Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive156

Just hee!
That is all
 * I saw that too. He is such a pillock. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 14:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Outstanding. I didn't even know that 'ax' was a yank spelling (and nor does Google Chrome's spellchecker) (which I've just noticed doesn't recognise 'google'!)  15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, WHAT?! 15:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's already mentioned in the The bible is unfasifiable according to andy. section but yes, it's pretty stupid. Especially as the article he references lists several possible plausible solutions. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 15:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It ain't. The diff is Andy adding his thoughts on animals running to higher ground to escape a tsunami to the Counterexamples to Evolution article, not just spouting off about it in the talkpage for TerryH's Noah's Ark was Reals!!!! article. 15:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but it's still the same thing - he just added it in another place. I wasn't having a go at you, just linking the two discussions. Apologies if it didn't come across that way. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Out back. Now. Fists, rubber hoses, chains, brass knuckles, knives, guns, tasers. 15:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Guns are largely defensive, so it wouldn't be a very interesting battle. I choose goats. At dawn. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 15:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Axe bodyspray the American name for Lynx? Or Lynx could be the UK/Europe name for Axe... whatever... point being that Axe is used in America on at least one thing. I've never heard of "ax" as a variant. X Stickman 17:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I always assumed "ax" was the British spelling... Barikada 18:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never seen any American source spell axe "ax", but my mozilla firefox spell check is telling me that ax is how it is spelled. Wierd --Opcn 19:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a hundred percent sure, but I think ax/axe is a spelling changing over time, rather than a spelling specific to a dialect.-- 22:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Less letters + acceptable spelling = economical = Andytastic. QED. 06:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Fewer letters! 07:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Less" has less letters than "fewer", therefore is gooder. --Kels 16:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "More goodly" shirley? 16:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe he's going to move to txtspeak next? gd53d! 20:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

econ homework grading
So far one student has generated two alleged wigos. Is it really that interesting? (I don't know, I'm not bothering to click on them, the ad copy reads so lame...). Can't we just laugh at that stuff here on the talk page? 06:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The WIGOs are each for different students. 06:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, so they are. I didn't read far enough into the links.  Still f'ing lame IMHO. We could end up with 70 of these in two days, every one of which will be the same damn joke.  06:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, how does 57/60 = 8/10? Can we just kill those wigos, they are so badly written they make us look like the idiots on the scene.  Seriously.  06:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The particular grade being highlighted is on a single question, #6, worth 10 points. Let the WIGOs be voted down if they are of poor quality. 06:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * None of that is clear in the piece of shit wigo in question. Yes, I know the voting will judge, but I still accuse whoever wrote it of complete sloppy incompetence. 07:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought there was an unwritten rule "don't WIGO the students; they're just kids." MDB 10:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That was me, Human. The aim was not to WIGO the students, but to highlight Mr. Schlafly's incompetence as a grader. This is nothing new, so I should probably stick to the more ridiculous examples in the future. 19:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to be mean, but, yeah, often these gradescapades wigo better when he's mostly done, so they can capture the best/worst of Andy while trying to leave the HSers alone. Perhaps a series of "updates" will make them clearer and more up-votable.  21:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The bible is unfasifiable according to andy.
Firstly he states that the Bible is unfasifiable - which means the creation account also,, before telling a user that no-ones disputes there was a global flood. Then he adds some fucking story about animals running to high ground in a tsunami. I mean really can he think that no one disputes the global flood? Really?. AceMcWicked 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently so. I kinda figured he would, though - he's always telling people how "the Bible is the most logical book ever written."
 * How the EFF did he ever gain an engineering degree? He's madder than someone who's madder than Mad Jack, the mad madman of Madcaster. 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the "improved"ment he asserts that the flood happened and that evolution could not explain how the animals survived without gods help. What the fuck? AceMcWicked 23:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think he knows what falsifiable means. Sterile 23:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @ Ace - I thought it was pretty obvious: he's pulling a Goddidit. 23:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What's weirder is his belief that no one credibly denies the flood. AceMcWicked 23:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I see what he means: by "no one credible denies it" he just means "no non-liberals deny it." 23:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred" ought to be somewhere in the QG. 00:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Our articles about the flood are some of my favourite ones here. Caring for the animals in Noah's ark is particularly good. The most logical book ever written? A middle aged man caring for two of quite literally every single species in existence while a man in the sky floods the Earth? Really? 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * TerryH schools us on Biblical inerrancy: The odds against the Bible being wrong: "ten thousand quinquagintillion to one"--Simple 01:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm sorry, but I really really REALLY REALLY just can't understand these people. I know that are not all simpletons, some of them are probably quite intelligent - but when they trot out things like this I'm just staggered.  They actually believe this shit!  They think this bible stuff really happened!  It's just incredible.  I suppose this shows the power of childhood brainwashing; anyone introduced to this as an adult would immediately dismiss it.  As for Assfly's favoured line about the bible being 'logical', has he actually read the thing, or does he just not know what 'logic' means?  (Then again, talking donkeys and 900 year old people is pretty damn logical....)  05:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The most laughable aspect of their concept of Biblical inerrancy is that, "actually, only the bits we like are inerrant..." Adulteress story? Not real. Seventh day Sabbath? Totally ignored. Jesus Christ the saviour of all the world? No, only those who believe in Him. New Testament teachings about morality? We'll just cherry pick the ones that make us look good and allow us to pontificate. Grace vs Law? Bugger Paul, we'll stick to our version of the Law. Their version of the "Good News" is actually a semi-literalistic message about the violent end of the world and the miraculous salvation of a chosen few with fantastic beliefs. Fox 10:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with Fox. AceMcWicked 11:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As my former pastor liked to say, "no one really treats the Bible as being 100% literally true. Some of us are just more honest about it.:" MDB 13:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh god, the long odds argument. I remember being struck by that one as interesting when I was about thirteen or fourteen and still a Christian.  The argument was "It takes more faith to be an Atheist."  Claiming Isaiah's prophecies came true is wonderfully absurd, since it's so patently-fucking-obvious that the gospels were written specifically to fulfil the prophecies.  They keep repeating, "x was done to fulfill the prophecy," and Jesus does the whole Palm Sunday donkey thing with that in mind.  Claiming Daniel has been vindicated is much stranger and more ignorant, however.  Eschatologists have been interpreting it in thousands of ways since the dawn of Christianity, so to say "I've got a set of events which kind of works" is no real accomplishment. And then, how does the supposed predictive success of Isaiah vindicate Genesis, given that the canon was arbitrary?  15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't Terry have just said "ten sesvigintillion"?-- 15:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I think the figure is actually closer to nine thousand million bazillion.-- 15:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * five multiplujillion, nine impossibidillion, seven fantasticatrillion (and sixteen cents). Bonus points to anyone who knows that "number's" significance. MDB 15:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * &lt;reflex&gt;Scrooge McDuck's cash reserves.&lt;/reflex&gt; ...oops, sorry, I shouldn't have posted this. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

At least Terry cleared up the discredited theory of plate tectonics for me: "Are you assuming that the continents in Noah's day were distributed as they are today? They weren't. Initially they all fit together, like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The Flood got started with a hairline crack that appeared in this landmass and then went all the way through it. That crack persists as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge System." So the continents were moving apart how fast? We've pretty much for sure that they have been "where they are now" since the fifteenth century or so (maybe earlier?), and the fLOOD was when? 18:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my speciation! OH MY SPECIATION!  He's doing it again!  "There's no logical reason to disbelieve that people lived to 900", "There's no logical reason to doubt the bible".  Does this man have even the slightest idea what 'logic' actually entails.  And he's a lawyer?  Bloody hell....  18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

&
I'm pretty sure JPratt is talking out his arse here. The "&" problem on CP dates back to the lost 7 days, when all the special characters went wonky and they've never got round to fixing it. It's just another case of if we don't know, then it can't be done. -- Psygremlin  14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, maybe he's right. Used to work though - I had files uploaded over there, using an "&". -- Psygremlin  14:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a limitation of MediaWiki, it's a limitation of our (and apparently CP's) short url configuration (the system that converts http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/article into http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=article). It works on wikipedia. -- Nx  / talk 14:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I recall this is some sort of mod_rewrite configuration issue. I used to have this on my own private mediawiki install too, but it appears to have corrected itself over time. Now, it seems the wiki will automatically put %26 in the title instead of bare & and even using & seems to work... weird. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy fails at maths once again
Andy 'improves' the introduction to vector space. For non-mathematicians, his edit confuses a subject with an actual mathematical object, and fails to grasp that vector spaces are way more interesting that simple 'dimensions beyond the simple x-y axis'. The former intro was actually way better. UPTADE: Master asked for further improvements? let's kisssome ass!--Ireon 20:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's truly astonishing how epically bad Andy is at maths. I really hope he eventually goes ahead with his "Critical Thinking in Math" course. The lulz would be epic. Bonus points to MarkGall for responding to the call for "more improvements" by completely erasing everything Andy wrote.-- 21:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's clearly something going on. Andy indulges in some harmless addition related to gradientsto nurse the wound of the deleted intro. Markgall: Did Master mention gradients?, I am not sure if Markgall tries to kiss some ass or is genuinely appalled by Andy's notions of Mathematics, and has to try to clean up the mess afterwards. At least his maths explanations make sense!--Ireon 23:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * MarkGall shows his belly, and Andy gives a tantalizing promise!-- 02:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Countdown to Andy editing cp:2+2=4 - except for very large values of 2, of course. 02:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For you mathematicians 11:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with xkcd is that it'll never top the wheel comic. 15:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Offshore wind farms
This is pure gold. We don't have these 'round these parts, ergo it's crap. Also, soon, Andy, soon.--Ireon 11:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh! I also like the way new items get added @ the front, thereby fucking up any references to particular entries. 11:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even: "Cape Wind could begin to set up financing for its plan to build 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound as early as this spring, according to a company official." Isn't that in offshore to his home state? 11:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ...boondoggle? *looks it up on WP* Is that common American slang today, or is Andy just living in the past (again)? I just ask because I never even heard of the term before. --Sid 12:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ''"coined by Robert H. Link †1957 American scoutmaster Date: 1929
 * : a braided cord worn by Boy Scouts as a neckerchief slide, hatband, or ornament
 * : a wasteful or impractical project or activity often involving graft"''
 * 12:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He loves "boondoggle" because it's a Conservative word. A Conservative word that my sock added to the list before getting banned by TK. RaoulDuke 16:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's one of those words that's very rarely used and only when nothing else captures the middling degree of opprobrium desired and when saying anything more would be tantamount to making an express allegation of fraud. It's not quite to the level of scandalous and certainly beyond what you'd merely chuckle at. Seems to only get used in the political context. 16:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Toast, Cape Wind is off the southern coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, between the Cape and the "Islands" (Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket), and IIRC, should be capable of supplying the entire Cape's need for electrocity, which is a lot nicer than, say, building a coal-fired plant in Chatham. Sid, and Nutty, boondoggle is relatively common, but as Nutty says, mostly in a "huge public project" context. It does sometimes occur in the private sector, but due to the profit/loss "invisible hand", is slightly more self-correcting. PS, Andy's an idiot. 19:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just Hee! Hee!
Joaquin tells someone about "Fair Use". What was that about the blind leading the blind? 15:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate they they're fair use because JM says so before there's any context in which to judge the alleged fair use. Pure genius. My CP Fair Use Project has netted a few responses. JM's new museum uploads may garner some interest from the British National Trust. 16:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I get it, but...
I understand that daylight savings is ending in the US, but Andy' announcement of it is a little weird. Dalí is good, but Andy seems to have caught the any-old-vaguely-related-picture off JM. 22:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Nearly everyone", Andy? Really?  23:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Silence limey unperson.-- 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Liveblogging again, Ed? Really?
Taps. I can't quite tell whether he's liveblogging it, or is just too excited about this film he just saw to type it all out without hitting the 'submit' button. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי          שְׁלֹום!
 * I thought it hilarious when he live blogged My Girl. One of Ed Poors greatest hits in my book. AceMcWicked 20:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Low blow, Ed, low blow. --מְתֻרְגְּ<font color="#555555">מָ<font color="#666666">ן<font color="#777777"> וִ<font color="#888888">י<font color="#999999">קִ<font color="#aaaaaa">י          שְׁלֹום!
 * This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.... With crap like this? "Tim Hutton's performance as the cadet major is continually upstaged by Tom Cruise and Sean Penn...the best actor in the film, plays the loyal friend of Moreland who questions the lengths they are going to." This thing reads like an elementary school movie review.... What the fuck is wrong with you Ed?  00:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're prepared to hear the answer. :| -- 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

MarkGall gets creative on block comments
I love where this is going. Best ones IMO:
 * go away -- Moronic vandalism: go read a book -- Moronic vandalism: ooooh, almost got me (not) -- Moronic vandalism: or else merely a moron -- idiot -- Moronic vandalism: moron -- useless idiot--

And I thought conservatives didn't engage in name-calling...--Ireon 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I call next Bugler. 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so, too. ConservaBot already smelled fishy. If he is, bravo, MarkGall, bravo. --Ireon 23:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He is developing a nice cocky arrogance to his blocking. The next phase is to start singling out editors who are out of favour with Andy, but still tolerated. 23:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And then influencing policy. It was just plain epic when Bugler made the senior sysops dance for him by removing the "Block Rights" limitation (the clause that said that people who got those rights after a certain date were only allowed to block obvious vandalism) after being called out for his blocks. --Sid 23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely Bugler part deux. I wouldn't be surprised if it were Fret himself. -- 02:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What the Hell is this all about, now?
Has Andy hired a teacher to teach a civics course? RaoulDuke 00:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The guy runs a blog on the Constitution. 01:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The guy gal seems big on federalism, a pet topic of Andy's, a lot of it is redundant after the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments though. 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * EC)
 * a) Take your pocket copy of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution and, from among your colored pencils, your favorite color. Go through both documents carefully and underline all references to God. Be sure you don't miss the express recognition of the Lordship of Jesus Christ which is contained within The Constitution! ". (S)He's a godbothering Constitootion expert: Google the name for the blog. 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is one. 01:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's brilliant wandalism. My hat is off to PubliusHuldah, all hail PubliusHuldah. Nice work.  Excellent parody - which is something we see so little of these days. Except from Andrew, of course.  01:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is crazier than even Andy. That is JPatt Twitter quality crazy. 05:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Check out the blog. Really hard to believe some of this stuff. As an example, in this post he argues that Congress and the President lack the power to make any sort of agreement about climate change. He spends about 95% of the post (no exaggeration) discussing some extremely fundamental concepts - like how Congress could only pass a treaty whose provisions fall within their own constitutional powers to make law. This is a very basic tenet of constitutional law, so this is strange for him to spend so much time on, but I guess thoroughness is a virtue. But then at the very end, he leaps forward with this: "The Questions are these: Does The Constitution grant to Congress the power to make laws respecting the reduction of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc. “emissions”?  ...  The answer is NO!"  And then he doesn't provide any further argument. He doesn't say why he thinks that's so, and he doesn't bother to address the Commerce Clause argument which would be the obvious and immediate rebuttal. He doesn't even bother to follow up with the fact that his reasoning would mean that Congress could never pass any laws to protect any aspect of the environment - ever! Truly, this guy is worthy of CP.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 07:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absofruitly perfect for CP indeed. He had me at "Buy a version of the declaration from askheritage and use your favorite color to underline references to God". --GTac 09:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What I can't understand is this part in the "ABOUT" section: "Publius Huldah and her children". Even ignoring the Ken-worthy image of cheetahs as a family photo (a furry, maybe?), this implies that Publius is apparently a woman. Which means that Andy Schlafly asked a woman to teach on his wiki. I'll let this one sink in for a moment. --Sid 09:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A comment on the blog mentions that she is also on As A Mom ... A Sisterhood of Mommy Patriots. And used to be on Resist but left in a huff. And is from Putnam County, Tennessee. See also Request to home schooling moms and other teachers. Fox 09:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to tell her who exactly wears the pants. She is obviously one of those librul femininists: "In site after site, my efforts to teach The Constitution are undermined by "know-it-all" males. Men with a tiny bit of knowledge who think they know everything. They do these things: (1) They post misinformation about The Constitution - statements which are just NOT TRUE! (2) They drown out my posts with long & frequent posts of their own, so that mine are pushed off the page. (3) They move the discussion away from The Constitution to their own wrong-headed notions. Funny thing: No woman has ever done this. I'm not surprised: We are not boastful, and we are mission-oriented. The women actually want to learn. But too many of the men just want to show off. I'll talk with the founder of SGP and see if she can get a Group set up where I have editorial control - the ability to remove off-topic posts and posts with misinformation. Of course, not all men are ignorant, boastful show-offs. I have come across a few who want to learn. But the ignorant show-offs destroy the sites unless their comments can be moderated & deleted." She firmly believes that there is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus, [so long as you have ovaries]. Fox 10:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been arguing with her on the post to which I linked... she is astonishingly stupid. I'm not sure if she has any legal training, but it seems as thought she has trouble understanding the most fundamental aspects of constitutional law.  And yet Huldah is teaching the CP class about it.  Weird.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Always remember: On CP, you don't learn by reading a book - you learn by writing a book. And someone teaching a course on CP without proper (or even apparent) qualifications isn't exactly breaking news, either. It's the norm. --Sid 20:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * She does write on one of her blogs somewhere that she has been a lawyer for 35 years. Fox 20:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Is it not clear from my profound grasps of the subjects that I am a lawyer, philosopher, and logician? But yes, I have been a lawyer for almost 40 years. A political philosopher for longer than that. And a Logician from the time of my Childhood."--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 22:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, that Publius person is real??? Poe ftw I guess. 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Publius" is actually the extremely egotistical pseudonym she has adopted, after the pseudonymous author of the Federalist Papers.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 22:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We also have an editor here by that name, funny thing. 23:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very common. A famous blogger at Obsidian Wings also took that as his name, and one of the Glenn Beck admins on his sites.  Some people, of course, are referencing the original Publius instead.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 23:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ames should just love this lady. Anyone know if he's seen it yet? DickTurpis 22:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if she is a friend of Andy's mum. Would help explain Andy hiring her.--Thanatos 01:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Alexander, why must you be patronizing and insulting? If you want open civil discussion, we can have it. But I will not permit you to poison my site with incivility. PH" She is obviously reading a different thread! I am following it closely, and the patronising, insulting and less than civil comments are all coming from Charlie-fucking-farley. No, the real problem here is that you have exposed her flawed argument - or in her words "post[ed] misinformation about The Constitution - statements which are just <stamps feet> NOT TRUE!" Moreover, like all ignorant, boastful, wrong-headed, show-off male pigs, you have drowned out her posts with long and frequent posts of your own, so that hers are pushed off the page. Prepare to be "moderated & deleted." Fox 09:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh man, and she just keeps spouting about how open minded and free from brainwashing she is, unlike those opposing liberals who are controlled by the government's propaganda. And she's an incompetent lawyer! If only Andy weren't already married.. --GTac 11:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Wigo Worthy
This isn't worth writing up a Wigo, cause it's old news... I've been looking through the "News" Template and found a few things that made me chuckle. First up, Andy still thinks that just because it gets cold in an area, Global Warming is false. I saw an albino squirrel the other day outside my apartment, so all squirrels must be that color. I guess liberals keep pushing the myth of the "brown" squirrel as some strange affirmative action measure. Next on the list: In the world of Andy, a Democrat trails in the polls, that is positive proof that all people hate Obama. Last, but certainly not least, Andy is using the old selective quote trick again to perfection. In reporting that the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against Wind Farms (actually they ruled that county commissioners can outlaw construction of commercial wind farms but why get technical) He included the following quote: "hundreds of turbines towering 300 or more feet above the landscape will disrupt the natural beauty of the prairie, create noise pollution and hurt dwindling populations of prairie chickens, which won't mate anywhere near large structures." A pretty nasty quote, until you read the article and discover that the above quote is not from the court, as is implied. Two important words qualify the hell out of that quote: "opponents fear" Congrats Andy, in a nation of morons, you are an idiot. 01:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the unseasonably hot weather I am experiencing cancel out Schlafly's cool weather? 01:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not windy today proving that wind is a myth. Also I have never been sure why staunch conservatives are against everything except oil, nuclear and big fuck off 4x4's. AceMcWicked 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well oil companies own the Republican part and have part shares in the Democrats, so that is easy. Nuclear probably used to be a big money backroller, although the lack of power plants being built these days probably indicate they are not that fashionable anymore. 4x4 is more of a small dick issue. 01:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * About the "all people hate Obama" thing, it's worth noting in Andy's defense that most people view midterm elections (even special elections) as strong indicators of popular opinion on Presidential performance, even if he does bloviate way too much over it. It's going to be very interesting to see who wins, incidentally, in a race where the Republican dropped out and endorsed the Democrat over the Conservative.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 07:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the principle, Tom. I just found it funny that in Virigina, a state Obama won with some 52 or 53% vote, the first time a Dem won since Johnson (Lyndon, not Andrew) and whose last 10 Governors have been evenly split 50/50, Andy takes in that the Republican is leading in the polls and extrapolates that to "Total repudiation of Obama"  I would love to see what he wrote about Virginia voting for Obama last year.  I'm sure it was a "Total repudiation of Bush."  Or, more likely, proof that Obama's powerful mind control techniques were working on Southerners.  07:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)   PS, An interesting little factoid from Wikipedia, "in every Virginia gubernatorial election since 1977, the political party of the President at the time has lost the election, even when the state of Virginia had strongly voted for the President in question."
 * This election is going to be a rorschach anyway, as well as the one in New York (which is just too weird, too: A special election with three parties and three viable candidates is unusual enough, but with the current state of the GOP and the extremely weird fact of the Republican being denounced by her own party en masse and throwing her support behind the Democrat against the third-party candidate... well, it's going to be a mess and no one really know what's going to happen. Polling is all over the place.  The only thing that can be assured is the lesson the GOP is going to take from this: be more conservative.  If the Dem wins, it's because the RINO threw her support behind him and betrayed true conservatism.  If the Conservative wins, it's because conservatism is awesome.)--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 07:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a rare day when I both think and hope Newt Gingrich is right, but this is one of them, when he says this kind of infighting among the Republicans will lead to Obama's reelection in 2012 and Pelosi being Speaker for Life. From his mouth to the FSM's noodly ears. MDB 15:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent)

The whole NY23 thing is just pissing me off, big-time. The NY Republican party has been a train wreck ro years now, but they turned down Hoffman for a good reason - he was a geographic outsider (not even eligible to vote in the district he's running for) who had repeatedly done poorly when being interviewed by the GOP. Even after he started his Conservative Party campaign, he was getting panned by the local papers for being uninformed on the local issues, and passing up on chances to prepare issue statements. He was basically about ideology over ideas, and all he brought to the table were tea party talking points, which is why he ducked the local debates, and was trailing in polls and endorsements.

So what happens? The extreme conservatives decide to make him a strawman for their "take back America and the GOP" movement, and pump money and national support his way. Glenn Beck gives him a huge national forum to parrot tea party talking points, and he suddenly becomes the darling of the extreme right. The cash and endorsements started pouring in, fake websites traced to conservative operators trashed the GOP candidate, and she pulled out after her support withered.

So what will the NY23 voters get if Hoffman wins? Not someone who's in touch with them or their issues. Instead, he'll be spending the next two years paying off his political and financial debts to the political interests outside of NY23 who put him in office. He'll vote the way Palin, Limbaugh and Beck want him to, not the way his constituents want him to, but it's the latter group who have to live with the consequences. What's sad is that the NY23 voters are centrist-type conservatives, and while they can identify with some of what Hoffman represents, he really doesn't have a clue about what matters to them or how he should be voting to further his constituents' interests. He'll be voting to further the tea party interests, and the people he represents will be the losers in the end. I hope enough of them are smarter than that to vote accordingly tomorrow. --SpinyNorman 16:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is deja vu
I think we may have talked of this before, but Schlafly uses the quote generator. And if it's old news, it's still funny and we should post it every two weeks! 01:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is linked to on the quote generator as something like, here Andy fails the Turing test.
 * Can you tell the difference? 01:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User "Ip", I notice you follow our first initial, last name convention. Godspeed to you for that.  However, you seem to have swallowed some liberal ejaculations and lies about evolution and global warming.  As soon as you get over your "2+2=4ism" your mind will be free to encompass all that homogenized, pasteurized conservative thought can inject into your professor-valued brain.  Please, gain this strength before wikipedia biases your placement into the dark dungeons of public school violence and liberal obscenity.  02:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, if you reply to this, my final comment, you will be guilty as accused and judged of liberal Wast Lordism. Gruntspit. 02:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was someone else impersonating him for a second as I've rarely seen him sign off as "Andy Schlafly" and always thought his user name had a capital S... 17:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was someone else impersonating him for a second as I've rarely seen him sign off as "Andy Schlafly" and always thought his user name had a capital S... 17:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Counterexamples to evolution WIGO
I think we need a new phrase for this, "Poe Paradox" doesn't quite cover it: Andy blocked the user because he recognized that the user was a parodist, but he restored the parodic content. Thoughts? Oh, and I love the WIGO. Whoever wrote it should give themselves a pat on the back. 21:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

also about this WIGO
If I up/down it, it gets/loses 2 votes instead of one. RaoulDuke 00:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey! it does! 00:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's really weird. I wonder why it does that. 01:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OMG, you are kidding me. You have taken a vote from one side and given it to the other. That is one less up vote and one more down vote (or vis versa) a net change of two. Surly you must be familiar with this in parliament, if a party loses a seat to the opposition it changes the the lead of the majority by two. For example if a government has a 35 seat majority, the opposition only need to win 18 seats to form government. 02:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So if it has 50 up votes and I give it a down vote it only had 48 up votes? But all the other one work in increments of 1, not 2. RaoulDuke 02:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, this is weird. I took the first WIGO in the second section. It was 8. I voted it down to 7. Then voted it up to 9. So 8-1+1=9? WTF? RaoulDuke 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's nice to see that the average RW user operates at a sub-Ed Poor level of math. JESUS CHRIST!!!!  Let's try with apples:


 * You have fifty apples. You put one apple in.  You now have fifty one.  Coming back later, you decide that you shouldn't have stored that apple, so you take it back, and then take another apple for good measure.  How many apples do you have now?  -- 02:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)That does not describe the situation at all. The WIGO number is the difference between two populations. If you had to barrels of apples one marked yes (positive) and the other no (negative), with a difference between the two of 10. You add one to the yes, the difference is now 11. If you later take one out of yes and put it in no, first you decrease the yes population by one thereby reducing the difference by one and then you increase the no by one - a further decrease in the difference by one. 02:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Never mind. RaoulDuke 02:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Opcn is startled by the level of math ignorance shown here. You only get one vote people! you can put it in the up, down, or neutral categories! --129.19.136.192 03:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)Not if you have a dynamic IP. My home IP switches between two different IPs every ten minutes, so I get two votes. When I am at uni, I get another. Plus coffee shops, ranadom unsecured wireless networks, the list goes on. 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I feel so stupid right now, I need to go lie down. 03:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also in the moron sweepstakes: You are not alone! Other people might be voting between your load of the page and your vote.  03:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood Director 'In The News'
This is too trivial to make into a WIGO, and its just as much a criticism of Faux News as it is criticism of CP, but CP's latest "In the News" bit is a link to a Fox News story headlined "Planned Parenthood Director Quits After Watching Abortion on Ultrasound".

Interesting story, to be sure, especially for someone (like me) who has qualms about abortion. But note the phraseology of "Planned Parenthood Director". It seems to me that the implication there is that its some national Planned Parenthood official, perhaps the head of the entire organization. Nope. The woman in question was the director of one Planned Parenthood clinic in north Texas.

So, the headline used by both CP and Fox News is accurate, but still misleading. Basically, its the equivalent of RationalWiki declaring "Schlafly Slashes Four, Dies in Methampetamine-fueled Melee", but only once you follow the link and read the text do you learn its a true story, but its about Bob Schlafly of Soddy Daisy, Tennessee (yes, its a real city) with no connection to Andrew Schlafly or any of his notable relatives. MDB 12:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jinx
Jinx identifies a new liberal trait - harassment. And conveniently ignores the many, many hours he spends on the internet trolling and stalking. Fox 14:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I never realized what a flaming Liberal TK was... --Kels 14:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sixth day dinosaurs
Take a look at this malarkey. Do YECs really believe this, or is it just a joke? I have a hard time telling anymore. 19:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course they believe this tosh. If you believe the earth is six thousand years old it's the only position you can hold.--BobNot Jim 19:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, so were they then extinct by the seventh day... Oh wait, the great flood. Still, how could someone actually believe such a delusional concept as that?  19:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont think they became extinct in the Flood, they're clearly shown boarding the ark in the illustration. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.86 / talk / contribs
 * Edited exclusively by Karajou and Conservative, so it's as serious as it gets. --Sid 19:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, only now realize that it's a very recent article. Thought they had stopped adding such hilarity in 2008. --Sid 19:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is nobody following the Genesis re-translation? Dinosaurs and the Loch Ness Monster.--BobNot Jim 19:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Genesis Park is a weird website too. It's not just CP that has a colin for human-dinosaur action. I remember when Karajou and i used to edit WP:Loch Ness monster as well, those were strange days. Totnesmartin 19:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the endorsement of marijuana legalization. Maybe someone is partaking of a bit for, erm..."medicinal" purposes? --Kels 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The YECs really want the cryptozoologists to be right. Because that would mean that dinosaurs are recent and did interact with humans.  And somehow that would make evolution wrong. Hactar 22:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, there is no such thing as a "marine dinosaur". MutPeaBut aural sex 16:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Things you will need...
A pocket copy of Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution. But if I put that in my pocket then where do I put my bible? 08:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I purchase my clothing in the UK, where we have advanced to the point in fashion design that more than one pocket is common, if not the norm, on our garments. However, it is possible that some retro fashion houses still produce American-style single-pocket outfits, or the separate belt-hung pouch-pocket favoured by Aschlafly. Fox 09:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That "Lecture" makes Andy's stuff look positively scholarly in comparison. '"Choice" now means "Abortion"' - must remember that when I next make a choice between tea or coffee. Cantabrigian 11:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I ordered my copies an hour ago... very excited! 20:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That guy has a really irritating way of overcapitalizing. Corry 02:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins is pseudoscientific
So says DouglasA. Even by CP standards, the way he has misunderstood that book is pretty epic. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a tactic the creationists are using more and more. Evolution: Creationism is religion. Creationism: Oh yeah? Evolution is a religion and Darwin is their god! Evolution: No, wait, you got it backwards...we use science. You are (at best) pseudo-science. Creationism: NO U R pseudoscience!! (Evolution discretely tiptoes away): yeah, whatever you say, man... Creationism: See how they shy from debate!--Ireon 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * DouglasA talking about Dawkins? I smell a rat. Totnesmartin 17:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Now I see the light. Beautiful autumn foliage is a clear, decisive evidence against Evolution. I am sure that most of my fellow colleagues, scientists, will see the light as well. A few militant atheists will stay on their positions no matter what evidence is presented them, but I'm sure the majority will understand. Now, let's spread the news! Answersingenesis, Creationontheweb, but also scientific papers: here we come! --JulianAdderley 09:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Poor sarcasm if a favourite tool of liberals who have nothing to contribute and no facts to back up their objections. RodWeathers 21:15, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Right. After a while, the liberal nonsense is so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it.  Watch that user and I bet you never see an insightful edit by him.--Aschlafly 21:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

I think that is because all the good sarcasm poe's under the radar --Opcn 14:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just occurred to me - why does Andy use the liberal British "autumn" when "fall" is so much more 'economical'? Cantabrigian 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy's Musical Tastes
Well, this is a shocker (and a bit old)... Andy likes some liberal music, including Sting and R.E.M. I guess even a blind squirrel is right twice a day, or something like that.... MDB 14:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mix metaphores much? Opcn 14:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I was doing it for humorous effect. MDB 15:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand REM because it was on the radio when Andy was in college and grad school. But there's no excuse for listening to that candy ass tantric fucker, especially anything after his first solo record. I'll bet Andy was typing Sting and REM as he was admiring the collection of Montovani, Lawrence Welk, Ventures, and Don Ho records he inherited from his dad. 15:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Woooosh! (sound of deliberate metaphor mixing going right over Opcn's head) 15:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember

'Probably another liberal enemy of conservative principles. He needs to listen to the classic rock song entitled, "I fought the law, and the law won." He needs to listen to it 80 times, in fact. Your quick work counts towards our team totals, Bohdan! Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 01:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)' --  ䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡   ䷶䷀䷵䷥
 * Of course, before they start to enjoy their eighty listenings to IFTLATLW, they must follow the explicit instructions to render all the other tracks on the record unplayable... 21:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he likes a bit of Wagner...-- 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, come now; Wagner's operas are lib-burr-rul. They have Odin in them. 18:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But they have no Jews. 18:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * well... no Jews that live... -Poor Excuse 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfect number
Also, how about the perfect number of hands to match the number of our arms? If evolution was true, we would have four feet and no... ok, forget it. --127․0․0․1 08:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

2 Kidneys? Pfffft!
In Andy's lastest WIGO rant he states that evolution teaches that everything has a utilitarian purpose. What the? Deoesn't evolution mention vestigal organs that have no purpose? What the fuck? AceMcWicked 04:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your whole body grows in symmetry, it is a basic principal of embryology. The few things you have only one of are attached to your gut, which very early on is just a tube that runs down the middle of the wormy thing you once were. His problem is he has spent the last month reading the Bible, when he should have read The Greatest Show on Earth, which covered this exact topic. 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone ask the silly git why we've got two arms. After all, he could indulge in wankfests with one arm: oh, hang on, he needs the other to turn the pages of Guns'n'Ammo. 82.23.209.253 04:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your heart's not attached to your gut; you only have one of those. --Crazyswordsman 04:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You heart has two parts to it, not nearly symmetrical as your brain but none the less. Is there any animals that are not symmetric? 04:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sponges --ENorman
 * Starfish and other echinoderms are radially symmetrical, not bilaterally symmetrical. But I take the point. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 05:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All bilateria do by definition at any rate. My point being having two kidneys points to common descent. 05:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fiddler crabs aren't symmetrical. --Gulik 21:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Counterexamples to Evolution is a veritable parade of ignorance, and a festival of illogic. This should be the script for the celebration of Darwin Day, when we can eat roast dodo and watch the floats of tame dinosaurs in Main Street, followed by Flintstone reruns on TV and a ritual reading of "Just-So" stories. - Poor Excuse 05:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the "pre-obesity" line personally. And lately Andy has assuming that everyone agrees creation is fact, hence evolution must have occured since then. Its pretty deluded. AceMcWicked 05:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do love the citation of WorldNetDaily. 05:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * God that man is really, really insane. And stupid. The blackhole in his head could envelope the Earth if we're not careful. -- 07:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An article refuting each of his points might be worth writing (or does one already exist and I just don't know about it?). I could do some of them but others would require more detailed information than I possess. Do you think it would be worth it or is his article so bat-shit crazy that it's not necessary? –SuspectedReplicantretire me 07:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That 'article' is one of my CP faves, it is superb. I wonder how many of his brilliant science-stumping counterexamples were actually added as parody?  08:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My knob isn't that symmetrical, it kinda goes to the left a bit, y'know? Does that mean my knob serves no purpose at... oh wait, I guess you're right. 08:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy seems to say having two kidneys is a test of faith, to see if you would donate one. Well, thousands of people need kidneys, I wonder if Andy has donated his "spare" yet. 14:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why stop at donating kidneys? People can function with one lung if they don't try walking up stairs. Even better, what possible basis could there be for having a whole liver other than testing our faith (and will power)??? Evilution cannot explain why I have 2 testicles. Most women will never need a second breast (although the Autumn Foliage Conjecture explains breasts nicely). 15:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect more than a few of us on here are operating on "half a liver" by now... also, at least in the case of ovaries and testi, having a spare makes a lot of sense. 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you act like Ace and get kicked in the nuts alot, then sure it makes sense to have a pair rather than just one. But if you're a regular person and believe you need a pair of testes you've obviously been hoodwinked by evolutionist propaganda and should head straight to the doctor to have one of your kidneys removed for donation to a conservative in need. 20:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Living on one kidney may be easy now but 500 years ago I hesitate to suggest it may have been a tad more difficult given levels of sanitation and nutrition. AceMcWicked 20:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * that women have two breasts all year long, while trees have autumn foliage for only a few months of each year is surely proof positive that God thinks breasts are more beautiful than autumn foliage, n'est-ce pas? Now if only creationism could explain the presence of that pesky second breast, and the absence of a third, or third and fourth.... - Poor Excuse 00:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Spot on - anyone fancy burning a sock and asking Andy why he hasn't donated a kidney given that there's absolutely no need to have two? 15:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or even better, 🇰🇪 as he's always on about Xtians being so much better at charitable donation. (BTW we don't know that either or both of them haven't) 15:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

With the line "Pre-obesity, when evolution supposedly occurred, at most a tiny percentage of people would have had a need for a second kidney, far too few to just an entire population developing it.", andy is straying dangerously into Ray Comfort territory, seemingly making the claim that humans appeared as-is and then developed kidneys (two of them! How illogical.) afterwards, rather than gradually evolving from a pre-human ancestor that probably used two kidneys a lot more than humans did. I try to stay away from Andy's talk page justification for his evolution claims (because I want to remain sane), but is this a common thing for him? X Stickman 21:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Boxes
Everyone. Go to  and under Wigo tweaks check the box , save and do a forced refresh - then look at WIGO. It is awesome. 12:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe its just my monitor, but they're barely visible. MDB 12:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not "awesome" but good.  12:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh! Pretty! Makes it much easier to read. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 13:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pleasant change (which is as good as a rest) =) Fox 13:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Much nicer this way. Thanks! Johann 20:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks much snazzier on Safari on my Mac rather than Internet Exploder on my computer at work. MDB 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... how long have we had that 'gadgets' tab? Honestly it's the first time I've noticed it. -- Psygremlin  17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Err... approximately 1.75 yonken. There's always been something there, I think. 17:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The boxes do look nice. As does the nifty new expanded editing box thingy I've managed to add. Now to figure out how it works... -- Psygremlin  18:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not worth a WIGO, but...
I had to smile at the BIG BOLD TEXT used to proclaim Republican Chris Christie as the winner of the NJ governor's race, while forgetting that further down the same News section:
 * Is the RINO gambit in New Jersey about to crash and burn in ignominious defeat? The Quinnipiac poll thinks so: RINO Chris Christie falls to five points behind the unpopular Jon Corzine.[34] Christie stumbled with conservatives by picking a pro-choice running mate rather than Steve Lonegan, a movement conservative who won 42% in the primary despite every "leader" opposing him and being outspent by millions.

Set your CP spin-meters back to "Pro-life Republican" where Christie is concerned, for the time being at least. --SpinyNorman 05:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually if you can phrase it right that is very WIGO worthy. 05:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are the two links. A joke about the old cliche a week being long in politics would be do. 05:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to improve. 05:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Now we have:

and

Doesn't anybody bother to read and remember what's gone on before? Also there appears to be a surfeit of irony meters. Come on people, get a grip. 09:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur on the subject of irony meters. The poor things are getting 'shattered' 'all over the planet' 'from here to Jerusalem' most everyday.--Ireon 11:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they're all defective because of some error at the factory. 00:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's simply that the instruments, though flawless for everyday use, were not designed for the kind of stress we subject them to in Conservapedia. It's like trying to weight elephants with a kitchen balance.--Ireon 10:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

::Crickets::
So......... Andy....... What about that New York 23rd? I mean, it's one of four key races "riveting" the nation, and I see that "the conservative" won handily in Virginia........ But we're still waiting to hear what happened..... Come on man, the future is conservative. Democrats were fleeing like rats on a sinking ship. It's obvious that the conservative won, but by how much? 30%? 50%? Tell us Andy, tell us. 07:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its going to be amusing to see how the hard core right spins this defeat. Yes, overall, it was a bad day for Democrats. That's hard to deny. But very nearly the entire conservative base (with the notable exception of Newt Gingrich) rallied around Hoffman, and he lost.
 * Actually, I think I can guess the argument: Hoffman may have been the Good Conservative, but he was a lousy campaigner. Which is true -- just take his pouty response to a newspaper interview, complaining that he should have been provided the questions in advance. That alone is pretty whiny, but then the newspaper responded, "had he read our editorial, he would have seen them." Plus, there was the fact he had no connection to the district -- he wasn't even a resident, for FSM's sake.
 * Still, though, this is not the triumph of Glorious Conservatism they were having wank-fests over. MDB 12:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, here we go, Andy already commented at main page talk. "Yay! The Conservative almost won!" MDB 13:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the voters in NY23 chose not to buy into being hustled by Palin and company, and winding up being represented by a guy from outside their district who had no clue about the local issues. Personally, it's also gratifying to see that the influence of Sarah "I'd rather quit and tell others what to do since actual leadership is hard" Palin has been given a reality check, for the time being at least.  --SpinyNorman 15:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First Read has a very good analysis. Andy should read Lesson #4 in particular: "Ideological Civil Wars Don’t Help You Win Elections". –SuspectedReplicantretire me 15:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

NJ Governor's race
Exit polls showed that this race, and Virginia's race, were not indicators of Obama's policy. Somebody get that through Andy Schlafly's head. --Crazyswordsman 12:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a good article on the gubernatorial elections here. It also has some words to say on the NY23 race. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 12:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * NJ was simply a case of people voting out a disfavored incumbent, and not a referendum on Obama (I should know, I live here). Christie's done poorly in debates and newspaper endorsements because he really hasn't offered up specific plans for how he'd make things better.  His whole campaign was about "not being Corzine", and a few years from now he'll be the disfavored incumbent.   People also have short memories of GOP "leadership" in NJ - the last Republican governor, Christie Whitman, used accounting gimmicks and a billion-dollar raiding of the state pension fund to deliver her promised tax cuts, but it was all smoke and mirrors because we paid for it in the end anyway.  I disliked Corzine, but part of his unpopularity was that he never tried to hide or sugar-coat how bad the NJ budget mess truly was, or that there would be no way to get out of it that would be without pain.  Welcome to another three years of evading harsh realities, NJ.  --SpinyNorman 15:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am VERY confident the Dems will be back in power in NJ next cycle. I know how much everyone hates Corzine because I hate Corzine, as does my liberal family. But opposition for opposition's sake is intrinsically evil, which is what most politicians in this country are doing (Bill Thompson campaigned on being Not Bloomberg for instance).  I don't know much about the Virginia case other than that the Democrat was a weak candidate who tried to go after McDonnell's graduate thesis rather than present a platform, and that Virginia has a reputation for voting in governors of the party that lost the White House. --Crazyswordsman 23:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jinx...
...I hope you're keeping well... 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Relativity
I haven't looked at CP or RW for ages but I'd like to say thanks (I mean THANKS!!!  to the person who put together the links to the Schlafly boys beating each other up about relativity. Truly hilarious. The bible translation project comes a close second. Thank YHWH that freaks with ALS's mindset are no longer running his country. The Real James Brown 02:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I, for one, am glad we could be here for you in your time of need. 05:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck?
New user makes one contribution, this. Karajou's response: (Block log); 17:32. . Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked HeatherD (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) (User removed from the site after engaging in harassment of site's members: A warped mind from two mommies, Heather?) I say again: What the fuck? 00:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Karaturd's insulting homophobic block reason, Ok. If you're referring to the block having happened, someone has been consistently posting nearly the same question about the FBI incident to Andy's page for days, burning through perhaps dozens of socks. First rule of Conservapedia is don't talk about the FBI incident. 00:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant his homophobic block reason, which has nothing to do with the user's question. 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect that Karaturd is unable to keep more than one thought in his head, has very loose associations, and that when he reads the word "Heather" he's powerless not to think of the book and conservative bête noire, Heather Has Two Mommies. It would be like seeing a picture of a penguin and not thinking "gay penguin". Unless someone gives him Prozac. - Poor Excuse 00:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of that. In that case, this may be one of the smartest things Karajewel has ever done: he figured out that the user was a sock and made a semi- intelligent attempt at humor based on the user's name. 00:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Karajou just earned himself a nomination for bigotry. Maybe we should have homophobia? 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if it's called the Jack Wrangler Memorial Award for Manmeat on the Mind or some such. 01:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be a very competitive award. How could you decide, really? Perhaps it could be a split award: six inches of homophobia for Karajou, 7 inches for Ed Poor, a nice foot-long for Ken....? - Poor Excuse 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. I can't decide: does behavior applied to one award get applied to others as well? For example, can I count Ed Poor's misogeny for both the misogeny award and the bigotry award, or is it to be subtracted from his total bigotry when assessing the bigotry award? - Poor Excuse 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, bigotry is a hatred of people based on their religion. 03:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? no, it's not. A bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". Misogyny, racial prejudice, homophobia, extreme nationalism, and religious intolerance are all special cases of bigotry. - Poor Excuse 04:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Ken need about 16 inches to account for his "superhuman" level of homophobia. -- 02:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get why Andy doesn't just say the investigation went no where, or lie and say they got the guy, some response. The only reason people keep harassing him over it is because they immediately ban someone for mentioning it.  You would think he would get that by now.--SAdams 03:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the absence of 16 contiguous inches, maybe Ken can just take 8 inches twice? - Poor Excuse 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comedy Meter Alert (or, Elderly Curmudgeon speaks)
Can we lay off the use of the term irony meter? It's totally overused in WIGOs these days. Sometimes it seems as if the only reason for some WIGOs is to be able to drop the uncomical literary device. Now, time for my Epsom Salts and a nice nap in my bath chair. <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 04:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Like most memes, it has gotten to the point where it is overused and will soon become unfunny. To ensure that it retains its funniness, we need to use it more sparingly. 04:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. Irony-meter-meters are shattering around the visible universe. (I'm sorry.  I just had to).  04:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 'shattering' thing is even more annoying.  It's like that old saw about the top notch Iranian army chaps, the Republican Guard, who haven't been referred to without the 'elite' rider for about two decades now.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 04:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also considering my irony meter version 3 contains many "shatter proof" circuits. Why haven't the losers made their copies yet??? PS, yes utterly lame.  How about "my irony meter pegged, then I realized it was CP"?  05:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we lay off the threads calling for people to lay off using the term "irony meter"? We've already had one and it's beginning to get a bit old. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 05:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we lay off the threads trying to excuse people for claiming "all irony meters west of Jerusalem broke" are somehow lame, are lame? 06:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not excusing anything but if somebody is going to criticise other site users for daring to use one of the site's memes, then the least they could do is actually read the page where it's discussed. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 06:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And in Soviet Russia irony meters you. Bob Soles 09:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * *Bah dum bum* - Tygrehart
 * A decrepit old gas man named Peter,
 * While hunting around for the meter,
 * Touched a leak with his light;
 * He rose out of sight,
 * And as anyone who knows anything about poetry can tell you, he also ruined the meter.
 * --Anonymous

OK, I guess this limerick wasn't about an irony meter, but I like it nonetheless. --127․0․0․1 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to make a snide comment involving an irony meter, and then I remembered what this thread was about. 13:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we've all had our daily doses of Irony. Then again, Conservapedia does have the added effect of a day's supply of vitamin Lol mixed in with the toxic fundmentotine and YECarcinogens per serving -- CodyH 17:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Six minutes...
...is longer than Jpatt's attention span: Just some sideline lulz, I didn't really find it lulzy enough for WIGO. --Sid 00:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 18:45 - Upload of a pic
 * 18:51 - Linking the pic on the mainpage... only that he links to his Twitpic upload instead of the pic he just uploaded.
 * That's pretty funny, though probably not WIGO-worthy. 00:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we sure the FB page that JPatt loaded up is the same guy as the shooter (as indicated on CP's front page)? Guy in the FB page looks way younger than the photo the news outlets are using. 99.150.148.172 01:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I hit ctrl-v and get unexpected results all the time. That might be all that happened.  01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jpatt! 99.150.148.172 03:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi agent 99 -- Lupis
 * Someone doesn't understand FB. Who has 240 messages? 05:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering
I'm not a minute-tominute WIGO CP follower, so I don't know this: has TK stopped hiding WIGO'd diffs and suchlike? Totnesmartin 11:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He has been overall less active, so yes. 12:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Karajou Cartoon a.k.a our next G.B. Trudeau?
Check THIS!. It's.. it's... it's good! --Ireon 23:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is hilariously - although not in the way I am sure he intended. 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why has he not yet decided how he writes upper-case E characters? SҚ_ 23:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh man, pure comedy gold. Corry 03:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Way to put words in our mouths. --Crazyswordsman 03:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea that Karajou was this talented. And on the front page, too! I thought he was just a washed-up sailor.--Simple 03:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So was Popeye. --Kels 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I for one, look forward to the next "toon of the weak" on top of mainpageleft. 05:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not the first time he's .KlapauciusEsteemed Constructor 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he had to find some way to pass the time in between swabbing the deck of the tub boat he worked on. Still it's good to see all Andy's little acolytes swallowing the Kool Aid for once - normally, they've all run in the opposite direction. Hey Karajou - where were you when Andy was writing to Lenski? -- Psygremlin  17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Before you heap more praise on him, I have to say that I can't help but think I've seen that cartoon somewhere else (different text, natch.) Possibly Viz... Fox 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do believe it is the early version of Grant Wankshaft, Peace Studies undergrad at Spunkbridge University. Fox 17:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty obvious he didn't draw it, but just "wrote" the captions. 18:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Exam time!
Andy's economics course's midterm is being given today. I'm guessing it will be fraught with sexism like his other tests. 16:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Has he gone the different tests for boys and girls route again? Or maybe somebody's mummy threatened to punch him if he tried that shit again. -- Psygremlin  17:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Girls and Boys. --VradientHit me up 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It'll be interesting to see how different they are. My guess: all the girls questions will use examples pertaining to products found in the kitchen or some ing equally as demeaning. Oh, and it'll be shorter, too. 17:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh! Roll on 6 o'clock 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That'll be 6 o'clock Conservatime, of course. None of your commie liberal GMT here! Cantabrigian 17:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's 22:00 GMT, I think. 18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He's got 75 minutes to go. Then to sit down to a nice wife-cooked repast with a satisfied smile all over his face.  21:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, "The largest Economics class for teenagers -- 50 students"? For a start, various universities might have something to say about that. Cantabrigian 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As always with Andy, it's what he doesn't say that's important. So if you take "The largest Economics class for teenagers taught my a moron with no understanding of the subject to unsuspecting and unwitting home schoolers in a church basement." then he's spot on. In Andy's world, the nasty liberal public schools would have 60 or 70 kids per class, but they don't because the liberal teachers are "lazy". Individual attention isn't a conservative trait - sheep don't need individual attention (especially not from Ed Poor). -- Psygremlin  18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first time Andy made "Largest class worldwide!" claim. Whenever people question it on CP, he carefully tweaks it into something like "largest pre-university online wiki class taught by a guy with the last name Schlafly on a site called Conservapedia". That, or he switches into moron mode and goes "Deny it and lose credibility!" or "I don't know of any larger classes - do you?", followed by even more handwaving and redefining. --Sid 18:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The level of Andy's discourse is amazing ":It's not a matter of memory, but of comprehensive. Economics is a set of ideas, of principles.  As you read, it's essential that you think too, and recognize the underlying logic." [my emphasis]And he's setting and marking exams!  18:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet, though I can't understand why or how, "Among over 70 students who have taken this course, 100% of those who took the CLEP exam passed it to qualify for college credit." 19:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * * lightbulb above head goes on* Wait a minute...that probably means none of them took the CLEP. (Or, more realistically, only a few who would be smart enough to take it anyway and studies on their own in addition.) 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. The fact that he feels the need to use a proportion of a number not given, rather than the number itself, probably means that the number isn't very impresive. As Tet said, probably only the most able students who did some studying by themselves. EddyP 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Kettleticket has confirmed that a very small minority of Andy's students take the CLEP, and most wouldn't have a prayer of passing it if they did. DickTurpis 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I also vaguely recall that. It kinda went along the lines of "Only the ones who were truly confident they'd pass took it", which pretty much explains the 100% success rate. --Sid 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, when I was in high-school, only the confident students sat AP exams. So the school-wide AP exam results were very good, as should probably be expected. On the other hand, the school didn't claim that 100% of the student population scored 4 or 5 on the AP exams.-- 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On further research (i.e. googling) it seems that AP exams are more rigourous and more widely accepted at universities. I wonder why they are too liberul for the homskullers to bother with?-- 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because most AP classes have to teach certain subjects because they will appear on the test, but I think most homeschool courses aren't designed that way. That would mean the students would have to study much more on their own than public school students. 23:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that different from this?-- 23:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CLEP seems designed for homeschoolers/veterans, whereas AP testing is geared towards public school students. Otherwise not much difference, except perhaps (and here I'm speculating wildly) that they are less prestigious). 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

IT'S COMING... soon...  for the girls --Sid 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And almost 20 minutes late, too. 23:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He set up the student answer link hub, but no sign of the Boy version of the exam yet... --Sid 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Sid (if that is your real name), haven't you heard of "ladies first." Your unchivalrous attitude indicates that you attended public schools. Also, girls are stupider, and hence need more time. Goatspeed.-- 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's here! And with 2 more questions than the girls exam. 23:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Only Andy could write test question #2
I know I just WIGOed it, but WTF??? Are you serious Andy? 04:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I recall, he uses prayer as an (odd) example in one of his "lectures". 17:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any excuse for a dig at public schools. 17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Diff
According to my wiki-skills, I believe you can compare boys' and girls' versions by clicking here.

The differences are small and seemingly random. A few questions are entirely different, and some are just a bit differently worded. <font weight="normal" color="red">Etc 08:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow the boys got a football question and the girls got one about parties. I assume when Schlafly talks about giving them questions that reflect the strengths and weaknesses of each gender, what he actually means is to rephrase the same question based on stereotypes. 09:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The party question sounds like Andy organised a party and no one came to it. But think of the missed opportunity cost, girls!-- 10:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bible
For his last question, Andy seems to have used the NASB, not the Conservabible or the KJV. What a disappointment. Pietrow 10:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No points deducted for wrong answers?
Talk about grade inflation......now watch him deceitfully bet that no one could score as high as his students. --Crazyswordsman 16:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder how he will fudge the results on a multiple-choice test? He'll probably do something like give an enormous curve or decide not to count a question if more than 2 students get it wrong. 16:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

God invents the bullet point...
...in Gen 6:15 Cantabrigian 17:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the box in question since it's an enormous diff. Way to ruin the flow even more than I thought was possible, Terry! --Sid 18:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Conservapedia: where the poetry of the Bible is reduced to a powerpoint presentation.--Simple 18:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need all those liberal words when a bullet'll do [[image:Drive by.gif]]. 19:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder when gOD wrote on Nebbucanebenezer's ("thingy" from now on) wall, he started off, 'Re: Sinfulness' -- Psygremlin  19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The more of the "retranslated" Bible I read, the more it sounds like a Simple English Wikipedia article. 19:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I just emailed that diff to my childhood rabbi who supervised me doing my Bar Mitzvah on exactly that Torah portion 25 years ago. His exact words: "well, I guess that's one way to do it." And when I showed him Andy's insistence that kora be translated as "temptress" he wondered what Andy's qualifications were that had him coming up with something that nobody who went to theology school heretofore had seen in the verse. Too bad my rabbi is also a liberal or his perspective as an extremely biblically literate and Greek/Hebrew/Latin reading guy might mean something to me. 20:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Y'know, if Andy & Co. were presenting the CBP as a study Bible, rather than a full-fledged translation, a lot of this might make more sense. For comparison, consider that around twenty-five years ago, Reader's Digest created, swear to FSM, a Condensed Bible. There were the obvious jokes about the Eight Commandments and nine disciples, but Reader's Digest made it clear they were not looking to replace the standard translations; they were trying to create something designed as a study aid, and doing things like pruning back the genealogies and such. If Andy presented this as a conservative commentary on the Bible, rather than a real translation, I, and I suspect a lot of other people across the religious spectrum, would view this as much more sane. I'd certainly disagree with the theology and politics behind it, but at least it wouldn't seem quite so bloody arrogant. MDB 12:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen people making the same argument/suggestion when CP first started billing itself as a serious alternative to Wikipedia: "Don't try to re-invent the wheel. You will never rival Wikipedia, so why waste resources on trying? It would be a perfectly acceptable - and even welcome - idea to provide the conservative viewpoint as a commentary on existing articles instead of trying to sell your openly biased and radical view as The Ultimate Truth." Andy naturally didn't listen, and you can see the result. --Sid 17:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, people have been making jokes about the writing on the wall as long as people have had slides and overhead projectors. A little known fact: when the mysterious Biblical Writing appeared on the Wall, a booming voice could be heard, "Sorry for the text size. Can the people in the back row read it? No...? I'm terribly sorry about it. But I have badly copied summaries here too, you can come get a copy in the recess..." &lt;/oldjoke&gt; --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else think the cubit is a liberal, imprecise, uneconomical form of measurement? *Puts socks on* &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, that won't work. It's the metric system that is a commie plot; the cubit is the only system of measurement sanctioned by Reagan God himself. 23:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide flooding, unanimous!
Well, Andy had hinted at it, but here we have it at last. No one seriously denies that a flood of the entire inhabitable earth occurred! This ranks among his most absurd sweeping claims, since no one outside of the YECs believes all land on earth was flooded. Also, is this part of the quote generator yet? It's just too beautiful to leave out. 00:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I can think of an evolutionary explanation of how mammals could survive floods: those that are not good at it die and hence therefore don't breed. Is there any evidence mammals do survive floods well? 00:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All the inhabitable earth has been flooded, just not at the same time. 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but this is one of the main things that flood "geologists" invent bizarre explanations for: where did all the water come from, and where did it go? Coarb 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Goddidit, of course. 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as many CP folk read here, and the answer to Andy's challenge is that these animals survived the Flood by evolving in a world where such a Flood failed to happen, I wonder if anyone at CP would care to answer this challenge - after the Flood, how did the various 'baramins' give rise to the current diversity of life, remembering that, if evolution is false, some kind of super-charged evolution cannot be the answer? 92.16.125.43 19:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fuck you, Andy
Have you no shame? 14:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Every time I begin to soften my opinion of Andy, supposing he's someone who's simply misguided rather than deliberately deceitful, it's things like this that change my mind. Jammy 14:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * His normal response in mass shootings is to claim that if only the general populous were better armed someone could have stopped them. Doesn't really work in this case does it? StarFish 14:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy will never stop surprising you with his deceit and scumbaggery. That's why we love to hate him. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus cocksucking christ! Trying to score points of something so bad, and so soon.  (and so hopelessly).  Will he mention that the bloke is alleged to have shouted "god is great" as he went on his rampage?  15:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding Andy's hypothetical "this wouldn't have happened if people were better armed" argument -- while I don't accept the argument, don't assume everyone at a military base is walking around with their rifle or sidearm. I spent twenty years working as a civilian on a US Army base, and the only time I saw armed soldiers was at the gates. And that was only post 9/11 -- before then, it was civilian guards armed with pistols. (After 9/11, the entrances were damn well guarded. I'm talking tripod mounted machine guns.) The military victims at Fort Hood probably all had a weapon assigned to them, but it was probably safely secured, certainly not on their person. In fact, I'd imagine a soldier walking around carrying a weapon without a damn good at a base in the States would be questioned about it, at the least.
 * In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I worked on a base that was not really oriented towards sending soldiers into combat. Fort Hood, which is a departure base for soldiers on their way to Iraq and Afghanistan, might have more weapons openly displayed. But I doubt anyone would have been carrying at the graduation ceremoyn where the shootings occurred. MDB 16:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the main flaw in Andy's "everything would be better if everyone had a (largely defensive weapon of) gun" argument: for his logic to work, it requires everyone to carry a gun around with them, not just own one. But what I don't quite get is this: is he criticizing the military policy that soldiers don't carry weapons with them wherever they go? Or is he just ignorant and has decided to scream "LIRBRUL" just because there is a shooting and not everyone has a gun? Either way, it's in terribly bad taste of him to do this. 16:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And it begins. Clever . Stay classy. 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It must have been a typo: everyone knows his initials are B.H.O.
 * Also, is he possibly referencing the film Anchorman? I wouldn't expect that from  16:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing we've got to remember is that Andy actually is sick. The guy could find liberal bias in his morning cup of coffee. He's completely deluded. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "My cup is white, my coffee is black. Smells like affirmative action and political correctness!" --Sid 19:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In seriousness, though, Neveruse has an interesting point. The other day I was showing some of my friends CP, and they were stunned by how insane it was. I think we RWians have become desensitized to fundamentalism because we see it every day, and we don't even blink when they say something totally nutty (particularly in the case of CP editors). In other words, we sometimes forget just how messed up some of these people are, Andy included. 19:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My god, the man has no shame whatsoever. It's like any deaths are fair game to be exploited and manipulated for his own sick political thought.  I thought conservatives were supposed to be the ones who support the troops.  21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We went through all this with the VA Tech shootings. Andy was jizzing all over himself about the liberal institution. More guns, less colleges. Czolgolz 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Before you ridicule Conservapedia for pointing out the failure of the stimulus, have you seen the recent unemployment rate?
Just to clue you in, it's 10.2%, numbers came out today. Our administration promised us that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8.5 to 9%. Now, maybe most of you do not care to have jobs or get new jobs, but America is hurting, the stimulus has not worked as promised by the Obama administration, and Conservapedia is rightfully pointing that out. If you're going to make a joke, at least get your facts straight. ConservapediaEditor 16:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point a little bit. The point of the WIGO (if I understand it correctly) is to ridicule how CP jumps on the most minor things and makes enormous false generalizations based on those minor things. This is a perfect example: in Andy's mind, the figures are off by 3%, therefore the stimulus did not work and all. 16:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ConservapediaEditor: please stop wasting time worrying about what is being written here, and go fix up this piece of shit instead. I appreciate English might not be Professor Rosado's first language, but that's all the more reason for you guys to be following him around with an eraser. Fox 17:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd invite our visitor to point out a WIGO entry that's as inaccurate as the CP "news" entry saying that Nazis turned Jews in to soap, and that a swiss company is making cream from aborted babies. Also, linking the Fort Hood shooting to the proposed changes to the Patriot Act is utterly bizarre. I note with interest that the existing Patriot Act didn't do much to stop the shooting. CP being dishonest doesn't give carte blanche to RW to do the same, but as explained by Tetronian, we don't have the same mission, and the CP WIGO is certainly not presented in such a way that it could be misconstrued as being a general news service. In CPs defence, their entry on the unemployment rate is non-partisan. -- 17:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm an editor ... I'm not a sysop. If I were writing that news piece, I would not have focused at all on the Wall Street analysis, for the simple reason that I do not accept the premise of most of the calculations that this administration in determining jobs created or saved.  Namely, indirect jobs created because of the stimulus is mere speculation.  The only number I am interested in, which has not been provided by any governmental agency, including recovery.gov, is the number of direct jobs/hires created from the stimulus money.  However, in my assessment the stimulus has not worked, and I don't base this analysis off of some Wall Street Journal article, I base it off the fact that we are continuing to lose more jobs each and every month than in any month during the 2001-2002 recession, and both the Bush and Obama administrations have pursued a policy where they think that government intervention is the answer, which I feel will eventually lead to excessive inflation.  ConservapediaEditor 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You do have a good point there, but I think the answer to your question is that it is not that easy to calculate how many jobs have been created that directly result from the stimulus bill, especially because it was designed to indirectly create jobs by salvaging the finance industry. And I think your logic is a bit askew when you say "in my assessment the stimulus has not worked, and I don't base this analysis off of some Wall Street Journal article, I base it off the fact that we are continuing to lose more jobs each and every month." We are in a recession and we are going to lose jobs; the stimulus is not a cure-all that will magically keep everyone their job. Instead, think about it like this: how may jobs would have been lost if the stimulus was not passed? Probably a lot more.
 * Also, I hope you are aware that if any CP sysops find you hanging around here you will undoubtedly be banhammered. (That's not a threat, it's a friendly warning - I would hate to see CP devoid of editors and lose my daily supply of lulz). 19:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The stimulus package is just a bandage. It helps prevent it from getting worse but the true healing must come from within. Americans must invest in their economy instead of hoarding their money.--Thanatos 03:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant WIGO
Andy: "I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded."

He goes on about how liberals are eating babies, gays and atheists are indoctrinating the schools, and Obama's bringing socialism to America and he doesn't think anyone denies the world flood? Priceless. Big smile. Very big smile. 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is one of those rare occasions when we can justifiably talk about exploding irony meters. 18:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In the good old days when you could ask Andy proper questions without being banhammered he entered a debate about folded geological strata. He claimed that these were proof of the flood because they would have folded more easily because they were wet and the continents were still moving rapidly. And of course all radiometric dating is false 'cos Goddit. Anyone who thinks that basalt strata are sedimentary is quite capable of believing anything and that others believe it too. 82.23.209.253 20:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

DerekE
WTF is going on there? Can anybody shed some light? --Sid 21:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Block log
 * RJJ openly calling him a saboteur (and mass-reverting / -deleting his contribs)
 * Jpatt (who lifted the ban and restored those pages) goes "RJ is a good man, try avoiding contacting him. You da man!" (<--???) and then oversights a comment Derek made on RJJ's talk page
 * TK appears out of nowhere to remove two of Derek's user boxes which have been around since forever and which have implicit sysop blessing
 * There was a BON who was complaining about RJJ. I think that was DerekE. 21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was me. I'm most people on CP nowadays. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm the rest of them. 21:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm more of them than you are. --Harry O 01:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, perhaps. Actually, since I am none of them, it wouldn't be that hard.  03:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought they were all socks of AmesG. And if any of them are you, it's probably because you're a sock of AmesG as well. Dreaded Walrus t c 04:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Kara & the Ark
Trouble with him is much like aSK: I just wanna say "Oh! Fuck off, you're just being silly now, you twat." Which isn't exactly regarded as good debating technique. 01:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes your debating techniques are good. Other times, well, as you confess, not so.  03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Time Travelling Andy
Just ran across. I could almost hear Andy's voice reading it out.-- 01:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Naw, that's RobS' voice you heard. 04:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow the Republican base's strategy has come a long way in nearly 50 years. 04:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given how those guys spelled "marraige," their orthography hasn't changed much either. Junggai 12:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia logos
I nose it's nearly three years out of date, but I've only just seen the bastardly hilarious http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Logo. Graphic design like what you'd get if set a brain-damaged goldfish loose with MSPAINT. From Windows 3.0. And then turned his screen off. SҚ_ 23:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Conservapedia has no logos.-- 00:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Karajou on his version: "I used Windows Paint to do it in all of 12 minutes." 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * JessicaS's, fifth down has something amusingly wrong with her globe.82.23.209.253 02:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The one with the dove shape, by SharonS, isn't bad at all. I might recommend a different font for the rest of the lettering, but I think its kinda pretty. MDB 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that it isn't very much in line with CP's mission, which is to provide a narrow-minded and revisionist rather than global perspective on the facts. 17:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I always liked the "Constitution and Quill" logo, too bad it harbored liberal vandalism and was ditched instead of fixed. 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oooh. 1) "There is something weird about it, but I can't quite tell what it is." - Well, this logo reminds me of the Castlevania logo. Like Castlevania, the site has a big ol' bloodsucker in charge ("What is a liberal? A miserable pile of secrets!"), and all of the problems should be solved with tons of good ol' chain-whipping. 2) Logos based on the old maps are very representative of the project. Centuries-old maps are clearly better than Wikipedia's claims that the world is a puzzle ball. 3) "something like '4004 B.C.' since half the site is about creationism" - perhaps true in 2007, but now, their new logo should incorporate Homosexuality, Alger Hiss and KAL 007 in equal proportion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me...
...that someone saw what edit of Ken's to mainpageright Andy saw fit to oversight before pacifying him with shiny new rights. EddyP 15:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll log my sysop on and see what I can find in the database on CP. 17:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

CBP minor lulz
Some moar more minor lulz concerning Andy's anti-feminism thing: User: Um, sometimes the Bible is gender-neutral. Andy: Shut up, bimbo, and admit that I am right! Ooo! I just invented a new word, too!

19:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "'Children of God' means less accountability, less responsibility, and lower expectations than what the Greek indicates." So he just fuckin' despises women, eh? -- 20:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Allah
Ok now like many of us I find stupid to be funny but every now and then one will hit upon an example of something so stupid that not only must the person who said it suddenly have a headache but just by hearing it or reading it you now have a headache as well. I call this the "communal so stupid it hurts" level of stupid and I think we have a case here with Andy's "Allahu Akbar means Allah is great not God is great" comment. The levels of stupid needed to make that comment without knowing that Allah means god is just bad but then you add his comments on Joaquín Martínez's page and not only are you in headache zone but for those new to Andy you are into a full grown migraine. --BoredCPer 01:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Allahu means Allah, not God" part is, well, weird. It's like saying, "akbar" actually means "أكبر", not "is great". <font weight="normal" color="red">Etc 09:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't claim to be a religious scholar, but surely God and Allah are one and the same? If not, I've spent years under the misconception that Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship the same guy, only they interpret his will differently. EddyP 11:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fundies will deny until the end of the universe that God and Allah are the same being - the Quran explicitly states that this is so, yet the "Christians" will never, ever accept it. They just won't accept that the big bad enemy (muslims) worship the same god as them. The enemy is inferior, therefore his god is inferior. In their own twisted minds it's perfectly logical. Totnesmartin 11:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I recall a huge debate about this sometime a year or so ago. Not to open that can of worms again (I hope), but it seems to me whether the gods Christians worship is the same as the one Muslims worship is not as easy as "yes" or "no". While the translation is the same, and Andy is clearly wrong there, it isn't such an easy question, and to someone like me is sort of like arguing whether or not 2 people have the same imaginary friend. Here's a question, do Jews worship the same god as Christians? I'd say sort of, but not entirely. Same goes for Christians and Muslims. DickTurpis 14:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just my opinion here: I don't see why Andy is so wrong. I mean, if the guy was a muslim, it is obvious that his last word would be 'Allah is great'. I mean, even if Allah and God can be theologically unified, the concepts they represent are different. If there had been a shooting in Iraq involving a christian soldier, whose last words would be 'God is great' (in English), it would be inaccurate to write he said 'Allah is great'. --Ireon 14:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you were translating his last words into Arabic (as the local media would do) they would write "Allahu akbar" (only in Arabic script). DickTurpis 15:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)It would be inaccurate over here, but it would be inaccurate in the sense of writing a British paper headline in arabic. It would not be inaccurate in a country where arabic is the language; their word for God is Allah, so if a soldier said God is great, they would translate it as Allah is great. EddyP 15:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but I am not convinced. Let's say, for the sake of the discussion, that the christian god is Jehovah (or Yahveh or whatever) and the muslim god is Allah. In the christian world we have an umbrella word, 'god', which refers to Jehovah (although it could be Ra or whatever). In the muslim world they have 'allah', which is simply arabic for 'god' (or 'god' is english for 'allah'), but is also the word for the specific god they worship. Soooo although it is technically correct to translate 'allahu akbar' as 'God is great', it is actually more accurate to say 'Allah is great' since it conveys the message that the specific god mentionned is Allah and not Jehovah. In conclusion, I think Andy is okay on this one. --Ireon 16:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While saying "Allah is great" would not be incorrect, neither is "God is great". Both English and Arabic use the same word for "God", being the god they worship, and "god" in the generic sense (like "The Greek god Zeus"). Allah happens to be the Arabic word in this case. Newspapers translating Arabic phases into English (as they tend to do) are perfectly correct in translating the entire statement. DickTurpis 16:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, in summary, both versions are correct. So there is nothing inherently wrong with Andy saying 'Allah is great' (apart from the irony), and we should give the guy a break on this one. --Ireon 17:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nooo, because since both version are correct, Andy was making an ass out of himself by yelling how bad it was that some newspaper used one of the correct versions. Basically he is complaining about how someone used the phrase "god" and wasn't talking about his version of god.. Which is so retarded and typically Andy that it makes a great WIGO. --GTac 17:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any serious dispute that Allah is an Arabic name for the Abrahamic God of the Old Testement. Andy just used this as an opportunity to take an oblique shot at Muslims the world over for not believing exactly what he believes, and hence not worshiping his god, for surely no true person of the Book would behave in the manner that the Ft. Hood shooter did. On a completely unrelated note, something terrible is happening to me. I used to get sick to the stomach, facepalm, or any number of other strong reactions to Andy's depraved worldview and distortions of fact. Things like this discussion would have had me upset for a while trying to figure out how a many of alleged education and intelligence could be such a deceiver or moron or both. TK used to entertain me with his transparent deceit. Now I just roll my eyes at any of this. I think I should be greatly disturbed that I've become so inured to this right wing extremist nonsense that I can barely muster a response, but I can't even manage that. I'm going to a book signing by the author of a new biography of Fred Hampton (Hi RobS), Chicago Black Panther chairman who was murdered while he slept by Mayor Daley's police and states attorneys and the FBI. Maybe that will make me feel alive again. I fear that having spent so long in the abattoir that is Conservapedia I can no longer hear even my own screams. 18:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What nobody seems to have mentioned is that Andy's "liberal British media" is the Daily Mail for fox sake. 20:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * JosephMac has now pointed this out. Andy has thanked him nicely for pointing this out (only joking). The Real James Brown 23:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually think Andy isn't completely wrong on this point. Allah, as described by Islam, is not quite the same entity described as God by Christianity. They are both the Supreme Being in each religion, but to say that they are therefore the same entity requires making the assumption that there really IS one Supreme Being. God is triune; Allah is not. God sent his son to earth; Allah did not. Allah gave his message to Muhammad; God did not. Allah commands his followers to pray towards Mecca five times daily; God does not. One can go on like this. This line of reasoning is a little clearer if you start further back: Jupiter and Thor were the Supreme Deities of other religions, but they are not the same as the Christian God on those grounds. And this argument can lead to the surprising conclusion that Catholics and Protestants don't worship the same God either (the Catholic God communicates with the Pope; the Protestant God does not), and even that individual Christians don't all worship quite the same being. The God of some Christians detests homosexuality and created the world 6,000 years ago, while the God of other Christians loves all people equally and created the world 4.5 billion years ago. Johann 21:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (and now I've just read a little further up and seen that others have made this point already. Never mind, citizens, return to your lives) Johann 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy getting pwned by the Catholic church is epic. I'm really starting to feel more and more sorry for Andy. It's a shame no one can really help him. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch,that has to be hard to swallow for Andy. And I can't help but to feel a little pity for the guy, getting a taste of his own medicine. I mean, after all, the Catholic church thingy is no more than people theologizing out of their asses. What do they know if their imaginary friend is really the same imaginary friend as other people's, nevermind the vastly different imaginary friend of Muslims? The whole issue is moot. What is not, on the other hand, is cultivating a 'us VS them' mentality by needlessly insisting on the fact the guy was a muslim. --Ireon 12:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How long until Andy redefines language?
Seeing the whole "Allah means God, but Allah is Allah and God is God, so Allah doesn't mean God" issue (as far as I understand it), how long until Andy snaps and decides that the English word "god" may ONLY be used for his fire-and-brimstone, gay-hating and anti-feminist God? And that all the other gods are now not gods, but mere deities or Intelligent Designers? This sounds like something for his Conservative Words project... --Sid 17:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And how long after that till he just refers to all other gods as "Satan"? On a related note, I looked up the cp:Allah page, and found this gem: "Arab Christians often incorrectly use this name simply as a generic term 'god'." Emphasis mine, naturally. -- 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They're such fucking thought police bullies that they are now telling Arabic speaking Christians to use another word to refer to their god. I thought I'd seen every category of fundie nonsense. Now I have. 20:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we add something about allah not being the same as god to the assquote generator? 14:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple accounts on the same IP
Has anyone been banned under similar circumstances, i.e. family members contributing to CP ? If not, Andy's reply seems reasonable. -- 18:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's more the need to ask; Several sysops have blocked for just editing from the same IP with more than one account - or even the same school or company. I think it's not so much funny as shining a light on the Stalinist Republic of Conservapedia and its secret police. 18:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy's reply is indeed reasonable. The problem is that it's complete bullshit when you look at what actually happens: TK and his buddies use CheckUser on pretty much every new editor and every other non-sysop edit. The moment they see more than one account using the same IP (or even the same IP range), the banhammer does its thing. They ask no questions, they often enough block mail, and from what little I heard, their reply to inquiries (if people can make them) is basically "I know what you were up to, you fucking cyber-terrorist! Cry all you want, you deceitful whiner!". And when people complain about this to Andy, they will claim that the mails or screencaps were forged. People have to request special immunity from Andy to be spared such a fate, and in order to be granted it, they have to be homeschoolers or people with a very long and spotless editing history. --Sid 13:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that is pretty mad. Ah well, it all helps drive good intentioned people away from the world's largest MMO based on North Korea. -- 13:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "I can't imagine anyone blocking your account after your many fine contributions here." Yeah, sure.  16:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This may prove interesting...
So this guy simultaneously tells Andy he's thanked him in his new book and points out that most of his home state seems to be blocked. One look at dude's blog and you gotta know the thank-you is tongue-in-cheek at best. TheoryOfPractice 15:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A book about a home-schooled transsexual. Yep, Andy's gonna love that acknowledgment. - Poor Excuse 15:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm barely awake at the moment, but didn't an author semi-recently drop by here, mentioning that he had thanked Andy in his new book because CP's craziness kept him motivated to continue writing or something? Maybe that was the same guy? --Sid 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. The guy. TheoryOfPractice 16:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that guy. I wonder if Andy will even take the time read the guy's blog. 16:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He probably didn't even read half the post. Bye bye...  20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if Andy had read it he would have said something about the guy's "liberal agenda." Since he didn't, I'm guessing he just deleted it without looking into it. 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish Obama would shape up his act
Occasionally playing Golf and billiards, as president he should be doing something productive, like clearing brush! --Opcn 20:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha...funnily enough, there is no way in hELL that Andy or anyone else at CP would ever be able to appreciate the humor in that statement. 20:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bible verse in court
This is a very interesting incident. I don't agree with Andy's stance on it, but I am not sure if I agree with the original article's position either. In US law, the purpose of the jury is to ascertain if a person is guilty, not decide how they should be punished (that's up to the judge). So its not like the jury decided that he be put to death because of the Bible (although I'm not sure why there were quoting it, either). Also, the purpose of a trial by jury is to be judged "by one's peers." In the South, people's viewpoints are almost invariably based off of religion. But, thankfully, this has little to do with deciding if a person is guilty or not, and it seems unrelated in this particular case as well. So, though it is troubling to hear people quote the Bible in court, the issue is not as black and white as Andy or the WIGO entry make it seem. 21:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that you are mistaken about the sentence thing--I believe, and I'm sure one of our lawyer friends can back me up/correct me on this, that with death penalty cases, the jury gets a say. TheoryOfPractice 21:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Penalty phase of the trial" - In CA, at least, the jury decided to put the accused to death. PS: in Illinois, too. TheoryOfPractice 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of federal law that a jury must be the finder of fact re: aggravating factors in support of the death penalty per the SCOTUS case of Walton. The jury's purpose is solely as finder of fact. The judge applies the facts to the law by instructing the jury to draw certain legal conclusions if the facts support them. No function of the jury includes any need to refer to the bible. Quite the opposite. The jury's not permitted to rely on any facts but those expressly adduced in court. There is never any need for a jury to do what's right or moral. It's only concern is following the law. 21:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Triple EC) @ToP: Yup, you're right. (Which means I don't think Nutty is entirely correct.) See here for the official reason why. Even so, though, part of my original argument still stands. To quote myself: "the purpose of a trial by jury is to be judged "by one's peers." In the South, people's viewpoints are almost invariably based off of religion." That's just the nature of the beast. I'm not sure how it could be modified without changing the entire system. 21:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the most interesting part of Andy's remark is that liberals would prefer the jurors read the newspaper instead. Well, no, Andy, we wouldn't. We'd prefer the jurors have no outside influences, which is, you know, the law. Perhaps they taught you about that when you were matriculating at Hah-vahd Law. Or were you too busy pouting that some black guy got editor of the Law Review instead of you? MDB 22:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * @ToP, I'm wrong all the time :) But I don't think I am here. @Tetronian, are you referring to direct review? That just means that in all capital cases the defendant gets an expedited appeal as a matter of right. The original decision is made by a jury, but the review is conducted by the appellate court. 22:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if Nutty, who's a lawyer, sez so, that's good enough for me. As for the "jury of one's peers" thing, people who believe in supernatural beings are not my peers. So their superstitions should have no effect on the outcome of a legal process concerning me. TheoryOfPractice 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The duty of the jury, in the main phase or the penalty one, is to follow the guidance of the law and any supplemental instructions from the judge in arriving at their decisions. The use of any other guide/ or influence is improper, and based on the quote in the article it seemed as if one juror was using the Bible as the justification for the sentence:
 * One juror even stood up to quote the text directly, saying: "And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death." 
 * It doesn't matter if using "a jury of his peers" in a fundamentalist part of the country means that most of the jurors are fundamentalists - they have to follow the law, not scripture, in reaching their conclusions. Imagine Andy's reaction if they used the Koran instead because it was a Muslin-heavy community, or the average reader's reaction if this was a trial based in Las Vegas and they used a dice toss to break a deadlock.  --SpinyNorman 23:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * @ Nutty: Oh, I see. So Andy has no idea what he is talking about (and the original article confuses the issue somewhat). 23:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Spiny, I like that idea... Spin the Roulette wheel. Red, life in prison.  Black, death penalty.  If it comes up Green, he's free to go.  23:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you did there.-- 01:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Economist
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has Andy just completely contradicted himself here? As we know, his previous, and ludicrous, argument was that a news report was 'liberal' for translating 'Allah' as 'God', which is actually correct. Yet now he criticises The Economist, calling them liberal for not translating the term 'Allah', and also for having also used this same word in previous articles. Have I just missed something obvious, or is he just not making sense again? Jammy 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure The Bible According to St. Andy will avoid this sort of error by refusing to follow those liberals who blasphemously translated "El Shaddai" and "Yahweh" as God. Tribal gods' names need to be given as proper nouns, not prettied up to placate the consumer. - Poor Excuse 00:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's consistent in Andy's completely warped view. In Andyland, "Allah" translates to the English word "Allah", so saying "Allahu Akbar" is Evil Untranslated, but saying "God is great" is plain wrong because "Allah" doesn't mean "God" according to Andy. --Sid 00:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy's not one of the loons who believe that Allah is an ancient moon god, is he? MDB 13:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Irony meter goes BANG
We don't allow anonymous claims of expertise here. The Real James Brown 00:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if, deep down, Andy has some inkling of the irony behind this. This has got to be one of his most blatant lies ever.  00:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I WIGOed it. Thank you very much for finding it. 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for WIGOing it. My gob was smacked by the utter cheek of the statement. The Real James Brown 00:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly an Arabic speaker can't be allowed to claim he speaks Arabic. Stile4aly 01:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Andy is basically right here: the only true expertise he recognizes is his own, and it applies to absolutely every field. Hardly anonymous. DickTurpis 02:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ur not an expert at CP until they claim your an expert. By their standards, Dawkins should be a doomsday prophet on the streets.--Thanatos 02:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * anonymous claims of Cantabrigian 10:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

JFK
There's a lovely row going on on the talk page with RJJ claiming that JFK was conservative & ChuckR disagreeing slightly. a snippet :
 * "As a final note, I would appreciate it (simply from a perspective of readability) if you could type more accurately and with less typos. As it stands now, your typos are frequent and egregious, and it takes me several moments to figure out what you mean. I don't mean this personally, it's just something that I'm struggling with; as a college professor, I'm sure you understand. ChuckR 21:20, 8 November 2009 (EST)"
 * and
 * "Addendum: Also, it's pretty funny that you said "I you want to propose a paragraph, run it thrugh here first." (Translation: If you want to propose a paragraph, run it through here first"). Clearly, you did not do this yourself; you abused your administrator privileges by unilaterally inserting your own edits (with NO prior discussion) and then locking the article when others who dared to disagree with you attempted to edit your contributions. ChuckR 21:26, 8 November 2009 (EST)"

I wish Andy would weigh in here and set these guys straight: "JFK was a liberal because his name is spelled K-E-N-N-E-D-Y". The whole discussion between RJJ and ChuckR highlights how useless the liberal/conservative distinction is, especially in this situation.--Simple 03:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama's top general?
I love how Jinx has made General George Casey (who was made the Army Chief of Staff by Bush) Obama's top general and Obama's fault. Can you imagine how much they would have screamed over there if Obama had replaced him when Obama took office? Thanks again for the laugh Jinx. --BoredCPer 04:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought we established this already. Everything that happens, no matter what, is Obama's Fault.  As soon as he took over the office, he used his liberal mind control to subvert the good conservatives left over from the Bush administration to his evil socialist agenda.  06:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "As soon as he took office"? Aren't you forgetting that he was a direct cause of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, was one of the 9/11 hijackers, and invented child molestation? Pretty sure he used his mind control techniques to convince Joseph Smith he was the Angel Moroni too. Bil08 08:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, hell, can I blame him for the fact my shoulder hurts? I didn't have a sore shoulder before Obama took office, now did I? Therefore, Obama caused my sore shoulder. Q-E-frickin-D. MDB 12:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Flying Fortress
Olé, olé, olé! It looks like Operation Flying Fortress is about to launch! The pre-launch activity is going well!

I'm sure we're all on tenterhooks to find out what 🇰🇪 is up to. Aren't we? Anybody? Oh. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 11:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it will just be something like a YouTube channel or some other mundane attempt to get people's attention. 13:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Ken, when launching Flying Fortresses, remember to keep an eye out for those gremlins, and their "dye-a-bo-lick-al sa-baa-tah-gee"...  (yeah, I'm old-school) --SpinyNorman 15:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing old school about quoting the classics. MDB 16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hasn't Flying Fortress been in about-to-launch status for the last... two years? [[Image:Flying Fortress.png|thumb|right|Found in Ken's trash]] 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm refreshing on a per-minute basis. Operation Flying Fortress has been one of my most anticipated events of the year. --  ䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡   ䷶䷀䷵䷥
 * I seem to recall it having been around for ages, which is why I didn't WIGO it. I imagine Tetronian will prove to be right though - some collection of barely-watchable YouTube videos or a TimeCube-esque critique of evolution. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 18:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just want to say, loving the secret plan. EddyP 18:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added to his article. I thought this had already taken place with that link he got frrm the windmill place with the shouting Hitler sounds. Or is this the much touted British creationist one? 00:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, what's this all aboot? It must be something good as they've burnt the diffs.... 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He deleted a full stop then added it back again, but the edit comments were something like "Important pre-launch activity starts tomorrow" and "Pre-launch activity going well". Unfortunately 🇰🇪 deleted his page and I forgot to add capture tags. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 15:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone surprised....
that Andy put this on the main page? I was actually wondering what took him so long. And I am even less surprised at the fact that he ignored Obama's speech. 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also surprised it took him so long, and I'm so completely not surprised that Andy once again plays up Reagan's words as if they alone led to the entire German reunification. --Sid 00:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any mention of the wall always reminds me of the wall (being young enough to have learned about both in retrospect). Has anyone pointed out to Andy how Reagan's speechwriters likely stole his "tear down this wall" command, uttered in 1987, from the chants of "tear down the wall" at the end of "The Trial" from Pink Floyd's librul opus "The Wall," released in 1979?-- 00:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I love that album but strangely that never occurred to me. (Though besides being anti-war and anti-conformist I am not sure how it is a "librul opus.") Not sure if it would be worth burning a sock to see Andy's reaction to that, but it might be amusing. Maybe the Floyd travelled forward in time to copy the phrase from St. Reagan?  00:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did all the liberals "scoff"? I thought it was a universally accepted action (apart from the communists, of course)? 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I was reading the other day the wall came down when some East German interior Minster or something like that was caught of guard by a group of Western journalists when they were pressing him about the new travel arrangements. I think he had missed the meeting earlier that day and was reading from his notes as he went. He got confused and pretty much said you are now free to cross. Everyone that was watching took that to mean that they were now no travel restrictions and they went down to the gate demanding to be allowed to cross. The guards had no idea what they were suppose to do, they were given no new orders but they also knew what the Minster had said, so they stood back and let people go for it. Reagen's contribution ≈ 0. 01:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I was reading the other day the wall came down when some Eat German interior Minster or something like that was inspired by the conservative message of Ronald Reagan, defender of freedom, oracle of truth, bringer of peace. He ran up to the wall and cried out, in a voice that resonated across the nation with its conservative message, "In the name of Ronald Reagan, you will not stand!"  The guards were struck dumb and Gorbachev landed in a helicopter and declared to an assembling, awestruck crowd, "I give up.  You win the war, Mr. Reagan.  Let it be known hereforth, whatever lies liberals may say, that Ronald Reagan has won the Cold War with his brilliant military and domestic strategies.  We liberals were wrong, and should have homeschooled our kids, and accepted the logic of the bible, and been more chivalrous.  The Lord be with you.  Gorbachev out." ''From the Second Book of Schlafly 22:10-47.  01:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good story, but not really the case. Reagan was responsible for leading a cultural shift that changed the way people looked at the ideological conflicts between the NATO bloc and the Soviets, and forcing the Soviet bloc into a competition for national pride that they were absolutely unsuited to win.  By making it about "evidence" (in the form of commercial and scientific product) they turned the fight into one that pitted the immense national resources of the NATO countries and their associates against the vastly poorer resources of the Soviet countries and their satellites.  It turned the arena into one where communism would be forced to spin itself to death trying to force it into something it's not suited for: scientific advances and massive industrial production.  The communist leaders couldn't admit that a society based around farming communes and shared resources was simply not well-suited for that, and so they burned out.  I think Reagan was a shitty cowboy actor and disagree with him on almost every social issue and consider his economic policies to be almost frighteningly absurd, but credit where credit is due: he used the office's best weapon, the bully pulpit, to its best effect.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, although you have conflated communism with the Soviet Union. "It turned the arena into one where communism would be forced to spin itself to death trying to force it into something it's not suited for: scientific advances and massive industrial production." The point is communism is suppose to occur after a industrial revolution rendering this point mute, they stuffed that up from the start. If you want to credit him with anything it would be forcing the Soviets to over spend, something they could have avoided by not engaging in a giant dick off, something they had been doing since the late 40s. Kennedy got them spending on an unnecessary space program. Before that it was who had the most nuclear weapons. Reagan is more the straw that broke the camels back than the actual cause of the down full. 01:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do conflate communism and the Soviet Union, because popularly they are considered much the same. Like many forms of socialism, one can argue that they weren't implemented according to theory in the right way, but that's not relevant to its form in most parlance.
 * The "unnecessary" nature of the space program and its inception is very arguable, but I will agree that Reagan wasn't the original cause of the conflict that brought down the Soviets. I do think, however, that he was the biggest factor of the day in shaping the narrative of the ongoing struggle and its conclusion - which is perhaps even more important than the reality of it.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Tom Moore put it pretty well - if it were on an article, I'd be inclined to "improve", but as a talk page comment it's entitled to arguable imperfections. 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reagan Smash!. 08:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh great, the two Grand Masters Of Banhammer WTF are active...
One has been WIGO'd: AmrM was banhammered by TK for following Andy's order to recreate his account.

And shortly after that, an old favorite pops up: Geo.plrd (who slippped up badly during the Night of the Blunt Knives and later on became TK's best buddy Parole Officer when TK had fallen out of favor) adds another chapter to the DerekE saga and gets out his Parole Officer hat: "shall not contact Dr. Jensen" - which likely means that anything RJJ touches is now off-limits for Derek. Wonderful. --Sid 01:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We should protect WIGO CP so only you can edit it... 02:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Charming approach. You're very welcome here, but stay away from old Zeke. He'll cut you good. Derek'll be fun to watch. He's either a parodist or the kind of guy ready to bend over and take one for the cause, pausing afterwards to thank his assailant for teaching him a valuable lesson in non-consential sodomy. -- 15:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)