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".
 * Andy: I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.
 * User: But "radar" does?
 * Andy: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.
 * Ronnie to the rescue: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the Reagan's concept of SDI and the Second Amendment, which liberals loathed. 10:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Yes, it's analogous to looking out of one's window and seeing a burglar coming. The very epitome of the second amendment. ONE / TALK 10:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ooh, nice analogy. Me go use in article. -- PsyGremlin  10:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Statistical Model
Has anybody bothered to point out to Andy that another model can be used which would also result in apparent geometric growth (although this model involves decay)?

If you assume that the same number of conservative/whatever words is generated every century, but that half of them go out of use by the following century, then half again by the next century, and so forth (which are reasonable assumptions for neologisms), then we would see exactly the same geometric growth when looking backwards, although the real culprit would have been the loss of conservative insight... ScientificRigor (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A fun corollary to this model is that if we created a dictionary of rational terms that have remained in use (no growth - constant usage, or even linear decay as opposed to geometric), then we would be refuting his geometric "growth" while invoking the (relative) permanence of rationality. ScientificRigor (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Very interesting observations (insights :-)
 * Indeed, a constant rate of creating conservative words with a half-time of 100 years would lead to the pattern which Andy claims to have observed...
 * After a while, the number of conservative words would be constant...
 * I like it! 10:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Did Andy miss one?
I don't see "Holy Grail" in his list. It should be there, even without the Biblical connotation, as meaning "any desired ambition or goal". Then again, given that it was coined in the 1200s, Andy might not want to have to find another 256 new words for the 2000s. -- PsyGremlin  19:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking things to their logical conclusion, there must have been a time when there was less than one conservative word. No? 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * I dunno, Andy would probably translate "Ug!" as "defensive weapon of club." -- PsyGremlin  20:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The Bible says that in the beginning there was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. It is likely that this word was a conservative word. Since there were no previous centuries, and conservative insight has increased geometrically ever since, there would at no point in time have been less than one conservative word. However, if Conservapedia's Law is true, we should expect to see about a million trillion conservative words coined in this century alone. I can only assume they exist but have not yet been discovered. ONE / TALK 11:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Email - exchange with Andy Schlafly
Conservapedia: Your challange for Best New Conservative Words - Can any liberals disprove the pattern?

I got a nice answer by Andy (of course, I won't publish it without his permission). He isn't impressed by my reasoning and said that I could raise objections on the talk page at Conservapedia. Which I can't. So I wrote:

05:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Draft for a 3rd letter


I'm grateful for some input! 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I fear that your analysis will be lost on that man's simple mind. Instead of bending over backwards to explain away your criticism, he'll simply dismiss it, which won't generate nearly enough lulz. I have a better idea, but you probably won't be too fond on it: focus on just one particular flaw, such as the fact that there were more conservative words in the first half of the 17th century than the second. Ask him how this can be if conservative words increase over time. It's simple enough for him to get his head around, so he'll probably deliver a wonderful backpedal in response. ONE / TALK 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It wont work, he knows that he is choosing words to fit the layers. His excuse is that he saw the exponential rise and simply made if into a perfect exponential rise. He is perfecting the data not manufacturing it. I think a better way might be to craft a neutral language way to explain what he was doing and then have him send it out to scholars that he knows/trusts and ask them what they think of it. --Opcn (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are both right. But... Thanks to both of you! 11:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * this time, it's not about the lulz. It's just about statistics and biased selections :-)
 * there are no scholars that he knows and trusts: even his own brother isn't to be trusted, as he is only an expert, and not the best of the public. I kept the math to the absolute minimum to allow any reader to share the conclusions.

funny parodist tactic
wouldn't it be funny to find a handful conservative words for the 1700's. Say 5-10 words. If andy is stupid enough to accept them that'd mean he'd have to find 10+20+40 terms to fix his patterns.81.242.60.217 (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but it'll never happen. According to TALK:WIGOCP, Andy ignores earlier centuries because there wasn't a KJV bible going on at the time. IF we can get this sourced we should add it to the article. ONE / TALK 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, 1700s are fair game, as he says in the intro, "The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible had just been published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written virtually all of his plays." So none of that poncy Chaucer or Beowulf for us thank you. I'd love to get Johnson's definition of patron in there: "a wretch who supports with insolence, and is paid with flattery".-- PsyGremlin  16:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

One-sided e-mail exchange
After TK banned cp:User:RonLar - and the IPs he used (together with &asymp; 200,000 others) - I wrote to Andrew Schlafly, again:

As in my previous emails, I used my full name, and gave my (previous) username at Conservapedia and RationalWiki.

As Emperor Gregor said: Let's see what happens...

14:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good effort, as always, and if nothing else, you show Andy to be intellectually dishonest. Now, I have these windmills for you to tilt at... -- PsyGremlin  14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone Notice
Half of these arn't even words they are phrases, idioms, etc. Shit like "Blue Dog Democrat" Is three words, while RADAR is an acronym. Doubting Thomas is more of a metaphore, and Eagle Scout is two wrods to describe somthing. --BenB (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)