Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive211

WTF, Andy, you piece of shit?
You're reveling in the fact that your buddies from the Westboro Baptist Church are going to disrupt Elizabeth Edwards and that you can't watch your precious basketball game, you dumbfuck. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Does he even watch sports? Or is he just sort of playing along by injecting his own snazzy brand of hate into what he thinks the response from real men would be? Either way, he's a terrible person. 19:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah, thats pretty fucking low... Aceword up 19:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He just writes "And protesters will reportedly be there too", not indicating the protesters are the batshit Westboro Baptist Church. BTW, CP lists Fred Phelps under the categories of Liberal and Liberalism . --Night Jaguar (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Compartmentalization is a wonderful thing. 04:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Years ago I tried talking some sense into them about that, using their own words against them. Of course, talking to Rob is like talking to a retarded simian, so of course it got nowhere (man, that guy is monumentally stupid). Hey, Rob, since you're here, and you can't ban me from this site, want to try to defend you idiocy one more time? DickTurpis (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What will be Andy's reaction be when mommy Phyl joins the choir invisible & someone makes a less than flattering comment? Extreme outrage? Him (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Large-Cap
I see that CP is excited that the New York Times is NO LONGER a large-cap company. Using the standard definition of large cap (>$10bil market cap.), NYT has NEVER been a large-cap company. The last time they were even close was before the Dot-Com crash. Anyways. Probably not a big deal, more of a technicality, really, but I like to point out when CP makes a definitive, knowledgable soundin statement that reveals them to be stupid. Carlaugust (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like the article they cited said what they claimed. Got better? Blancmange (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're half-wrong (Carlaugust) and CP's half-wrong, and for pretty much the same reason :). NYT did not cross some large cap threshold.  The S&P 500 committee merely swapped Netflix for NYT is their index.  For those who may not know how these stock market indicies are calculated, a committee usually picks a few hundred companies and then tracks the value of these stocks as if they were a portfolio, with rebalancing methodology varying between the different indicies (S&P 500 is market weighted while Dow is price weighted).  Secondly, I think that the large cap threshold is actually significantly lower for the S&P 500, but I don't think it's set in stone either.  ConservapediaEditor (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Old Media
I don't get it: why is CP so excited that newspapers are going broke? The idea is that it's lessening the chance for libburral-biased media to publish, but that argument doesn't make sense. It's cheaper to publish on the internet, and TV networks aren't dying at anywhere near the pace. – Nick Heer 08:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is simply "CP is the future". The slightly longer version... hm... Newspapers, a.k.a. print media are slow and elitist. Not even to mention that they are all run by liberals who used their power to censor powerful conservative truths. (That's also why Andy was so excited about some bookstore closing: Books tend to be liberal elitist crap.) So, cue the Internet and the Best Of The Public. The evil liberals can't censor the poor conservatives anymore, so sites that expose The Truth (like WND, AiG, and of course CP) will flourish. Assuming no government regulation (NOBAMA! NOBAMA! NOBAMA!), it's only a matter of time before powerful free market mechanisms will drive outdated print media like the NYT out of business as We The People realize just how badly they've been censoring The Truth and thus turn to more reliable sites that do a better job - such as CP. --Sid (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Unicorns and dragons
That looks like the work of a parodist to me.--74.193.55.195 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Covered above --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's alive!
Well, it's nice to see that Andy is trying to resurrect his "fall 2010" Government course just in time for the holiday season. But instead of finally finishing his stubbish third "lecture", he just draws up a list of key terms and announces the final exam (good luck, parodists!). Oh, and of course he couldn't resist the chance to once again expose his total ignorance about the outside world. Röstigraben (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Something thells me the class has been going on in some sort of "in person" format, and Andy is using CP for the final exam somehow--why I think this, I'm not sure, but the fact that he created this account with the name "Class", and then Class immediately began working on the same list tells me this has more to do with his homeschooling business than CP as such....DarkStar (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know the back story on this. Presumably, his "largest class" bullshit has at least some basis in reality, he's not just sitting in his basement rocking back and forth and occasionally chuckling "Now class, I'll tell you about how evil the democrats are. Ha. Ha. Ha."


 * Incidentally, did Andy ever go to lectures at university. Ever? Surely he saw the hundred odd students they pack in to first year undergrad lectures, so he must realise how stupid his "largest class for teenagers" stuff makes him look? -- 14:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that this course actually existed in RL. And the "Class" account is fishy, too - why would he start a collective account for all of those teens? And look at the edit history for the "key terms" page: Andy created the page and makes some edits, then creates the "Class" account, which goes active only two minutes later with the first edit to the same page. Two more edits, and it's back to Andy adding stuff. To me, that looks a lot like Andy trying to keep up apperances about this course. Röstigraben (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The courses exist in real life. DarkStar (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He certainly used to organize homeschooling classes, but that doesn't have to mean this one's real as well. CP hasn't seen any of his pupils in a long time, and he last two courses were delayed and apparently abandoned after his pompous announcements. Röstigraben (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) There used to be quite a few homeschoolers on CP, but they either got bored, went to college, or in the infamous case of TimS got chased off by Andy and TK. The current state of the homeschooling course of CP is a pity, as the marking of the online homework used to be a source of weekly amusement. I can't help but wonder if our scorn had something to do with its being taken down. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 14:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Did I see one of his pupils wearing an Ernesto Guevara t-shirt? Those blasted lieberals get everywhere. CS Miller (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's a Che with a line through T-shirt. Regardless of whether or not Andypants has the world's biggest class of students, the fact that less than a handful of them actually spend any time on the encyclopaedia he made for them is a bit of a damning indictment. Certainly, there's a fair brood in that video clip - which brings me to another question. Judging by that video, the kids are different ages. How can Andy teach one course to all ages and expect consistency in understanding and ability to answer questions (ok, given the homework answers = zero). Also, Andy touts these as college courses, so what's the point in teaching 14-year-olds, besides skimming $250 off the parents?
 * Also, isn't that classroom the gloomiest looking place you've seen. It's like being down in TerryH's bunker. At least my nasty liberal school gave us sunlight. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More likely, IMHO, that (due to having to convince the parents to give him money) he does teach different ages groups separately, and that he simply pulled them altogether into one group for the cameras to make his operation look bigger than it really is. A lot of the kids there certainly aren't studying a course design to "prepare" (haha) them for entrance exams for uni.
 * Based on the responses to homeworks, as well as the fact that Andy certainly wouldn't teach more than one class if he could make the same amount of money combining them, I think that he does have a variety of different aged students in his class, though they are probably all of high school level (he brags about the size of his classes as if bigger were better; I can't see him breaking them up). He seems more lenient with the grading of certain sub-par students (not that he can be much more lenient than he generally is), leading me to believe that those are the 13 year olds rather than the 17 year olds. That's fair enough. I don't think he goes quite as far as to say these are college classes, but he does state that students can take the AP test after completing them (he doesn't say that they can take the AP without first taking his class, with little probably discernible difference).
 * I've been wondering for a while if this class is still going on behind the scenes. Obviously divorcing it from CP would be the smart move, though Andy has rarely ever made anything resembling a smart move. But even he must realize that interaction between young teens and guys like TK is not going to lead to a good place. I believe in the past he's had to unblock some of his students blocked by various accolades, which is probably a bit awkward. In a week or so he'll either be bragging about grades his students got, indicating there is an offline class, or he won't, and we'll know this is all about appearances. Talk of a final exam is making me think he really does have at least a handful of students, but I find it odd that he hasn't mentioned this class at all on CP for months. DickTurpis (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First, keep in mind that video is a minimum of 2 1/2 years old. Second, wasn't the "big theory" that the course went off-line due perhaps to parental concerns regarding the privacy Andy was so cavalier about? Blancmange (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, my personal theory is that he tried the drug dealer, "first one is free" business model for his last two courses, and no one turned up to the second lesson. It would certainly explain certain facts about how they've proceeded. -- 21:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am agnostic about these lectures' very existence until there is any outside evidence about them. CP is so completely disconnected from reality that it is impossible to use any information on it to get any hint about what goes on in the real world. Etc 03:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Our inside man used to give us some information on what these classes were like, but he isn't around much, and probably doesn't have the access he used to. Suffice to say Andy has taught several pretty well attended classes in the past, so based on that I'm prepared to believe he is still doing it. The "big theory" mentioned above might well hold true, though the specific reason why these classes would have been taken completely offline are speculation. It's possible that after a few years Andy realized that online students were always parodists and decided it wasn't worth it, though a few years is a damn quick learning curve for Andy. The complete and total lack of any mention in months made me think that perhaps the course was abandoned, but its re-emergence now has me questioning. Wouldn't be terribly surprised either way. DickTurpis (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I think he's given up on CP as a homeschooling resource (other than for propaganda purposes). All of the homeskollars of yore are gone, and they haven't been replaced by new ones, and for RW the courses were a major source of amusement. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 11:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also not a single reference to any of his courses on the Main Page, apart from his passing mention to the "largest class for teenagers" written for our benefit. It's probably more like "world's largest class for homeschooled children who sit in a sunless New Jersey church basement, and are lectured by a moron." In a way, I think it's a good thing that he's taken it off-line, firstly for privacy issues and secondly because CP is not a place for youngsters anymore. Sadly, it doesn't give us an insight into just how bad his teaching, exam setting (and sexism) and marking have become. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Initiative", "referendum", "Middle East", "sound bite" and "homeschooling", to mention but a few. By what stretch of the imagination are these "American Government Key Terms"? Also, why do just the 2nd and 10th Amendments get a mention, when even "Constitution" doesn't?  Oh, wait...  Cantabrigian (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering this is a high school level American Government class, with at least some prior knowledge assumed, I would think mentioning "Constitution" as a key term would be like mentioning "car" as a key term for an auto repair class, or "computer" as a term for a web development course. It's beyond key; it's so fundamental to the course that if you don't know what it is, you shouldn't be in the class in he first place. MDB (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But he does consider it necessary to explain "federal", "media", "polling", "unemployment" etc...if he'd actually bothered to explain them, that is. Right now the list is almost completely void of any explanations, fitting for a course that doesn't have any students. Röstigraben (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Andy's not bright enough to do the job properly, so filling up the time by explaining words like that is probably the best he can do. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's off-point and superficial, but I want to again point out that Andy has a bony little body and a head that is waaaaay too big for his slope-down shoulders. He would be a real horror to see naked. I bring this up because of the youtube video of him posted earlier.  --Leotardo (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

So we suspect that Andy's charging someone, somewhere for this course, right? And he's advertising it as the largest class for teenagers, right? Don't you Yanks have something like the Trade Descriptions Act? Can't we just get someone to sign up an hand money over and then sue him for false advertising? -- 19:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Global warming
Just wanted to share. Cantabrigian (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Learn the difference between "climate" and "weather". Lovely. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, I actually saved that episode of Armstrong & Miller because I was going to upload that for y'all. Guess I don't have to bother now. 09:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Karajou's plagiarism copy/paste fest
I see Kowardjou is thwarting his master's vision of differences between CP and WP by turning CP in to a WP mirror site. How is it he thinks he's going to get away with not attributing any of this stuff to WP, as their license requires? -- 19:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because he's cribbing it from the US Park Service website, which is PD innit? 20:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, this came up a few days ago. It's interesting to see he's still doing it though: at least one CP admin can see a project through instead of getting distracted by shiny objects elsewhere. Every so often I take a look at one of his pages, because it's teaching me so much about the war - like the fact the Confederates had over 70,000 troops at Harper's Ferry. I can honestly say that I never knew that before. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The red telephone is ringing . -- 21:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do those idiots find the definition of plagiarism so difficult to grasp? Where the material comes from is immaterial (pun intended), if you present someone else's work as your own then it's plagiarism, pure and simple.  If you've stolen copyrighted material, then it's copyright theft and plagiarism. If you pay for the rights to someone's material and present it as your own, it's plagiarism, if you copy it from the public domain it's plagiarism.  Let me make it as simple as possible:  Kowardjerk; what you are doing is plagiarism.  No one is saying it's copyright theft (that's JM's department) but you are deceitfully presenting someone else's work as your own - and that is plagiarism.  I am standing by for your next red telephone call.   21:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * THIS SITE IS GROWING RAPIDLY!!! Ahhhh I love it. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They always bring that up. I think they're getting desperate.  Carabou, I just want you to know that I have Conservapedia set as one of my homepages.  Not to learn or read "facts", but to laugh at your retarded MPR.  I know for a fact I'm not the only one.  Senator Harrison (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm, I'm assuming RJJJJJensen pulled this definition of plagiarism out of his arse purely to justify CP sysops' deceitful behaviour, as I've read a few definitions and I can't find anything that specifies that the plagiariser has to gain "academic credit" in order for it to be plagiarism. Are they really this dumb, or just this deceitful?   22:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, you can really stop paying attention to us and go back to writing your encyclopedia now. And in regards to Alexa pageviews, maybe you'd like to reevaluate your hypothesis. -- Nx  / talk 22:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do like the fact he trots out RJensen, the one academic they've ever managed to attract to the site... who hasn't been seen in six months. If the site is 'growing rapidly', where are all your other academics? For that matter, where are all the new accounts from Tea Party members looking to further the causes of Truth and Justice? Or will they have nothing to do with you? -- 22:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Karajou, as you know, I'm really fucking stupid, so if you could please explain something re: Alexa showing increased traffic to your site: What does the graph in the top left with the red arrow pointing down mean? Use small words, please. Thanks. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Karajou - there are sites online where I can pay people to write my uni essays for me. But if I did buy an essay and my supervisor found out, I would still be punished for plagiarism. Plagiarism means taking credit for somebody else's work, whether it's copyrighted or not. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 23:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The plagiarism is fun, but expected from CP these days. Nobody over there except parodists adds anything new. I'm more amused by the inaccuracy. Kowardjou has copied most of the text from one place but lacks the intellectual ability to get accurate figures for combatants / casualties, which I think it's fair to say is quite important on an article about a battle.
 * Oi! Kowardjerk! I've already pointed out one great example: your Battle of Harpers Ferry. I think everybody agrees on the ~14,000 Union soldiers, but my source says 22,000 Confederates. WP says 19,900 (uncited). Your figure of 71,699 just shows how utterly shit you are at understanding what you're reading.
 * This is the only one I'm pointing out. I'll leave the rest to show how shit your site is. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably, Karajou has his own very special version of Alexa where the things he says are actually true. As we all know, reality has such a liberal bias. -- 23:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What Karajou is contributing to that place counts as respectable intellectual endeavor. Huh. I guess I've been working way too hard. I truly wonder what he does for a living and what his educational background is that reprinting the equivalent of tourist pamphlets for National Battlegrounds struck him as a worthy project. And such flailing about! Even angrily lashing out like a little child at the mere suggestion he's doing something wrong. Bravo! Bravo you middling nincompoop! Maybe Terry should help. I've got the perfect in. Since he's met "literally dozens" of Medal of Honor winners and been struck by their humility, what better way to honor them than recording the details of their glory? You guys get right on that, k? 00:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course dead people have humility. Since when did you hear dead people boast about their accomplishments?   02:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It certainly speaks volumes about CP.... "Conservapedia.com has a three-month global Alexa traffic rank of 61,088. Visitors to the site view 3.2 unique pages each day on average. While we estimate that 66% of visitors to the site come from the US, where it is ranked #18,000, it is also popular in Israel, where it is ranked #13,279. Compared with the overall internet population, this site's audience tends to be aged under 25 and 45–65; they are also disproportionately childless men browsing from school and home who are not college graduates. Visitors to Conservapedia.com spend about 40 seconds on each pageview and a total of three minutes on the site during each visit." Enough said. ghazi alizm, comments? 00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So Kajagoogoo feels the need to justify his existence again - by lying through his teeth. Funny how a site virtually closed to new editors is "growing" - must be some new conservative definition of the word. Oh, and Brian, the fact that our "harassment" of TK - about whom you have nothing good to say behind his back - not making a "ripple" speaks more about you than it does about us. Then again, you guys also cuddled Bugler and RodWeathers to your bosom, despite being warned otherwise. It's nice to see you frantically copy/pasting stuff to create the illusion of business over there (one would think that with a smidgen of self-pride, or pride for your blog" you'd take the time to rewrite the articles, or is that beyond you?) - it helps camouflage the fact that it has become a right-wing hate blog a little bit. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They can't even read Alexa stats. Conservapedia's 3 month reach: down 6%; RationalWiki's 3 month reach: up 18%. I know Alexa is largely pointless, but you'd have thought that since it's CP's favourite metric they'd at least be able to read it properly. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You forget - actually double-checking a fact that somebody on CP has thrown at you is a sign you're a filthy liberal and need a good spanking. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at reach for the past 7 days, it does indeed look like RW is flatlining, while CP is growing rapidly. But looking at the past 7 days is useless anyway, and I'm not surprised people are visiting us less now that the holidays are almost here. -- Nx  / talk 11:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Karajou
I dance for food and for food only. Sorry. 11:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in the videos I've seen... -- Ψ Gremlin  12:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder
I wonder if they'd believe this onion article.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/glenn-beck-the-lone-voice-of-reason-in-an-age-of-h,18612/
 * They will, except for the one that will likely post it. Err, TK probably won't.Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 05:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only Onion story that I wish were true... 12:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sad things are that
 * There are people who really do think that about Glenn Beck
 * There are probably Beck fans right now circulating that article as legitimate and not parody. MDB (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

AMAZING!
A Democrat dies and Andy shows the slightest amount of respect for the dead (at least he dosnt outright insult him or his politics). He even creates a page that seams oddly neutral. --Thunderstruck (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he was administrator of Iraq, so in Andy's eyes that makes him a good guy. However, now that Obama's in, I'm guessing Andy is anti-war in Iraq? Here's a useless factoid (I hesitate to say coincidence) - Dec 14 2003, Holbrook announces Saddam's capture; Dec 13 2010 Dies... ooh... the long arm of Saddam reaching beyond the grave... -- Ψ Gremlin  12:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

TK stupidity; Obama green jobs
It's unfortunate that there has to be so much liberal deceit with our conservative friends. TK blindly repeats a Fox News blog post, mentioning "the White House has reported it's helped create 224,500 green jobs, far short of the 5 million it had openly predicted." This criticism comes less than two years in; however the Obama administration said that the plan would create 5M jobs over 10 years. This sort of information is easy to look-up, so either TK is stupid or deceitful. As in the case of Fox News, the answer is probably both. --Leotardo (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That fact aside, a quarter million jobs created sounds pretty damn good on it's own. MDB (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TK's not exactly the smartest guy around, but he's also not stupid. He does, however, have a certain facility with telling whoppers. And y'all just done got trolled by him. Again. 15:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Terry's the kind of guy I'm sure lives in Nevada purely to tell everyone else that gambling is a sin. – Nick Heer 16:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

AIDS Cured By Prayer!
02:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What an update, DerekE
So DerekE decides to perform a little cleanup; new Tea Party PAC; citations on cp:Sharron Angle and yet somehow manages to leave out whether she won or lost the Nevada Senate race. How could he miss this - did he not realize that one of the few paragraphs on the page had no conclusion? It's par for the course: their coverage of conservatives is so bad, it's amusing that they call attention to themselves. Look at cp:Joe Miller: virtually nothing about his views nor of his on-going litigation. Schlafly, who obviously can't write, continually trumpets cp:Marco Rubio, but his article is an embarrassment. cp:Rand Paul is even worse. No meat, no substance, just trivia and half-hearted attempts to add some information, any information, with no regard for substance. This was perfectly illustrated in DerekE's Sharron Angle edit. --Leotardo (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In the wake of these guys requiring you to send them an email to create an account...
Would the rangeblocks decline (due to mostly expiration) as a result of that? Should we do something about that, if it is the case? 00:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother. Requiring approval is equivalent to range-blocking the whole world. Of course, I'm not a fan of socks or vandalism anyway... 00:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I know RWers hate trolling, but maybe I'll try again for the hell of it...Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 05:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is like punching a baby in the face. --Leotardo (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the rangeblocks are declining. 19:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Breaking news over a year old!
JPatt stumbles across year-old news and for some reason claims it happened two days ago. Interesting. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He'd rather read RW than his own sources. The story happened in August, btw. Hi Johnny!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Face it: these guys just don't read anything except headlines and maybe the first paragraph of a story. "Ah!  This fits with my preconceived notions - I'll blog it at CP..." cue laugh track over their buffoonery.  --Leotardo (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * R Soles  82.23.211.127 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Occasionalabuse, really it was just a minor error but you guys look like fools for anal retentive review of all changes related to CP. Gasp, look what they did. hahaha--76.205.85.232 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jpatt. You probably shouldn't post here with your IP address... TK will ban you like he did   02:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BON, first, it happened in August, '09. Where in the hell did JPatt get December 12th, '10? Second, if you are JPatt, I doubt you know dick about NC state senators. What do you know about Soles' gun control policies? Had you seen any evidence that he did not want the public to have guns to defend their homes? Or were you just looking for shit to stir and attacking who you wanted Soles to be? Who is the hypocrite? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian symbol vandalized = atheists at work
So, somebody vandalizes a "Christian symbol", and he/she apparently must be one of them nasty atheists. Does that mean that every time something secular is vandalized, such as one of these super-atheistic public schools, it's done by nice cuddly Christians? (disregarding the fact that the Christmas tree is a pagan symbol completely unrelated to Christianity) Etc 20:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Glastonbury Thorn is (or was) not a Christmas tree. Do try and keep up. FretfulPorpentine.
 * Bugler! Block me for old times sake!  Corry (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah! Destructive sarcasm. 6 months.

Unicorns and Dragons WIGO
I'm calling Poe on this one... I mean, it can't be for real, right? Please, gods, tell me it can't.... -- 11:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ken doesn't think so . DarkStar (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ken doesn't think. There, fixed for you :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it fun when sysops legitimise the work of parodists? Now it's untouchable. -- 13:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course AmandaHugnkiss isn't a parodist, after all, alligators only exist in the western hemisphere, but s/he forgets they were easily available in the eastern med pre noah, it's so hard remembering what bollocks to post this time. 14:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"Creation researchers". Haha, that's funny. --Kels (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the Sasquatch got squashed by science. That doesn't seem to apply here though. Auld Nick (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It probably is Poe considering the user's history, however its good Poe because it follows the general beliefs of the sysops close enough that they were given a stamp of approval. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy loved the formula for censorability. Auld Nick (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How the heck is "Pro-life" less censorable than "freedom?" 04:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple, those are "the correct answers as determined by faith and logic." Open your mind! Auld Nick (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the nutters use Johna's whale as an example of the existence of dragons/dinosaurs? Whilst at the same time ignore the presence of gastric juices. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Vis-à-vis those nutters, be sure to distinguish between parodists upping the ante and the real MacKay. Auld Nick (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I like how the Illiad is used as a credible reference for the existence of dragons. Does this credibility also apply to the existence of Zeus and the other Greek gods? No? Ah yes... hilarious... -- 12:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a fairly large group amongst the fundie set that hold that all the gods do actually exist, but that only YHWH is a "real god", and that all the rest are just evil demons pretending to be gods. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 12:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Biblical Literalism would have to hold that there are many gods because the commandments do say "thou shalt not have any gods before me" and whatnot - implying that there should be several. And Christian demonology cites quite a few supernatural individuals. 19:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than 🇰🇪 giving the parody a CP sysop stamp of approval TM , what I most like is that he took 25 edits to move one picture, add another, and write two shit sentences. Top notch work!  21:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Armondikov - I always found that somewhat amusing and ironic, given the fervent monotheism of those who claim the Bible should be read in a literal way. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 22:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well they still maintain the monotheism, as there is only one God (although as three individuals who share the same attributes); all other "gods" are merely demons (who are at the same supernatural hierarchical "rank" as angels, just opposite side) pretending to be gods. So those gods exist only so far as some other nefarious supernatural creature is imitating them to gullible people, who accept such gods because they don't want to obey the "one true god" (therefore in the fundy mind, guilty and worthy of Hell even if they never heard of Jesus). --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're actually referring to monolatrism, rather than monotheism here. Reclassifying the other "gods" as "demons" does not alter their purposed nature or power, and thus does not really make them "not gods".  Plus, by a truly literalistic reading of the Bible, the Judeo-Christian god specifically calls the other gods "gods".  He provides no other explanation of why to not worship them, beyond the very anthropomorphic "I'm jealous, and it would piss me off."  Thus, a literal reading of the Bible would hold that the ancient Jews practiced monolatrism, and that modern day Jews and Christians ignore this matter at the peril of their own salvation. -- 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Curious little detail. CP's unicorn article, reference 2 gives a fundie newsletter as the reference for the statement that unicorns are mentioned in the Bible 9 times. The very same fundie newsletter says that 'unicorn' is a mistranslation. The Trustworthy Encyclopedia strikes again... The Real James Brown (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Soup WIGO
Under any other circumstances I'd put this down to somebody taking the piss, but given Willhemina's track record, I have a horrible feeling that a) he thinks WWN is real and b) soup buried 4000 years after the world was created, is evidence of a young earth. Evidence of awesome thermos flasks maybe... -- Ψ Gremlin  01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't just willmin a homskollar, or was he just a parodist doing Andy's courses online? -- 01:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He's just a parodist, if you can really call someone so obvious a parodist. The more interesting part is that Terry knew exactly what Willhemina was doing yet it took Ken to block him after months of trolling, stupid questions, and parody. 16:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Who's the RWian who was allegedly exchanging emails with him? Was that made up or was Willminator just a method actor? DickTurpis (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was Toast, wasn't it? And IIRC he threatened her with death, or something. But yes, obvious parodist was bad parodist. Speaks volumes that he lasted so long. /awaits new burst of moral outrage from Karajerk. -- Ψ Gremlin  17:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Willminator was no Unicornist, but it's not like the things he was writing were any more dumb than the things Ken writes. --Leotardo (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Question is, will Willhemina have the balls to unblock himself? -- Ψ Gremlin  17:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

He's a parodist. We have lots of fun "GENTLEMAN!" exchanges. Good times. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Using wikileaks when it helps
The most recent article (as of December 15th at 2:30 eastern time) that reads

"The revelation that the Obama administration used a covert CIA program to dig up dirt on countries opposed to the Copenhagen climate treaty shows a White House desperate to enforce its orthodoxy on global warming,"

uses wikileaks as a source (well, thats how the info was obtained). No surprise that Conservapedia likes Wikileaks (even with fugitive rapist Julian Assange leading it) when it suits them. 68.9.236.99 (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is really a lot more classic than it seems. By their own standard, they're committing treason. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a diff that by their own standard they are committing treason? I didn't find this objectionable because now that the cat's out of the bag, why not talk about it? --Leotardo (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm..nothing explicit. I'd have to sock up and ask if we should be reading the leaked cables. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd assume the logic is just "we are good Americans and the documents were already leaked anyway, so it's fine." Not exactly exemplary behavior, but understandable. 10:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Given how Assange's leaks are damaging to the Obama admin, I'm amazed that he isn't being put forward as conservative of the year over there. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Red Cross:These guys are just fucking idiots
Jpatt, showing what a moron he is, chides the Red Cross for not involving itself in political and religious strife. What an idiot. Both the Red Cross and Red Crescent specifically stay out of these things so that they are seen as neutral helpers in conflict, not partisans. This allows them to enter conflict and battle zones and not be killed by one side or the other. JPatt, the fool, criticizes the IRC for one of the tenants of its founding that has allowed it to be so effective: "The motivation of the principle of Neutrality is the Movement abstaining from any participation in hostilities and at all times in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature in order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all . This motivation is clearly well founded: those who take sides or interfere may estrange or deceive one side or the other, push them away and lose their confidence." CP editors can't think and have no idea the purpose and motivations for many things. "Christian in trouble in Afghanistan, involving all the extremes of religion?! Why can't the Red Cross do anything about that?!" Because they'll be killed, idiot, or be expelled from the country and not be able to help anyone. --Leotardo (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of when CP had a MPR article about two (or three maybe?) Iraqi Christians who were killed as a result of the basically non-stop craziness in that country. The moral was "Two Christians dying in Iraq is a tradgedy - as for all the innocent Muslims? Fuck 'em, because they're goin' to hell anyways, might as well get a head start." This bugs me more than anything on CP (or in the right-wing, in general) - this stupid attitude of "Christians are the persecuted minority. POOR US!" Carlaugust (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. It's the same attitude that will be outraged and furious if even one person is jeopardized by the Wikileaks cables, while not caring at all about the 100,000 or so innocent Iraqi civilians whose lives we took in our war based on lies. --Leotardo (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you go to the source site and read the comments - I know, I know, but it's a know you enemy thing - then one also suggests witholding donations from Safe Haven because they encourage women to make fraudulent accusations against their spouse and support them with an attorney that works on a contingency to extort the husband out of his life savings and keeps the case open until the male spouse pays. Yep, that's what Safe Haven do. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"It doesn't count as stealing...
-- 23:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, good spot. I know it's  but I reckon it deserves a WIGO.  00:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not well versed on copyright lawlz, but that looks really fucked up. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get this one. That logo was either donated or something like a "work for hire." The copyright claim is far from clear even if whatshisface slapped a copyright notice on it in 2007. 01:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your claim is a strong one: Just because it's a logo used on and by the site doesn't automatically mean that it belongs TO the site. It was simply a copyrighted image the site was allowed to use; if it had been donated or whatever, why did he also explicitly claim the copyright? Whether this is standard practice or not is another question, of course. But nobody ever challenged the copyright claim, so silently removing it is fishy. --Sid (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fishy for sure, but we don't have enough information to be able to judge it conclusively. There's the "work for hire" doctrine that makes any IP created by someone under the hire of and for the benefit of another the master's IP. I have no idea how that plays out in this context. It might also have been donated. Who knows. It's a crappy WIGO not just because it's about TK. And on that point, there have been several really crummy TK WIGOs I suspect cropped up just because people think he's such an odious turd. Sure, he's easy to despise, but not everything he does is wrong. I really wish the TK WIGOs would just stop unless it's the most egregious skullduggery. Don't people inclined to WIGO him get the sense that he's trolling EVERYONE, CP included? The better course is to just deny him the hate-boner he gets from being noticed. I know I'm a broken record. 01:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that TK is a troll, but I disagree that he's beyond WIGOs. I also don't know why anyone thinks he's trolling CP - he'd  have to be, like, the greatest troll ever and I doubt that's the case.  If it is, even you, Nutty Roux, could be TK.  In my opinion, the only one that is beyond WIGOs is that moron Ken.  I vote every one of those down, no matter the topic. --Leotardo (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's minor trolling and thus completely ignorable; I agree with the sentiment above, unless it is something really major, why bother giving attention? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Every time somebody WIGOs TK, an angel strangles a fluffy kitten. -- Ψ Gremlin  13:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree that 's trolling is boring, I do still think there's merit in highlighting acts of dishonesty that the Assfly implicitly approves of by turning a blind eye. As Schlafly bangs on about honesty and truthfulness, I think such things are noteworthy.  WIGO and be damned!  13:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * However it is a well established fact that Andy will ignore unethical and dishonest behavior on CP as long as such behavior furthers his own political goals; all the talk about truthfulness, honesty, and morals is just lip-service for the vain hope actual Christian conservatives will still consider the site. We all know this, so nothing new here, nothing worthwhile to WIGO when TK goes trolling and Andy looks the other way; he will still have his plausible deniability. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something because I don't know why you guys are so bothered by this. The creator of the logo is CPWebmaster (Philip Beach), who is still active on the site, so I am guessing he knows. --Leotardo (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, that copyright notice was added to the previous version of the logo, when CPWebmaster replaced it with the new, shiny 3d logo, he didn't update the description, so for all we know the copyright notice was incorrect since it was referring to the previous file. -- Nx  / talk 16:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This all goes to show that even with a "lawyer" at their head they are absolutely clueless about copyright issues. 18:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're usually pretty open about their copyright theft. But we don't have enough information to judge this matter. 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Glastonbury Holy Thorn Tree.WIGO
This was poorly written, CP never stated that the tree was cut down by atheists but instead quoted verbatim the originally linked article that stated "It could be an anti-monarchist, an anti-Christian, or someone who's an atheist." Yes I understand they are trying to imply it was likely someone from one of those categories but they don't actually state atheists did this. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? Britain is overrun by the atheism and atheism is nothing more than an attack against Christianity. What a bunch of pussies. TK, if you don't state outright that atheists cut down the Christian tree, you have no balls. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Poor WIGO. They just quoted Fox News. 21:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just poor: it's dated. News story posted 10 Dec, WIGO posted 13 Dec. Come on! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious about the wording. Why say "someone who's an atheist" rather than, oh, "an atheist"? Phiwum (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jprat's edit summary is "(atheists run Christmas spirit with vandalism in the UK)" which seems to be saying that atheists dunnit.82.23.211.127 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, Christians don't even know that trees in the house are condemned in the Bible as being part of pagan rituals. So many pagan rituals were just subsumed into Christianity, especially when Christians had trouble getting people to conform to NOT doing something. It was so much easier to assimilate (resistance is futile) the practice, and then claim it was originated by Christianity, and has always been there. Sad. Jeremiah 10:2-4 "This is what the LORD says: Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the heavens, though the nations are terrified by them. For the practices of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter."
 * A few things wrong with that. First, the Holy Thorn is absolutely not a Christmas Tree, it is associated with Christendom due to the fact that it was supposedly planted by Joseph of Arimathea. You may want to read the article. Second, Jeremiah 10 is only about Christmas trees if you take it really literally and only read the first few lines. It's about the powerlessness of false gods compared to Yahweh. Colonel of Squirrels医药是医药，和那个不是医药. 22:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Glastonbury is not a xian site. It is a pagan site which, as with so many other pagan things, was taken over by xianity and used for it's own purposes.  There has been 'religious' practice at Glastonbury for far far longer than xianity has been in these islands and I am willing to bet the thorn was there when the first xian wandered past, noticed the pagan practices and thought to himself 'there is something else we have to subvert and lie about'. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone can tell me when to take The Bible literally, and when not to, then I will be all set! Jimaginator (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You could try over at Slacktivist. Fred seems to think it's "obvious" that the Bible really means it about God and Jesus and so on, but not about lots of other things that he considers just as crazy as the rest of us. The stuff from his youth where he confronts the fact that the Bible explicitly contradicts his own moral intuition, and comes away somehow still believing in the Bible but also trusting his own moral intuition, is a brilliant exercise in doublethink that should have you watching your back whenever Christians talk about "forgiveness". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. It appears that every Christian has their own definition of what should be read as literal in the Bibull. If I remember correctly even extreme literalists like PJR seems to have fudged the issue when certain contradictions were pointed out. I'm sure that more dedicated aSK followers have examples. That's the beauty of religious inspired texts you can twist them to your own ends. Even the oracle of Delphi was wonderfully ambiguous. 16:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What's to become of the WIGOs?
The last several WIGOs were all put up by excellent CP commentators, but they all are being voted down (perhaps rightfully so). Are we all becoming too numb or too bored by CP's buffoonery? There are constant calls to stop writing WIGOs about particular editors (Ken and TK) but with only 5 active editors on the site, are we supposed to only do WIGOs about Schlafly and Ed Poor? Some of the--presumably--children on CP like Jpatt and DerekE (if they aren't children then I feel veeeery sad for them) are okay for one-offs, but it's not fun unless you know they are adults. So what's to become of CP WIGO? People seem more bothered by them than they used to be. Is it that they are just crap, or is that we are just bored? --Leotardo (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's likely that as CP dies they'll die, as people realise that gross stupidity is the norm over there. That said, it's also worth mentioning that quite a few people are away already and the first couple of votes normally come from TK and a couple of other WIGO watchers over there. That's why even the most successful WIGO has at least one negative vote. That said, the last 5 WIGOs haven't been good - 3 TK trolling, 1 parodist throwing in the towel and Ed being himself. Put it down to end of year idiocy saturation. That said, I hope everybody who votes mine down gets boils on the botty. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, recent WIGOs have been a bit shit. I myself have put some of them up there, and I freely admit that as pickings are so slim I have WIGOed things I wouldn't normally have.  I think the root cause is the complete lack of new editors; most of the best WIGOs were the Arsefly hopelessly arguing when forced to face up to reality.  No new editors = no new facts presented = no new 'insights' = no decent WIGOs.  Hopefully the final exam of the liberals are bad and this is what the bible says American government course will bring some fruit.  16:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help that one of the most prolific editors on CP, 🇰🇪 is also perhaps the most boring. All the guy seems to do these days from his bunker is delete and recreate his pages, or repeatedly edits his MA-CHESSE-MO essay that no one reads anymore, or writes another duplicate "essay" on atheists that isn't even worth loading for the lutz.  Remember the recent CP Anti-Abortion 120 day blitz? Stillborn.  The Richard Dawkins project? Dead on Arrival. Every other grand scheme is dead; the only huge project that still has embers of life is the CBP. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly - Ken WIGO's are such a waste of time. He doesn't write well and he's not bright.  Writing a Ken WIGO is like writing "Retarded person did something retarded."  --Leotardo (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The recent WIGOs have been mostly shit because the best times at CP are when a sysop is shown to be an idiot by another user who is duly punished. However, the only users left are the sycophants who never argue, at least in public, so we're short on great WIGO material. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 01:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I got an email from a seemingly good faith CP editor asking what's up with TK being so nasty and difficult to users in private. Needless to say I have no interest in responding. If anyone else is I'll forward the info. 01:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Power trip, that is all you need to say. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's a genuine mail, I love the irony of a CPer having to speak to the Rat Vandals for advice, because he knows he'll get none from the people running CP into the ground. People like Ed and Karajerk had plenty to say about TK when he was still in the wilderness, but they're too craven to speak up now that he's back in the inner sanctum and has Andy suckling at his teat. To the user: "TK does it because he can. He gets off on power trips and there's nobody to keep him in check." -- Ψ Gremlin  05:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WIGO is bound to die off, because with account creation now so restricted, the site has made the final step to being just a blog with no aspirations to being an encyclopedia. So it can't get any more interesting than any other mad right-wing blog, and soon won't deserve its own WIGO page.-- 10:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not even really worthy of the appellation 'blog'. There are precious few entries which would count as blogging - MPR is little more than a wingnut headline aggregator with snarl about Liberals and an uppity black man in a white house. Apart from Andy's inane occasional insights there is nothing original in their 'writing' and about as amusing as watching a bunch of drunks parroting old Monty Python sketches and pissing on each other's shoes. 01:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think both Kriss and Lily are right. I think they are now in maintenance mode and the criticism that they are 'just a blog' falls on deaf ears.  That's likely how they see themselves now, although they probably say mainpage is more patterned after Drudge; mixed with ads for their slipshod 'encyclopedia entries' and their strange essays written by a socially awkward friendless shut-in.  Terry fucks them off, and Ken DeMyer creeps them out.  Anyone with self-respect would be embarrassed for their work to appear alongside, and subordinate, to his. Andy's NPD Kim-Jong-Ilism seals the deal, so they are fine with the skeleton crew that they have thank you very much.  For that motley bunch, they have no choice.  --Leotardo (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Divorce King named Person of the Year!
Jpatt can't handle that the Divorce King was named Person of the Year. Wonder how much searching he had to do to find a poll that had Mama Grizzly taking the award, instead.12.16.112.2 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that either of them were Person of the Year means it was a pretty lame year. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the Zogby poll and what question people were asked. Were they asked, "Who is the Person of the Year" and "Who is the Person of the Decade"?  If you look at their other questions, they are easier to understand: "What is the most ridiculous news story of 2010?"  and the other questions ask things like "Most significant" "Most influential" and "Most impact".  The criteria weren't given.  It also seems like every result was skewed to the Republicans.  For "Person of 2010" I would say Nancy Pelosi--whether you love or hate her--had far more impact this year than Palin.  Hello - healthcare reform?  You could say that Lady Gaga has been far more influential in entertainment than Palin was in the political realm (her endorsements were a mix bag, and Murkowski's win showed her home state isn't pro-Palin).  At least Time Magazine gives their criteria.  --Leotardo (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Leotardo, Zogby is a HUGELY Repuglican pollster. Their polls aren't even generally considered during election time, and they're like the polling outfit of Faux News. 71.169.159.204 (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, if anyone hasn't noticed yet, the time period of 2000-2010 has a length of 11 years; way more than a decade.  02:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that just a rounding error? Burlap bags (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ten is equal to eleven, for large values of ten and small values of eleven. MDB (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Always craziness to be found
Even with no editors around, there's enough craziness over there, that sooner or later Andypants will pop up to defend some of it. In this case it's Soccer and socialism.

As with all things Conservapede, there are no references to back up the claims, and even if they were written by a parodist (God forbid such insanity wasn't - well, 3 guesses which Troll planted the seed ), Andy's put stamp of approval on them. So, let's have a look at some examples of why football is "socialist" There's a lot of stupid on CP, but this little gem must rank right up there. -- Ψ Gremlin  09:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The "no hands" rule can be compared to socialist tax policies. (What? And what are the socialist tax policies he's comparing them to?)
 * The game forbids frequent stops, which can be compared to "carbon footprint" efforts to fight supposed global warming. (Double ditto - What? Also, the frequent breaks in US sports are for adverts)
 * The US is often treated unfairly by other nations in the game, one reason being soccer's lack of popularity in the US - socialism always claimed to favor the absolute will of the majority rather than personal and economic freedom of the individual. (The "unfairly treated" team played in the finals of the ConFed Cup, is ranked in the Top 20 in the world and qualifies for just about every World Cup - certainly in recent memory)
 * The World Cup trophy resembles socialist Hollywood's Emmy Award. (The mind boggles. And what about the previous cups they used?)
 * Even the World Cup encourages "achievement" by holding a third-place game for the two losers in the semifinals. ''(Which is done more for financial reasons - TV rights and gate takings than 'achievement' - and that's a capitalist motivation, surely?
 * There's plenty of other bull in that little screed:
 * The "off-sides" (sic) rule prohibits using certain aggressive ("unfair") tactics in the game. (So, the wide receivers in "American" Football are allowed to just stand in the end zone and wait for the pass to come to them, are they?)
 * Soccer is very bureaucratic, and teams are very much tied to their countries. (What? So we have national leagues... and we have a European Champions league... and players from any country can play in any league for any team... And we don't have a socialist, bureaucratic wage cap or anything like that)
 * In youth leagues, everyone gets a trophy for their efforts regardless of achievement, and there is no scoring in the game. (I have no idea what sport he is talking about now)
 * Union strikes, even during the playing season, are a major issue with soccer. (No, they aren't, any more than they are for baseball. Oops.)
 * Bondurant (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's always wonderful when parodist entries earn Andy's stamp of approval. I see TwinKle-toes has stepped up now - "Removal of valid content." Hmmm... Andy reverted, but TK blocked. Is he over-ruling Andy's authority again?

-- Ψ Gremlin  09:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what major American sport wasn't crippled by a major players' union strike? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the 'no hands' rule is Socialist because you can't touch your tax dollars once the Socialists get their hands on them? I would think it would be the opposite in a "get your government hands off my Medicare!" way.  No hands seems capitalist.  --Leotardo (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Something to do with the invisible hand of the market? It's the frequent stops / carbon footprint one that gets me. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But still that seems capitalist 'no hands = invisible hands of the market'. Still having trouble figuring out how 'no hands' is Socialist. Where's our resident wingnut Rob to translate wingnutese?  --Leotardo (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant "no hands" denies the invisible hand in Schlogic, but I see what you mean. Of course we're all falling into the trap of assuming that he has anything in his mind at all instead of just bashing out random phrases with one hand while making his lips go "bibble bibble bibble" with the other. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Pure gold. All of it. Why no WiGO? DickTurpis (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It got WIGOd back in June or July when it went on originally. This was just a revert from Andy Pandy when somebody with a brain deleted it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I knew it sounded quite familiar. DickTurpis (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Was worthwhile to revisit here though, if only for Il Duce's personal endorsement of the insanity, and amount of reaching they had to do to try and justify why aspects of Soccer is socialist.
 * I think that "no scoring in youth leagues and everyone gets a cup" thing is reference to the school games that have slaughter rules; like if the game's 10 - 0 it's stopped. Something like that. I'm sure I remember reading something along those lines a while ago, although it was probably in the daily mail so it's truth is suspect. X Stickman (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some youth and recreational leagues are Non-competitive, meaning they don't keep an official score. At the end of the season, everybody gets an award of some kind for participation and hard work... It's really not a big deal, it's still a way for people (usually kids age 6 and below) to enjoy playing the game without having their asses handed to them every time they suit up.  Some conservatives have latched onto this as a perfect example of how political correctness ruins the country.  20:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Psst, Andy!
Weren't you supposed to post your "exam" for the World's Dumbest Lecture on Amecrican Govt yesterday? -- Ψ Gremlin  09:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Waiting for users to step up and fill in the definitions for the rest of his American Government "Key" Terms12.16.112.2 (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pushed back to later today. I can hardly wait! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My God
Just counted the blocks so far in December. It didn't take long - eleven. Just eleven blocks. But even this is impressive compared to the seven new accounts created so far in December. For comparison, in the entirety of December '08 roughly 850 accounts were created and roughly 1250 blocks (user and IP) were handed out. Unless something changes we're going to have to start discussing funeral preparations. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 11:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My plan is working, then. Whisper in Andy's ear that emailing before accounts are set up is the best way of protecting CP, CP dies, RW finally goes Post-CP! ¡Olé Olé Olé! User 213 1 35 101 (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll call the funeral home. Senator Harrison (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Since there are so few nominees, we can discuss our favourite block of the month. My personal favourite was a guy who was blocked for removing soccer's hidden socialist connections. – Nick Heer 14:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See two threads up. --Leotardo (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone care to do 'cricket and socialism'? (The games can go on for days, tests but never exams, rules totally incomprehensible to outsiders...) 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't funny when it was footy and socialism except that Andy himself endorsed TrollKing's open parody. Let them do the crazy themselves. They're good at it. 16:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No because first off it be so terribly obvious, second vandalism is weak, third parody is only good when it isn't obvious, and fourth it is more entertaining to watch them repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot and be the conservative political world's version of the crazy cousin no one talks about, they all ignore, and each hopes will never show up for family events. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard Holbrooke wigo
I like this WIGO because one of the focus du jours of my critiques is how badly they fail at achieving what they set out to achieve. That was the nature of my recent DerekE criticism, and while that wasn't worth a WIGO, it's with the Holbrook WIGO in spirit. They truly, truly are crap at creating anything but a random trivia site. Even MPR is often just a cut n' paste from the sources, which they don't read thoroughly. I've never known a lawyer who has shown such disinterest in writing as has Andrew Schlafly. Harvard must be proud. --Leotardo (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it isn't one of their pet projects, then it isn't shit. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh - what are you talking about? Their pet projects are shit, too!  ConservaMath Medal, anyone?  "Tidal wave of anti-pro-abort material flooding the Internet" anyone? --Leotardo (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I mean shit to them. Outside of their own personal dominions, they could care less about any other subject. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual Military
You heard it here first, folks; The U.S. Millitary will be handed over to teh gayz. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich aren't saying anything, maybe because 67% of americans support the repeal of DADT. And you know, you kind of need the support of the majority of Americans to become Presedent. Most of the time. --Thunderstruck (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, the military is being handed over to us gays? Cool, I'm ordering the invasion of Canada starting tomorrow. MDB (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only assume Andy and his bigoted chums think the army will look like this in a few months. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 17:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * About time somebody with a sense of organisation stepped in.--Brendiggg (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, who else will man the stealth rainbow unicorn turrets with dildo firing remotes? WHO? [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]Norseman  Cyser Melomel  18:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dildo-firing remotes? Finally a military that Encyclopedia Dramatica and Anonymous can support! --Leotardo (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It'll never work. You'll have all these soldiers going "Khaki? But I'm a winter!" -- Ψ Gremlin  18:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this will lead to conservatives cutting down on the military budget. -Lardashe
 * We can only hope and dream. Our military overreach is bankrupting the country and wasting our resources.  --Leotardo (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. Dirty White Boy (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

End of the world?
End of education Oompa loompa (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * CP ought to find and lionise this plagiarist. Firstly, it's got to be the one and only person who has ever come to CP for its stated purpose. Secondly, plagiarism is practically CP's cardinal virtue. -- 20:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly mild response from CP...
... to the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell".

Mostly griping about those darn RINO's and asking "how many will enlist now?"

Okay, CP-fuckwits, the question has never been "how many will enlist?" The question has always been will the gay service members who are already there be allowed to serve openly or not? MDB (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's setting things up so that when/if recruitment problems occur, they can blame it on teh gayz. Oh wait - there already ARE recruitment problems? It must all be because prospective recruits were put off by the uncertainty. Homosexual agenda endangers USA security!!1!! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing is there is not really a recruiting problem for the military (the economy has prevented that). The Air Force is currently over its manning numbers and at least for me there as a 6 month wait to get in last year. --BoredCPer (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really that mild, as they posted at least five complaints about it in the last day. CP has been saying left-and-right that our leaders should 'listen to the people' after the last election, but we all know that is a canard since 2/3rds of Americans support DADT's repeal.  --Leotardo (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but perhaps they're not beginning a full-blown moral panic because if it causes no trouble at all, they'd look stupid. No, I am giving them too much credit. They don't think ahead. Hmmm. 23:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. They basically call fuckin' Pat Toomey a RINO. DickTurpis (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ...but I have more respect for Pat Toomey, and would never have known if not for MPR! The Five Pillars of CP really, really have difficulty accepting that only the lunatic fringe wanted DADT.  Indeed, one could probably use "support of DADT" as one benchmark of whether someone is a wingnut.  --Leotardo (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno. There are some people who apparently voted for it who I wouldn't call wingnuts (if only because the bar has been set so high by cretins like Andy). Richard Lugar comes to mind. DickTurpis (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, that's why I said it could be used as one benchmark, not the benchmark. It would be used in one of those 'How pro-life is this congressman' scorecard type thingies with other criteria.  That said, it's a very extreme position in 2011, and one that history won't judge well.  --Leotardo (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With DADT gone, I bet Koward regrets leaving the navy. --Kels (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, credit where credit is due. We might attack Lieberman (not entirely unjustifiably) as a DINO, but he did take a commanding role in this. Should redeem some of his shenanigans of late. DickTurpis (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"How many will really enlist now?" Better question, how many Schlaflys have really enlisted? Fucking hypocrite. -- 02:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Some of those posts (third in Leotardo's list strikes me especially) are just live-blogging the news without any grammar-checking. Dirty White Boy (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia and global warming
True CP believers accept the literal truth of the Bible.

In the Bible human wickedness is responsible for the Flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Therefore CP should espouse global warming (the result of human wickedness). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Boring troll is boring. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's an interesting apologetic that I'm sure someone has earnestly taken up somewhere. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no secret that fundamentalists pine for the end of the world, even measuring how many bodies it would take to create the rivers of blood mentioned in Revelations (2.5 billion people). --Leotardo (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Most conservatives, CP included, believe any warming is a natural trend in climate and not the result of humanity; so why would they endorse it exactly? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if Andy were to place his weird form of Christianity over his weird form of conservatism, he (and thus the site) might take the view that global warming is a sign of the end times/a young earth/etc. It'd go well with some of his theories, anyway. 04:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since their fundamentalists they must think that only their gOD can change climate right?? Pegasus (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the rainbow at the end of the deluge a covenant for no global disaster?  07:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck?
Eh? Ace McfuckingAwesome 02:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * May God have mercy on our souls... -- 02:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All the foundations of American government covered. --Leotardo (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally something (kinda) interesting on that site. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I just want to take his keyboard off him and put it on top of the cupboard. You can have it back when you're less crazy, andy. X Stickman (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "32) One difference between people who are 60 years old compared with people who are 20 years old is:"
 * e) 40 years?-- 03:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was worried for a second. It starts off OK (by Andy standards; #2 is actually not a bad question), didn't take too long for it to go off the deep end. I'll have to wait until I'm in a better state of mind before I tackle the whole thing. DickTurpis (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WTF indeed. By a rough count, I'd say less than half of these questions have anything to do with the American government. He's always been sneaking ideology-laden questions into his exams, but never so many that were so blatantly irrelevant to the supposed topic. Well, at least the "filibustering your mom" part was kinda funny. Röstigraben (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't what one would call a quality exam, as the questions don't really address fundamentals and philosophy, but maybe that's covered more in the lectures? If so, these don't seem like the best examples to quiz. I find it sad that Andy is teaching against the Civil Rights Act:
 * 33. Rand Paul, a recently elected conservative U.S. Senator from Kentucky, was criticized this fall for implying that complex laws prohibiting racial discrimination by places of public accommodation (such as hotels) are not necessarily desirable. How might Rand Paul respond?
 * (a) He is a “strict constructionist” who supports all the views of the Confederacy.
 * (b) He believes in an “evolving” Constitution that should be interpreted to prohibit all forms of discrimination without the need for Congress or states to pass any laws on the topic.
 * (c) He wants the full support of the hotel industry in Kentucky, which seeks to limit their customers to particular ethnic groups.
 * (d) He supports powerful and efficient free market forces against discrimination, because in a competitive market bankruptcy would result for hotels that discriminate.

WWRPD? Yeah, right Andy, (d) is the answer because that's what was happening in the U.S. It's as if they live in a lolipop land with bees and little fairies where the elves and everybody else abhors prejudice and huges each other. There are many part of this country where people could discriminate with no negative consequences (perhaps even beneficial ones). I've lived in, and been to, quite a few. Andy, it's nice not to be black, ay? --Leotardo (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * People like Andy would love to see the Civil Rights Act and other such laws be pulled, not so they could discriminate against racial minorities, but religious ones, oh and dem dirty fags too. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My favourite is the boys'* bonus question. First the fact that the answer he wants is so bloody obvious, and second for the fact that it's suddenly so specific. -- 07:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC) *Andy, you're misogynistic fuck; I hope God exists, is a woman, and sends you to.
 * But if it's "d", what happened to this whole "limited government" thing they keep blabbering about? Hypocrisy is fun. – Nick Heer 07:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember, this is the world's largest class, meaning there should be people from other states and even other countries. Now with that in mind let's look at the question again; "Your public school refuses to allow you to try out for its sports team, even though your family pays as much in taxes (or even more) for that public school than other people who are allowed to participate. How might you best challenge that rule?" Now 'd' can't apply if you live outside of New Jersey (and if you put that when you do live outside NY it should be an instant fail because you don't comprehend that writing to a state official in another state isn't going to help you change your own state's policies) and 'c' can't apply if you live somewhere with no Democratic senators, or no senators at all. Therefore, by Andy's own propaganda we've eliminated the last two answers meaning it should be 'a' or 'b'. -- 07:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also staggered by the 'girls only' question where the 'correct' answer is "I want to grow up to be just like Sarah Palin!". -- 08:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is there even separate questions for boys and girls?? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 09:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's so much WTF it's hard to pick a flower here. Yes, why, at BMcP.  Also, "your family pays as much in taxes (or even more)" - so now we know Andy's elitist property tax/income tax perspective on homskollaring? Sister golden hair (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind if there is still a class it's meeting in a church basement in New Jersey, so all the students will presumably be state residents. "The world's largest class" doesn't mean the class is international in any way. I admit I don't know why he's posting this online though. DickTurpis (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just incredible. It's a checklist of all Andy's wingnut positions that presumably his young charges have to parrot in order to pass. Without having gone through in detail, I see question 35 is wrong: "Who is prevented from voting in a “closed primary”?" The answer should be "anybody who isn't a member of the party whose primary it is", so none of the available four answers is right. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a good catch, SR. --Leotardo (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

As a Brit with little to no knowledge of how the American government works, I can answer a substantial number of the questions by virtue of the fact that Andy's wingnuttery makes it plain which the "correct" answer is. AlexR4444 (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. What's the answer to #22? By channeling Andy one would think A ("Democrats are stupid"), but B (candidates like to control polls about them) is an actual somewhat legit answer. If he wanted A to be the correct one why did he include a choice that was more correct, rather than another ridiculous example, like he does with most of these? Really, about half of these questions would be fairly decent basic exam questions if they weren't multiple choice (and if they didn't have a bunch of irrelevancies thrown in). DickTurpis (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 13:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of a joke quiz that some friends and I wrote when we were about 14. It had questions like "When did man first land on the moon?" A) 1474. B) 1969. C) The Pope. Hint - not A. Frankly, it was harder than this "exam". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 13:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the girls' question can also be rephrased "For which body did I make an embarrassingly failed bid for election?" There's so much of Andy in these questions, I'm now convinced his homskolling is a total fantasy world, where he pretends to teach imaginary students his wordly wisdom. -- 14:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's funny and all, but I worry about the kids he "teaches." It's one thing to have an opinion, quite another to spoon feed this gobbledygook and call it "education." Only a very few of these questions seem real, like the terms of office. The Brit above that says it was possible to figure out the answers without knowing American government is right on the mark. I had to think like Andru to re-evaluate every question in the context of WhackJobbery. He is a sick man, or the most brilliant satirist/parodist that has every lived. Not even "A Modest Proposal" comes close. I wish we could talk to the parents of these kids and show them how truly frakked up this motherfrakker is. But maybe they don't care, which makes me worry all the more for the kids. "STUDENTS" of ANDRU: If you are reading this, forget the Web, and go to your local PUBLIC library, and read about American government from an unbiased source. Even if you don't agree with what you read, you will see that Andru is a sick, sick man. He doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about. He is an educated moron, with delusions of grandeur. For the sake of your futures, PLEASE find out for YOURSELF what is real and what are the ravings of a lunatic. He is really really sick. Ask your parents to transfer you to ANY other form of teaching, Public, Private, Religious, anything. Andru, you are mentally ill. Get help if you care about your students. Give up your "teaching." You are damaging impressionable children, this is a SIN. Jimaginator (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, surely after reading this 'test', even a committed christian, conservative, republican party member parent would question what on earth they are paying the Asrefly for? Surely to goat? At least I bloody hope so!  17:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm sure no homeschoolers were harmed during this course. This "exam" is just the final piece of evidence - none of these questions suggest that he's actually been reading up on this stuff, they're mostly ideological rants, and even those which deal with the topic would've required nothing but a basic background in constitutional law and paying attention to recent events to write. Röstigraben (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see someone respond with answers that he'd like to see, and at the end say "Happy Holidays!"... just to see his ideological bias strike down the grading. Norseman  Cyser Melomel  17:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am totally gobsmacked at the ridiculousness of this exam. Schlafly has really pulled out all the stops to show himself up as an incompetent moron. 100/100 Andy. Well done. 00:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Worlds largest invisible class
OK, this is the world's largest class, right? I mean Andy shouts that from his blog as often as he can and we know he doesn't charge for those taking the course online, but does for those in person. As we know there's been like three people taking this online, the rest of this world record setting class must have been in person and paying the monies. Do we think Andy has been accurately declaring his earnings on his tax? Even with 50 in-person students (still nowhere near the total he'd need to have the 'world's largest' class) that'd be over twelve thousand dollars in this last quarter alone. So, either Andy's not declaring all this income to the IRS, or he's lying to potential customers which much break some buyers' rights statutes. At some point, trained lawyer Andy has been breaking the law. -- 03:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In short, the above post is pure bullshit. You have no idea what his tax situation is and it would not in any event be relevant to consumers. What rubbish. 03:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you pass basic reading comprehension? Of course he's not banking enough tax returns to represent the 'World's Largest Class' (his words not mine), therefore he is misleading consumers by misrepresenting the product he is selling. How backwards do you have to be not to see that? -- 03:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Of course" he's not? How on Earth do you know the contents of Android's tax forms?  And the US is pretty lax about consumer protection stuff. Dirty White Boy (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, I don't think it matters whether Andy calls this the world's largest teenage class or not: so far one person has posted answers, a supposedly adult male who may be a parodist. It's Sunday. Since Andy has made this a public thing and boasted about its size, he's going to look like a real tard if some more answers don't get pasted real soon. He'll be, like, a WIGO-worthy tard if only five responses trickle in. In the unlikely event that they do trickle in, what kind of multiple-choice exam allows one person's answers to be posted days before others'? --Leotardo (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think any more responses will trickle in at all. The last lecture that had a homework attached only prompted one reponse as well (as you might guess, it was parodist laureate TeacherEd). OK, Andy might sock up again like he did with the ridiculous "Class" account, but I don't see him going to such lenghts of deception. He'll just be glad that he can declare this desaster officially over. Röstigraben (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I just had an amusing thought. Now that the homskolling has pretty much retreated back to the "real world" class, with CP becoming basically irrelevant to it, how many years before the whole cycle comes up again? A student uses WP, some other students say "hey, let's make our own..." and Andy has to explain how he "tried it" once upon a time? Blancmange (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Teacher! Teacher! I have the answer!
"TeacherEd" was so excited to take this nitwit test that he rushed to post his answers about an hour after the test was put up. Am I mistaken, or wasn't this test aimed at children? Why would a grown adult male 'teacher' want to answer this tard test, and particularly to be the first with the answers? If this was an exercise for adults, it puts it waaaaaaay more into perspective. I was imagining that it was for 14 year olds. At Christmas I'm going to see if I can get my 13 year old New Jersey nephew's Catholic school government test and see how they compare. --Leotardo (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One word: Parodist. -- 15:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, that makes Andy's blessing great. --Leotardo (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If parodist = cylon, then you may be right. Oh, and Andew = Andru with a few million transistors missing. Jimaginator (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't they all parodists??? Pegasus 18 December 2010
 * From TeacherEd's userpage: "My name is Ed, and I am a Sunday school teacher in New York. I first heard of Conservapedia when I learned about its amazing project to create a new translation of the Bible. I am very impressed and have used passages from the translation in my classes (the students love it too!)". I at least hope it's a parodist...--ElvisHairDude420 (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Will be graded by Sunday?" Doesn't he have an answer key so he could grade it in like 2 minutes?  I't not like it's an essay (or even short answer), it's multiple choice! Random surfer (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC) (not a regular)
 * He is waiting to grade it so he doesn't give away the answer key, doh. Made perfect sense to me.  He expects his "real" students to struggle with his awesome stumpers.  Dirty White Boy (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On paper it makes sense, in reality what kind of multiple choice exam allows one 'student' to post his answers before all the others? Here we're talking about adult male "teacher" Ed and teenagers.  --Leotardo (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just glanced at this and around six of the questions are variations on the theme of what "might" happen. These are pretty bad questions as, theoretically at least, anything might happen.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Serious question, is this sort of 'multiple choice' exam acceptable for US college entrance? I have a suspicion that most educational establishments require more than a few ticked boxes. 82.23.211.127 (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

SamHB cruising for a banishment
Not sure if this is WIGO worthy. SamHB writes to Bad Touch Poor berating him on how one of his recent edits was " perverse, disgusting, crude, obscene, filthy, and an abomination against the precepts of this family-friendly web site ". I am not sure which one though, but the golden rule of CP is that regular users ever criticize the sysops, that is a capital offense in Andytopia. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * SamHB is lucky to still be there. He's been blocked and unblocked more times than you can count, he's a known member of a vandal site under his CP name and another user who lists him as one of 15 socks. This must be suicide by sysop. It's a testament to just how dead CP is that he isn't blocked yet. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 18:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed Poor is a creepy hypocrite. 18:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Slutty Nutty found it! --Leotardo (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty funny actually. 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hysterical...for RationWiki. For Conservapedia?  That would guarantee a block.  Ed's a Moonie who writes about little girls and references perverse colloquialisms about sainted wingnuts.  Yet he's one of the five pillars of the site.  This is comedy gold.  Thank goodness for capturebot. --Leotardo (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Preserve this and this since Jpratt is blocking and oversighting. 18:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Already did, here and here . Sam decided it's time to really unload on what a loser Ed is.  In all his time at CP (and WP too, for that matter), he has made ZERO substantive technical or conceptual edits on mathematical or scientific subjects.  So lately Sam has just been trying to embarrass him by cleaning up his messes, as with quadratic formula and the two items from today.  Sam could make a career out of following Ed around and cleaning up his mathematical messes, but he has decided to stop and unload.  Gauss (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What I like about Nutty's links above is that LanceS, who wanted to speedy this perverse Ed Poor joke, was blocked by TK as a troublemaker. Hmmm...maybe TK is the greatest troll ever.  --Leotardo (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is even more funny is SamHB is now blocked for the same reason, challenging a joke posted that clearly violates the CP rules, if his challenge was against anyone else but one of the golden five it would have been commended as fighting vandalism. The hypocrisy is so thick, you need to cut it with a welding torch. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One more thing. Two, actually.  Sam notes that, after his dust-up with Ed around Dec 6, Ed has made no further attempts at "contributing" to math articles.  Maybe now he will stop trying to "contribute" to computer articles.  Also, it will be interesting to see whether Ed's disgusting, perverse, .... page finally gets deleted.  Anything I can do to help Conservapedia along.  Gauss (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

From a conservative perspective, Sam was completely in the right for taking offense to Ed Poor's perversity. But one of the most effective things making CP such a failure is their "Block infinitely first, ask questions later" policy. They don't seem to think it has an overall quelling effect on everyone's contributions except for the Five Pillars, who are mostly bizarre loons who have trouble writing anything but trivia. For Sam to want to return to the site, he'd need no sense of self-respect. --Leotardo (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's deeper than just a 'block now, ask later' attitude - the CP sysops have such a huge persecution complex, that it's vital for them to present a united (albeit cross-eyed and drooling) face to the outside world. Towit, TwinKle's insistence on PMs... unless he's the one doing the criticising, of course. Thus, there was no way that Sam could have won - none of the sysops would take his side, and likewise, none would dare strike Ed down either. If you're a sysop on CP these days, you can basically do what the hell you like, because nobody's going to challenge you on it. -- Ψ Gremlin  13:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. The recent "hunkering down" at CP means that there is no way I will ever be allowed back. It used to be that, when Andy's junior bullies (Danny-girl Pulido, DouglasA, ...) would block me or one of my other accounts, Andy would quietly tell them to unblock me, because he actually wanted math writing, and knew that, abrasive as I was, I could do it. But he no longer cares about any of that stuff. Everyone is gone. There is no math, science, technology, chemistry, or computer science any more. There's no longer any reason to contribute anything. The place is dead. I recently posted a last few examples of what good math and computer science writing could be like, and in the end, really stuck it to "Professor Ed" about his utter inability to do the same. If Andy or Ed had any self-respect, they would delete my changes to "drag and drop" and "docking", and go back to Ed's ignorant stubs. After all, the good articles were written by a liberal prevaricator/troublemaker. SamHB (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am curious SamHB, if you still had an opportunity, given what just happened to you, would you go back and if so, why? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to my talk page, OK? By the way, I'm always in a quandary as to whether to be Gauss or SamHB here at RW. At CP, I could handle 15 socks properly, because each one had a specific personality and specific goals, and everything was planned extremely carefully. But here at RW it just confuses the hell out of me. (As an example, I just had to scroll to the top to see who I am. Sam I am.) SamHB (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WARNING: DO NOT WIGO THIS
Yes it's stupid, yes it's retarded, yes it makes no sense but it's Ken. I vote no more Ken WIGOs. I vote we not discuss Ken and let this thread die with no responses. --Leotardo (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC) "[They] don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public." - Richard Dawkins )
 * I won't discuss it if you don't ask me not to. Blancmange (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm? Discuss what?  Were your referring to Julian Assange's lovesick letters? --Leotardo (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this one is a case of don't ask don't tell. Auld Nick (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, we're not discussing this? Then what are we doing? --Thunderstruck (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Boring. Not only is it not WIGO worthy, it's not T:WIGO worthy either.   14:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the boring part. I was going to say this on their talk page with my sock but editing is still off. I was in the army for a month. I have the discharge papers and the dog tags to prove it. We had a million classes on harassment. EVERY drill sergeant we had not only thought DADT was stupid, but they IGNORED it and were aware that several people they served with overseas were gay. As one sergeant said, "Some people need to get a grip". As another sergeant put it, "I don't give a fuck who you are. We bleed the same color.". I was surprised, but it makes sense. They said that as long as you get your job done, it isn't a problem. Ken needs to shut up. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it amazing how any so-called conservative (and I'm including the yahoo in Ken's source here) would want to highlight how many put their hatred of gays ahead of service to their own country. --Kels (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what's always baffled me about McCain's steadfast opposition, even when so many conservatives have abandoned this old chestnut. --Leotardo (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I am sure Kenny has a distinguished military record to back him up on this, right? Right? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He's had about a decade fighting in the trenches of his own private war on evolution. What brave service that man has given to his country from his basement battlefront! What war poetry effervesces from his keyboard when the muses inspire him to call Richard Dawkins a clown for the millionth time! Admire his decorations for gallantry, such as the Shock of God star for being dumber than a bag of rocks. No other hero could compare to kendoll. He's the very spirit of America. -- 17:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At least one senior sysop has been "in the marines", so I'm sure they can get an in-house opinion from someone with first hand experience. 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Who? TK? Senator Harrison (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Karajou? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 21:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And the powers that be have decided to delete the diff. But by the power of Mozilla/ScreenGrab!, I've a copy of it... Only took them 13hrs to delete, the site is really growing! CS Miller (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah - did you upload the screengrab? --Leotardo (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't; I just kept the tab open. I did save a PNG grab, but for some reason there was no text written to it. Tried to do it again, and got a JS busy error, stopped the script and Firefox exited. Drat. Really should have saved the HTML first. Anybody else have a copy? CS Miller (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia may contain inappropriate material
Nice to know family values are being upheld in the UK

Auld Nick (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had that too. Liberal censorship in action.  20:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Access is being monitored? Is this a common thing in the UK?-- 23:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fulcrum is a utilities provider. It's likely that Auld Nick is at work and it's just a local firewall. – Nick Heer 23:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ive never had problems accessing it. Is it common to see it blocked from schools? Pegasus (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My high school (in the United States) blocks Conservapedia. It's a shame when I'm bored in computer science class and can't view it. ~Super Hamster  Talk 00:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly a combination of Liberal Censorship and Professor Values. --Kels (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Daniel1212 is carrying on at the boston.com website.
Daniel has alerted people to a surge in incoming traffic for their marvelous homosexual agenda page, due to his recent posts on the Boston Globe forum. I made the mistake of going there. The guy not only can't string two sentences together coherently, he can't even write one complete coherent sentence. Examples: Gauss (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "However, in a popular democracy is the people who effectively choose what the basic "civil religion" shall be, and so they have and are, resulting in an ever-morphing morality based upon man's finite reasoning, while America's increasing rejection of basic Biblical moral absolutes which has and is costing this country greatly in souls, lives and money"
 * "As you may know, the marketing of homosexual relations, as normative and healthy has followed a advertising and public relations strategy, which is actually been quite successful."
 * The completely non-committal response is awesome, though. --Kels (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cant see it, have to register. I'm not registering.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see it just fine without registering. I'd remember if I'd registered on Boston.com before, I'm sure. --Kels (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

D1212 = Kendoll? Blancmange (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not likely, although it is an interesting idea that he might sock every time he wants to write about teh ghays. The only explanation for him doing that is he doesn't want us to see him returning to his old obsession and the mocking that brings. It is possible, although I would say that they are two separate people based on how unlikely him doing that is. -  π    04:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not likely. I didn't see a single "in regards to", which is his hallmark.  SamHB (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think that posts reads like pure Ken. However, I will defer to greater and less jelly-like molded minds.  There might be two people that stupid on the planet, indeed. Blancmange (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That was exactly what I was thinking. That has Kendoll's MO written all over it. It does make me wonder if the master of disguise also has socks at CP. -- 10:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly Ken's MO, but it's not his usual writing style. I'm wondering if he's taken Danny1212 under his wing. Either that, or it's the launch of the long-term - and convenient - project that will prevent him answering questions about his Swedish prof. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I read his posts, it is Danny - he first links to his wonderful "Homosex versus the Bible" drivel. Loved the "fallacy of your augmentation" bit. Shadowman72 managed to give him a good spanking tho. -- Ψ Gremlin  11:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Karajou makin CP look stoopid with Michael Moore
Karajou today posted an item about Michael Moore and that a Wikileaks cable said Cuba banned Sicko because the film was so inaccurate. That's not true, and even Karajou's own link goes to a 404 at the Guardian's website. The Guardian story makes it clear that the film was shown (even on Cuban national television). The falsehood that it was banned was a smear by U.S. officials over the documentary. --Leotardo (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Wouldn't a movie's banning in Cuba constitute a seal of quality in CP's eyes? In a "This is what the commies don't want you to see!" way? Röstigraben (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to remember that as a good conservative, Karajerk would never, ever tell a lie. Thus you're supposed to accept his "news" broadcast at face value. Only a filthy librull would dare do something so underhand as actually read the link provided. -- Ψ Gremlin  10:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see Ed has fixed it in his own special way. Why go to all the trouble of looking for a source when you can just delete it? -- Ψ Gremlin  10:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Doomed to repeat it
I know, JPratt, lets call it Iraqistan. You fucking idiot. -- 12:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He clearly doesn't get the obvious dichotomy in "The world was supposed to see a democratic Iraqi state emerge that is to be an ally of the West". You can make somewhere be an ally of the West and you can make somewhere a democracy - but you can't do both. If they are a democracy they will be allied to whomever they wish. StarFish (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm tickled by the idea that there's still a "The West" to be allies with. I think I remember the cold war ending a couple of decades ago. Maybe I'm just going senile. -- 12:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He's using "the West" in a Samuel Huntington, "Clash of Civilizations" mode--pretty common, actually. 70.28.46.79 (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he was expressing the general hope many had for Iraq; that a democratic Iraq would be friendly towards the US (and Europe) rather than the idea they would be made to do do. That being said, Iraq as a real issue with a piss poor record dealing with ethnic and religious minorities. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

rather then the idea  I suspect you mean "rather thAn the idea", you are spectacularly thick for a critic. It is idiocy like this that will ensure this site goes down the crapper as fast as Conservapedalo.82.23.211.127 (talk)
 * Oh noes! My E-Pride! Emo! Drama! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 03:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Best liberal claptrap evah?
This Schlaflism is particularly inspired. Is he trying to say AiG's grand folly is inspired by god, and therefore they can lie about feasibility studies all they want? Maybe if Noah had done a feasibility study, more of his neighbours would have believed him. -- 12:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the one advantage of a closed and dead CP: We now get pure, unadulterated crazy from Andy. I'm guessing we can add "planning permission" to this this failed engineer doesn't understand. Maybe Andy can challenge this in court? Hold up a Bible and say, "The last time we built an Ark, a feasibility study wasn't needed. We can from this heartfelt recording of history by Noah..." -- Ψ Gremlin  12:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, liberal claptrap? As far as I can tell, KY (what an unfortunate abbreviation) has 2 GOP senators and 4/6 GOP Congressmen. I have a feeling the state is more conservative than liberal. Or are they "liberals" because "they said something Andy doesn't agree with?" -- Ψ Gremlin  12:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well duuuh! That's the very CP definition of librul!   13:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what Andy is saying is that liberals are making a fuss about this, as if it's a problem when obviously God has already signed off on it. DickTurpis (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When he posted this I looked into why it would be 'liberal' and the only thing I could come up with is that the Lexington Courier-Herald was the one who filed the request to get the study, and they endorsed Jack Conway, Rand Paul's opponent. --Leotardo (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * His line of reasoning isn't even consistent with his own beliefs. Noah didn't need to do a feasibility study because god told him directly to do it in order to save mankind and all the adorable animals (fuck those ugly dinosaurs). THIS ark, however, is a tourist attraction. Even if he honestly believes god said "yea, build thyself an ark with which to milk money from tourists", the situation is different. Man I'm overthinking this... X Stickman (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa whoa whoa - just like the original Ark, this ark will also feature dinosaurs. --Leotardo (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Siiiiiiiigh. Well, at least if they have a full size ark we can say "Okay, now get in it with a few thousand animals and all the food you can cram in there, and stay in it for a year. No, no you're not allowed extra food." Fun times! X Stickman (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on there. It's not just about locking yourself in with a bunch of animals (including dinosaurs) for a year.  The thing has got to remain afloat.  I say they need to fill it up with animals and push it out to sea.  Then we'll have a real test.  I double dare them.  --Horace (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Noah is alleged to have built the ark himself, without funding. Ham and the boys better get cracking! --Kels (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If Andy's going to go for this idiotic "well it happened this way in the bible", why are we having murder trials? God personally showing up and banishing Cain was good enough for the bible, we should wait for him to get his fat ass down from heaven to do the same for modern murderers. Removing all these cases would cut down on government spending as well so it'll go down fine with the Republicans. -- 04:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh those burdensome regulations on food safety
Shouldn't Andy be grading "tests"? Instead he is on MPR griping about the first update to America's food safety system in over a century. Oh - ha ha - yeah, those "tests", yeah right, for those "students". Anyway, this is funny because he writes that the food safety bill was a result of a "surprise", but the bill passed November 30 with healthy bipartisan support (73-25), they only needed to re-vote on it due to a technicality. --Leotardo (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Glenn Beck wasn't screeching about it back in November. Andy and Co. need someone to tell them what to think about legislation. -- 18:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a win-win for nutbars. First, they get to fear monger about government control. Second, during the next outbreak of foodborne illness they get to demand to know why it wasn't stopped by the new regulations. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and then say, "See, government doesn't work! It couldn't prevent this foodborne illness!" --Leotardo (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember, Republicans run for office on the premise that government doesn't work, and, when elected, go on to prove just that. MDB (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, P.J. O'Rouke. --Tygrehart
 * You can't expect good government from people who think government is the problem. --Kels (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Misc. Andy nonsense
Two Andy items here, but I didn't think they were worth a wigo. First: Poor Scott Brown, from Republican hero to RINO in only 11 months, that may be some kind of record. Ncxt, regarding climate change.... he's never going to understand is he? 11:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Scotty? He's bee a RINO for a long time. I think first use of the term was as far back as april.--Thunderstruck (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy's going to cling to his "if it's global warming why is it getting colder" straw until the very end. It basically means we can just add "doesn't know the difference between "weather" and "climate" to his many, many failings. -- Ψ Gremlin  12:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing I don't understand - if I remember my geography correctly, Costa Rica is in the northern hemisphere (albeit not by much). That being the case, how, exactly, is the 14th December 'not winter yet', when that's about a week before the northern winter solstice, otherwise known as 'midwinter'?  92.9.48.74 (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Traditionally, winter doesn't start until the solstice so this is technically still autumn. Meteorologists, however, define winter as 1 Dec to 28/29 Feb. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't familiar with that one, myself. Where I come from, the solstice is more or less the midpoint of winter, with winter being the beginning of November to the beginning of February.  So, it would seem that Andy was using a somewhat subjective criteria to say 'it's not even winter yet'. 92.9.48.74 (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What's funny is he sees reports like the one he posted, witnesses freak early storms in the US and the coldest European winter for 1,000 years and instead of thinking "Wow, that's some strange weather we're having," he goes "la la la it's not global warming. libruls are liars liars pants on fires." What a strange little man. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @BoN, Wikipedia says it varies from place to place. @Psy, indeed: cold winters seem to prove global warming is wrong, but hot summers are nothing to do with it. He's very weird indeed. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * According to freaking reality it varies. The whole soltices/equini as the "beginning" of each season is a joke.  Here, Spring runs from late April with any luck to sometime in June.  Summer is July 4 to Labor Day.  Autumn from then til Halloween.  Winter is everything else.  06:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What's with the "news" shows calling it the "official first day of winter"? Who is the official "season sanctioning body" anyway? September Storm (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn those liberals and their use of modern synonyms
I'd just been trying to work out how to post this as a WIGO myself. Andy doesn't seem to have bothered to check what his Conservative Bible Travesty gives for Matthew 1:18 at http://conservapedia.com/Matthew_1-9_(Translated). It runs:

“The birth of Jesus Christ happened this way: His mother, Mary, was engaged to Jospeh [sic!], but before they were married, she became pregnant with the child of the Divine Guide [sic].” Tylersboy (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya know, its entierly possible that christianity came about as a way to cover the fact that "Mary" and "Joseph" got it on before marriage. A stoneable offence 2000+ years ago. Just sayin...--Thunderstruck (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the Aztecs did something similar. If a priestess became pregnant, she would be buried alive, unless she declared that the father was the Sun God. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 12:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I recall, there was an alternative hypothesis that, if there ever was a historical Jesus, he was actually conceived through Mary being raped by a Roman soldier named Pantera or Panthera. Back then, it was seen that, even in cases of rape, it's still the woman's fault, with all the penalties of adultery - hence the cock-and-bull story about being 'made pregnant by God' and having a 'virgin birth'. 92.9.48.74 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the Pantera story derives from the polemical writings of Celsus, a determined second century opponent of Christianity, it’s hardly less unbiased a source than Matthew’s Gospel, though it is interesting that the tomb of a soldier called Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, who had served in Judaea at the time of Christ’s conception, was later found in Germany. That said, I actually started the thread to highlight CP inconsistency, not spark a discussion of alternatives to the Immaculate Conception! Tylersboy (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blesséd is he who starteth a thread but thrice blesséd is he whose thread stayeth on topic. Him (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the evidence of this is not exactly great, hence why I said it's a 'hypothesis', nothing more. However, let's just say I find it a more likely explanation than 'a magical Sky-Daddy waved his hands and made me pregnant with a magical baby by magic.'  92.9.48.74 (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem, Virgin Birth != Immaculate Conception. Cantabrigian (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cantabrigian, I did add a correction myself almost immediately, but it got deleted. Tylersboy (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What's retarded about this is that the King James version uses "with child"--as we all see in their ConservaBible Project with them changing it to "pregnant"--so how is keeping with child appeasing abortion supporters? Is that what they were doing with the KJV?  I also can't for the life of me figure out how "with child" is more pro-abort than "pregnant"?  --Leotardo (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, Leotardo: practically the whole of the CP "Feminist Bible" entry consists of similar lunacy. Tylersboy (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but virgin birth is not the same as immaculate conception. The immaculate conception was the conception of Mary, who was born immaculate, ie (unlike the rest of us) without 'original sin'. FretfulPorpentine.
 * Interesting! I still think Greek mythology had more flavor than Christian mythology.  --Leotardo (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is fully consistent with Schlafly's razor: where difference exists, it can be defined in terms of conservative/liberal. Rrose selavy (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, on the Virgin Birth/Immaculate Conception thing, I did try to correct it: see http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F&diff=702656&oldid=702655 Tylersboy (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Canada!
You've joined the Axis of Atheism I see. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have socialized medicine, gay marriage, and never had DADT in the first place. Hell, we even let people from Toronto into the military!  So clearly we were already evil to start with. --Kels (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it toronto is the new jersey of canada?--Thunderstruck (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Shut the hell up TS Senator Harrison (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a yes.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blame Canada! Blame Canada! It seems that everything's gone wrong since Canada came along.  Blame Canada, blame Canada! They're not even a real country anyway.  sterile 02:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor vs. EdS
The stupid is really heating up. Ed makes vague demands and is asked for clarification, so of course, he demands a writing plan. I know that's his way of telling the user to fuck off, but I was wondering: Has anyone ever submitted a writing plan? Has Ed ever accepted a writing plan? Occasionaluse (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen a couple now and then but Senior Editor Ed Poor has usually moved on to some other form of stupidity by the time one is presented. Ace McfuckingAwesome 22:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(below from a simultaneously posted section) cp:User:EdS was making pretty routine changes to articles and creating new ones. Ed Poor, known for his amazing article contributions developed well and full of substantive information, took offense. So EdP gave instructions to EdS, which included "fix the ones I told you to fix." As Ed told EdS, " We aim not at completeness, but ease of access ". See, at an encyclopedia, it doesn't matter if the information is complete, what is helpful is that you can find it in a jiff! Over on Joe Paterno, EdP complained that rather droll statements " need sources ". When EdP asked, "What makes Cliff Kincaid a 'conservative activist'" EdS--hehe--responded " he is a conservative and an activist " Finally EdP just blocks this newcomer as a " troublemaker ". Awesome. --Leotardo (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The last CP sock I ever had, some years ago now, gave up because I couldn't handle bowing to Ed's stupidity. Ace McfuckingAwesome 22:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Now Ed is arguing with the dead. It's amazing how stupid this guy is. User: "If you have money America has the best health care" Ed: "If USA has the best health care system in the world, how can you be "better off" in Cuba when it comes to health care?" What a complete dolt. "Being proud of something is unrelated to its quality, especially in a regime that can fake such feelings." Damn straight. We're a rapidly growing encyclopedia that's better than any other encyclopedia!!! "Where does Cuba ever get attention for its health care (other than in arguments about socialism)?" I don't know...THE WORLD. And the rankings part is a hoot. Best Conservative... lol. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All the CP sysops are stupid, but Ed's stupidity has a special quality... it's the particular form of stupidity that only comes from believing you're clever. Tonight's little play illustrates it perfectly. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He really really has a limited capacity for intellectual thought, to a degree most of us would find embarrassing, but that he brandishes with gusto! He raises the arguments of a third grader.  The 'how can you be better off' counterpoint was hysterical.  He was not wanted at Wikipedia just because he's dumb.  The encyclopedia anyone can edit...but not everybody should --Leotardo (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ed is now creating a link farm of whatever propaganda he can find on Google for his new, informative, 'easy to find' cp:Health care in Cuba article. --Leotardo (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a classic. Let's pretend the data that doesn't fit our beliefs doesn't exist. Ed Poor and indeed creationism in a nutshell. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I like how he posts on the talk page as if he expects a decent reply discussing the article, when the most he'll get is a "Yeah, whatever" from Andy (and he'll be lucky to get even that). Most likely Ed will make a few minor changes and no-one will read or edit that article for months. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 00:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit! Maybe I'm being a megalomaniac (a liberal trait, no doubt), but I may have caused Ed's recent rampage on computer science stuff, including his interactions with "EdS". (No, I am not EdS.) This may be a case of someone who has had a difficult day at work coming home and kicking the cat/dog/kids/wife. You see, I seriously and pointedly chewed him out about making blog articles instead of encyclopedia articles here, as well as chewing him out about his obsession about people not following his direction in math writing here. The "shame on you" edit probably didn't help his disposition either. Furthermore, since some of the stuff was oversighted before he could read it, I sent him email which you can see here, complete with the statement "It is possible that John thinks you aren't mature enough to handle criticism". What he did subsequently to EdS looks a lot like dishing out exactly what I had dished out to him. He also seems to have undone some of his computer science liveblog stubs. Interesting. The investigation continues. SamHB (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Could well be the cause, Ed P was in a pretty bad mood. He also blocked a seemingly genuine editor, AdamV, just for trying to discuss Cuba as far as I can see.  Unfortunately I don't think Ed actually deleted any of his CS masterpieces like "move mysql column".  EdS had helpfully cataloged that crap in Category:Computer Tips and Ed Poor didn't want a list of his stupid stuff to be so easy to find.  EdS also created some of his own like "emacs inverse-add-mode-abbrev" which are what Ed nuked. --MarkGall (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. He seems to have nuked the emacs inverse... article.  I didn't consider it worth screencapping; it was nothing but a recitation of the phrase "emacs inverse-add-mode-abbrev", or maybe ".... is an emacs command", or something similarly useful.  It didn't say what the command did; I just looked it up.  It is
 * Define last word before point as a mode-specific abbrev. With prefix argument N, defines the Nth word before point. This command uses the minibuffer to read the expansion. Expands the abbreviation after defining it.
 * Good to know. And, of course, of all the thousands of emacs commands (hundreds of which I use, but not that one) that was the only one listed.  And in a category of emacs commands, I believe.  No doubt about it, Ed "we want information to be easy to find" Poor.  When I want to know the name of some obscure emacs command, I go to Conservapedia, with its comprehensive and useful list of emacs commands.  SamHB (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You know this 'article' came about b/c Ed had some random reason for using that emacs command so he put it where he could find it easily; not on a crib sheet, but on Conservapedia. It's not surprising Andy let's him junk the site up like that: who else is there to provide any content? --Leotardo (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like typical Ed behaviour after he's been proved wrong about something. He spends a day or two swaggering around CP, beating his chest and yelling, "Me User188! Me important! Me know lots stuff! I no listen you, peon! You die! Me important!" Then he'll piss on as many articles as he can, staking out his territory.-- Ψ Gremlin  09:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)