Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive163

makes another unperson
Gee,, no power in your real life? Memory holing someone just for disagreeing with you? And you guys wonder why you have so few contributors who aren't parodists and vandals? Here's a hint: you get rid of people who want to help but don't worship you. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for that for days. DerekE was far too valuable a contributor to be allowed to stay. EddyP (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But looking over his talk page, he may have been a parodist. But that would beg the question of why he got into a fight with TK, rule one of parody being don't conflict with TK. EddyP (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he was dead the moment he reverted TK. And going by the hammering log he apparently asked another sysop to help/mediate, which is pretty much like lighting "KILL ME!" flares. --Sid (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But what you all forget is that TK is really a fair and merciful person, not some kind of horrible internet monster, so DerekE is back. Broccoli (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, he is a generous god. I enjoyed his comment on unblocking Cambrian: "Second chances are important in life, especially for students". Heartwarming. -- 00:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The most logical book, etc...
Don't know if anyone has been following this and its talk page. It's basically standard-issue Andy, but might develop into something interesting. Johann (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The talk page is hilarious. Classic, classic Andy. And probably a few more lines for the Quote Generator.... 23:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My favorite part is near the end of the talk page: "The Bible is completely logical. If you stick with that, then we can have a productive discussion." Maybe if he actually read and understood the essay, he would realize that that assumption is THE POINT BEING CONTENDED. -- JArneal   23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work indeed. Has anyone else noticed that Andy has his own version of on-line spluttering?  Whenever he's really wound up, his writing becomes full of grammatical errors, missing words, etc.  I also love how he calls the individual pages of his blog "entries".  00:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most excellent. Andy moved it to cp:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity to reduce offense to the laud on his blog.  00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I love how it's developing! Andy: "Ur doing it wrong." Eoinc: "Tell me where I'm wrong." Andy: "Ur still doing it wrong." Eoinc: "Please tell me where I'm wrong." Andy: "You're...doing all of it wrong! Yeah! That's it!"-- JArneal   00:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He really is a spoiled child, isn't he? The fact that he expects to be taken seriously through this is unbelievable. --Kels (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I love it. Andy refuses to have an argument unless it begins with everyone assuming that he is right. 00:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he didn't win the arguments if the premise does not include "Andy is correct," such as the case he had when he worked for AT&T.  01:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy knows what the point of contention is, he is demanding that the contention be dropped because he thinks it is DELIBERATE AND PHONY LIBERAL PEDANTRY MEANT ONLY TO UNDERMINE JESUS and is not in any way a genuine statement. His thought process is 1. My beliefs are derived from the Bible and therefore the infallible truth of God resides in them 2. Anyone who disagrees with me is disagreeing with God and is a liberal/heretic 3. Liberals/heretics are defined as the antipode of conservative/Christian and so they are associated with the opposite of divine truth, the devilish Lie 4. Everything Liberals/heretics say is purely malicious and meant to lead the flock away from God and his representatives on Earth (Conservatives/Christians) 5. Therefore I should not entertain this lie, which is purely destructive and by definition has no insight to offer. He is not irrational, he is in fact quite logical. The problem is the narrowness of his perspective, namely that he admits no evidence other than that which meets his existing conditions and is unwilling to synthesize his own view with those opposed to it. Of course, I am sure I am preaching to the choir here!99.225.14.16 (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy was asked several times to clarify what Christian teaching really is, and each time he ignored the question or went off on a tangent. Which makes me wonder, how much of an asshole does he have to be? This goes beyond ordinary question-dodging. What if Eoinc died suddenly, having been an atheist because he had been taught an incorrect form of Christianity? And what if Andy could have set the record straight? Would that weigh on his conscience, I wonder? Johann (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy doesn't need to clarify. He knows the Truth, and anyone who questions him is ignorant and doesn't merit a response. Of course, every person ignorant of the Bible is a liberal who refuses to be openminded to Christ Jesus THE LORD and so is doubly unworthy of explanation. If someone dies and is not a proper Christian, Andy would say good riddance. He would never admit that his teaching is wrong, because all wrong beliefs are deviations from the Truth in his beliefs. 70.53.42.189 (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm so tempted to burn a sock and grill assfly on all the Biblical contradictions that, by definition, can't be logical. He's so perverted the meaning of the word "logic," one can't argue with the guy. In assfly logic, validity plays no part. Cgb07307 (talk)
 * If we accept that the universe can be comprehended through logic, then we need to accept that all things in the universe are inherently logical. It is a fool's errand to try to prove to Andy, who is ignorant of rationalist doctrines, that he is irrational. His beliefs are logical enough for him, and no attack from someone with superior logical skills will ever unseat him. Any attack must come from a different direction, so don't waste that sock until you know what to do.70.53.42.189 (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Chess and the Best of the Public
Andy explains. Kasparov would not be playing against 100 people. That would be silly! No, he would be playing against 100 opponents, each of them representing 'the best of the public' i.e something like 100 people concerting among themselves (and then someone qualified, like Andy, would discards their results and do whatever he likes, in true CP style -well with CP it would be two parodists trying to convince him that the bishops are invincible cuz' they have faith). Kasparov would essentially be playing against the brain power of 10 000 individuals, and unfortunately for Andy, would almost certainly still win all the matches (don't forget we are talking about the public...none of them should be a so-called 'expert', grand master, or -gasp- professor). But don't worry, Andy! I am sure we can extend the analogy: Kasparov should play blind-folded and drunk, against 10 000 people, in a game of chess Chess Boxing! That will show liberals the power of the Best of the Public. Next week in 'Andy day-dreams', we shall see who would win: Christian laser-toothed sharks or Muslim ninja grizzlies! Stay tuned! --Ireon (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bit like taking a large group of babies and assuming that their combined abilities would equal those of a fully-grown man. I question Andy's engineering prowess if he seriously thinks that increased manpower would consistently achieve positive results. -- 13:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on guys! All the best ideas come from a committee! DickTurpis (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's do it. Voting buttons on the page, tactical and strategic discussions on the talk page.  Someone can sock-up and post our moves on Andy's talk page.  Ken can "shout out" the best of the public's moves.  E4 anyone? Toffeeman (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually like the idea, in a way, but it won't work for obvious reasons. Too bad. DickTurpis (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Challenge established. Discuss and participate. Plus it'll be for a worthy cause. I'll even purchase one of the chess sets right up front! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 problems: 1) Andy will not acknowledge our existence, much less play chess with us. 2) discussing strategies in an open forum lets out opponents know what we're doing. Other than that, I'm game. DickTurpis (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that Andy won't acknowledge us, and that discussion of the challenge will likely meet with memory-holing and banhammering the post and individual. That's the point. Someone offers a way for Andy to test his idea, and Andy will just move on without ever being held accountable. He'll be predictable. In a few weeks he'll get a new quote and forget his whole "best of the public" rant he makes. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And if the game does go through, it's win-win for rationwiki: RW wins, Andy throws a hissy-fit and backpedals all the way to his bible shitheap; CP wins, and Andy goes on a splurge of smug-induced "best of the public" crazy. Lulz all round. 194.6.79.200 (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can someone burn a sock and tell Andy? If not, I'll email him. 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy cannot bring himself to acknowledge us. He's too big of a man to admit to reading our CP blog. We are liberal scum unworthy of his time or efforts, even though you know that self-obsessed prick reads this shit. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does any of us have affiliations with a chess wiki (create one, perhaps?) that can thus *legitimately* challenge Andy on their behalf?  00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

BotP (Part 97)
"...the Tour de France. Anyone can enter..."

No no no no no. The man is an idiot. He knows less about cycling than he does the Bible. Little Pierre can't just send in an entry form and race through the French countryside on his Schwinn against Lance and the rest. Le Tour is open only to professional teams. Professional. Teams. And the organizers don't just let any and every team race--they invite which teams they want (which are generally, but not necessarily the "best" teams). And not even the whole team races--just about a third of each team invited. Idiot. Blockhead. Dimwit. Dunce. Fool. Ignoramus. Imbecile. Moron. Muttonhead. Nincompoop. Ninny. Nitwit. Pinhead. Simpleton. Dumber than a bag of f***ing hammers.--WJThomas (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too. Damn, he is so desperate to defend his little slip of the tongue that he is pulling bullshit out of every orifice. 00:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See above on my foiled plans to go compete in the skiing races in Vancouver next year. apparently "anybody can participate" in the Olympics. Apparently the Canadian national ski team was not aware of this development. Elitist bastards. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, (almost) anyone can travel to (Hence "The tour of") France, guess that might have been in some other context where it has the wrong capitalization.  01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They do open at least one stage to the general public, although they obviously don't race with the pro riders. A couple of friends of mine did a stage a few years ago - one of the mountain stages I think. Despite being keen cyclists, it just about killed them. User:Bondurant 09:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I love the image they are using to illustrate the BotP page. And who created it.  And when.  22:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the whole BoP thing, and the fact that CP is the "trustworthy" encyclopaedia, I found their disclaimer worth a laugh. "Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate" (repeated twice, I see); "in no event should you rely on any information found on this site except entirely at your own risk" I know it's all legalese, but it does cast some aspersions on the whole "trustworthy" thing.
 * Surely that should be Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone from the public to ensure that it is accurate ?? 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange thought...
Given how awful, non-poetic and far-fetched the CBP has been, I had a strange thought. If this were the Bible that the church used back in the 4th and 5th centuries to try to win followers, the religion would never had gone far. There is a beauty to any translation of a book of mysticism and hope; to muddle it so that cranks and morons can understand it makes it lose all its charm. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that he's making it easier to read, mainly in the sense that it's becoming more palatable to a specific school of fundies. There is value in modern translation of archaic texts, but personally I prefer having the original text with added commentary. Let's hope Andy stays away from Shakespeare. "I pray thee, do not mock me, fellow-student" could end up as "I do not accept liberal name-calling. We are here to learn. Godspeed, Horatio." -- 16:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would pay money for a copy of Hamlet in the original Schlafly. --Phentari (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Then don't forget Fun:Conservative_Shakespeare_Project! --Retwa (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet baby zeus. Poe's law strikes again. -- 19:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And of course I didn't notice it was on RW. Silly me. -- 19:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a bad morning but the authors of the Conservative Shakespeare Project have made me smile - no, laugh hilariously - again. Well done. The Real James Brown (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say I like
Our new reptilian overlords usage of the multistage WIGO recently. I really like it when they tell a story, using a half dozen difflinks or ELs, and piece together the whole thread. Such is the work of an exemplary WIGO, in my opinion. Sid would be proud. 05:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is nice. Saves having to manually go through the edits to see the finale. -- 13:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I find them long winded and annoying with little wit by the writer. I especially hate the ones that are about 1000 characters and with only one link. If I get bored reading it, I vote it down. 06:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I just showed Mrs Practice the Colbert interview....
...and she said, and I quote.: "I hope you're pleased with yourself. You and your little internet friends are picking on someone who obviously has some mental health problems." TheoryOfPractice (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it that obvious, or does she have some training in psychology? 06:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We are picking on him?--Thanatos (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * no training, it's that obvious, yes we are. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's schadenfreude. He believes he's right, when all other evidence shows he's wrong. If he won't get help, and his family won't get him help, why not enjoy the hilarity that ensues online? It's not like any of us are forcing him to be a moron on a television interview or keep running a site full of lulz. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "your little internet friends" includes the parodists on CP, who may be forcing Andy to become the moron that he is today.  16:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey ToP, have you shown your missus The Ken DeMyer Anthology or The Wit and Wisdom of Ed Poor? 17:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm imagining 🇰🇪 doing an interview blacked out in silhouette with voice changing applied. Just to maintain his (im)plausible deniability as to his/her identity. --Kels (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've often had the same thoughts as Mrs. Practice: that maybe we should leave him alone. But then we have similarly mentally-challenged people trying to run the world.  "Sarah Palin" springs to mind, as does "Nick Griffin".  Andy is a good study into a terrible phenomenon: the idiot taking themselves seriously and being taken seriously.  FFS people are dead because of George W. Bush.Toffeeman (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Double FFS: Andy made us think that Philip J. Rayment was rational!Toffeeman (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that Mrs. Practice refers to us as "your little internet friends". And, yeah, Andy should really have stopped off at a barber on his way to the TV studio from the hospital.   22:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my defense, I never thought PJR was rational. Just polite. --Kels (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have always said that I will leave that man alone when he stops being responsible for young minds.  I agree with Practice's 'Er Indoors that Andy's not quite right and could use some help, but the parents of the children he 'educates' have a right to know either that, or that he doesn't provide a very good education, to say the least of it.  DogP Marmite Patrol 23:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this interview online anywhere other than the Colbert website? You can't view it on the site from in the UK, probably not from anywhere outside the States. 23:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think crazy people should be left alone, I have a Youtube video for you! Wodewick Welease Wodewick! 00:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use?
I know that's the handy catch-all for the CP goons, but somehow I think Disney might have a differing view on the whole 'fair use' thing. -- Psygremlin  09:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OH boy. TK is playing with fire now.  The Disney Corporation is one of the most lawsuit-happy companies in the world.  Disney sued a day care center because the kids painted a mural with Disney characters in it.  I hope they come down on CP like a ton of bricks.  09:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe in such a case it's justified. Trademarks (that's what this logo falls under I believe) exist not to promote creation of new works (the official justification for copyrights) but to make sure customers aren't confused and fooled. The logo is only used in the CP Disney article, where it illustrates the company. So, no problem there. I do remember Fair Use is only for copyright, so the formality of the justification is not enough. On a sidenote, Wikipedia uses the same logo, claiming no copyright but "with other restrictions" (trademarks I would guess). Pietrow (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. As far as the copyrights go, the logo is used in Conservapedia within the bounds of fair use - Conservapedia just don't take Wikipedia's approach of meticulously explaining why it qualifies as fair use in this particular instance. Disney doesn't like fair use, though, so anything could still happen, though it's a bit unlikely. What I find it more funny is that, based on the file name, the logo was obviously ripped off from some other mediawiki site. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why hasn't Disney cracked down on the use of 'Mickey Mouse operation' - ie something jerrybuilt?

Andy hates liberal dictionaries, but...
conservative, first definition: "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." heresy, fourth definition: "any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc." incoherent. None of those definitions fit the sentence. So the College Board's answer is correct, and Andy's is wrong. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well of course andy's wrong. He's always wrong.--WJThomas (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's become commonplace to see conservatives coopt the language of liberal activism (for example successfully using minority-rights arguments in church&state court cases to allow public displays) but claiming that the SAT is a plot by the (liberal) Man to keep conservatives down? That's hilarious. Wodewick Welease Wodewick! 15:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Indeed, conservatism is not a religion." LOL. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just another step in Andy's war on words. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Lardashe
 * Note to Andy: if they want "incoherent" to be the answer (Yes, the method to make conventional multiple choice questions is starting from the answer) the sentence would have been formulated differently.   16:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy is semi-right. Multiple choice questions like this tend towards "do you think like the examiner?"  "Incoherent" is just as good, if not better, an answer than "heretical".  Are we to assume (the question gives no indication) that the co-workers are concerned that Joshua disagrees with them, that they are not worried about reason but just concerned to conform? Andy is wrong in thinking it particularly "liberal".  Conservatives (which to Andy is the set of non-liberals)are just as likely to think what they are thinking is spectacularly obvious.  The question is a bad question.  Much like:
 * Which is the odd one out:
 * A The moon
 * B Pizza
 * C Pont L'Eveque cheese
 * D An apple

Toffeeman (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The question isn't a bad question, because it uses adjectives to help guide which other word would fit. The term "conservative" in the context of the sentence means "disposed to preserved conditions," and "radical" means "extreme change from the norm." Therefore, the only correct term is the one which fits those definitions, and that's heretical, not incoherent. Because Andy wants conservative to mean only what he wants it to mean doesn't discount that the English language and its lexicon existed long before he was a zygote in Mama Schlafly's womb. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, he didn't even notice that by providing "meticulous", "precise", and "sagacious" as wrong answers (ie, being conservative traits), the question and answer set are actually putting being "conservative" in a good light! 22:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comrade Andy?
What is all this "best of the public" stuff. His campaign against experts reminds me more of something from North Korea or the Old Communist Bloc. He is getting very close to talking about the "proletariat"! &mdash; Unsigned, by: BON / talk / contribs


 * In short, the "best of the public" campaign is all about Andy trying to convince someone (himself?) that he and his little band of slow learners are just as likely to be right about a given topic as any group of so-called experts out there.


 * If you have a set of truly stupid views about the world, you will eventually look around and wonder why no knowledgeable person agrees with anything you are saying. Andy has done this and, instead of wondering whether his views are, in fact, stupid (which would require some insight as to his own stupidity) he has come up with the "best of the public" concept.


 * It is a masterstroke of stupid genius! It cements all of Andy's stupidities at one fell swoop.  It justifies any stupid idea he has from now on because he is Conservapedia and Conservapedia is the best of the public.  --Horace (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In Andy's defence, a program that chooses random numbers between 1 and 1,000,000 would at some point arrive at the answer to any mathematical problem with an answer falling within that range. The drawback to Andy's million monkeys approach is that there's no reliable arbiter of accuracy. The kids can (and do) at times get it right, but Andy is likely to dismiss anything that agrees with the "expert consensus". There's no point in having his little army of monkeys eventually arriving at the same conclusions experts would have reached in a fraction of the time. -- 07:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to think about this
http://www.conservapedia.com/Stephen_Coughlin Somebody seems to have an axe to grind. I wasn't aware that the Assyrians were such a put upon crew. Mick McT (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Karjoujoujoujou's new toon
What on earth has environmental protection got to do with communism? Of all the pathetically weak non-connections CP try to make between things, this is the weakest. 23:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Karajou's toons are usually even more far-out than the rest of the main page (yes, including Ken's occasional shout-outs to Dawkins and the "news" section). He's pretty much doing his own thing. --Sid (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's funny how Venezuela and Cuba were among the 5 nations preventing any sort of deal in Kopenhagen. Communism=Environmentalism indeed. Internetmoniker (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ECx2Personally I think that the problem with the toons is not his ideas so much as the fact that he spells out absolutely everything for the reader. The best cartoonists hint at what they are getting at through symbols and obvious caricatures, not with names and by spelling out exactly what the joke is supposed to be.  IMHO Karajou would do better if he learnt some subtlety.  --DamoHi 23:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC x 3, getting a bit annoyed) I think it's a combination of "working for the common good instead if profits is communism" and "communism is a scary word, so I'll connect it to something I don't like to make it look bad". Logic that would embarrass a five year old, but it's the Koward.  Par for the course. --Kels (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's kind of like World War II era propaganda, but modern and created by a guy who feels awkward in the company of anything with a pulse. Strawman ftw-- 23:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In defence of the Karajou, the strongest calls for environmental protectionism tend to come from the left and in particular the extreme left. I don't find this cartoon to be so outrageous.  --DamoHi 23:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In defence of Karajou, he's probably not being paid to produce these things. Yeah the left traditionally lean towards environmentalism, but he's approaching it with the subtlety of a drunken hammer wielding estranged husband banging on his wife's door at 2am. Besides, equating left-wing environmentalism to communism is Godwin's law in reverse. -- 23:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh, well of course the 'left' are the ones most likely to protest against environmental controls. The 'right' are the ones saying fuck 'em we just want to make lots of money for ourselves and don't give a shit about the planet. The rich right are the ones who can move to higher ground in their fortified mansions while the poor plebs get driven out of their homes by the rising waters. I know many on the right talk about enlightened self-interest but it doesn't seem to cross the minds of many that by taking a modicum of care about the fate and disposition of the plebs ultimately means not having to lock yourself away in your own gated community. Not being too greedy is actually the more sensible position to take. 00:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a Jfraatz meme? "Watermelons: People who use environmental issues to support wealth redistribution and hurt rich countries. (red on the inside, green on the outside)" MWAHAHAHAHA ITS WORKING JOHANAN! Wodewick Welease Wodewick! 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there is a group of more radical environmentalists (e.g., green anarchists) who explicitly mix up environmentalism with left-wing political ideas. Many environmentalists also have the unfortunate tendency to turn environmental activism into a moral crusade, going not against harm to the environment in general, but against the large companies and "capitalist" government who are responsible for some of the harm. 02:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gawd, you are tiresome. Damn reds ruining everything!  And they are so obviously wrong in every way.  03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon me. Did I mention communism? I have said this once before, I think, but Reds are too obsessed with class divisions and (if in power) industrial megalomania to give a hoot about the environment. 03:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All the reds I know are seriously obsessed with environmental quality. You are too obsessed with Reds to have any clue about reality, in my opinion.  03:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it came down to a question of helping the environment vs. not taking the side of capitalist powers, most communists would pick the latter. As evidence of this, the Soviet and Chinese Communist parties have always emphasized "socialist" industrial development, the dickens with the environmental consequences. For example, the Soviets' Virgin Lands Campaign and China's Great Leap Forward both made colossal environmental messes, and the Three Gorges Dam is also raising issues in that area. 03:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And of course, Western Capitalism has always put the environment ahead of profit. LX, you are such a fucking idiot sometimes.  04:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not denying that the First World has its environmental problems, but at least our governments give freedom of speech, which has enabled environmentalists to speak out about the problem and a great many reforms to be enacted, which was not done in the Second World. 05:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you really had me until you said "our governments give freedom of speech". Read much 18th century political philosophy much?  The point you were trying to make is "our governments don't limit freedom of speech".  The day my government "gives" me freedom of speech is the day I don't have it.  Or will have to come steal your handgun to defend it against a 60 ton tank.  05:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not hold with the idea of "God-given rights." What we have are chartered rights. 05:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea that industrializing nations pollute a lot because they are socialist industrializing nations sounds like a real Andy Insight™. Obviously if only China were capitalist it would have been able to build a modern economy out of Yankee ingenuity and rainbows. Wodewick Welease Wodewick!  05:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only way China managed to build any economy at all was by switching from a command economy to market-socialism. 05:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will you look at that? Ya'll make fun of poor Kara's Kartoons, and yet they lead to such deep and passionate discussion, which is exactly what editorial cartooning should do.--WJThomas (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty ironic, especially given that he intended it to be blatant propaganda rather than thought-provoking cartooning. 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made an attempt to say the same thing in a slightly more subtle way. 20:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Brittany Murphy
Actress Brittany Murphy died, at the very young age of 32. Sad, though I can't say I was a huge fan of hers. Cause of death unknown for now, though they say it was "natural". So how long before Andy makes a "Hollywood Values" news item, regardless of what the cause of death turns out to be? I'm a bit surprised he hasn't yet. DickTurpis (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dancing on graves, etc. When you run ahead of Andy you are more guilty than he.  02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Human here. Unfortunately, any sort of speculation on her death, and on CONservapedia's reaction to it, is premature, at the very least, and distasteful at the very most.  02:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jpatt already did. In his expert opinion, it was anorxia. Keegscee (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, on his part, that's disgusting! 02:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That whole 'Hollywood values' page is just apalling, it's like they're gloating over the death of people. Just disgusting.  On the whole I find conservapediaheads funny, but that page makes me angry.  Very angry.  What a dispicable bunch of cunts.  03:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait until you get a load of cp:Young mass murderers. DickTurpis (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm so confused. Asa only killed himself and yet he's a mass murderer?  cgb07305 (talk)
 * (EC X 2)No shit. And the funniest part is that you could almost say it violates the part of the Bible where Jesus said "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone." Although, for people who don't like what the Bible says because its too liberal, it makes sense that they'd ignore it. 03:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Andy has already specifically addressed that particular passage. But I'm not surprised about their eagerness to profit from tragedy - remember how they gloated over Columbine? 03:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (shudders) I don't even want to think about what they had to say about Columbine, considering I have very strong, personal opinions about it. 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in their article if you want to take a look. But if a huge tragedy like that was fair game for CP, why would they even stop to consider the ethics of exploiting the death of an actress? 03:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I probably won't look at it, since I have very strong and, arguably, controversial opinions about Columbine. I promised myslef long ago that I would avoid any CP articles that I knew might piss me off. 03:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Did this "Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for adding and/or improving information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to Wikipedia to do that, where censors delete conservative information daily.--Aschlafly 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)" come from the quote generator, or that terrible article's talk page? 03:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Conservative information"? They've got their own set of information now? Barikada (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We all have our own set of conservative information. Haven't you? It's usually located in the circular filing cabinet. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And lets not forget how they were slandering Heath Ledger hours after he was found death. Before any real information was even known, they were gloating on how he died because of drug abuse as per hollywood values. Honestly, what is wrong with them.. --GTac (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They are sick and evil sonsabitches, that's what's wrong with them. As to the "young mass murderer" page, anger-inducing though it may be, it's one of those pages you need to read to understand CP's encyclopedic standards and methods.--WJThomas (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Did they start talking about this young actress on Conservapedia yet? 14:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just Jpratt adding her to the Hollywood Values article. Don't know why she died, but it obviously had something to do with being liberal and immoral. If it turns out to be swine flu (which, according to one report, it might be) I'm sure her name will be immediately removed as an example. DickTurpis (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

🇰🇪 needs his meds.
62 edits to the same article in less than an hour. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh really? really. And "other Female Sexual Orientation Groups." You mean straight women, right? 14:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy crap. Has he never heard of the preview button? 14:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See here 14:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Slow day
Slow day at CP; only about 50 edits in the last 10 hours. Looks like someone forgot to disengage night editing. DickTurpis (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

oh shit!
01:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that myself. Any teeth to it? Andy isn't part of Wikimedia or any other formal wiki conglomeration, but he does use their software. Are there terms of use, and if so, are they enforceable? Anyway, I sense oversight here, better get an image. DickTurpis (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. DickTurpis (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WHEEEEEE! 01:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My best guess is that this is bogus. The poster did not provide any links to the filed report. This suggests that no such report has been filed. But I could be wrong. Keegscee (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly less interested in whether it was filed than whether it could be filed. Anyone know anything about this? Trent? DickTurpis (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a rummage round MW & can't find anything, damnit! 02:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So did JacobB.....a-HA! You're JacobB! I knew it! DickTurpis (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aaarggghhh! Unmasked! 02:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that JacobB is our own Zelmerszoetrop, who created a minor storm when he tried to conceal changing his RW username to Zoeptrop. Toast is a good person in her heart and I like her alot. JacobB thrives on negativity and left here in a huff when others and I called him on his CP theatrics. He is, in short, a bitch. 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dick was (I hope) being funny. 02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think it is bogus. MediaWiki is licensed under the GPL, which does not allow restrictions to be imposed on the use of the software. 02:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) exactly. -- Nx  / talk 02:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)That quote in MichelleG's post was taken from here. It refers only to Wikimedia projects, so there is no danger to CP. -- <font color="#006666" >JArneal   02:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC x 10,000) Too bad. It would have been awesome to see MW come down on Andy's ass. 02:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. Pity. DickTurpis (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I always get muxed ip with Wikimedia & Mediawiki. 02:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to refrain from "MOAR"...
...Andy uses it (sort of). DickTurpis (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I smell a meme coming on... 03:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The additional "e" gives it a King James' Meme style.... And the lord sayeth: "I hath heard thou likest Mudkips?"....Taytopacket (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobel prizes miscellanies
Just something I found pursuing the bit in CP about the Nobel Prize - Robert Dicke. Apparently his criticism of relativity was enough to prevent him from getting it (I know - I pointed out before, experimenters and theorists) for predicting the cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang. Wait a moment... that says that he should have gotten it for proving the universe is older than 6k years? Note - Dickie didn't find the CBR, it took trained radio astronomers to detect it and find it with a much larger antenna. Even furthermore, it wasn't Dickie but rather a theorist in his group that predicted it (Dickie was an experimentalist)  For bonus points, it was this finding that put the nail in the coffin for the steady state theory that Hoyle proposed (and CP claims he should have gotten a Nobel Prize for something or other). And if anyone should get a nobel prize for predicting it it would be Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman who predicted the CBG in 1950s - a decade and a half before Dickie's group did. And now I'm rambling and starting more sentences with 'and' than not, but I still found this amusing. --Shagie (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy being a complete douche (Example # 4'278)
Already, Andy's incoherent, ad hoc explanation for the buzzword he invented has solidified into Holy Canon. All else is potential heresy. He responds to ChrisY like he's grading a catechism homework. "Thanks for agreeing with my thinking but you should have explained more of the examples I pulled from my ass!"

Andy's brain is amazing. He comes to believe some X without quite knowing how or why. When questioned, he comes up with some half-assed after the fact argument to defend X. The argument becomes an "insight," a peek into the inner workings of the universe itself. The insight is applied with absolute rigidity. Facts bend if needed to support the insight. Andy knows the insight couldn't be wrong, because it proves what he wants to believe. People who think the insight is stupid, contradictory, trivial, or irrelevant are blocked for having nefarious motives, and Andy's brain, momentarily alerted into DEFCON 1 by the presence of critical thinkers, happily tumbles along until the next crisis. Thus Conservapedia is weirdly encrusted with Andy Insights like Conservapedia's Law, the Invisible Hand Of Marriage, the Best Of The Public, etc etc. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 07:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Come on, this is the guy who decided that he has the chops to rewrite and redact the Bible itself where it doesn't agree with his worldview. I just love the irony of the expert Andy smacking down an idea "from the public" for improving his embarrassing quote about experts getting pwned by good ideas from the public.  All it needed was a "Godspeed" thrown in to be an instant classic.  --SpinyNorman (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more about "Best of the Public"
Here's the funny thing: I doubt Andy would be going on a "BotP" binge if he didn't (accidently?) mention the phrase on Colbert. It seems like the article (and ensuing discussion) are nothing more than a huge rationalization on Andy's part. It's nothing more than an extension of his "I am never wrong" syndrome. The freaky thing, though, is that by now he has repeated it to himself so many times that he actually believes it. 21:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a train heading toward the bridge that was blown up weeks ago, with only mountains to the sides and a wide river in the valley below, and Andy is the engineer pushing the throttle thinking that it can jump the river if he says the train can. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But Andy's never wrong. He spends five percent of his time reading the most logical book in the world. TKEtoolshed (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Which is why it needs rewriting! (Don't forget the countless hero cows the train has and will run over) [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]<font face="Comic Sans"><font color = "Green">Norseman  Cyser Melomel  23:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For me, this is another one of these bizarre moments when I try to agree with Andy but just can't do it.
 * What I mean is that in certain fields, especially music, arts and cinema, it is my opinion that many of the most interesting works come from amateurs rather than professionals. But Andy's over-protection and over-generalization of the concept, not to mention his incredibly stupid examples ... I just give up. I can't agree with this man. <font weight="normal" color="red">Etc 23:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree.  Punk rock was all about three chords and the truth - the idea that passion, a desire to be heard, and a 'fuck the begrudgers' attitude was all you needed to write a great song changed everything in popular culture.   Out went the dreadful, self-indulgent tired old musos who could play the shit out of a triple-necked Gibson in a half-hour guitar solo, but who had completely missed the wood for the trees when it came to the idea of writing a powerful, meaningful song.   In came a yell, a thrashed-at crap guitar bought for twenty quid in the Oxfam shop, a haircut and a mighty fine three minute song like Teenage Kicks, played by people who had learnt to play their instruments last Tuesday.   No-one in The Human League had ever actually learned to play the piano but still they came up with some of the most simple and sublime pop songs of the Eighties.   Andy's right - the mere fact of expertise is not enough, it's all about inspiration.   But his argument is so arse-about-face that it's simply impossible to agree with him.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 00:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy has a great point about the insights of nonexperts. The problem is, being Andy (that is, a pathologically obsessive absolutist), he has to figure out a tortured way to refine his definition so that it does not include any people or projects he dislikes. So Wikipedia which has a series of incredibly arcane protocols for resolving conflicts, is the "worst of the public"; whereas Conservapedia where 40%+ of the mainspace material is by editors who have now been blocked for parody or heresy, is the "best of the public." Since every insight explains everything and is never contradicted, it naturally follows that "Wikipedia has never helped a single student in any meaningful way." Nuance is for liberals! <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 00:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Raw-assed, passionate punk rock and wikipedia, to me, would be the best two examples of the "best of the public".  It's ironic that, really WP is the sublime perfect example of what people - just regular folks - can do given the right inspiration and software.  For fuck's sake, the mediawiki software that it continually pushes to new heights makes insane places like RW possible.  01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm with Wodewick on this one. Andy is incapable of finding a middle ground, he has to take everything to extremes. I hope someone has the nerve to point out the WP analogy to him to see how he reacts. 03:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a fan of punk here, I think that the "self-indulgent" Rock was an echo of the Baroque period of music, and had it continued to develop, it would have become as timeless as Beethoven. Instead we are bombarded with "powerful, meaningful songs" that are neither powerful nor meaningful. In the words of A.J. Ayer, nothing is being said; punk rock is an exclamation with no content or meaning. I will take musicianship and craft over amateurism any day. 74.15.55.175 (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Batman hates punk! --Kels (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(1^2) Andy provides a new definition: "John, an 'expert' is someone who has traditional credentials, is recognized by his peers, and plays the system often to maximize credit for himself. If you're suggesting I'm somehow against learning and hard work, I'm obviously not.  Contributions by non-experts typically, but not necessarily always, are by people who picked up their own knowledge through hard work and non-conventional paths.  There can be 'flashes of genius' too, like the woman who woke up in the middle of the night with verses to the 'Battle Hymn of the Republic.'  If you're determined to deny a role for inspired wisdom, then obviously I'd disagree with you about that." So if you lack the credentials, or you are not recognized by your peers, or you don't play by the rules, then you're not an expert. It doesn't matter the skills and experience you have, just whether or not you're positively political.

I'll just point out that Andy has fully admitted he's not an expert in anything. Remind him of this with any socks you can burn whenever he asserts his expertise in anything. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder how RJJ is taking all this. EddyP (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if andy knows that Battle Hymn of the Republic is an abolitionist song, and that it has a long and fruitful history amongst liberals and liberal politics.--WJThomas (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Andy, he's not exactly a slavery apologist (had he been alive in 1850, however, I have no doubts he'd staunchly defend the practice). He considers abolitionism a conservative trait, because everything that is currently widely considered positive is, of course, conservative, and everything bad is liberal (hence both communism and Nazism are liberal). He likes to cite that the Republican Party was as close to an anti-slavery party as you'd get (as if the Republican Party of today and of 150 years ago are interchangeable), and the act that most abolitionists were Christian (as were slave owners, and basically everyone else). So, yeah, it's a conservative anthem. DickTurpis (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. While he's not quite dumb enough to come right out and call for the re-institution of slavery, he's certainly taken a number of positions to try to deny the USA's culpability in same.  "It's not our fault--the Africans and Arabs forced it on us."  "Triangle trade?  Myth!".  Stuff like that.--WJThomas (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, he will deny America's involvement as much as he can (which really isn't all that much, as it was pretty significant), but that's still him trying to distance what he considers good from what he considers bad. He completely considers abolitionists to be conservative. After all, they were mostly home-schooled! DickTurpis (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's just andy trying to take credit for a popular position that he doesn't agree with, like pointing out Republicans were instrumental in getting civil rights laws passed in the '60s (while simultaneously railing against same every time it comes up).--WJThomas (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy's definition is pretty good. He's separating 'expert' from 'expertise,' obviously, but he is also trying to find room for divine inspiration in all of this. I don't think we should denounce the Romantic idea of the genius loci. Some amateurs are genuinely inspired by their own latent genius; some experts are totally lacking in genius but make up for it in dedication to training and practice. Now, obviously, it would be best to have inspiration AND expertise, which would make one an authentic expert, and worthy of accolades. Andy contradicts common sense, but that doesn't mean he's wrong even if he says this in the most brutal and idiotic way possible. He is not an expert because he has no inspiration, though he would love NOTHING BETTER than to hear the voice of God (He should drop some cid with Syd, but DIRTY LIBERAL COMMUNIST HIPPIE ATHEIST HERETIC NAZI ANTISEMITE OBAMA CENSORSHIP EUROPEAN TOBACCO SMOKER) 74.15.55.175 (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pedantry corner: BoN; you might like to look up "genius loci". I don't think it means what you think it means. 01:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He may be on to something, but his definition is still crap, because he insists on creating a false duality between experts and non-experts, just so that he can favor one over the other. The most accurate definition of "expert" is someone who has achieved expertise at something. Therefore Olympic runners, professional singer/songwriters, and genius mathematicians working out of mom's basement are experts. Idiots "translating" the bible without knowing a word of Ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic are not. Junggai (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The brilliant mind behind most of cp:Best_of_the_Public has now been rewarded with block rights. --Retwa (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's good. Another RW wandal infiltrated without needing to be Bugler. Congratulations, you undercover genius. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * <Pedantry Corner> "American Pie," the only[my emphasis] hit by Don McClain[sic], one of the most thoughtful ballads to top the charts for several weeks . "Vincent", anyone? </Pedantry corner> (sorry if this's been brought up before) 02:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, wait, I got it
Next insight... Expert values! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nailed it. 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Closely followed by a list of "Experts Who Were Wrong, About Something." <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 22:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perelman will be his new poster boy. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 22:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And Tiger Woods (celebrity and expert; 2 for one!), perhaps.  23:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I predict a "List of achievements by non-experts" in the style of the one that already exists about teenagers. KlapauciusEsteemed Constructor 23:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder: will Andy will be the first one to start that kind of article, or will a parodist beat him to it? 00:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ten goats to the person who starts such an article and doesn't get it deleted for parody. Make it count, boys and girls. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrationalatheist FTW. --SpinyNorman (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay, accounts created to sneak this in. Wish me luck! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't tell it here! 16:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What? No one will figure it out. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

HelenF
Anyone see what she put on Andy's talk page that he saw fit to memory hole? He said she was fooling herself, so I doubt she just wrote 'fuck' one hundred times. Probably something more substantial. EddyP (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw what she wrote. It was criticizing Andy for letting all of these usernames to be created. Basically, she told him that he should have more control over his site or else stop calling it family friendly. Nothing WIGO worthy. Keegscee (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) During a period of 45 minutes when no one was minding the store and night editing still hadn't been turned off, someone socked up and created about 25 different user names with various penile connotations. As soon as Andy came with his lapdog BenP to turn on normal editing and block all of the new accounts, HelenF wrote a ridiculous post on Andy's talk page to the extent of "Mister Schlafly, I signed up at CP to read a family-friendly encyclopedia, and what do I see but a bunch of new user names that would make a sailor blush! How dare you allow this, Mister Schlafly!" Junggai (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Moronic vandalism. Keegscee (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ....so basically it was someone's lame attempt at making Andy look bad for a whole 10 seconds. Lame. 23:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I have to admit, usernames such as "GiganticVeinyBoner" are pretty damn funny! 19:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Karajou's Cartoons
There are many fundemental problems here. They just aren't funny and he's far too full of hate to express any subtlety. They are usually much too wordy, the current one being a good example of that, and lack any punch. But worst of all they speak far more about Karajou's prejuidices than about conservatism, liberalism or whatever else. For example the current one - why does he think liberals are unable to welcome people? Has he looked at how people are treated who visit Conservapedia? I wonder which of those doors best represents the brand of conservatism practised by Andy et al. And why the empty bottles? Are Liberals all drunks now? Is it wrong to have a drink at Christmas? And did the characters of Scrooge & Marley express Liberal or Andyland Conseravtive values? Keep projecting Karajou. Your weekly (weakly) toons are the high point of my week. StarFish (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that cartoon meant to imply that Scrooge and Marley are cohabiting in a gay relationship? It's certainly the most novel take on A Christmas Carol I've seen in a while. -- 13:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "full of hate" really nails it. The one thing that makes it a bit funny is the fact that Kara's cartoon acts as a "LIBERALS SUCK! GO AWAY! YOU'RE NOT WELCOME HERE!" sign on CP's main page, just like the signs on the "liberal's" door there. Merry Christmas indeed. --Sid (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In Karajou's thesaurus, "hate" and "mockery" are synonyms for "wit". Goodwill towards men, indeed.  --SpinyNorman (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it funny that Andy tolerates his 'toons on his "family friendly encyclopedia." I'm surprised he hasn't told Karajou to tone it down. 14:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy has previously endorsed the mockery of liberals on CP in multiple instances. Why an online encyclopedia should have front-page editorial cartoons is a better question, but if the guy can reinvent the Bible he can redefine what an encyclopedia is.  --SpinyNorman (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Karajou's strawpeople aside, I do want a doormat that says "Go home now". Internetmoniker (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They are available. The Irish one says "Feck off" or you could just have "Go Away". My favourite is the one that says "Nice underwear".  16:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think that Karajoujoujou really thinks liberals (as conservapedia defines them; ie anyone who isn't a hardline right-wing young-earth-creationist) are like that? If he does, then what a poor motherfucker...  19:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd try that cartoon site this time. Internetmoniker (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny how a prefab cartoon is just as good if not better than one of Karajou's. 03:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

BotP gets even more idiotic
User: "Juries are a great example of the Best of the Public! They aren't a panel of lawyers." Except that the user readily admits that the juries get instructions on how to do their job from an expert (judge), and forgets that only evidence provided and testimony acquired by questions come from experts (lawyers). So a panel of "the public," which is or isn't "the best," decides whether one side of a case presented itself better, or whether there is any reasonable doubt left of guilt of the defendant. How, on earth, is this "the best of the public" against "experts?" --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty soon even professional sports will be "Best of the Public." 15:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: HOLY FUCK!! I CALLED IT!!! 21:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you were being ironic, what with the Olympics being one of the first examples. Internetmoniker (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tetronian wins π internets. -- <font color="#006666" >JArneal   22:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am calling marriage as the BotP-- the expert (priest) is required to stay celibate.  23:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I laughed my balls off at the inclusion of Melville. While it is true that Melville wrote what some consider the greatest American novel. it was not well received by the public when it was written.  He would largely be forgotten if it weren't for those pesky experts in New York who kept the book circulating around their own circles and the publishers that decided to give it another shot.... Of course, in Andy's world, they probably weren't experts.  00:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)  Ps, greetings from Anchorage and happy hollidays
 * The whole BotP thing is just spinning out of control. Soon the "Best of the Public" is going to include, well, experts. Except they'll just be called something different, like "the best of best of the Public". 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What someone really needs to write to help us tell the difference is cp:Essay:Quantifying_expertise. --Retwa (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a Wonderful Life WIGO
I'd like to rework this one, because while I thought Andy's comments were WIGO-worthy stupidity the current entry seems to miss the point. It's a Wonderful Life opens with God recapping the life of a good person who hit hard times, and then sending an angel to help him find hope again. It really amazes me that somehow Andy can twist this into being a humanist story rather than one anchored in faith and Christian values. I have to wonder what part of the movie offends him, and the only thing I can come up with is that George Bailey is a rather poor capitalist because he is such a good-hearted humanitarian. Only Andy can say, though. --SpinyNorman (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the worst movie criticism since his irrational dislike of Forrest Gump, I think. -- <font color="#006666" >JArneal   20:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought Andy was catholic. He seems to be promoting the idea of Sola Fide there. Internetmoniker (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In conservistan, catholic is Andy. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The opening is two angels talking; God doesn't actually have any lines in the movie. Also weakening Andy's point: just before the deus-ex-machina ending, Donna Reed advises the Bailey children to "Pray. Pray very hard." - Poor Excuse (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but are they praying in a classroom? Obviously this movie is a liberal propaganda piece against classroom prayer. ;) Frummidge (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I bet not even 5% of that movie portrays people reading or translating the bible. Internetmoniker (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The movie had free will and chose to reject logic. The bible is the most logical book ever written, and if George had simply read a Psalm or two, everything would have been fine.  00:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Question on inception of CP
Here is something that still puzzles me: did someone suggested Andy to come up with CP or did Andy come up with the whole idea all by himself? 23:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No clue, but I remember someone spamming wikipedians who had conservative userboxes with this:

"I saw that you are a conservative Wikipedian. Would you like to join Conservapedia as a editor? Conservapedia is looking for good editors and Admins. Please send me your email if you want to join Conservapedia. If you feel reticient about giving out your email address you can simply create a new account at hotmail and yahoo so you don't risk getting a lot of junk mail. Regional123 02:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Regional123"


 * As I recall, response was underwhelming. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just look at the sig: "Regional123 02:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Regional123" <-- This was Ken's trademark signing style in early 2007 (and one of the many indicators that helped people identify Ken's socks at that time - he has become a little bit smarter about his socking since then): "~username" As far as I recall, no other early CP editor ever signed that way. See for example here and here Also note the throwaway name that never came up on CP and was only used to spam on Wikipedia for a very short time: --Sid (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: Guess who suggested exactly this spamming tactic to Andy the day before it happened... --Sid (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, andy went to WP to add some conservative "facts" ("Jesus was the original stand-up comedian", and, "Pretty leaves are proof of God"), but was reverted and chastised and instructed to read the rules and guidelines. Which, not incidentally, is what happens to pretty much every newbie there. andy, though, took it as a personal affront, and took his ball elsewhere to play (so there!). Or something to that effect. --WJThomas (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

My idea is the act of suggesting Andy to start CP is one of the biggest trolling act ever (that, or some big experiment regarding what if one is given godlike powers in some domain). But if he come up with the idea of starting CP all by himself then we are only witnessing how far can one's stupidity can go. 03:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The "official story" is that during Andy's world history class one of his student handed up a copy and paste job from Wikipedia with BCE and CE as the dating method. He saw this as liberal bias and decided using "the technology we have available today" (the stuff MediaWiki is giving away for free, that it writes for Wikipedia) they could start their own Wikipedia. At first it was him and his homeschoolers writing articles for marks. A few year later and here we are. 04:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed Poor admiring Ben P.
A few days old, this indicates some serious love. And that for a public school teacher (apparently). Internetmoniker (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Was that info public before Ed outed it? And how the Hell did a public school teacher ever make it past Andy's initial screening? --Sid (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Geez, Ed's got his kneepads strapped on, duzzintee?--WJThomas (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And why the hell is he editing a user's page? Especially an established one?  I know it happens all the time, to "de-red" some of the soon to be disposed of newbies, but, really?   03:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that's just creepy. Ed, you've outdone yourself. 03:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

JacobB WIGO
first of all, he's a parodist, so who the fuck cares what he does? second, it IS kind of weird that a KKK photo would be more common in history books than say the naked girl running from napalm, the nuking of japan, or something like that. l2 write wigos. 00:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That WIGO left me kinda "Eh", but not because of the reasons above, but rather because it seems to be more about the content of the book and less about the antics on CP. At least until Jacob decides to actually implement any of this stuff... --Sid (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he promises to add more to the list on that page, which is already hilarious. And the first page of the book, in the introduction, I spotted a lul... How can anyone know history and *not* know the KKK resurfaced in the 1910s and 1920s in the US, and became very prominent right after WW1 ended? Of course there will be photos of them from that era! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Liberals want to ban pets"
Well, actually they do. Or so say some of the wackier people I talk to. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Countdown to that exact link appearing on the main page in 3...2...1... 03:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The delegate that proposed this is from Guam. This bill actually makes a lot of sense there given the island has been overrun by foreign species.  Cgb07305

Mark Reed Levin
How the fuck does Gay Bowel Syndrome related to Mark Reed Levin? The screenie got from one of those WIGO's; at least the other screenie got something remotely mentioning the stuff in discussion. 03:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, I think that was when Jpatt moved a whole bunch of articles around for no apparent reason. When people went "Dude, WTF?", he justified it by babbling about fighting evil bot attacks or something. This also gave us this move for example. Oh, and more Gay Bowel Moves. --Sid (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Uncle Ed: "It's typical of liberals to muddy waters..."
Brilliant WIGO. "How dare those liberals play their little word games! An expert means an expert, unless it means expertise, which is completely different. And unless by expert you mean an Olympic athlete or professional pitcher, which are clearly not experts. Or unless you mean professors who disagree with other professors, because they're not experts either. Only a liberal would pretend to misunderstand this!"Junggai (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

'Barry from DC'
Just got alerted to this article. Without wishing to make it happen - how long do we think before CP goes conspiracy-mad and claims that this backs up the 'Barry Soetoro' nonsense? 12:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They already joke about it. It won't be long before they're serious about it. 13:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Karajou + Production Values =
 Pauley the Patriot! 

See here or here or here...

When you cut out the need for a punchline it turns out you can squeeze a comic into two panels. Genius! <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 23:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Paranoid little bugger, ain't he? --Kels (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Remaining Vigilant" one (last one in the list above) is pretty deep: The candle is labeled "Liberty", and he's studying the Bill of Rights while watching out for trouble by liberals enemies within and without. Now think about that one for a moment: That candle called Liberty is going to burn down thanks to this asshat. All in the name of 9/11. I mean... seriously, could you sum up the 9/11 aftermath fuckup in just two panels while still looking like a paranoid lunatic good conservative? --Sid (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, I think the Daily Show book hit the nail on head with it's parody of Mallard Fillmore (and conservative cartoons in general).
 * I don't get them. At all.  The content is even worse than Karagoogoo's efforts.  11:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Beatles
Truly gob-smacking. Nothing more to say. Except to point out he forgot to abuse other pointless wasters like Elvis, the Rolling Stones, Queen, etc who should all have given up after their first hit to win the coveted Schlafly seal of approval. The Real James Brown (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy really has a thing for one-hit wonders. Apparently that's the threshold between expert and "public": a second hit. I do agree with him though: "Who let the dogs out" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Strawberry Fields Forever". Internetmoniker (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * INFIDEL! The Real James Brown (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh but I could go on. That song with "A little bit of Monica lalalala..." >>>>>>>>> "In my life" Internetmoniker (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm ignoring you. 12:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC) The Real James Brown (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering what categorises the Beatles as 'experts'? Apart from their success of course, which apparently doesn't count, because Joe Dolce's 'Shaddupa Ya Face' is clearly better.  Andy's really reaching now.  11:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Acclaim makes you an expert. The Beatles are acclaimed so experts. Perelman doesn't want acclaim so he is "best of the public". Andrew Schlafly is a nobody so he > "a group of experts". I'm predicting Van Gogh will be BOTP in a coming update. Internetmoniker (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ringo Starr isn't even the best drummer in the Beatles": definitely an expert, then. 11:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This whole exchange, btw, shows Schlafly Skimming at its best. Junggai (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this make Spike Jones and his City Slickers experts? Ps, Internetmoniker, the song is Mambo Number 5, recorded by Lou Bega.  12:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's an example of Andy's Law, i.e. that Andy is unintentionally Conservapedia's foremost innovator in the field of parody. Only Andypants could get away with calling the Beatles experts (Sir Paul McCartney still can't read music).
 * Andy rating unspecified "one hit wonders" over the Beatles is also weirdly reminiscent of the time he was asked to provide an example of Jesus-approved comedy and came up with Trading Places. Did Phyllis raise him in a nuclear bunker or something? <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 12:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)As regards the whole 'Beatles are experts' thing, if that's what Andy wants to say, that's fine. Just recently, here in the UK, their albums were remastered and re-released for the first time in many years. Five of them went straight back into the top 20, with four of those five being in the top ten, and I believe they also did pretty well when re-released in the US. They also broke several records, for example, by having 16 albums in the top 75 UK albums (if you include the boxsets of all their albums), they broke the record for having the most albums in the charts simultaneously. I would say being able to do that with albums that are 30-40 years old is pretty strong evidence that, in this case, the 'experts' are better than 'the best of the public'. 92.22.222.250 (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but did all that chart topping stuff provide as much dancing, joy and all around fun as the macarena? The answer is NO. Los Del Rio 1 Beatles 0. Internetmoniker (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it the BotP who purchase the albums en masse to put them in the Top 20? Clearly, the best of the public rules in this case.   14:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The top 20 is a mobocracy, not BOTP. Tsss.... Internetmoniker (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Having finally climbed back into my chair and cleaned the coffee off my keyboard... I don't even know where to go on this one. Andy is so far out in lala-I-can't-hear-you land here. He should have just dropped the pop music thing when it was pointed out that it didn't fit his claims. Funny thing is you could argue there were two distinct versions of the Beatles regarding their expertise in songwriting. If they had crashed and burned after, say, "I Want to Hold Your Hand" they would have been BotP. They most certainly were not expert songwriters in the early years, they were just very talented and inspired by many influences. However, taking an arbitrary turning point, by the time of Rubber Soul/Revolver, they most certainly were expert songwriters - John and Paul, and even George, had reached the point where they could pull a simple idea out of the air and craft a great pop song out of it. They had also become very accomplished on their instruments - not virtuosi, but very accomplished. Side note, Macca can read music, remember he wrote that second-rate "classical" piece years ago? I'm still growling and laughing to myself. If that woman writing the Battle Hymn in her sleep is BotP, surely Paul writing (the melody for) Yesterday in his sleep counts too? Of course, I suppose his managing to come up with such compelling lyrics to go with his haunting little melody might be expert songwriting... In closing, Andy is proving himself to be a moron in so many fields where there is no need for him to be stupid in order to be "conservative". 20:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find any one-hit-wonders in the top 100 songs in the Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. But then Rolling Stone editors are either experts or a mobocracy, not the best of the public, so what business do they have telling us that Don McLean (I had to wipe tea off my monitor - this guy had a dozen songs chart in the US and UK over 20 years - hardly a one-hit-wonder) is better than the Beatles. 21:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One hit wonders are hard to define, but I think on that list "Louie, Louie" and "A whiter shade of pale" are the most famous examples. Internetmoniker (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that Procol Harum is a very influential band that had several records, not just singles, on the charts in the US and UK after White Shade of Pale. The Kingsmen are a better example, although even they also had a few additional tracks chart in the US after Louie Louie. 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why one hit wonders are so hard to define, but these two records are often given as examples of the phenomenon. It's relative, "A whiter shade of pale" was on top of the charts for a long time and no other song by Procol Harum reached that again(most people probably can't even name another) so they're a "one hit wonder". Internetmoniker (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The cover of Spirit in the Sky by Doctor and the Medics, c.1985, is another. I think they play pub sessions nowadays. The Real James Brown (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Julia Ward Howe wrote the text of "Battle Hymn" in the middle of the night, not the music, which was already a popular tune with other words. Sure, this counts as BoP, but it's not really that impressive, not as if she were a non-musician who wrote a whole song herself. Who hasn't written a couple verses when they're inspired? Now, if she had woken up and come up with elegant verses in German, that might be a miracle of the type Andy believes it to be. Junggai (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point - before I became a "musican" I used to sometimes make up my own lyrics to existing songs. Are I an espert nao?  01:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't believe I missed this. The Beatles, Andy? Really? Well, now it really is official, he is crazy. --[[Image:Flag of Soviet Canuckistan.svg|30px|IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!]] <font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Yossarian <font face="Arial Black" color="#CC0000">The Man from the USSR 12:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A Christmas of reflection?
Last year at this time, Andy promoted six new sysops. This year, will we see anything? CP doesn't even have six regular non-sysop editors anymore. EddyP (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he just gave JacobB block rights... 13:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And another parodist makes it in without having to be Bugler. Those were the days, when you had to act batshit insane and be a real asshole to get blocking rights. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * JacobB has had block rights for ages. I'm talking sysopships. EddyP (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Jacob had some asshole phases in the recent past, but I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly. And I think it was BenP who got block rights recently. Though yeah, not real sysopship. --Sid (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Benp, that's who I meant. But I doubt he'll do his usual New Years routine of giving out sysopships. There's just no one to give them to. 16:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh wow.... Has it really been almost a year since this? What a finale that was. -- <font color="#006666" >JArneal   22:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

New Schlafly-ism
I've been inspired by the recent BotP WIGOS and talk to coin a new phrase, the Schlafly Stretch, which basically describes a recursive chain of mind-bending, reality-distorting rationalizations, trying to justify an untenable position, where conceding the point would involve personal embarrassment. Feel free to improve it or add more examples. --SpinyNorman (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The implications of this insight are amazing!" 16:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect, SpinyNorman. Can't believe this one didn't exist, a lot of hilarious WIGOs were created due to this. --GTac (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so can anyone explain what he's trying to mean, succinctly? In one reply he implies that it's a result of the "invisible hand" of collaboration. In the next it's self-trained smart people who are outside the elite.  In the next it's geniuses who aren't recognized or are shunned.  18:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I always use imagery. Imagine a rubber band, that represents "The Best of the Public". When someone questions or corners him on the definition, he grabs the rubber band and distorts it to his will, changing it. Another critic, another shape. He'll keep redefining the definition of BotP as long as it suits him, because to him, no matter how often he changes the meaning, the rubber band is still a rubber band. Confused? So am I. [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]<font face="Comic Sans"><font color = "Green">Norseman  Cyser Melomel  18:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it is all of the above. The insights reveal themselves gradually but everything supports everything else. Internetmoniker (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All his thoughts are facets of the same timecube, so they interact harmoniously in support of each other. --SpinyNorman (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * SpinyNorman's new Schlafly-ism is yet another example of what the best-of-the-public can create! A round of internet beer to toast SpinyNorman, not an expert! --Simple (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. By coining a phrase, SpinyNorman has made himself an expert, and thus not best-of-the-public.  If he'd claimed that RationalWiki, a group of public non-expertadors, had congealed the concept of the Schlafly Stretch, then it would be BotP.  Of course, RationalWiki is largely liberal, and thus expert... so it'd be an attempt to silence BotP, rather than an example of BotP...  18:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As this phrase is relatively new, and has not yet been embraced by the clique of experts here I think we could tentatively describe this as BotP. This can change if: (A) the phrase gains wide acceptance entering common parlance and becoming part of groupthink or (B) Spinynorman has more "hits" with other phrases and articles. Internetmoniker (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe SpinyNormanis a one-hit wonder -- in which case he'd be an expert. (I'm conveniently ignoring SN's previous contributions).--Simple (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought one hit wonders were examples of BotP, not experts. 19:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, if they aren't an example of BotP now, they will be by tomorrow. 19:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I reject the acceptance of SpinyNorman's coined term, and instead invent my own, "Schlafly Stretching," it is hereby proof that the best of the public is better than a group of experts, thereby proving Andy correct. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the operative definition of BotP simply "Somebody Ashafly approves of"? And the operative definition of expert is the opposite. --Fawlty (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Andy doesn't approve of me? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He wouldn't let it lie
Are they mad? Still on about "Hussein", the birth cert, "Soetoro", & the muslimicity. Fucking mad! 19:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "He was a practicing muslim" O RLY? --Kels (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's news to me. EddyP (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably news to him, too. --Kels (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone brown or darker is, or was at some point, a practicing muslim. Open your minds. X Stickman (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Karajou makes me sick. I'd type horrible things about him but then he could have me arrested. 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm surprised this hasn't come up sooner, seeing as Andy used to be obsessed with it. Although I suppose he wanted to brush it under the rug because of his newfound publicity. Many thanks to Karajou for bringing it up again and making CP look even stupider.  04:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Season of goodwill
I feel like giving up Schlafly-baiting. The recent utterances of this llama-brained gink are beyond parody. "Galileo achieved nothing substantial"! How arrogant. Then he thinks he has the right to deny the teaching of his church - right or wrong, it's what it has taught for 1600 years - about the contents of the Bible, just because certain passages might make him switch his brain on and think about his weasley little prejudices. Just as arrogant.

Surely anyone reading CP - e.g. parents of home-schooled kids, especially the god-fearing sort - must be able to see that Schlafly has completely run out of credibility.

Can anyone on the western side of the Atlantic tell me if the Schlaflys (A., P. or any of them) are taken seriously? When they say "go forth and smite unbelieving lib'rulls", do hordes of rednecks get ready to do some smiting? Or are they just a joke?

PS Apologies to llamas everywhere.

PPS I don't know what a gink is either. Maybe something slimy with too many legs. The Real James Brown (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh!  14:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy's long since fallen off the edge. It's like he fell off of the edge, landed, and then walked off of another, in some sick, twisted giant metaphorical staircase of insanity. ENorman (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Metaphorically, Andy took a long fall while climbing a Tree of Conservatism planted by his mother about 45 years ago, and hit his head on many branches of arrogance and ignorance on the way down. He then took the biggest branch his head broke off, and made it into the club he uses to this day.  --SpinyNorman (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You two Normans should make comics of what you've just said. Not only would it smash Karajou's Krap Komics (KKK, see what I did thar?), but you could make millions. MILLIONS! As for the credibility, I see the Colbert Report stuff as a good thing. Sure, it wasn't an ownage interview type of ordeal, but Andy's craziness shines through any sort of sugar-coating he can muster. More viewers results in more parodies, more wandals, more lulz, and a deeper delving into Andy's Brillo pad logic. [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]<font face="Comic Sans"><font color = "Green">Norseman  Cyser Melomel  17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Phyllis Schlafly's real influence is a thing of the past. Her claim to fame was opposing abortion, feminism, and a constitutional amendment in the 70's. In other words, she was a really helpful advocate for women's issues in the United States - someone all women should be proud of for having helped bring the treatment of women up to medieval standards. Since then she's tried to expand into addressing "conservative" issues more broadly, but she's an old woman and her Eagle Forum outfit isn't particularly influential unless I'm missing something. It also seems pretty far right of what centrist Republicans want for the party these days. By contrast, Andy Schlafly, who has so far been unable to make a big name for himself except as the butt of jokes and hasn't done anything substantial on his own like his mother did (don't mistake this observation for approving Phyllis' message) except diminish the better efforts of real educators skews farther and farther to the irrelevant. His start was auspicious enough: a fine education and the scintillating promise of coattailing his mother's political cache if he couldn't make it as a lawyer (he couldn't). But he squandered any opportunity he had to be a well-regarded activist. Just Google him yourself - he's a first class nobody. The overwhelming majority of references are to people making fun of him and Conservapedia. You'll find some really savage assumptions being made about his character and intelligence. That's the internet. There are a small number of references to Schlafly's breast cancer/abortion lies and legal work for the tiny AAPS. Even his mother addressed him disapprovingly on the radio show we were talking about in June. 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? What did she say? EddyP (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conservapedia:Andy_Schlafly_on_Eagle_Forum_Live 21:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said Nutty. I would add that CP is probably Andy's attempt to live up to his mother's legacy, but obviously that attempt has failed enormously. 18:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Andy felt that the Colbert Report was his finest hour. Check out the changes to cp:Template:Mainpageright by Andy. First of all he did a countdown to its airing and then he updated the online view counts as well as several minor tweaks. If I wan't so busy I'd make all those changes into an blog-type article. 19:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tetronian, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. The Harvard Republican Club has entrusted Andy with a very important job. He handles (or handled) the orders for t-shirts and mugs. That's a fast track to the White House if ever I saw one. Obama may have wasted his time at Harvard, but Andy knew what he was doing.-- 20:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly Andy's path to success was far more concise than Obama's. 21:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CR, that's Andy Jr. --Retwa (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who quite coincidentally also happens to be CR . BTW where did his two edits go? 17:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

craps something ugly on everyone's page
Merry Christmas to everyone! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And they've only been shat upon the admins pages.  05:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The same old lying plagiarist as always. 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

wants more attention from us
First there was the blatant copyright infringement (a Google image search for Merry Christmas Neon revealed the source as the first return), and now chides someone for responding to a thread that TeaKake says is "very old." December 15, 2009 to December 19, 2009, is very old? Just admit you hate people,, and stop bothering to respond to anyone. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't take away the fact TK is a dick, but the thread was a year old, not 4 days as you mention. Internetmoniker (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. This is the best stuff. He shows how fucking stupid and deceitful all the other people are. Then he snubs established editors. It's all gold. Keep it up, Terry. Good fun. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The person he's responding to thread-wise was almost a year old, but there was a post on the 15th. He returned with a new name on the 19th, and complained that the original was "very old," ignoring that the new point raised (about the photo) wasn't old at all. It was an excuse just to be a dick. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"NO! I made it! How dare you lie!", you can't delete the evidence the user brought up. You didn't make the file, fucknut. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Paranoid style
My Seminar (or free study, or whatever, you wanna call the class) teacher recently gave me an article that he just found lying around about Paranoia in "modern" American political rhetoric and whatnot (I put modern in quotation marks, because it was written in the 1960's, but most of what is said in it still holds true). I have been very frustrated myself with what I saw as people that so convinced themselves that they were victims that they could ignore inconvenient facts, and be self-righteous about it! This article seemed to, at some points, be talking about what I had been thinking. Towards the end, the writer gives a description of one of these paranoids that just screamed to me, "Andy" (well, not literally, the paper was, other then a few complaints about how disorganized my backpack was, mostly inanimate throughout the entire time I was reading it). I am not great at articulating my thoughts (well, not in formal writing anyway, it comes out jarbled, and repetitive, and liable to go off on tenuously related tangents) I want to know what you guys think of it The Paranoid Style in American Politics The Double Sufferer

"The paranoid style is not confined to our own country and time; it is an international phenomenon. Studying the millennial sects of Europe from the eleventh to the sixteenth century, Norman Cohn believed he found a persistent psychic complex that corresponds broadly with what I have been considering—a style made up of certain preoccupations and fantasies: “the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque."
 * You'd never heard or read of this before? It's an excellent piece, which has become all the more relevant in light of the birthers, teapartiers, and what not. 05:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Passerby25, you and Bert Schlossberg have a very similar writing style. Keegscee (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Shut your face Keegscee, Double Stuffer's post is quite excellent, opposed to Bert's rambling. And man, I've never seen a better definition of Andy's paranoia than that quote. --GTac (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Expert Error
I figure the next step is going to be "Expert Values". 12:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See "Wait wait I got it" (or whatever it's called) above 12:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. But now Andy's actually creating articles about it, so it won't be long now. 12:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please someone point out that Edison thought AC electricity is dangerous. 82.23.209.253 (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's add a few good quotes from religious leaders in the 19th century endorsing slavery, Henry Ford's praise for Hitler, WMD in Iraq being a "Slam dunk", (and Cheney insisting for years after the invasion that the WMD were still there and would be found). --SpinyNorman (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bill Gates and 64k of RAM ought to be on there. 21:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Jpatt is censoring himself
While removing 2 month old Colbert vandalism, jpatt forgot to put Obadiah back. Don't you read the bible during 5% of your spare time John? How can you forget Obadiah? I bet you approve censoring classroom prayer also. Godspeed! Internetmoniker (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Ed Bipolar?
Not to beat the recent Ed WIGOs to death, but I'm at a loss as to how he can jump all over a newbie like this, and within a few hours make this comment:
 * "But as for me, I'll just say that there have been many times when the "credentialed crowd" has used their credentials as a crowbar to hit newcomers over the head when they challenged mainstream expertise. That's the real story here."

He really doesn't see it, does he? --SpinyNorman (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What does any of that have to do with bipolar disorder?  20:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More of a cognitive dissonance thing, but he does seem to swing wildly from one position to the other. Close enough. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's rather pathetic, really. Ed is just trying to stake his claim as personifying the Best of the Public. --Fawlty (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed couldn't be the best of a room he's alone in. --Kels (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is all rather lèse majesté. User 188 should be treated with reverence not mockery. 00:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * User 188 is not a man to be trifled with. --[[Image:Flag of Soviet Canuckistan.svg|30px|IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!]] <font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Yossarian <font face="Arial Black" color="#CC0000">The Man from the USSR 07:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Watch out, Albatross about.
I like how Andy dropped 'neck' from the phrase "Albatross around one's neck" changing the meaning somewhat. Having an albatross follow you is actually good luck, it's killing them that gets you into all kinds of trouble. Jaxe (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Google word counts
I'm sure we're all familiar with the tactic of using google hit counts to determine the usage of any given phrase when compared to another. This is used on CP with less frequency of late, but still on occasion occurs when a sysop wants to "prove" that one term is more often used. But the people over at Language Log and The Lousy Linguist recently touched on the matter, remarking that such comparisons were almost completely useless. Mentioned here tangentially:"(And by the way, just to confirm the observation that Google counts no longer have even order-of-magnitude comparative validity in matters of usage (if they ever did), Google gives us 1,610,000 hits for 'grandpa and grandma', compared to 577,000 for 'grandma and grandpa'.)"It's expanded here and here. The latter points out the reason why a more restrictive query will often return results much higher than the same query, unrestricted. Further, the number of results can depend heavily on specific and individual repetition of a restricted query. I was just wondering where this might best be discussed. Are there any relevant articles we can add this too? Is it already covered?--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 23:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Humbug!
Jimmy Stewart, as Andy: http://splicd.com/40E4zo7BbQY/328/341 --WJThomas (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hee hee, indeed (but boo to colourised versions). --<font face="arial" color="#000000">sloqɯʎs puɐ suƃıs <font color="#000000">uɐɪɹɐssoʎ 07:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (I didn't want to sully the original by associating it with andy, so I sullied the already-sullied version).--WJThomas (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, with so few left to promote...
Some holiday promotions. Slim pickings, eh, Andy? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Christ on an easter stick, "high quality edits for over a year" gets a user "block rights"? If Andy's in a fucking Christmas mood, maybe he could unblock me?  I never did anything wrong on his blog... except that "silly editing pattern" thing, whatever that means.  08:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying this'll probably get me burned as.....
....a heretic round these parts, but I quite liked Benp's Christmas poem. I'm fucking sick to the back teeth of the obsession with STUFF at Christmas, and think the suggestion of trying to love one another a little bit more is a good one.

Merry Christmas liberal vandals :)

Steve Kay (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good for you, many of us might feel the same way. Personally, I'm just glad the Sun God came back once more, who is this baby Jesus critter?  08:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the true meaning of xmas has been forgotten; some time off work, seeing your friends and family, eating to much and getting drunk. Some people seem to be determined to force religion and other nonsense in to it.  08:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know Delta meant that comment in jest, but I would like to remind everyone that Christmas was on its way out (helped along by the Catholic Church, originators of the "War on Christmas") before Charles Dickens almost single-handidly revived it with A Christmas Carol. Also note that Dickens avoided religion almost entirely in his Christmasy tome for a reason.  Just saying....  11:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good for you Steve, but don't think of yourself as a heretic. The only thing more American, predictable, and sickeningly banal than Christmas commercialism is Christmas glurge urging us to be less commercial-minded. I'm "fucking sick" of both, hence the WIGO. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 14:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Aah, without wishing to draw inferences:

 * "That most intelligent people believe in evolution. In fact, the majority of Americans do not believe in evolution."   12:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but the joke wrote itself... "intelligent people" in the first sentence, while just "majority of Americans." Well, plenty of Americans think Sarah Palin is smart and an effective leader. So effective she quit her job about halfway through her term saying she was a lame duck, just so she could sell her book which someone else wrote. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing Andy will just change it to "experts" and move on. 13:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusion: "the majority of Americans" are not in the group of "most intelligent people", implying somehow that the majority of Americans are not intelligent?  17:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You hit upon the inference which I was avoiding. 17:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't make me get out my slapstick, now... I could resemble that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Slapstick is the lowest form of comedy. --Kels (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I always thought sarcasm was the lowest form of comedy. But both were invented by Jesus, so its no big deal. 03:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia is really a white power website
Do these idiots really believe that Obama was born in Kenya? Karajou is still parroting this talking point, in spite of the fact that there were two birth announcements published in Hawaiian newspapers right after Obama's birth. I fail to see how Conservapedia is any different from their counterparts at www.niggermania.net, who ask the real intelligent question ... "Where's your birth certificate, nigger boy?". ConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It gets better: You forgot this part. --Sid (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, who would confuse a newspaper ad for an official govt doc? Duh -- Lipps
 * You are fucking kidding me, right? It wasn't a newspaper "ad", it was an announcement sent directly by Obama's hospital.  And, Jesus H Fucking Christ, Obama posted his birth certificate online for all to see.  Are you illiterate or just that stupid? Inquiring minds want to know. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey now, let's not forget: the birth certificate they posted looks too short and doesn't give us enough information to retroactively stalk Obama and his doctors. Clearly it was a fake created to mock WND. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 21:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My theory is that, for the right, Obama's birth certificate is the equivalent of Bill Clinton's sex life: while the leadership knows that nothing significant will come of it, its something they can use to keep the base at a level of general frothing. They will continue to bring it up for the rest of Obama's Presidency. Even if he does produce what they claim is their gold standard of a "long form certificate", they'll find some other related issue to obsess on. I understand Orly Taitz has even said that even Obama's birth was proven to be in Hawaii, she pland to move on to arguing that he's not a citizen because his father was not a citizen. They will not rest. MDB (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * hey conservapediaediitor, didn't you make the sock ObamaNigger on CP¿ and you are better than them¿ doubt it. I heard libtards were asking Palin for Trigs birth cert. How come Obambi spent 1.7 million to refure release¿ -- Lipp Rider
 * I don't think that CPed etc. realised that English wasn't your first language, 208.54.7.139, apologies for dissing you. (If it turns out that you're ESN, I apologise even more on our behalf) 02:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, get your story straight. My sock was BarackO (along with a few others calling Andy a closeted faggot ... read the WIGO logs, you'll get the context).  ConservapediaEditor (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to the topic, I would not say that Conservapedia is a white power website. They are not out and out racist, they don't dislike Obama so much because he is black rather they dislike him because he is a Democrat. The race card is just an easy wedge strategy. 02:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that all criticism against the President is racism. However, certain memes with no merit (Affirmative action President ... Birth certificate nonsense ... Rev. Wright ... calling Obama a Muslim terrorist) are thinly veiled racial attacks.  ConservapediaEditor (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are undoubtedly racist undertones to all of those arguments. Even if some of our favorite CP-ers aren't outright racists (which they probably are) then there are subliminal racial messages in many of their criticisms. Andy et al. calling Obama an "affirmative action President" must be at least partially racially motivated.   04:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Racist=/=white power. Consider: "I don't like black people because they are different", compare it to: "I don't like black people because they are inferior to white people". 04:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe the "different but equal" crowd to any measure.
 * Tetronian etc.: a lot of the criticism of Obama looks race inspired. Witness the comments of Carter. You may not agree with his observation, but it didn't warrant the hysteria that was whipped up. He was even made to apologize --- what for for God's sake? What was so offensive about it? Pietrow (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Insufferable Gloating
Parodists goad Andy into creating my article. Best. Christmas Present. Ever. :D <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 04:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wodewick wins 1000% internets. Merry Saturnalia Christmas! 04:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Andy's frequent demonstration of difficulty in grammar and spelling becomes one of those "expert errors" then, especially Andy claims expertise in the English language (not an expert, the "best of the public")? 05:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * K54321, I know English isn't your first language, but you mocking Andy for grammatical issues, is sort of funny in itself. But I will say this: you are far more fluent in his "first (and only) language" than he is in yours.  08:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How dare you Human? Mr Schlafly is fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Olde Engli&fnof;h. 15:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I love how users keep poking holes in Andy's pet project. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You people are funny. That's why I like you.  06:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, crap, Andy is now doing math stubbing...
Math stubs coming. I wonder if they'll have the lulz that the history lectures and economic lectures had? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy has an engineering degree, a math stub should be well within scope. You seen Bob the Builder, lets hear it for Andy The Engineer *yay* Hamster (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we bullshit it? Yes we can! 17:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Neon Christmas" picture
First, I apologize for creating a duplicate WIGO. I always check for existing stuff, but I didn't check far enough back. In any case, this has recently taken on a new life.

My count, as of 04:30 EST, is: The image talk page full of amazingly disingenuous sysop comments.
 * Two Three Five users (Yoritomo, DPortnow, ChadR, ChadT, and JasmineQ) permabanned.
 * Two Three edits incinerated, and three others (two unrelated!) get vengeance reverts from TK. Two of those were later reinstated by RJJ.
 * Five additional edits burned (but not yet incinerated)
 * The image talk, with 4 edits, was deep-burned and salted.
 * The image rationale got changed from "I made this" to "fair use" by Ed Poor. (Ed was actually one of the good guys!)

All because TK did one stupid plagiarism with a dishonest edit comment, the sort of thing that CP sysops do all the time.


 * Gee oversighting wreaks havoc on Capturebot, it gets all distorted without a diff table. 05:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is classic CP. They start off by being dishonest, then rather than come clean about the lie, they block people who raise the issue then burn the evidence!  True, conservative christian values.  No deceit there!  The cherry on top of this is the fact that TK's deleted the page on the grounds that it contained lies!  Lies!  Someone pointing out his lie is a lie!

Merry xmas! (I love starting work at 7am on xmas day...) 06:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I once broke the weekly pay rate of a thousand dollars (1982 dollars, at that) by working a double in a factory on 12/25. Good times. 04:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

More BotP
Seriously Andy, I don't think you even know what you are talking about anymore. 17:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What the fuck? That has nothing to do with BotP. 17:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Andy is definitely getting stranger. A bit too much brandy on his Christmas pud, d'ya reckon? -- 17:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, right now it's 12:45 his time. What the hell is he doing editing CP? He should be out with his family (or at least reading the Bible). 17:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's better to write a bible than to read one, you know. --Kels (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * @tet: I thought he might have been called in to turn "night editing" on to stop the Rather stoopid wandalism, but account creation's still on. 17:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the big Obama image is pretty funny vandalism. Keegscee (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Hmm. You know, this could be a subtle hint that Andy really is a long-term, deep cover Poe. You see, I can only really see a solid argument about how the birth of Jesus (or, more accurately, the life of Jesus) is an example of 'the best of the public' is if you believe that Jesus was just an ordinary human, nobody special, who managed to create a cult around himself that has grown and flourished, and is still here after 2000 years or so. Having miraculous powers and being the Son of God kinda removes him from being 'the public', so that would most definitely NOT be an example of 'the best of the public'. Of course, he could be talking about the birth itself, but that's a direct consequence of a direct act of God, according to Christianity, so, unless Andy is arguing that God Himself is part of 'the public', his point is utter nonsense, in that case. 92.1.36.65 (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * God is not an expert - He is Best of the Public.  19:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More to the point, wasn't the Christmas observance started some time later by the established church leadership? In other words, experts. --Kels (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's killed it 21:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He must have realized how nonsensical it sounded. All this BotP stuff reminds me of a C&H quote: "I pragmatically turn my whims into principles!" 00:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is "C&H"? Colmes and Hannity? Surely not...  04:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Calvin and Hobbes Hactar (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh, thanks! 06:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Multi-culti wigo
Way to far ahead of the curve. And in other news, 🇰🇪 is still batshit insane. Nothing he has ever "threatened" to do has ever happened. You know why they don't/can't translate his articles into foreign languages? Because they are written in an unknown language to start with ("Kennish"?). 05:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't he in similar negotiations to translate Conservapedia (defined as "articles by Ken") into Spanish about a year and a half ago or so? --Kels (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing comes of over 90% of his announcements. Judging from his comments on aSK he seems to be pushing to have the one of his articles (probably evolution) named article of the decade. Which means he posted a comment in the sysop group and nobody commented so he took that as a yes. 06:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At Kels, yes, and at Pi, don't you mean 100%? And haha, yeah, will cp:evo be the next article of the year?  Article of the century? (The decade is shortly to be over, it already was the AotD!)  06:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He did once get Denyse O'Leary to link to his article and our article on her. 06:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so 99%. And linking to us as well sort of neuters that dog, doesn't it?  06:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned over on the ASK page, does he seriously think Andy would allow any translation that he can't check personally, word-for-word, to make sure it matches his idea of Conservatism to the letter? He can't check German or Portugese or whatever for parody, so unless it was done by one of his own children (and even then it would be suspect), why would he ever trust it at all? --Kels (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the biggest problem: From what I know, Andy and his trusted sysops don't speak foreign languages to the degree that they'd do better than a machine translation (except for JM, but he doesn't seem to speak English well enough to fully grasp what he'd be supposed to translate), and they won't trust random people offering to do a translation (back during the initial blog rush, some people suggested Spanish/German/whatever versions of CP, and Andy refused because he didn't have anybody to doublecheck the content). And seriously, who would suddenly approach CP with the offer to translate some of the longest articles on the site for free (or for a minor footnote in his pet projects)? I guess Ken's doing this on his own and the articles won't be hosted on CP. He likely found some random Spanish speaker with a no-traffic blog and is offering to link to him in return for the translation work. Ole! --Sid (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that bring up an interesting conflict, where both Ken and Andy assume they own the content? --Kels (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it's a wonderful chance for parody, if they do get multilingual CP going. You could write more or less anything in a foreign language the Assfly and Co. don't understand. Be sure to translate the homosexuality article to include lots of references to just how much of a repressed homosexual Kendoll is. -- 21:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And now, apparently Ken found someone to do a German translation. Oh, this will be awesome. I can't wait to read it. :D --Sid (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

How DARE they?
They are showing Jesus with a PENIS I&#39;m not Jesus (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And they call themselves "family friendly"! Anyway, I'd have thought that the son of god would have had a larger todger than that...  08:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  O_O!   Pedobear (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or is Mary's blouse also a bit sheer? 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just you. There is that thing in it that follows you around the room, though. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it or ain't it?
The file is labeled "PARMIGIANINO" but I haven't found this work by said artist anywhere. Besides the colors look a bit too muted for Parmigianino, the values both light and dark are not ENOUGH. It may be the work of his student Girolamo Mazzola Bedoli, but CP's "source" claims new (and unpublished) research that attributes the painting to Mazzola, (Parmiganino)...right up there with CP's usual standards of "research". IANAAH. CЯacke ® 23:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Writing Plan
Writing plans coming back! 188's been awfully grouchy since getting slapped down again at Wikipedia. Burndall (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed's killing spree
What on earth was he doing? EddyP (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's butthurt about not being able to post Moonie stuff on WP any more, so he doesn't think anyone should have any fun. --Kels (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, he's angry (Don't worry, folks, he expanded it later. Yes, you see why I used the word "expanded" and not "fixed" or "improved"...) --Sid (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and being pro-choice now means that you must oppose public transit monopolies. *nods sagely* --Sid (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh God, it's that time of the year again where people will suggest that we need a WIGO:Ed because otherwise WIGO:CP gets flooded. --Sid (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like Ed didn't get what he wanted for Christmas. EddyP (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most stores don't carry Girl Scouts. --Kels (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * THey're half-off at Target, last I checked. Anyway, Ed creeps me out. That says a lot, amirite? Pedobear (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WIGO'd the stub, but Sid can have the credit for his find. Perhaps we can have a poll 'Why is Ed angry?' EddyP (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a full belly laugh over that latest Ed WIGO. Fantastic. Aceof Spades 20:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's good to see that even though he's been declared CP's biggest idiot emeritus in perpetuity, he isn't resting on his laurels. -- 21:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Undent) I can "understand" Ed's comments about Wikipedia's socialist / anti-Capitalist bias (since he recently got slapped hard at WP), but I honestly have no idea why he suddenly hates public transit. --Sid (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's typical Ed, actually. He reads some half-assed crap about an issue he doesn't understand, then posts some vague post that assumes everyone else agrees with his own half-assed reading of the half-assed source.  --Kels (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, who pissed in his eggnog? Why is he being so nasty all of a sudden (compared to normal)? 21:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, methinks someone's hacked into his account. He's usually bad, but not this bad!  See their article "Smart growth".--Star trooper man (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just...wow. That's some industrial strength stupid right there. It's all right Ed, we women can speak for ourselves, no need to put yourself out. --Kels (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What a prick. Burndall (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thing is, he sees himself as a expert best of the public on things (like the Moonie crap & Css) & all he gets at WP is put downs, so he just has to get his point made at CP. He's just a nasty, vindictive little man . 22:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, he's a nasty, vindictive, big man. Wouldn't it be nice if best of CP could be searched (can it?) to pull up all wigos over a given score containing, say "Ed" (& c.)?  23:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Errrr, it may be my post xmas delirium speaking but I really can't get the grasp of this. I do not understand what the hell Ed is talking about. Aceof Spades 23:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed seems to be tackling random pages. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Irrationalatheist / talk / contribs
 * It's actually not random, but ties into Ed's hard-on about public transit. Check the "Smart Growth" "article" to see the "connection". From what I gather: "Liberals cause traffic congestion to promote public transit (while pretending that they want to reduce congestion). And this causes their fancy low-pollution technology to fail." From there, we basically go to "So liberals are to blame for pollution." --Sid (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so random at all. He has found http://americandreamcoalition.org and while reading it is Proxima Centauring tidbits he finds interesting into various CP articles, ideally at least three articles per tidbit.  23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, that's also where his weird homeowner fascination comes from? *hadn't bothered/dared to check the site till now* --Sid (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ed, I kinda don't care that you copypaste your EdStub-style paragraphs into existing articles now or that you still haven't learned how references work. But why in God's name would YOU, USER 188, screw up so badly and use  [ibid ] in a wiki article? *rubs temples* --Sid (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, now that is just being an asshole. You know it would have taken less work to do it yourself than use it to bully the user.  But I guess this way, you get to feel important or something. --Kels (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gets even "better" when you check the dude's contribs and realize that only TWO articles linked to it in the first place. The one Ed pointed out... had been created by Ed as a response to the move request! Yes, Ed created a redirect to the wrong location, knowing that it's the wrong location. And then he told the requesting user to change all wrong links. --Sid (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

...And another scintillating Ed stub. Must've been up all night researching/writing that one.--WJThomas (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks Ed. Aceof Spades 00:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What a complete prick. I used to feel just a little sorry for him when they'd hand him his ass over at Wikipedia.  No more.  Even Andy's usually not as mean as Ed's shown himself to be over the last few days.  Burndall (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From above link "even though I have quite a number of sharp disagreements with senior staff here. I go along to get along, and if you do what I do you'll get the same results." Yes, Ed, analingus works on CP.  04:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Smart1993 needs a name change
May I suggest User:Agent86 ? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

More abortion fun
* groan* 04:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * {::gasp::} You mean medical care isn't 100% effective in all cases and sometimes people actually get worst?! Say it ain't so!!!  What part of his ass did he pull that gem out of, anyways?  I fail to see the correlation between stem cell research and abortion.  Am I missing something? 04:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He seems to think that if you let people experiment with fetal stem cells then abortion is the next logical step. So no, you're not missing anything. 04:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

More talk blocks
Conservapedia cleans house for the new year. Hey TK, you missed a few! <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 07:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Andy...
...but there aren't enough scholarships to Liberty University for everyone! EddyP (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an Andy thought that needs to be encouraged. Sure, now he's complaining how liberals get students in to debt, but tomorrow he'll be founding Conservapedia University, where a dissertation that reads "I like cereal." earns a first degree. Think of the entertainment. -- 12:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed Poor WIGO
I don't usually reword someone else's WIGO, but I thought this captured Ed's pettiness better. Did someone piss in his eggnog just before he wrote that? --SpinyNorman (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, what an authoritarian asshole he is in that whole section. Sure he was respectful to Andy, and made relevant comments and some useful edits, but he wasn't sufficiently subservient and Ed demands he act more servile.  Yeah, like they can spare the users. --Kels (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * @Spiny: Yeah, your wording is better. My version reflected the fact that I had to read his post 3 times before it made sense. 16:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On that note, what the hell is with Ed? Every couple days, he clamors for praise, posting a pandering message on Andy's talk page saying "I made a new stub, tell me what you think of it!" or telling him about a change he's made which no one could really care about.  Why, after years of being an admin, is he sucking up like a newborn parodist?  16:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed comes off like the classic insecure bully - kissing up to the alpha dog he follows, while kicking around t the new kids to make himself feel important. Meanwhile, this is the same guy who's putting printer-restart instruction into an online encyclopedia, not to mention countless nano-stubs. --SpinyNorman (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Ed has reached pico-stub status. --Kels (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Concise: that's User 188 all over. Seriously though [[image:Wtf.gif]] 02:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WTF is right. Pretty soon he's going to get so lazy that he will just copy-paste in a URL without making it a link. 04:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That would actually be less lazy since he'd have to override MediaWiki's auto-linking feature with "nowiki" tags. This is quite literally the least work he could do: Open edit box, paste link, save. Okay, he DID write an edit summary, so maybe he'll get rid of that next. --Sid (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aah. He pre-empted that on Wp 14:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What fun, he simply copypasted this table and screwed up. For extra fun: WHOIS shows that that domain belongs to Ed Poor, so he actually failed at copypasting from himself. But the most hilarious part (for me) is that he made that edit on the 19th and then simply abandoned it in this state. Also no edits on WP since then, but plenty on CP. And he wanted to become a WP admin again at some point? --Sid (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well found Sid. The webshite (tablemaker) itself is copied from numerous other sources ( for example). Wot a wazzock! 15:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally on the webshite Ed claims that this is a "commercial client". Woo or not woo? (* These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.) 16:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(UD) & WTF is this about? Is he comparing himself with Thomas Alva? He richly deserves the "WIGO CP's Weirdo of the Year " with ambition to be Wp's equivalent. 12:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's a self-pitying statement that he's being hard done by after getting banned from the Moonie articles on WP. It's pretty childish, and I wonder if his recent spate of asshole behaviour (at Xmas, no less) over at CP has something to do with his frustration. --Kels (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)