Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive255

What IE is according to Ed
Apparently IE is neither developed nor distributed by Microsoft , nor does it have version history, nor is it the most used browser, nor is it criticized for it;'s security, nor does it have categories or external links. IF somebody would like to sacrifice an account, they can remind Ed that Ken posted a link on the MPR saying IE is the safest browser. --Mikalos209 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I love the fact that the article looks just like your average Ed-stub now. Vulpius (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It almost seems like Ed repels editors as much as Karajou. Karajou does it with anger, Ed does it with smug idiocy. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be a real Ed stub, the text should read, "Microsoft Internet Explorer is a web browser. It is sometimes used by scantily clad thirteen-year-old girls who have sex appeal." Phiwum (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's utterly depressing. So Microsoft isn't developing the Internet Explorer because it licensed code to get started? I'm speechless. --Sid (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They didn't initially develop it, so now they don't develop it either. Makes perfect sense to Ed. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. This is a man who crows that he's responsible for over 1,000 Wikipedia articles because he did things like create "Heaven" with the contents, "ooh heaven is a place on Earth".  If he didn't hold onto the idea that the originator always deserves the lion's share of the credit, no matter how deeply buried (or entirely discarded) his work is, the dissonance would drive him into a basement to create "Essay: Transitional Form - The Flying Tender Tween". --Ellipsoidal (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting conclusion, I hadn't even looked at it from that angle! --Sid (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

God Invented the Transistur
Godd inventid th transisturr, soo hhe kan bludly wel spel itt anee weigh hhe leighks. Poynting owt peeples supposid spellin erors is an add hominym attaq, unlez yu ohn th cite. Ghet reel! Jimaginator (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...What?--Mikalos209 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * t/n: "God invented the transistor, so he can bloody well spell it any way he likes. Pointing out people's supposed spelling errors is an ad hominem attack, unless you are one of the liberal fascists who run this vandal wiki own the site. Get real!" 18:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Mikalos209 was asking what the hilarious sentence was on about...not what was being sed. 18:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * Well, having a link to what he ment did help, without it it looks like he's just rambling mad--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I happen to be a raving lunatic. "Rambling Mad" sounds like a liberal attack to me.8-) Jimaginator (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't access CP right now (keeps timing out) but was that user blocked for his post in your capture? I don't see anything about an ad hominem attack in the capture you posted. Was Andy the original author of the first paragraph, where it refers to "transisters"? You know it's bad when someone with an electrical engineer can't spell transistor... άλφα Talk 21:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dunno whether he was blocked, but the capture there was used in an "Andy can't spell transistor" wigo. I tossed in the closest link I could find, for translative purposes. (@subject: I'm not a big fan of typos = wigos, but it's still funny.) 06:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: Yeah, he was blocked. By TK, for supposedly sharing an IP with people.  06:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

New KaraToon!!!
It's not his worst. (But that isn't saying much.) --Tabrcg23 (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for something related to our very own Rob. Vulpius (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob? Pretty sure Kara never knew a "Rob."  In fact, I'm pretty sure there never was a "Rob" at CP.  Oh, and we have always been at war with Eastasia too. --Tygrehart
 * Yes, we have always been at war with Eastasia --Mikalos209 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Carrys"? Yikes. Not a bad toon though. --Benod (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I give it a C-! He's gone up two grades! -- 01:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He could have had a bit more fun with that point by depicting the protagonist of the song "Pickup Man" being forced to drive a Smart Fortwo. 06:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For Karajou, that's a pretty good toon. Now to think of a good parody... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's still rather shitty. First small point, how does a tricycle seat two? And if you're not being retarded, the alternative would be a normal bicycle instead of a kid's tricycle, which is a lot of cases a damn good alternative. As someone who is Dutch (land of bicycles) and has lived in the US for half a year, it seemed really stupid to me that I pretty much had to use my car for everything, even if I just needed a few groceries from the store that was like 1-2km away. Yes, I COULD have walked or bicycled, but that seemed way too dangerous to me since the roads were really not made for it. Hell, my apartment complex was connected to a busy road which didn't even have a sidewalk.. GTac (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it's still rather shitty, but we're comparing it to other KaraToons, not anything actually amusing. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Jcw blocks himself, takes it out on Sid
So it seems he wanted to block Sid for trolling, but accidentally blocked himself. This was for a month. So, he unblocks himself (and his IP), and then blocks Sid for 3 months Was the increased block performed out of impotent rage?--  00:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he blamed me for his bad aim. =P --Sid (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed will be pleased: Thanks for your edit - sorry that it get you blocked... Somehow I wasn't amused by Ed's attempts to be funny
 * What I actually maintain is that I have yet to see a genuine example of political censorship, i.e., removing any reference to an idea or claim merely because it is "liberal". I've asked dozens of times for examples, and to date haven't seen any. But I'll take a look at Sid's material below now, just to be a good sport
 * Seven minutes later:
 * These are from March 2010. If there was a problem, it seems that by ignoring it I made it go away . Anything more recent than that? And please remind me what there are examples of. Is it uncivil comments, or antithetical ideas?
 * Arrgh: I can't see anything though I'm keeping my eyes shut! 06:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 06:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it was a block by Kara-clone Jcw, so it was less the actual edit that got me blocked and more the fact that I did moved at all. ;) And yeah, Ed's reply made me headdesk epically. And he still believes that he's a fair and gentle guide. --Sid (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor Wigo Fail
The Christian Science Monitor has nothing do do with Christianity or Christian Science, at least in its editorial content. It carries one religiously-themed article or so an issue, and could probably be best categorized as middle-of-the-road, which to Andy means "liberal." Nothing to see here. (I read about 10 years worth of CSM, ranging over the 1980s-1990s for an MA thesis) B♭maj7 Racist Fucker or War Hero? Only his stylist knows for sure. 13:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the CSM lambasted the CBP, making them anathema for all time in Andy's little piggy eyes. -- PsyGremlin  13:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In spite of the name the CSM isn't about christian science. Amongst new oriented news papers the csm is actually a pretty good science reporter. --Opcn (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True dat.-- 14:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * CSM keeps making Newsbusters.org for its liberalism. --193.200.150.125 (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Barry Goldwater would make Newsbusters for liberalism... -- 21:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Email
I think I missed something, but I just logged into two of my old CP user accounts (both currently blocked) and email is disabled? No emailing administrators to appeal blocks, or is that just those accounts? άλφα Talk 14:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * CP disabled email because teh assfly says it takes away from the open collaboration of a blog wiki.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Or probably more accurately because people kept emailing him about blocks, and he decided it was better not to hear. -- 16:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC Andy said he never read mails he received via CP anyway. It also makes a joke of their "contact an admin if you're blocked" policy. -- PsyGremlin  16:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I once brought this up on the Community Portal, and others also brought it up here and there, but nothing ever happened. No internal mail + no possibility to edit your own talk page + MYOB = no appeals by anybody. --Sid (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * E-Mail notification was disabled because it gives instant notification to vandals to disrupt certain editors on certain pages. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 17:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...what? That doesn't make much sense - if vandals are so coordinated already, why would they rely on Conservapedia's internal mail system and not simply mail each other directly? --Sid (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And even if we accept this silliness at face value, the move still makes no sense because it utterly cripples the entire site and does more overall damage to the community than any vandal ever could. Then again, Andy was never known for thinking beyond his own needs and wishes. --Sid (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Amen. You got it. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 19:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, seriously? -- 21:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Let's suppose you are User:Consrvative. And let's suppose you wake up with fresh ideas for the cp:Gay bowel syndrome article. And let's suppose you set to work, but your first click alerts the ratvandals you're awake and working on Gay bowel syndrome. Then let's imagine a legion of ratvandals begins to attack and disrupt User:Conservative's work. He doesn't like putting aside more than 5 minutes per month for any problem users. And let's suppose the massive coordinated vandal attack causes User:Conservative to forget his fresh revelations on Gay Bowel Syndrome, and he has to spend the morning blocking users, reverting, oversighting, and deleting user pages. So User:Conservative get's frustrated and tells Andy, "Even though I have a big following and bring the site lots of traffic, wouldn't it be a good idea to inconvenince the other sysops, and everybody else, if we just turned off email so I can be free to concentrate on Gay bowel syndrome?" AAndy says, "Great incite! I have the same trouble myself! Lets do it." 22:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "RatVandals" the who? And last i checked, most Ken articles are locked--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy cites himself
Andy cites himself in a conversation with a dead man. Way old, I know] but still good. --Roofus (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So, what's new?
I just looked at the new articles in namespace main. Perhaps Andy is right, and it isn't necessary to add any new educational stuff: ''Article count beyond a certain critical mass (say 20,000 entries) doesn't have any particular significance. People who are interested can look at the statistics. But fewer than 20,000 entries, and perhaps fewer than 10,000 entries, are of any value to 99% of visitors.'' He better should be, because what's added over the last time is generally of little value. See for yourself:

(feel free to add comments... )

We have the usual utter idiocies by 🇰🇪, a couple of redirects, the political pieces by Ed Poor and lots of food-stuff. The articles on cars could be something of interest for the intended audience, but it turns out that they are nationalistic crap.

11:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Rice rockets"? Encyclopedic! Also, the Judaism and Islam article is just classic Ed. "They have many interesting similarities and differences, but I'm not going to tell what they are. That's what peons other editors are for." Vulpius (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how the cp:Judaism and Islam article could be considered an "attack piece." Sure, it's stupid, and barely contains any information, but I don't think it's really an attack. I'm curious, though, why Ed thought this article was even necessary... CP already has cp:Islam and cp:Judaism. Was he aiming for a comparison and contrast, but he's just too lazy to write it? άλφα Talk 12:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nissan thing is gold. Nice find. Mountain Blue (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just doubled the size of the Baden-Baden piece by adding some very, very basic facts. A bit like scraping the minimum of thin butter over very dry toast. The Nissan page is laughable.Darkmind1970 (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't hold a candle to Karajou's bird droppings. Now those really are a collossal waste. ONE / TALK 13:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My favorite effect of the bird droppings : have a look at WantedPages ! 13:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Aaaaahahhaha. I see quite a few battles present too... also a result of Karajou's work I'm guessing. ONE / TALK 13:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also find the article about Porsche interesting. Nothing about the actual manufacture of cars itself other than the fact that they do produce cars, but of course the Nazis must be the first thing to be mentioned when discussing a german company. Chaosof99 (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fairly obvoius parody, which means that it will certainly be allowed to stay at cp especially as I've called it. Read the talk on sports cars, especially the stuff about Ferarris being overpriced because Mercan cars win on the track and beat those sissy italian puff mobiles.  Of course, the only reason anything cost more is because it goes faster, nothing to do with better engineering, nicer styling, fanny magnetism (uk fanny not us) or the like. Makes me wonder where all the US formula 1 teams are and why they aren't dominating the world championship. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because their cars are more obese heavier, so as to be safer in accidents. Cantabrigian (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the CP: Henry Ford Talk page sometime. the americanism is strong with that one, til he realized ford wasn't jesus.--Mikalos209 (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cosmodicy is the problem for atheists of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil." I just LOLed.  The fundamental goodness of the universe?  I never heard a secular person ever say the universe is fundamentally "good"; it is fundamentally indifferent to our suffering and plight if anything as it has no conscious or awareness. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The cosmodicy thing is just Maratrean reacting to the debate that took place here. I posted a link to an article, he started arguing, and by the end of it he had a whole new theory that he has proceeded to put on ASOK, Ameriwiki, and CP.-- 20:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You speak as if cosmodicy is something I invented — how then do you explain 73 Google Scholar hits for "+cosmodicy", 347 Google Books hits for "+cosmodicy", and over 3990 Google web hits (the vast majority of which are not me). So cosmodicy is a real topic, something philosophers/theologians have been talking about for a long time (I found articles discusing it from the late 80s/early 90s). And I believe my defiintion of it is accurate. If you don't agree I have defined it accurately, please propose an alternative definition. 02:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And now we have cosmodicy, and too.  10:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Typical example of Andy's idea of "productive" editing; advocacy for reform and accountability is a 90/10 violation. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 16:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob... Shut the fuck up about how "unfair" you were treated.--Mikalos209 (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * +1 to that. If you hadn't edited there since early 2008 without saying a peep, we might take you seriously. Just stop it. You're embarrassing yourself. B♭maj7 RATZINGER RATZINGER RATZINGER 16:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Boy, Mikalos, and B♭maj, you two certainly have something against Rob. U2MAD? [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]Norseman  Cyser Melomel  20:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Quiet you--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Active users
Here's an idea for Larron: CP boasts 1105 active users over the past 91 days, almost double what it was prior to lifing the range blocks and the reform insurrection. Of those 1105, how many of new accounts, less sleeper accounts (those yet to perform an edit); less those who've been blocked, equal net new users, minus new users who have not abided by 90/10, would give us net new users since the range blocks were undone & welcome the newbie reform suggested? Or more simply, how many new users remain unblocked who are contributing to mainspace within the 90/10 guideline? RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 17:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick guess: Almost none. Does it MATTER though rob? What are you trying to prove? --Mikalos209 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Worst College Majors
So this is rather old, but it's still worth reading. I wouldn't call these majors "useless" or "worthless", but in all fairness, these students (at least at my university) are... shall we say... cunts? Professor (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my, i've never read this. So.  We shouldn't study world religions, and ministers shouldn't study theology.  they should, like Andy does, just make it up.  Architecture- why get a degree in making buildings .  how fucking hard is it to build a damn building!  "surfing studies?"  lol, do they not review their pages for obvious poe additions?  Evo Bio - cause you know, that's just a lie anyhow, so they are teaching you to lie.  like journalism.  anyone can write if they want.  just look at Andy!  And god forbid anyone actually want to learn how forrests work, so we can make healthy productive forrests for our lumber industry and tourism.  it's liberal i tell you, TREE HUGGERS.   (by the way, if i haven't said it before.   i hate these people.  what simple fucking minds they are. )--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  17:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the old saying? "Write a book, don't read a book"? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah the Evo Bio one really pissed me off. Assfly also included Astronomy. I can imagine his stupid fucking rant about how astronomy "hasn't bettered our lives, and it leads to mindless relativity and less Bible reading". I want the ghost of Carl Sagan to crash a satellite on him. Professor (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He actually said that, or something like it? that astronmy have given us nothing?  Fuck fuck fuck fuck.  these are the people who are in control of the purse for nasa, you know.  grrrrrrr fuck.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  17:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * NASA are a bunch of Soros shills for the global warming hoax, fool. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Philo also bugged me, but that's on lots of actual real, fully studied lists like this. it's hard to get a job out of a philo degree, but the fact is, there is no better place to learn to think for thinkings sake.  even science, which is probably good for critical analysis, doesn't really teach you to think.   some degrees are there cause we don't need a world full of robots who do everything like everyone else.  granted, if you get a philo degree, you have to be creative to use it in the real world, but it can be done.  unless you are in a tech field, any under grad degree is about as good as any other in the business world.  "I learned to think, to write, to organize my day, i'm a good employee".[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  17:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really surprised that the list includes a lot of liberal arts degrees, and whether or not formal study is required to create good art is disputable, but the number of fields of study on the list which have direct economical, financial, technological, and environmental impact is astonishing. Quite obviously this is in large part due to Andy disagreeing with the field of study. Most notable is of course evolutionary biology and astronomy. However, I'm quite sure the way architecture landed on this list is because CP thinks this is more of a liberal arts degree (e.g. "what makes a building look good") rather than a technological field of study (e.g. "what makes a building keep standing"). Also, why are forestry and horticulture on this list. I guess Andy thinks eating and breathing are overrated, and so must the wood industry and the clothing industry. Chaosof99 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I used to think philosophy wasn't really applicable as far as the job market goes. My university recently offered a combined degree in philosophy and journalism that's already really popular. Professor (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the footnote for psychology goes to a story about clergy getting laid off. I love how they hate psychology because FREUD = ATHEIZMZ!11!! Even though much of his stuff is regarded as rank quackery in the field now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually the story is about clergy getting laid by the children in their parish, so I guess that story is an improvement? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At least in the US, all majors are about as valid as any other major (outside of the sciences, or tech fields where a specific degree is required, like computers, making pretty buildings, etc). What you are showing with your philosophy major, or your "business administration" major, or your "art history" is not that you want to be an art historian or a philosopher, but that you 1) know how to write, 2) know how to research, 3) can complete papers and set up your day's time schedule on your own, etc.   I can walk into any typical 9-5, sky scraper cubical business job with an english degree, or a general math degree, an art degree, or a russian literature degree and sell myself for the job.  Again - that is US perspective, where a college degree has become much like a highschool degree.  a requirement for jobs, but not because it is a particular path into any given field of work (again, other than your specific carrer-degrees).[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  19:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea that college is really a vocational school is one that dummies adhere to - instead of looking at it as a place where you expand your mind and learn how to think, it's supposed to be job training. For a lawyer to say that--most lawyers I know will tell you law school didn't prepare them to take the bar nor to practice law--is pretty funny.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added Astronomy. You know who added Evo Bio. Surfing studies is an LOL not Poe. Healthy productive forests... and you laugh at me. Yeah, there is a big need for forester graduates :0 --76.205.75.127 (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah fuck those forests. Nothing conservative comes out of there. Fucking squirrels eating nuts and playing around and shit, and fuck deer. They're assholes. Forest fires are cool 'cause they're like fireworks that burn asshole animals. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 21:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, we can just import more lumber from Canada. JPatt, you really do hate America, don't you? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the timber industry is dominated by Georgia-Pacific... a Koch owned company. A healthy productive forest is the one that gets struck by lightning, burns to the ground and regrows just like you're taught in evolution. Lumber supply crisis? Oh Canada. We have enough timber, just too many environmentalists that forbid destruction of the earth. Man needs to live in huts, not houses made of timber. Forest management as much use as fishery management. --76.205.75.127 (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Because if we run out of fish or forests, GOD will just recreate them for us! -- 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I feel the need to argue with you, but what the fuck does Koch have to do with anything? I don't care if the timber industry is run by Xenu. Yes, a healthy forest does burn down and regrow (I do remember reading about that in evolution class. Hey wait...), but if it gets out of control it will burn down towns and cause human casualties. Part of a forester's job is to make sure fires don't get out of control, and try to keep people from accidentally setting the place on fire. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 21:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * JPratt sounds even more perplexing than usual. Has he been drinking? Vulpius (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the super specialist majors - here in the UK anyway - are sponsored by the companies involved. There's a degree in stained glass at one of our universities - how stupid, you may think - except that it's fundamentally a Pilkington Glass sponsored training course if I remember correctly. It's win-win all round. Jack Hughes (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What the fuck is he talking about? "We have enough timber, just too many environmentalists that forbid destruction of the earth." Damn environmentalists trying to prevent the destruction of the planet. --Marlow (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What's he talking about? Let me conservatize you. "Yeah fuck those forests. Nothing conservative comes out of there." - except dollars for GP. "Damn environmentalists trying to prevent the destruction of the planet." Right, we can save the planet if we just get rid of those pesky humans. A forester job, while possibly important, is not exactly an exploding employment field. I assume most of the nations major forests already have foresters in place. There might even be a waiting list for new hires. So a grad in forestry may end up with a job in landscaping. your momma told me --193.200.150.137 (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I like to hear from JPatt there why Astronomy is a worthless major but I really doubt I'd get an answer. :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A BS in Astronomy is useless garbage. PhD in astronomy pays big bucks.--76.205.75.127 (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You know almost no college offers a "BA in Astronomy" right? Astronomy is a graduate level program, you get a BA in Physics and from there you go on to work towards a PhD in a field of astronomy.  I do find it hilarious that you think PhD holders in science typically are paid "the big bucks"; they aren't.  Grants may be worth millions but almost all that money goes into the research, not salaries.  You also didn't point out why you think astronomy is useless as a field of study. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 07:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is johnny we're talking to here isn't it? Johnny knows everything. His problem is that he is just plain wrong about almost all of it, but that's not ever going to stop him is it? Oldusgitus (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that article was actually better than most of the articles on that website. I mean what kind of job can you get with an english degree? bahahaha --Durbinator (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Aliens, dinos: Hilarity from Coke Eyes
August 18 from Hurlbutt: Aliens are ridiculous and there are no credible sightings of them. July 22 from Hurlbutt: There are 'pods' of dinosaurs living among us right now and 300 sightings of dinos like Champy and Nessie prove it.--Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup. Typical creationist idiocy. Aliens would pretty much disprove teh bibble while dinos are necessary for the YEC delusion. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." ~Bill Watterson (1958 - ), cartoonist, "Calvin and Hobbes"
 * Dr. Hurlbut's sniping at NASA over this is highly ironic, given the speculation flying around in the creationist community about whether the "nephilim" could be aliens. Dr. Hurlbut should also learn to stop plagiarizing Atlas Shrugged in his articles; the "contradictions do not exist" line is lifted almost directly from that book. 06:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It never gets old: "the government should play no role in scientific investigation" - coming from people who want government to legislate that their version of science be the accepted norm. -- PsyGremlin  13:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, many YECs including a few of buddy and no doubt some of the contributors to CP itself, believe no only in aliens, but in UFOs and alien visitations, except they are all demons or fallen angles from another dimension, and is all a vast satanic conspiracy.  The irony is highly amusing.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, i do not believe in Aliens--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Cokey sites this article (which he misinterprets as a peer-reviewed research paper) and then makes outlandish claims such as "only a Type G2 star can harbor life. Anything cooler would be too dim; anything hotter (especially the O, B, A, and F stars) would be too bright." The article never claims this, which tells me he never read the actual article itself, but just took its idea that large portions of the galaxy is absolutely hostile to life forming and ran with it.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Liberals teaching Newtonian mechanics is false!
So says Andy. I must have missed the memo. Also, not as funny (or at all surprising), but he immediately assumes that a physics grad student or professor would be a "he". I've known females that are far, far, far more competent in math and physics than Assfly. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When Mr. Schlafly says, "Liberals already teach that Newtonian mechanics is fundamentally incorrect," he means, "Liberals are teaching the idiotic theory of relativity, in a sneaky attempt to push moral relativism." See Conservapedia:Conservapedian relativity. 06:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, brother Roger tries to slap Andy down: "I don't know how anyone could reject relativity without rejecting nearly everything we know about electromagnetism." --Sid (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fucking electromagnetism, how does it work? ... of liberals? (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No this is how Andrew's mind works: Newton uses bible for physics discoveries. Liberals = anti- bible. Therefore, liberals hate newton. Andy logic. 76.180.240.88 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the "counterexamples to relativity" issue has been heating up lately. Largely because the community of sensible people (MM87, Roger, myself, MatthewQ et al) have figured out, over the last year or so, how to paint Andy into a corner better.

As one who has been in the midst of this for quite some time, I can say Andy is as thick as a neutron star on this issue. And he just digs in his heels on this. As I said in my farewell message to him, he has always been a gentleman in his email exchanges with me. But he is batshit crazy on many (all!) issues, including this. (And it was fun watching resident lapdog Jcw weigh in on the issue.)

At the risk of getting technical, he is still carrying on about the Hall/Newcomb hypothesis. That's the thing that says you can explain the Mercury precession with plain Newtonian mechanics, if you change the exponent to 2.000000157. I explained in three different places that this hypothesis was disproved, shortly after it was proposed, about 100 years ago. And why was it disproved? Because it disagrees with actual observations. But Andy still carries on. He even has this listed as one his tests in the "Quantifying Openmindedness" page. I guess you have to be really openminded to embrace a theory that is patently at odds with observation. And he still carries on about his notion that the reason that scientists don't accept Hall/Newcomb is that it's easier to solve equations with N=2 than with N=2.000000157. Liberal/atheist/evolutionist/obese scientists certainly don't want to let facts get in the way of their pet prejudices.

I've got news for you, Andy: The equations of general relativity are even harder to solve than the equations of Hall/Newcomb. But the liberal/atheist/evolutionist/obese scientists accept relativity. Simplicity isn't the issue. Utter failure to agree with observations is the issue. Hall/Newcomb is just wrong. Let it go.

Oh. And the document that Andy references in his latest (#36) "counterexample" is just crackpot material. The agreement between Maxwell's equations and relativity has been well known for about 100 years, and is studied, in detail, in all college-level physics curricula.

I need to update Conservapedian relativity. And maybe "blog" about some of these things on my user page.

SamHB (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger is putting the boot in again - calling Andy's source "incoherent nonsense". This could be fun! It's been a while since the Brothers Dim have had a set to. Maybe Karajou will drive Roger off? -- PsyGremlin  16:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to admire Andy's dogged tenacity here. He is holding on to this strange conspiracy theory, to which he may be the only adherent, despite the well thought out objections of virtually everyone who comes along.  His arguments have little to with science and despite his claims that it is a liberal conspiracy, they have little to do with politics.  It is just him defending his own half baked theory.  This is perhaps the clearest example of Andy's "personal fundamentalism."  That is to say Andy is a fundamentalist about his own beliefs, if he thinks it then it is by definition true. --Marlow (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like Andy is looking for excuses to dismiss his opponents. --Sid (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it especially ironic that he can't distinguish moral relativism and relativity when I've heard people say calling the theory that was a bit of a misnomer. -- 22:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed he can put his trousers on the right way round. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we have any evidence that he does? My guess is he only puts in his right leg in. The left side of trousers clearly contain liberal bias. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah Geez! Is he on the Robert Dicke thing again?? Apparently so. Just so you know, his favorite citation on Dicke (for example, footnote #2 of the Robert Dicke article), and probably used in older versions of the "counterexamples to relativity" page, is this. He thinks it supports his position. The title of the article is "Science: A Victory for Relativity". Money quote: "Last week [this was in 1970-SB], at a conference on gravity at Caltech, the experimenters reported that they had gathered dramatic new evidence in support of Einstein's 1916 General Theory of Relativity." The article shows that Einstein was right and Dicke was wrong. Now Dicke was a brilliant physicist and all that, but the Brans-Dicke theory has been discarded. Just like Hall/Newcomb, though much less dramatically. Give it up, Andy! Read the articles that you cite. All the way to at least the end of the first paragraph, which is where the "money quote" above was taken. SamHB (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was at a dinner party with Einstein once, and he admitted that he was wrong and Dicke was right and it was just the liberal scientific community lying and covering up the truth to lead people away from the bible. Then he drunkenly smashed a bottle of whiskey on the floor, stood on the table, and shouted "let us get some whores, ja?" and started thrusting into the air. Source: Dinner Party I Had With Einstein. X Stickman (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha, MatthewQ shows that Jim Jast's so-called "Hubble Tensor" is just zero. Reminds of the legend that someone wrote an entire thesis on functions which satisfy a particular condition X, only to discover during his defense that the only functions which satisfy condition X were constants. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Jim Jast is a total crackpot. He'll fit right in at CP, and I even told him so. He doesn't seem to know what Ricci's tensor is, or even the metric tensor, and in fact may not know anything about tensor calculus at all. He throws the terms around with wild abandon. See the discussion with me on his talk page. SamHB (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh he's definitely a crackpot. Whether he's the right kind of crackpot for CP, we'll see. Anyway, you're exactly right about him just throwing around terms he doesn't really understand.
 * BTW, I wasn't sure before so I did some research, but in Einstein–Cartan theory, which is an extension of general relativity, the "Ricci tensor" can be non-symmetric. This of course doesn't make Jast's nonsense any less silly. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ARGHHHHH.....now Andy is actually citing a comment on a forum for a "counterexample" to relativity. My guess is he just found it on a random Google search for "electromagnetism" and "relativity" (since EM came up). Oh well, still better than his citation of a dinner conversation . Anyway, looking briefly on the forum post, it appears someone was imagining what would happen if a magnet traveled at the speed of light and then they were told it's impossible for the magnet to travel at the speed of light. In fact, the comment he linked to says it! Somehow this is an argument against relativity. Also, Andy disingenuously(*shock*) changed it to "at or near the speed of light" (emphasis added).--Night Jaguar (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, scouring the internet for anything&mdash;anything at all, no matter how crackpot&mdash;that he can use to buttress his positions. He did this sort of thing with the Wiles/Taylor proof of Fermat's last theorem. I don't remember the details just now, but it was some sort of crackpot internal Hewlett-Packard memo. Making incredible claims. Andy doesn't care. SamHB (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Forum comments are apparently fair game for citation at CP when they are " the best of the public ." --Tabrcg23 (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sweet. Moments like this remind me why Andy's such a gem of an internet idiot. --Robledo (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you miss the Poorian Templates?
Introducing... "Template:Hoover free market"! Because Ed really wants to use the exact same quote with shittily formatted link in several articles, for example here. --Sid (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Another one! Flirtation! SamHB (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ed quoting Larry Elder : "Jesse Jackson himself says he's relieved when the late-night footsteps on the street behind him belong to white rather than black feet . . ." --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and he also quotes Bill Cambell "Everybody who's a person of color in this country has benefited from affirmative action. There has not been anybody who has gotten into college on their own, nobody who's gotten a job on their own, no one who's prospered as a businessman or a businesswoman on their own without affirmative action." Ed's too lazy to even write his own racist screeds stubs. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually think Ed Poor might be genuinely mentally handicapped. Why on earth would he make these templates.  Especially "Flirtation."  I can understand the free market template as it fits with their stretched ideology and he might want to plaster it over a bunch articles and it might save a minute or two, but why would you need a template for such a nonsensical quote about flirting.  "Harmless" but "you are playing with fire."  Why would this have any place in an encyclopedia (conservative or otherwise) not to mention multiple places?  It reminds me of Wayne's World, "Why would I need a gun rack? I don't even own a gun, let alone many guns which would necessitate an entire rack." --Marlow (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow : Person of color‎; 15:12 . . (+20) . . Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) (Redirected page to Blacks)
 * --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call Ed, there isn't any need for people to under the nuances of race, people of color = blacks. --Marlow (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It really is astonishing just how stupid Ed Poor really is. He had WP developer access, FFS, so it really beggars belief that he doesn't understand what templates are for. idiocies could possibly be explained by his deliberately doing to annoy us (although it's more likely that he's ill) but with Ed... he's just a grade A dunce. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ed should really teach Kendoll all he knows. Templates could really save Kendoll a heap of time when he copies and pastes sections between his articles, and then constantly updates them. -- 11:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So long as we have Ken, Ed and Brian ruling the roost at CP it will never amount to more than a stream of bat's piss, and for that I am quite grateful. 15:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly - Polymath
the students t-test is used when comparing the mean between two groups, even if the standard deviations of the two groups are unknown''."

Another high quality mathematics article from the trustworthy blog, for those without a statistics background this is like claiming that measuring the average scores of a group can be done without knowing what the scores are.

In CPs defense, this is just another example of parodists inserting false information into articles right?

"one less "most wanted" page" the author proudly proclaims, well done sir! Tielec01 (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading how Schlafly thinks about Relativity, nothing surprises me anymore. Take the newest "Counterexample to Relativity" now residing at the top of the WIGO. Schlafly cites a high schooler asking a question, on an internet forum nonetheless, widens the question from "going at the speed of light" to "going at or near the speed of light", ignores entirely the responses in the same damn citation in which other people explain that the premise is flawed and therefore must necessarily lead to a contradiction, then has a fight over it on the talk page where Schlafly himself has the identical thing to him explained again and that he can't just widen the assertion from "at" to "at or near", and promptly ignores that to declare himself correct by fiat. Chaosof99 (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At least GR is reasonably complicated and able to be contorted to fit under Andy's ideological worldview as a 'liberal' topic. Presumably Andy created these earlier articles to get some practice at shutting his eyes, covering his ears and shouting "LALALALA". He has managed to parlay this practice into his highly insightful articles on relativity. I did wonder briefly whether to point out this fundamental mistake here, because it's likely that someone from CP will read it and go fix it; but since it was Andy himself who wrote the article I imagine that the error is now sacrosanct. Someone better start re-writing those damn liberal textbooks. Tielec01 (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point that "this is like claiming that measuring the average scores of a group can be done without knowing what the scores are." The t-test (paired t-test, as an example) relies on the Student's t-distribution, which is defined as the distribution of the random variable t which is (very loosely) the "best" that we can do not knowing σ. The t-distribution, along with the paired t-test like here do take into account sample variances, and thus sample standard deviations, but not the actual standard deviation. Although I hate to say it, technically, Schlafly is correct on this one, since not knowing the standard deviation of a set of scores is not the same as not knowing the scores. If you only knew the mean, you wouldn't know what the scores are either, but you also wouldn't be able to directly figure out what the standard deviation is. άλφα Talk 13:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Correct on this one", except that "students" should have a capital S and an apostrophe. (Perhaps he thinks it was invented by some homeschoolers.) Cantabrigian (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)
 * If you test two samples for having the same mean using the Student's t-test, you don't have to know the variance of the underlying distributions, but you assume that both samples follow the normal distributions and both samples have the same (unknown) variance &sigma;. In praxis, you test first whether the variances may be the same (F-test), and then you apply a Student's t-test or, e.g., a Welch's t-test. Calling the latter a Student's t-test isn't that wrong...
 * My problem with Andy's text is: Specifically, the test is a way to measure the significance of a difference of means between two distributions, such as an observed distribution compared to the Normal distribution.  That doesn't make sense: the part behind compared implies that the observed distribution wasn't normal - a vital assumption when you want to use t-tests!
 * 14:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. My mistake. Thankfully people check my math as well! άλφα Talk 14:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Life's back to normal at CP
... and by normal I mean "highly dysfunctional." Kendoll, having declared himself too busy to participate in the nascent blocking review panel, has left it to die in its crib and is back to spending hours writing his "essays" about fat atheists and Richard Dawkins. Everyone else is back to not giving a shit about CP, after Rob's defection briefly stirred them to man the barricades, banhammer in hand. Andy is pretty much left to fend off the wandals all on his lonesome. I wonder how long it can continue like this with no people left around that Andy can trust? -- 11:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So long as andy can afford the the costs of maintaining it, it'll be around forever.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, life is back to normal at CP: Bans and blocks are handed out like candy, genuine editors are driven off, parodists are being praised, and the default suggestion for handling wiki vandalism is to lock down editing even more. *sigh* --Sid (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Human is now a member of Anon?
A vandal named Michaels signs up and starts typical vandalism: Replacing a bunch of pages with "REMEMBER ANON! WE SHALL LIVE ON UNTIL HIS DAY OF RECKONING!" Karajou retaliates by banhammering Human... who likely had to use proxies since his regular IP range is still 403-blocked. Lololol. --Sid (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Beaten by 2 minutes by Sid.
 * Human falls to anger bear once again showing he has no understanding of what ip means and how to use checkuser. The RobS spring is gradually turning back into the nuclear winter left behind by arch troll tk. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've spoken to Kara about this before. His reply was that "checkuser works!" I then pointed out that it might work, but it still fails if the people using it have no idea how IP addresses work and please could Kara explain how Rob signed into CP from South Africa. He then called me a racist bigot and told me to go and chase wildebeest. This is another classic case of the moron not understanding the basics. -- PsyGremlin  15:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this is a guy who is a 20 year Navy veteran. Senator Harrison (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sid is next then? The really bad thing is that they actually bother to make up reasons, only because Andy couldn't be bothered to decide in the first place. -- 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My days had been numbered the moment I was unbanned after my four-year time-out. I may not be next (unless Kara suffers from premature banjaculation and bans me while I'm blocked), but I'll get offed soon enough, no worries. --Sid (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Karajou is a numbskull. Mindless vandalism is not Human's style. 17:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Numbskull? Come on Ghengis.  This is anger bear.  He knows damn well it wasn't Human vandalising but as noone is there anymore to even try to oversee his fiefdom he will do what he wants with no evidence at all.  What he will do when he finds out I am craigf I can only imagine.  Then the next sock will show itself.  And so on until he implodes in a spluttering masturbatory typhoon of indignation.  And then his world will once again be clean and shiny. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is just Swabbie reading this page religiously and taking an idea from Rob. He's seen that Rob's spouting about litigation due to libel and now KJ's trying to get people to do the same so he can live out his day in court/RW holocaust fantasy. That, or he really is too stupid to use a well documented piece of software properly. -- 17:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Karajou admitted to the sysop list on July 31, 2011 he blocked Human because he was angry with me. He unblocked Human the next day after he admitted it. All Conservapedia Sysops know this, that Karajou unfairly abuses other users to take his anger out on the object of his scorn. It is now a matter of collective malfeasance if they remain silent in the wake of this nakled abuse.
 * @Karajou: I would remind you look at what my user page said before your deleted it, A good name is better than great riches. My reputation is secure. Both your words and your actions speak for themselves. And you are cited by name in the Wikipedia article. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 17:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not sure your name is so good, Rob. You look like a fairly shameless turncoat to me. You were content to work with Andy and his pals until you got so fed up with a couple of them that you got banned. Immediately thereafter, you point out Andy's many flaws. Your transparent, fickle behavior hardly enhances your "good name". Phiwum (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then, after Conservapedia:RobSmith,

It was after this I had unflattering personal comments about User:Karajou that were WIGO'd. I felt Karajou undermined the spirit of the agreement with another blocking binge. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool?--Mikalos209 (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your whining about Rob's whining is much more tiresome than Rob's whining itself. Get over yourself. --Benod (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Karajou: we still have spies at CP. One of them is Ed Poor (come on, no one can really be that dumb) and he's gathering allies to ban you! BE PARANOID!!!! --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're playing CraigF....
The use of epithets like "rice rockets" is at best annoying, at worst straight-out bigoted. Consider revising your approach. Thanks. B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 19:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ....also, trying to equate choice of vehicle with masculinity and sexual orientation is equally tasteless. B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 19:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Americanism is honestly coming off a bit too strong --Mikalos209 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * His odd focus on cars and his "America vs Europe" instead of "conservative vs liberal" stance makes me think that this might either be a new player (or an old player with a radically new approach since Jcw is hogging the Bugler niche right now) or a genuine idiot. --Sid (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please point the guy towards Clarkson's experiences with the Ford GT? As divisive as Jezza is, he knows how to drive cars, and couldn't complete a single journey in the GT. As for "It blows the doors off the competition on most race tracks"... TG's power laps shows it not appearing in the top 22, where five other nations, and no American cars, are featured. Dear KJ, EP, AS et al, this is how you're getting infiltrated with parodists. You're letting your Amero-centric egos be massaged with no quality control. This is why people laugh at you. If you can't even get right things demonstrated on an entertainment programme masquerading as a consumer car show, how do you honestly expect the internet to take you seriously on matters of science and maths? -- 23:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

RJJensen desysoped
Andy desysops Prof. RJensen. Could it be because Prof. Jensen is collaborating with persona non grata? RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 21:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see, the demotion happened on the 19th, and the link you gave happened on the 20th, so unless Schlafly got his time machine fixed recently...also, I'm pretty sure even Andy has better things to do than follow around his disgraced former capos on other websites. --B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 21:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe not an active link, but the general timing is intriguing. And Rob did mention his intent to work with RJJ several times, I think (or am I confusing RJJ with others now?). So Kara and the others may have poked Andy into demoting him just in case. And even if the link is more remote than that (or even non-existent), it still says a lot about the current air of paranoia on CP. --Sid (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough with the paranoia. He's done it before . –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Jensen will never go back. He did what I should've done the first time User:Conservative reverted, deleted, and oversighted my work. But I felt Andy the others did not understand what drove Prof. Jensen off. So I stood and fought for accountability. But it only get's worse; Karajou & others think nothing of reverting comments of a user that another sysop is in the middle of a discussion with. Or blocking that user, before I get a chance to respond, after I've spent all night formulating a response. It's been that way for years. In this sense, Conservapedia is a complete waste of everybodies time, sysops included. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 23:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Conservapedia is a complete waste of everybodies [sic] time..." You learn very slowly, Rob, but you go learn. DickTurpis (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a phrase in one of Douglas Adams' books about somebody believing they'd been blind from birth, but it turned out they'd simply been wearing too large a hat. Reading RobS' comments reminded me of that. I can't think why. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jensen is first and foremost a teacher, and he was good with younger editors, always willing to help. But I remained behind after what happened to him happened to me -- because the CP Sysops, Andy included -- need to learn the basics of wiki editing. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 23:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Man up, Rob. You need to get your ass to NJ and plead your case in person. I'm almost certain he won't release the hounds when you come lurching up the driveway. --Robledo (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey lookee, they oversighted Andy Schlalfy's deletion of cp:American Jews shortly after Jensen's fate was updated. Like I said, they are more focused on what happens at WIGO, than "productively" (to use Andy's term) adding content to Conservapedia. And to whoever oversighted: Do you really think Prof. Jensen doesn't know why he left? A good reputation is more desirable than great riches. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 00:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, your good name went out the window a long time ago, so by your statement, you have gained nothing..--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob? HEY ROB!!
It's for you. --B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 22:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be the margaritas but I have no idea what the hell he's talking about. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A few days or so ago, Robert let it slide that Ken had told him on the phone that was actively praying for something bad to happen to someone that goes to his church. B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 22:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Ken has been making some vague threats (or at least someone thought he was) and got called on it, now he is back peddling saying that it was a miscommunication. I don't know if this has anything to do with our latest refuge.  --Marlow (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See here. B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 22:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense now, thanks. --Marlow (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 22:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Some one needs to remind Ken that vindictiveness (i.e. Wrath) is a sin. Aceof Spades 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Rob and Ken,

The Red Telephone is for exclusive communication between us and Kendoll. We are not an answering service. Reagan did not pick up his Red Telephone and ask the Soviets to take a message for the South Africans. Please, both of you, grow up and find your own way to communicate. -- 00:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that's more Conservative than Rob. It's still just as stupid.  Senator Harrison (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, Robert is one of us now. One of us now. One of us now. B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gooble gobble, gooble gobble
 * C ® ackeЯ

WP Content Filtering
So Wikipedia is having a referendum on whether or not to implement a content filtering system. It would enable people to choose one of several broad categories for themselves, to hide explicit or controversial content. Images would be tagged with things like sexuality, violence, and users would need to manually choose to see them if their filtering level excludes them. "Images of sexuality and violence are necessary components of Wikimedia projects for them to fulfill their mandates to be open, free and educational. However, these images – of genital areas and sexual practices on the one hand, or mass graves and mutilated corpses on the other – will inevitably still have the power to disturb some viewers, especially if they are children, or if they are happened upon unintentionally. ... On the other hand, we believe that this command should only delay, not prevent, the presentation of these images. Access to information on Wikimedia Foundation sites should be compromised only to the extent needed to satisfy our responsibilities to respect and serve all of our audiences." This is obviously a big deal, since it makes WP more "family friendly" (even though children could still manually view such images, this is still a step in that direction). So what do you think the reaction will be? Will Andy applaud this as a conservative victory and claim credit? Will he mock it as ineffective, then make some bizarre irrelevant declaration of principle? Will Ed say that this was all his idea a long time ago?-- 00:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy will never say anything good about Wikipedia, so forget that. The most generous he'll be is say they're a decade late, though it's just as likely he'll decry it as censorship (without a hint of irony). I'd wager he won't say anything at all. DickTurpis (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They'll block anyone who says Bias in Wikipedia needs updating, and still not do it themselves. After the second or third sockpuppet repeats it, somebody might check it out, then let the sock fix it, then permaban them. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 00:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since "bias" = "Anything Andy Schlafly doesn't like", the chances of anything being removed are zero. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A diversion in which Rob once again makes it all about him

 * They will actually allow a sockpuppet troll improve the article once it becomes undeniable its in error, because none have enough literary imagination to make it sound right without grammatical errors. They need Ratvandals, and they know it. Cause ratvandals are better writers, and they know it. They hate me cause I forced them to admit this, and they know it.  RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 01:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob... they hate you because you wanted to make the website not be an example of Feudalism at work, and then didn't drop the issue like you should have.--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been at this battle too long -- to make CP an open wiki, collaborative with rules that sysops are accountable for, welcoming, civil, respectful for a diverse community. They all know where I stand. Looks what's happened just since I was de-sysoped, it's fallen from #35,000 to off the charts. Maybe Ken & Andy oughtta try the cp:Obese RINO track to stir the pot on Chris Christie; that neocon flunkie of Rupert Murdoch, Bill Crystal, was pitching him for VP on a Paul Ryan ticket today. That might get viewship back up.  RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 01:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And you have learned nothing.--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OH lay off the guy! he's fresh from battle on the front line (granted on Planet Schlafly, but still). Often one cannot see the insanity of a situation one is involved in until it is over: acceptance over his demotion and rejection hasn't reached home yet.
 * Please endeavor to be civil until Rob's epiphany is complete. 01:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * Actually I'm just using the red telephone. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 02:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you ever get around to archiving the CP's secret discussions? --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was anybody else but one of the Sysops, i would. But no. Rob knew all about what was wrong with the site and only really gave a damn this summer.--Mikalos209 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes & no. It was easier to do this after TK departed; but the reality is, TK agreed with much of everything I've said & done. The problem was, and from the start (back during the Conservapedia:Great Purge), that TK felt personally at war with several RW editors. In his case, it wasn't so much defending CP or defending conservatism, it was defending TK, who felt under siege. Many times TK wanted to end the conflict, but didn't know how or if it were possible. Now, it's not so much Karajou who personally feels under siege, but it is Karajou who is willing to sacrifice the integrity of the site, integrity of conservative values, and everything else he purports to stand for, for a personal vendetta against certain users, and Rationalwiki as a whole. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 02:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Were I just a wee bit more conspiracy minded, I'd actually start to wonder if the recent brujah over Rob was some super secret double agent plot cooked up by him and Team Kenajou. Planning session might go something like this:


 * Karajou: Damn Ratwikians! Always making socks and accounts that slip past our range blocks.  There must be a way to stop them at the source!


 * Conservative: And they are fat too! Fatwikians!  Ole Ole Ole!


 * Rob: I know! Let's pretend that I have been disgraced and kicked off the site.  They already let me post there.  I can ingratiate myself with them and become a sysop.  Then I can relay all their well planned vandal attacks to you before they happen.


 * Karajou: BRILLIANT! Ken, do you think you can play along with Rob on this?


 * Conservative: Did he just say he was posting on the site of the gentlemen who claim to be rational? BAN HIM!  BAN HIM NOW!!!  D8<


 * Of course then I remind myself that such a thing is preposterous. It all implies a level of cooperation, intelligence, and guile none of the parties involved possess and banks on Rob being trusted here, which he is not.  Still, might make an interesting idea of spy novel.  --Tygrehart

That, and he was already a sysop anyways. B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 02:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What is Andy's main concern about the situation in Libya?
What's going to happen to Libyan Christian churches?

Okay, we're seeing the fall of a nasty dictator, one that has been a thorn in the side of the US for almost three decades now. One that Andy's messiah hero launched air strikes against, air strikes that were widely believed to be an effort to kill Qaddafi himself. And this will hopefully be further spreading of democracy in the Middle East, and that was one of the stated goals of the Iraq War. I think most of the world thinks, or at least hopes, the situation in Libya is going to ultimately be a Good Thing.

But the fate of churches is all Andy seems to care about. Now, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a Christian to say, "hey, we have brothers in the faith in Libya; I hope things turn out well for them", but making that your primary concern? Feh.

I suspect Andy has to find some reason to think what's going on is bad, because otherwise, he'd have to acknowledge the NATO airstrikes were a good idea, and that would mean he'd have to give some credit to Obama. And the only thing less likely than that is him supporting the right of married gay couples to have abortions while in the military. MDB (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Andy's concern is the same as the Republicans in general: Obama's won another foreign policy success so it's time to start trashing it. As the Daily Kos reports here, the GOP is already dissing it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Senator Harrison (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, kudos to president downgrade for leading from behind -- as he puts in place his caliphate. Obama lied, thousands died and nobody on the left cried, this time. War monger liberals. --76.205.79.71 (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Best JPatt imitation ever. That's hilarious! B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 13:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd take one point off for the lack of Hussein though. Vulpius (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Leading from behind? I don't recall dubya on the front lines of the invasion of Iraq.--Thunderstruck (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No President has directly commanded troops since Washington put down a rebellion (I think it was the Whiskey Rebellion, but I'm not sure.) MDB (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like Andy never learned that the church is the people. -Lardashe
 * "What is andy's main concern about libya". That since he can't point it out on a map, it must not exist, therefor "what is the liberal media doing, making all this stuff up"?  oh, sorry... back to your comments.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font color="Blue">En attendant Godot  17:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * " Obama's won another foreign policy success." Way to take credit for the struggles of the Libyan people. At least you didn't credit Facebook for this one. B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 17:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At no point did I say Obama and NATO were responsible for the success, just that there was a decision to support the rebels and that this decision has been vindicated. Do you seriously deny that? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, i just felt like launching a premptive strike against the idea that the Libyan people don't deserve the lion's share of the credit for this. The "FACEBOOOK BROUGHT DEMOCRACY TO THE ARABS" thing reeeallly pissed me off. Sorry for doing the same to you. B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 18:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Who gives a fuck if he whacked out bin Laden & Gahddafi (or however it's spelled)? Recessions typically add 3.5% to the unemployment rate from whatever base it starts from. That would make it 12.5% come election day. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 02:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob, we are discussing Libya, not the fucking employment rate--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything that might look good for Obama is bad for Andy. Obama could lower taxes for the rich and outlaw abortion, but Andy would still hate him.  He is not a conservative, but a reactionary.--  17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, Andy is sort of a reactionary. The odd thing is, generally the Democratic party has become the reactionary party.  While the Tea Party wing of the Republicans have become progressive.  It is a different kind of progress, but in reality it is the Democrats who seek to maintain the status quo of social policy while the Tea Partiers attempt to dismantle it. --Marlow (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What? That's not true at all.  The Democratic party agenda has been much more progressive in most things outside of national security matters.  They're ending DADT, implemented health care reform, enacted and are trying to maintain some financial regulation, are trying to push some tiny measure of environmental reform through, and so on.  The GOP has almost without exception just reacted to those movements, with leading figures condemning the ending of DADT (through the roundabout insistence on an eternity of "more study needed"s), the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (with no credible "replacement" proposed), the elimination of the Dodd-Frank half-assed attempt at regulation (which would go from skimpy regulation to none at all), the absurd fight for light bulb freedom, and anything else.  The Libyan thing is a good example: if it was anyone but Obama, then the GOP would be shrieking praise at the top of their lungs.  The GOP and Tea Party is almost wholly reactionary, and not at all progressive.-- 03:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Marlow, do not confuse progressive and populist. One can be populist at any point on the political spectrum. Progessive politics in the US has planks such as trust busting and pro union ideas. Universal education and health care. Ecological conservation (national parks). I've yet to see a tea party type advocate these ideals. --Shagie (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed didn't get the memo
Adding tags to articles is a naughty liberal thing and you'll get banned, because - according to Angry Bear (and possibly Ed too) - you could have spent the time adding the tag in looking up and verifying the fact.

Just another rule that doesn't apply to the sysops. --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin  14:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. According to a certain novel whose CP article Ed has vigorously edited recently, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." ... of liberals? (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "vigorously" is not a word I want to see in proximity to discussion of Ed. ONE / TALK 16:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'll submit a writing plan. ... of liberals? (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * +1 for the snark Nets awesome (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The CP Android App
I resent that! The app is too real! --Roofus (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, where is it? I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.  Couldn't find it anywhere.   01:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Conservapedia: The Trusworthy Encyclopedia in Your Pocket. --Roofus (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Portible Fail...LOVE IT.--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Which Schlafly Brother is Andy more embarrassed by?
Roger the relativist or John the gay? --Roofus (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * John, obviously. Roger is at least allowed to disagree with Andy and his comments aren't being deleted. On the other hand, any mention of John and his sexual preferences are being deleted and anybody mentioning it is threatened to be blocked, or blocked outright. Chaosof99 (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Who do you think Roger is more ashamed of? That gay brother or the brother that tried to rewrite the Bible? --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say that compared to the embarrassmentthat andy causes them anything they do to embaress andy is small cheese. If I were them I would have changed my name by now to avoid any association with him. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy is embarrassed by neither of them. During the last 4½ years at CP he has repeatedly shown that he has no sense of shame. 09:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, John doesn't exist and Roger is just the unfortunate victim of liberal brainwashing. Nothing to be embarrassed about. On the other hand, what John and Roger likely think about Andy... --Sid (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, but which one disappoints mama schlafly the most? άλφα Talk 13:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Andy's lunacy in anyway stems from his brother's homosexuality. I imagine that in uber conservative traditionalist family like the Schlaflys having a gay member of the family is considered a shameful tragedy.  I think it is possible that John's coming out really impacted Andy and he pushed his views to the extremes to make up for his brother's heresy. --Marlow (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's one of my favorite questions to ask Andy when I vandalize. I must have burned through at least 2 dozen accounts asking Andy to comment on his gay brother. In fact, I think that my next bout of vandalism is going to be changing as many articles as possible to "tell us about your gay brother Andy!"--MikeO (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I speak for RationalWiki, the RWF and it's subsidiaries when I say you have our complete and unwavering support. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I've found 's REAL Ameriwiki account
has been lurking on Ameriwiki. I'm not talking about the DeltaStar account I uncovered earlier. BAM! Atheism and Obesity stuff, no-brainer.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You obviously have strong career prospects in the ever-expanding field of internet stalking. Any advice for those of us looking to get in touch with ex-girlfriends or celebrity crushes? B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 21:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't stalking. I just noticed it per the talk page discussion.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What is Ameriwiki, and why do we care? O_o --Sid (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Click on the link, Sid. It's aSK II in a way.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...*exasperated groan* --Sid (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh: "Gallop". It's Kenny all right. Well spotted Colonel. Pippa (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So on Conservapedia, he's "Conservative". On Ameriwiki, he's "American". Creative. Why isn't his account here "Rational"? Or... "Rationality" or something. Either that or someone made an account pretending to be him on ameriwiki using this observation. X Stickman (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On Creationwiki he is creationist. Aceof Spadessilverbrain.png 01:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On Ruylopezapedia....B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 01:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @B♭maj7 - Unless the impersonator also decided to emulate his craptastic use of the "preview" button (check out the contribs, 4 edits in 2 minutes to the same article), I'm going with the view that this is good ole ole ole Ken himself. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 11:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy is as dense as a black hole
ARGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! This whole discussion is worth a dozen headdesks. Andy just keeps repeating his claims and just declares them true by fiat.
 * Andy: Claims are made about special relativity (SR) and electromagnetism (EM). These are wrong.
 * Roger: EM was very important in discovering special relativity.
 * User: Yeah, Einstein's famous 1905 paper is called On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies. Also, EM is not consistent with Newtonian mechanics.
 * Andy (exact quote): "There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism."
 * User: How about light? That travels at the speed of light in SR. Also, things go less than the speed of light in EM all the time. And the fact that other forces exist is irrelevant.
 * Andy: *repeats claim* Anyway, how are EM and Newtonian mechanics inconsistent with each other?
 * User: Common knowledge. Open a textbook. Here, I'll even do it for you. *provides links*
 * Roger: SR has been tested and is consistent with experiments.
 * Andy: Math is beautiful, therefore God. EM doesn't involve particles moving close to the speed of light.
 * Roger: How about TVs or electronic devices?
 * User: Also, particle accelerators use EM fields.
 * Andy: Well, I didn't know about this experiment you mentioned. Is there a "better" description of it that doesn't include its conclusion? Also, maybe we should start on listing counterexamples of another theory I don't know anything about.
 * User2: Please let me do it. I also know nothing about it but I'm already convinced of it being wrong.
 * Andy: Go ahead.

This man is a complete idiot. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not idiotic to not understand relativity or electromagnetism; I don't understand them either, and I'm no idiot. What's really going on here says less about his intelligence and more about his total lack of self-awareness. B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 23:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not understanding SR or GR does not make Andy an idiot. What makes Andy an idiot is that he can boldly proclaim a theory, that he obviously doesn’t even remotely understand, is complete bunk. It’s the equivalent of me reading a book in Mandarin Chinese (a language I do not speak) and declaring that it’s garbage and the author got it all wrong. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ^ exactly. Also, his absolutely abysmal reasoning skills and his unwillingness to learn or listen make him an idiot. --Night Jaguar (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On top of all that, he cannot bear to be proven wrong. No matter how much you prove him wrong, he's going to keep denying you even if he comes off a complete idiot. He has to be right about everything all the time, even if he has no idea what he's talking about. You can't reason with such people. <font color="teal" face="Comic Sans MS">SoCal  But said it would be legal...  02:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * His arrogance is outstanding. During the whole Lenski affair, when he was hounding Lenski to release the data and claiming there were errors in the analysis, he admitted that he had only "skim[med]" Lenski's paper. Making wild claims about a field he was not an expert in and on a paper he hadn't even fully read. Insane hubris. --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And the discussion rages on. Added to the description above. I hope you don't mind Jaguar. Chaosof99 (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Pretty funny actually. He was not aware this historically important experiment for relativity (despite all his railing against it) and only became aware of it because Roger linked to its Wikipedia page. He asks Roger for a source that more fits his anti-relativity bias. Andy then remember why he created Conservapedia and makes an article on the experiment, again remember that he had just learn about it by reading the Wikipedia article. Barrels of laugh that Andy. --Night Jaguar (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we actually have a single capture of Andy admitting he's wrong about something? Not "I made a typo" or "The source was incorrect" or other excuses but the actual confession that he was wrong and someone else was right? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Main_Page/archive75#Featured_Article, he comes very close to such a statement... 11:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hilarious! ClementB suggests changing the image to one found on his talk page, because the current image is wrong.  Andy worries that, in a fit of liberal lastwordism, ClementB might delete the image from his talk page when he leaves the site.  Clement responds that you don't have to link to the image.  You can copy and paste it.  So what happens?  Andy links to the image, rather than copying it, Clement is banned by TK and his talk page is deleted by DouglasA and the current page has a dead link instead of a picture of the Sieve.  Lordy, but even when Andy admits he's wrong, he finds new and exciting ways to screw things up (with help from his sysops). Phiwum (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a golden sequence of events. I hope there's a wigo for it. If not, can we have an honorary "blast from the past" wigo? ONE / TALK 13:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to someone else's WIGO prowess. Phiwum (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite CP now being mostly boring and predictable, all the stuff with relativity never ceases to be quite genuinely funny. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll neuter your reindeer! 14:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability
Yah next he's gonna say, " [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=904545 We don't censor here." BANNED]. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 03:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You know capture tags exist for a reason right?--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You forget, I'm a Conservapedia editor, I don't know jackshit how a wiki works. RobSmithI am a victim of anonymous CP trolls 03:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob if your going to pretend to be a fucking idiot, go do it somewhere else. --Mikalos209 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretend? B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 03:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, Pretend to be more of a Fucking idiot then you already are--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind those two, Rob. I laughed. -- 08:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mikalos likes to follow Rob around the wiki and whinge about him saying things. Maybe that's why Karajou won't ban his SeanS account. ONE / TALK 09:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to say something to that effect but I don't like to start fights. Yes, Rob has a long way to go before we start to feel like hes not an asshole, but I don't see the need to be that uncivil unless he really asks for it.  Please lay off a little bit.  Senator Harrison (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very much agree. Rob can be an arse sometimes, so can I.  Mikalos is coming over as an arse a lot of the time right now.  If Rob start being an arse then I'm sure he will be told, constantly trolling him helps neither him, you, nor the wiki imo. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The creepy creepy stalking Mikalos engages in borders on obsessive. Stalkers unfailingly miss the point that their bizarre obsessions damn themselves rather than their targets. For your own sake, lay off, Mikalos. Others are perfectly capable of judging whether Rob's a dick or not.--Brendiggg (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @One: So far (I'm still waiting to be banned for going here) being called out has benefited me by giving me more rights--Mikalos209 (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm not surprised. Karajou has previously made it very clear that it benefits CP to let (deep-cover) parodists work up a reputation before banning them, so as to take advantage of their efforts. Regardless, it seems you are putting in a lot of effort that is neither parody nor Bugler-esque dickishness (though I'm sure Karajou still suspects you). I may never understand your motivation, but carry on. ONE / TALK 13:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I have no real malicious intent for CP, will do what is expected of me per the rights I am given, and in general prefer it because, unlike wikipedia, the articles aren't already an Essay on X topic. As to my overall goal, it helps kill time--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that is the same reason I am there too. It does kill an awful lot of time.  But, as per the original purpose of this section (Notability), I suppose we can see articles on individual school board members in Council Bluffs, Iowa and garbagemen from Billings, Montana, now that the precedent has been set that ordinary people deserve articles.   22:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Crescent and Star
Does Andy know the Crescent and Star isn't actually an Islamic symbol, and only started being associated with it once the Turks started using it? Or that the all green flag would have never been kept in a post revolution...?--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Anybody surprised there's no citation for this? I doubt many liberals, myself included, are very happy with the Crescent and Moon in the flag, as it is an expression that there will probably not be much in the vein of religious freedom in the new Libya. Of course, the United States does have constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom and the government is prohibited from establishing a religion, so Liberals are very much justified in opposing this in the U.S., something Andy doesn't like very much it seems. Chaosof99 (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would like to point out turkey and its vague secularness. Also, considering what Libya is... did anybody expect there to be much NEED for religious freedom?--Mikalos209 (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a godless liberal, I don't like that Libya probably won't have religious freedom. As for the flag, that's up to them and I could care less what they put on it. --Roofus (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A semi-tolerant theocracy is preferable to bloody tyranny. The hope is just that we aren't going to get a bloody theocracy.  It's a gamble, of course, but sometimes you have to roll the hard six.  Personally, I don't think that was anyone else's call to make, but I am somewhat appeased that the West provided assistance and not impetus: the central actors were Libyans, and that is a big saving grace.  A lot of hope is invested in them, just like we hope for the advancement of all peoples - and ourselves.-- 05:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Was there some leak of data or some other evidence that there won't be democracy in Lybia or is everybody falling for the fearmongers now? -- 07:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Frequent past experience with violent overthrows of long-reigning dictators in countries without a democratic tradition or existing governmental infrastructure.-- 07:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, probability? For me those are the cases were I withhold judgement and don't declare grandma' dead when she just walked into the doctor's office. -- 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you can put it that way. When the last ten grandmothers who came through the office all had osteoporosis, though, it's a fair bet that you should fear weak bones in the eleventh.
 * It's not that everyone doesn't have hope that this new grandmother will be the one with an unbroken hip, or that we'll slap her in a cast when her foot hits the threshold. But it's just sticking your head in the sand not to put up a railing and ask the old women who come in whether they've been taking their vitamins.-- 08:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The flag the rebels are using is the post-colonial, pre-Gadaffi, Kingdom of Libya. It is not clear that the NTC will keep the flag once they establish a government. However, picking an appropriate flag is not likely to be high on their list of priorities. CS Miller (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

{od}Taking the US as an example, I'd suggest that a constitutional requirement not to establish a religion is not an effective preventative against religious hegemony. Look to Britain instead, there's an established church (the Church of England) and it gets no real benefit from this beyond the fact that lots of effectively non-religious British people scribble "CofE" into any box labelled religion on a form and expect to be allowed to get married in a church if they want to. Its church buildings are falling apart, its obliged to chase public opinion on ethical matters or seem "out of touch" and it daren't take a political stance for fear it will be dis-established again and lose what little it has. If we could get a few more countries to follow that example we'd be onto something. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The principle liberals are cheering is over a nation's ability to choose their own symbols of pride relevant to their country's history and culture. Whether we like the flag's design or not is beside the point because it has nothing to do with us.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) It certainly has been argued that Britain gives the religionists an "outlet" in the form of a semi-established Church, and thus guards itself against what we see happening in the US, but I'm hesistant to call cause-and-effect on that one. I think the British public just doesn't care so much for religion, perhaps because they're more inclined to find 'group identity' in a class instead.

Another point that was missed
That neutral green flag that Andy claims Libya has? Umm.. It isn't neutral. The reason the current flag of Libya is green is because it is based on the green standard of the Fatimid Caliphate, which Libya was once a part of. The color of green also has a special place within Islam. The flag color was selected for these reasons (and for promoting the political philosophy of Muammar al-Gaddafi as codified in his "Green Book"), because Islam is such a large part of Libya's culture. Andy is an idiot, plain and simple. The new flag is partly inspired by the Islamic religion, but so is the current one. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Flags by nature are deeply symbolic - no matter how simple or 'neutral' - that's the whole point of them. 13:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also the National Transitional Council flag? That was the same flag used by Libya between 1951 and 1969. Andy knows squat about Libyian history or Islamic symbolism. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason he always looks like a jackass is because he refuses to go to Wikipedia, where all of this is explained. He's too lazy to parse websites he Googles. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also that, instead of referring to well-accepted reasoning, he develops his own off of PIDOOMA premises. If a European country had a green flag it would because of rampant environmentalism in liberal left-leaning libby-lib leftist Europe. ONE / TALK 13:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Green is a sacred colour in Islam; it also represents Pan-Africanism. In the Irish flag, Catholicism; in the Italian, the Maltese civil guard; in the Portuguese the revolution; in the Hungarian and the Bulgarian, Hope. CS Miller (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ironic how the highly-secular (Atheistic in Andyspeak) Nordic countries all have a cross in their flag. Vulpius (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Atheistic Britain symbolically has three crosses in theirs, St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick but I don't see any atheists actually calling for their removal 16:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Denmark, Iceland and Norway still have established churches according to WP. Sweden only recently dis-established the Church of Sweden. People I know from Norway in particular have said that the established church has considerable power, more than in Britain, and is resented by local atheists though it certainly doesn't exercise the kind of political muscle religions have in the US. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

JPatt's "Muslim Agenda" is hardly worth a WIGO...
...but calling for a "peaceful transition" is somehow part of the plans to build a caliphate. B♭maj7 You know that nervous feeling you have before you're about to take an exam you don't feel ready for? That's pretty much how I feel all the time. 16:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a win/win for Johnny X-Ray - Obama helps rebels = he's promoting the rise of radial Islam; he does nothing = he's supporting a dictator; he sends in troops = he's starting another war. --<font face="Wild Words"> PsyGremlin  16:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In JPatt's defense (shudder), the page is supposed to be just a list of things Obama has done that is vaguely related to Muslims. Why the list should exist though, and why he hasn't changed the title of it to something less misleading, remains unexplained is explained by JPatt's unrivalled idiocy. ONE / TALK 16:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do like the use of italics in the leading paragraph though. Muslims. ONE / TALK 16:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have the diff, but I recall JPatt admitted that the list is basically a sham. No matter good or bad (even in his view), anything that can be tied to Islam is put on the list. It's specifically for people who aren't going to think critically about (or even read) the individual items. Just so long as there are a lot of them. It's anti-Obama window dressing. By the stupid, for the stupid. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see where he ties Obama calling for a peaceful transition to promoting a Caliphate in the link, unless the entire article is suggestive of that.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the "Muslim Agenda," in the end. It's all about that. B♭maj7 So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. 17:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article title is really the misleading part. "Muslim agenda of the Obama administration" implies that, well, the Obama administration has a Muslim agenda. It's like having an article called "Pedophile agenda of the Bush administration" and then stating in the article that this article is simply a collection of items about pedophilia and the Bush administration, such as GWB stating that pedophiles are bad people. Hardly trustworthy, but definitely trusworthy. --Sid (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

From the creator of Noble Christian Wildfire Vs Evil Atheist Firefighter...
Yep, Ken again utterly fails at realizing what his excited announcements sound like: "2011: Biblical creation aggressively entering schools" --Sid (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * His bombast is always good for a laugh. Wasn't there supposed to be a "tidal wave of Christianity" that was about the be "unleashed" upon the Internet to wash away atheism a year or two back?  Whatever happened to that - the Question! Evolution! campaign doesn't seem as menacing as a tidal wave.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Question Evolution campaign was actually a huge success in gathering almost 1,000 volunteer ours. That's almost .15 seconds for every person in Texas! Occasionaluse (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He always links back to the almost dead blog too. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can anyone find any reference to "question evolution" on the Traditional Values Coalition site? I'm missing it, somehow.  Phiwum (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently they did... something? --Mikalos209 (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Traditional Values Coalition is joining the Question Evolution Campaign!. --Xyr (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on their main page too now: http://www.traditionalvalues.org . I had never seen the site before... all I can say is wow! --Xyr (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess either their search function didn't work earlier, or they hadn't made the announcement.  Well, obviously, atheistic evolutionism is in its death throes now.  Guess I'll jump ship. Phiwum (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dormant Volcanoes on Moon = Young Moon = Gawd Did It
I saw this on Conservapedia earlier and already face palmed before it was again mentioned to me here by Psy. So I took a risk of losing brain cells and read the article. After a few headdesks and aspirins later I am back to writing.

Anyway according to 🇰🇪 and the fine folks at CMI (who also believe in alien visitations) because the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter discovered dormant (CMI neglects to mention that part) silica volcanoes on the far side of the Moon (CMI article seems to feel that far and dark side of the Moon are interchangeable in their words "according to taste", ow..my brain hurts already) the Moon is young!

How do they come to this conclusion? Well see silica volcanoes on the Moon are rare (but known to already exist previous to the LRO). These newly found volcanoes are thought to be some 800 million years old (although some papers are misquoting them as 800 years old). What is exciting in astrophysical and geological circles is that in being 800 million years old, they are younger than when such lunar volcanic activity previously thought to cease (about a billion years ago). This indicates the Moon's geological history is more complex then originally thought, which is pretty cool.

However creationists are taking these discrepancies in age and the now greater numbers of such volcanoes existing to declare with certainly that the Moon's mantle must be as active as the Earth's, and causes crustal tectonics (not withstanding there is zero evidence for actual lunar plate tectonics, buttt they don't mention that part or offer evidence to the contrary), ergo the Moon really 6000 years old.

Just another less than novel way they gotta try to shove that square peg of Creationism through the round hole of science I guess.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. Dear. God. Typical of those geologically-ignorant asshats. By the way, if those volcanoes have been dormant for 800 million years, that classifies them as being extinct. Darkmind1970 (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Brian Cox was asked by his tv producer to talk about proving that the moon landings were not faked. he said "that's just shit.  and anyone who thinks it is a twat".  I think he'd have even more to say about andy et al.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">En attendant Godot  18:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that quote was him referring to people who thought that the LHC would destroy thr planet. 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hand washing
Hey Andy - just because you're dirty doesn't mean other people need to be. New study shows school absenteeism goes down by 1/3 when kids are compelled to use hand gel. Andy hasn't posted about his "Jesus said don't wash your hands" nonsense in awhile, but it's one of the clearest indicators of his stupidity, so I thought I'd share a study that confirms whatever everyone already knows. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? Andy debates Eugenie?
Andy posts that during his debate with Eugenia Scott (sic), he felt the earthquake. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I love Eugenie Scott
 * 2) Does anyone have details on this debate?
 * Sadly not, but how long before CP blames the 'quake on ebil muslim terrorists led by Hussein Obama? Not long I'm guessing, based on their track record. Darkmind1970 (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, Andy sounds relieved that the quake cut the debate short, so this will maybe count as divine intervention in his book. --Sid (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, I can see why he'd be worried. She has genuine qualifications, is articulate, hates scientific illiteracy and has a track record of refuting creationism. Andy's going to run away and call mommy about the nasty rude girl who made him look like a total moron.Darkmind1970 (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems it's on the Voice of Russia again, for whatever reason, at 5:20PM ET (1 hr, 15 mins from now): . Is anyone able to listen to the live thing? It's timing out for me, which is probably something with my work's firewall. If someone could capture it, I'd love them forever. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 20:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can cap and post it tomorrow. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to be here to shut off the capture... can anyone help me with some bash-fu to kill the process with a cronjob?  gives me the process id, but for some reason, I can't pipe it to  ... Occasionaluse (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you can use, though I'm not exactly an expert. Much appreciated! (ʞlɐʇ)  ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 20:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try a capture, too. Worked okay last time, even if I tuned in a little bit late. --Sid (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * CH, that did the trick, thanks! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it's starting now. They're intro-ing with the mother who prompted her kid to ask Perry stuff. --Sid (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My face just hit my palm so fucking hard. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...was that it? O_o --Sid (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather dull... Xyr (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I found the last one more entertaining, too. --Sid (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where can I listen to this? Did I miss it?-- 02:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The broadcast was about five hours ago. Hopefully Occasionaluse or Sid managed to record it. --Xyr (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay, I ran into some trouble saving/exporting the properly trimmed file yesterday. Here is yesterday's debate (Andy later posted on CP that there was apparently more, but this is what aired yesterday before they switched to some other guest/topic, so maybe they'll air the rest later?), and for the sake of comparison (and for those who joined the party late), here is what I recorded last time Andy had been on air. --Sid (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just barely got into andy's bit and I had to stop. I cannot bear andy saying that it's right to question dogma, the least questioning person I've ever interacted with does not get to tell me to question anything. --Opcn (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second, In the introduction to the debate they played a clip of a Perry Q&A session where he clearly states that "In texas we teach both creationism and evolution" (emphasis added) What the fuck... Ateafish (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. Admitting that Texas violates the constitution. Classic. The broadcast is now up on the Voice of Russia site. It seems to be (essentially) identical to Sid's version. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The section in which a lame metaphor is used to bash Conservapedia
So, when I was in kindergarten and elementary school, there was a game we played often initiated by the teachers: We said around in either a circle or a straight line, then somebody on one side made up some sentence and it should be something that makes sense. Then we would whisper the sentence into each others ears and coming out on the other side was something that made zero sense. That game had two lessons (1) we humans fill up that which we don't hear with what we know, forming words from things that make sense into something that doesn't make sense - the science lesson so to speak and (2) don't assume things out of the blue, but listen carefully what the other person actually says.

About 15 years later, actually today, I go to CP and read this, With that wording I actually thought the HHS went to far - but the antidote to fundie idiocy is as always research. Reading the article at CNSNews about what they are actually about, I pretty much immediatly facepalmed. "Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings," is what was actually said - not "children want sex". After quickly disperging an ad hominem argument into the article and then arguing with an idealistic blindfold the article ends with the remark that CNSNews send an question to HHS which wasn't answered yet - the question was if HHS encourages teens to have sex.

I think these people really have all the information they would need if they invested the 15 minutes I invested, but instead of 15 minutes they invest 2 seconds in the little Christian behaviour book, and say it's bad to be realistic. This is basically what pisses me off so much about these people, it is not their intolerance, their bible-thumping, their hate and their fear of all things new - it is that these people are too lazy to educate themselves, to do the smallest amount of reseach to gather actual knownledge and to commit the ideological sin of thinking for themselves. It is as their stupidity, blindsidedness and intellectual laziness that pisses me off.

It is as this old game I played last 15 years ago, but instead of the brain filling in the gaps their ideology does it for them. And so we start with pure scientific knownledge and end up with utter non-sense like Conservapedia. -- 21:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we have a Tl;dr version pwease?--Mikalos209 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jpatt read something he didn't understand, let his biases fill in the rest and couldn't click the new tab button fast enough to crap it all over the front page. --Roofus (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, adults tend to freak out over child sexuality. The House episode "Euphoria (part 2)" has a small sequence where House has to explain to a concerned mother that her young daughter doesn't have epilepsy, she's just masturbating -- normal children often discover that masturbation feels good from a pretty young age, but in some cases it's necessary to explain the social convention that masturbation is a private activity not a public one. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually complained about this on the mainpage. I wonder if I`ll be banned.184.100.161.106 (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * JPatt:"'inf' is in the URL as in infant" yeah, the article criticizing the item in question. I could think of many words to describe him. --Durbinator (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind of off-topic, but...@the first paragraph: Apparently it's called telephone WP:Chinese_whispers. 99.50.96.218 (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not even the HHS site that has this stuff - it's typical bad reporting. See this. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Project Flying Fortresses cannot be stopped
On the one hand, in Ken's Imaginary World - "I am not going to be very active on Conservapedia in the near term".  On the other hand, in Ken's Real World, one week and ~ 325 edits later, that plan seems to have come adrift for Wor Wullie. AGAIN. DogP (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe a certain gentleman whose name begings with K is a wee bitty worried now that Max Fletcher is complaining to the Assfly about people "creating more and more articles describing the exact same thing". 21:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. Like Ken needs to worry about anything. Already forgot the most recent history? Rob's wiki-corpse isn't even cold yet... --Sid (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken is an unstoppable Conservapedia-gobbling machine, and nothing, not even Andy can stand in his way now.  All Hail the Godly but slim Internet überlord!   DogP (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's kind of the gist of it, is it not? Happy people munch carpet. Sad people gobble Conservapedia. Mountain Blue (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Carpet-munching makes us all happy!. B♭maj7 So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. 23:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, did you just explain a joke that was totally unfunny and ludicrously obvious? Go back to your livejournal. Mountain Blue (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Jim Jast
I haven't been paying much attention to CP as of late but I am really enjoying watching JimJast shit all over the place with his unsupported personal opinions about cosmology. Because no one at CP knows dick about it he can post whatever notion comes into his head without challenge. Trusworthy indeed. Aceof Spades 22:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been a few people criticizing his ideas. Funny enough, I think they're all liberal trolls. Jast seems to be taking the Ken view of CP: place to put your personal essays. You're free to do so as long as it doesn't contradict CP dogma. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The link on his page explaining about how he proved the universe isn`t expanding doesn`t work. LOL --Durbinator (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's why his papers were rejected. :P --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Jast is a kook, but he seems to accept relativity (or, more accurately, his Time-Cubesque misinterpretation of it). That makes putting his essays on Andy's blog pretty funny. Unlike Andy, however, at least Jast tries to do some math when talking about relativity. However, he is clearly out of his depth. He says he's continuing Einstein's work on gravity, yet admitted he didn't know that the Ricci tensor was symmetric. That's pretty much like admitting to not knowing what side of a bat you're suppose to hold onto and saying you're going to be the next Babe Ruth. --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting thing I notice about him, in addition to his links never working, is the way he publicly whines about how badly everyone treats him, rejecting his papers and deleting his web pages. Usually people who get rejected so soundly and repeatedly don't wear it as a badge of honor. Another funny thing is his recurring motif of "I presented it to XYZ, and he found no mathematical errors in it, but he rejected it anyway. (It's somewhat similar to Ken's mantra of "you can't find any factual errors in my drooling", though I suspect that's just a coincidence.)  People (mostly) don't find errors because his papers are unreadable.  Of course, people here and at CP found a few errors (derivative with respect to the speed of light, Ricci tensor, metric tensor) in just a few seconds of skimming.  They're even ganging up on him at CP.  Cute.  SamHB (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They found no errors in my work!
 * MatthewQ applies John Baez's famous Crackpot Index to Jim Jast on Jast's own user page . --Night Jaguar (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to have sex with a youtube-channel...
Ken:  The brainchild of the Ppsimmons YouTube channel is a successful Birmingham, Alabama business man and an American Gulf of Mexico coast youth pastor who have chosen to remain anonymous. (That survived 15 revisions and counting...)

12:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The name of the channel is a pseudonym for the YouTube channel." Does he mean the name is a pseudonym for the its creator? I'm lost. I guess it all makes sense in his head (what a terrifying place)... άλφα Talk 13:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The YouTube channel has a name, but it isn't Ppsimmons. We just call it Ppsimmons.  The real name is secret.  Duh. Phiwum (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to expressing himself, Kendoll is having many problems. Idioms knows he many, but not how they are used. -- 14:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Only thing annoying about this is that for something that is supposed to be an encyclopedia, Ken uses it to sound off about the blogs and Youtube pages of his otherwise insignificant buddies.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that he refers to "three of the more popular videos relating to the Question evolution! campaign", the most popular of which has about 14,000 views and many more dislikes than likes. Keep fuckin' that chicken, Ken. You'll destroy evolution in no time! Just need to contact a few more churches in Texas and that'll be the last nail in the coffin!!!!! (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 16:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear gods, can you imagine Ken actually harassing people by phone? "Hello there, gentlemen! This is the flying kitty calling! Would you like to become part of my wildfire-like campaign in regards to defeating evolutionism and halving atheists?! Hello?" Never mind that he'd probably call them at 3 A.M., when he's at his daily peak. Röstigraben (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Stating the obvious - the Youtube channel cannot have a brainchild., it is the brainchild of its creators. Mensa? Teaching university English? Really, Ken? 05:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well of course it can't, but kenny is not the brightest tool in the dirt pile is he and he's not quite worked out thie English language thing yet. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A Faithless Person
Don't have any faith in the supernatural? It isn't because you are applying logical or rational based deduction, or carefully studying and weighing the evidence, you just lack the discipline and direction to follow Christ fully. Try harder lazy sinner!

Oh and attend Mass too! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess Muslims must be faithless. ONE / TALK 08:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been known for years - four or so - that Faith is uniquely Christian. Only Christians have faith. Everyone else merely has belief. Random surfer (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

TerryH: "Because I can!"
Article on a character from a book, roughly 6,000 views, no vandalism, all edits except for one made by the same guy, MUST PROTECT FOREVER BECAUSE OF HIGH TRAFFIC! --Sid (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And another . This one has only ever been edited by him and has just 1300 views. You know what this means? 🇰🇪 disease is spreading. First they're protecting their own shitty articles. Next it'll take them 20 goes to make one edit. Finally they'll post multiple versions of the same article under a load of different titles and claim to be adding new content. Sad, really. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They should just make a namespace for each remaining sysop and let them party in it for all the collaboration that goes on on CP. -- 05:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The second one is an essay, which I thought was more of a personal work than a collaborative one, so I guess I don't see it as a big deal at all if they are "protected". I could be wrong on their purpose though (as in they are meant to be collaborative).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 06:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The high traffic thing is pretty funny because most of those hits come from them working on the essay, reading it, etc. It's not like Hurlbutt's Atlas Shrugged review is anywhere to be found on Google.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"The world's first gay superpower"
is potentially China, according to this article. Based on the history, the statement was part of the original article, created by DavidR, one of Andy's students. Having not read the book that's referenced, I can't speak for it, but considering that it's published by Mark Steyn, I'm not optimistic. Something about how that statement just stands alone, without any other discussion of it (though you'd think CP would love to use it to bash China) just seems strange to me. άλφα Talk 13:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Steyn's book, America Alone sounds hilariously bad. Basically, because liberals and all their social-democratic nanny states have European nations complacent, every other nation in the world will be taken over by Muslims, and America will stand alone. άλφα Talk 13:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I remember reading somewhere that the youths in China today will grow up to find that there are around 250 million more men than women in their country.  That's a lot of bachelors.  The idea that they'd become gay because there aren't enough women around is probably based on a prison field-trip that Steyn went on.  China's exactly like a prison after all, lots of armed guards, forced sodomy, and they use cigarettes as currency because the Mao won't let them have money. --Ellipsoidal (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Stien really suggests that these guy will turn gay, cause of the population disparity? He's never heard of Korea?  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">En attendant Godot  14:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha! This gave me such a laugh.  I did a two second Google to see if I could find any "fewer women makes men gay" and the first hit was "My boyfriend just informed me he had sex with men in prison. what would you do?"  Anyway, here's the Wikipedia article.  --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that like every girl in the bar is pretty at closing time? MDB (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read a bit of that book, including the "gay superpower" section. Young DavidR left out the part where Steyn suggests that China will invade Russia and steal its women. Yup. Actually, I think Steyn was joking here. You see, what America Alone lacks in verifiable facts, it makes up for in very weak attempts at humor. -- 江斯顿 What is it now? 15:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that like every girl in the bar is pretty at closing time? Yes, very. Situational sexual behaviour makes perfect sense is you see sexuality as a continuum as opposed to a gay/straight choice. I reckon myself about 75% straight, 25% gay. Mostly I'm attracted to women, indeed, I married one but, under certain circumstances I'll go with the other 25% rather than go without. Maybe I'm just horny. To go back to MDB's point about everyone looks good at closing time - as the choices narrow so do our selection criteria widen. Silver Sloth (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider myself "intellectually bisexual". Meaning that I normally don't do it with men and aren't normally attracted to them, but if I did fall for one I certainly wouldn't give a fuck. -- 17:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You might not give a fuck, but would you take... nevermind. MDB (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't Steyn the batshit crazy bloke who constantly claims that his mate Conrad "my company is therefore my piggybank" Black was completely innocent of all charges? Darkmind1970 (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a second. Wouldn't that be a good thing for the US? If homosexuality is bad for a society, and China was to become homosexual (it disturbs me even to write this), then China would become weak - and for some reason muslim - that would be a good thing for them, wouldn't it? -- 17:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Remember, gays are preening little, sex-crazed, nancy-boys.  But they're also cruel, slavering killing machines, responsible for the some of the worst massacres in history, alongside their evolutionist brethren.  250 million atheist gays are probably the reality behind the Pestilence metaphor in Revelation. --Ellipsoidal (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember a Rapture Readian more-or-less making that argument:
 * Seems only last week or so I listened to Hal Lindsey talking about the rise of China (and these days India too, it seems) and how their female infanticide practices will have them end up with a huge surplus of young men without brides who would be willing recruits for a 200 million man army.
 * For what it's worth, I sincerely hope and pray it's an army of demons and not flesh and blood men from China. Men without wives and without hope, looking only to slaughter and be slaughtered in turn.
 * --Night Jaguar (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fuck me, there really is no escaping Poe's law. --Ellipsoidal (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember the Monkey Dust sketch where the Jihadist comes over to the UK cell and becomes just as secular and ineffectual as his teenage charges? Yeah, that's what really what happens. -- 18:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)