Conservapedia talk:Best of Conservapedia/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Issues of structure and style[edit]

Hey there folks.

I think this article is a great idea, lots of lulz...

Two comments re:items included, though.

1. Can we please add new ones at the top? That way someone who checks in once in a while (like me) to see what's new will see it at the top. Right now they are being added kind of randomly. If someone thinks at the bottom is a better idea, make a case for it, but either way, let's give it some structure.

2. Use permalinks! a Diff or Permanent link will always be there. A link to something "live" with no "oldid" number at the end will be gone eventually - sometimes very rapidly. (like the link to a classic on koukoukajou'stalk page at the bottom right now) Thankies... humanbe in 20:47, 14 June 2007 (CDT)


I suggest that when a month is over a month old (ie, June, when it's August), it be archived as a subpage. Don't forget the year in the article name in case CP survives through '08! Suggested filename: "Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia/0706" for june 07. humanbe in 19:10, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Sounds like a very good suggestion. And you're an optimist :P (Then again, CP is more than half a year old already...) --Sid 19:19, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
Is there a way to view older items? I found "Gunpowder is no longer used in weapons" ( but wasn't sure if anyone had spotted it yet. It was posted back in March, though it's still up. Maybe guns aren't really weapons. Garble 11:53, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
"Blackpowder" is no longer used (mainly) in guns, as it produces too much smoke. Some hunters still use blackpowder for muzzle-loading guns to get the feel for killing with weapons our ancestors used, (instead of, you know, driving to the Piggly-Wiggly for some nice aged beefsteaks). CЯacke® 12:21, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
1. Thanks to whoever archived June! 2., if one finds pre-June 07 Lulz, I suggest backdating a new archive page and putting them there. Just an idea... humanbe in 12:51, 2 August 2007 (CDT)


I'm proposing that we trim off some of the less outrageous abuses to reason. I'd leave it (at first) to the original contributors to excise their own less-than creme-de-la-creme edits. Also, if things get fixed, I think they ought to be removed from dis list, it really is for the utterly obstinate, bullheaded abuses...maybe create a Less of the best of Conservapedia? CЯacke® 21:06, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

See discussion below, we screwed up a bit, between "best of" CP and the "latest crap" at CP. I am hoping that Mr. DoggedPersistence is digging into it soon. He has the solution. humanbe in 23:16, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
A 7% solution? CЯacke® 23:20, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
I love that movie. It's one I have on laserdisc, and whenever I was sick, I would watch all my LD's. This was before the "home video collection", and all I had were LDs I got with various LD purchases... oh, I long to be sick again...? Not! But, great flick! It should be the honorary RW "film"! humanbe in 23:24, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
I think my brother had it on that 12'' RCA vinyl (analog) disc thingy. He also bought an "Intellivision". He has to work now even though he's past the usual retirement age since he tied up all his investment money in "carbon paper futures"...that's probably the REAL reason behind global warming, we used to lock up al that carbon in carbon paper. But since it isn't used (much) anymore it's all free to get into the atmosphere.CЯacke®
Damn, dawg. Alert the presses! humanbe in 23:56, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
I added another one...but the last two I did actually fit the page. CЯacke®


Wow, I'd have never thought my talk page would warrant mention here. here

You should see the block TK gave me on my other account.--Offeep 21:16, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

God, that part made me laugh so hard back then. I was literally waiting for him to scold non-contest people who created articles or categorized them. --Sid 06:09, 2 August 2007 (CDT)


I don't know if this would fit in the article, but it seems that recently Ashlfly has this obsession with the idea that wikipedia is suffering a horrible crisis of leadership and will be dead in no time at all. Interesting...--Offeep 19:37, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

I knew of the "dead soon" part (think I added it to "According to" a while ago when I first noticed it), but I didn't know he keeps saying that. Also, what crisis of leadership? Need links, and definitely feel free to add it, it sounds like a good chuckle to me, especially when it's his new running gag :D --Sid 06:08, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
Well, 'crisis of leadership' is the wrong phrase. If I recall, he thinks there's a "brain drain" because of wikipedia's horrible, abusive copyright rules, or something, and all of the experts are leaving. Somehow, I guess this will mean that all of the already expert-written articles will dissapear, and the site will cease to function. Oh, and its the National Inquirer of the internets.--Offeep 12:10, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
No! Wikipedia is a site in crisis, just like evolution is a theory in crisis and will fall soon!</sarcasm>. Umm.... Andy can say whatever he wants, but we all know he carries no weight. --HHammer and Sickle text gold.svgjimachong 12:19, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
Oh, that, yeah. Well, WP isn't exactly a paradise for experts in some fields, that point is true. However, going from there to the ultimate falldown that magically decreases quality (I assume the "horrible cases of bias" Andy found in in political articles will spread into science stuff via spores) is pushing things "a bit". And saying that GFDL is horribly restrictive is also somewhat of an exaggeration - but then again, some of the sysops endorse copy-pasting (also from non-public-domain sources), so "copyright" is a chapter of its own. ;) WP still has to improve in some fields, but it's still light-years ahead of any other project I know of right now. --Sid 12:23, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
  • Wikipedia sucks. They don't follow their own rules. Yet I cannot stay away. Resident vandal 12:25, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
I was sent this link today, relative to professional historians participating on WP. There are factors that come into play, the obvious one being Ms. PhD having to discuss on an equal footing her area of expertise with someone who learned everything from the History Channel. The GFDL thing I think is a wash, as professionals publish OR, and WP doesn't. However, many pros can do excellent research and writing, but can't necessarily get paid (or meaningful pro. credit) for that sort of work. In reading many things on WP, I find it obvious that many, many areas of expertise are being handled by people who really know what they are talking about. Their article on CP is a bit weak, though ;) humanbe in 12:40, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
Come to think of it, I don't understand Andy's obsession with WP. I mean, it's not like CP suddenly became better or more reliable than WP just by WP failing (which in turn is fairly unlikely). Any competition between wikis should be about who is good, not who is better. This isn't a case of "I don't have to run faster than the bear - only faster than you!", and CP wouldn't even profit from a (hypothetical) collapse of WP because they don't do key things like WP anyway (NPOV, RfC, RfA, Attribution, Notability, etc), so any migrating users would have to adapt to Andy's completely arbitrary set of rules (with the special "Sysops can ban you for breaking non-existing rules, but don't have to follow any rules themselves, and you aren't allowed to question them." flavor), which... won't work, I think. --Sid 12:58, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
Oh, that's easy. It's YEC-logic, to wit, "if we can cast doubt on TOE, YEC is the only alternative". Ported over to "wiki-world". humanbe in 13:02, 2 August 2007 (CDT)


Wow. Just, wow.--MountainTiger 01:23, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

A fifteen-year-old girl from Maine[edit]

Okay, seriously: WTF? Is a random, nameless, fifteen-year-old girl an authority in Ed Poor's eyes? Especially when we don't even get a reference? --Sid 18:20, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Maybe she gets psycho psychic when her PMS kicks in?CЯacke® 18:28, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

false information[edit]

  • "Conservative delivers Andy's word like they were written on tablets delivered down from the mountain. Andy apparently says: the only person more deceitful than a Liberal is Beelzebub HIMSELF"
None of this is true at all. Conservative was not delivering Andy's word, and he never said that the devil is the only person more deceitful than a liberal. Bohdan 18:04, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I followed the link and found C. wrote: 'TK wrote: "Well, who is more deceitful than modern Liberals? I have asked Andy to give his thinking on this....." That is so easy! Scripture declares: "He [the devil] was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies" (John 8:44).' Seems pretty accurate to me. C. delivers Andy's word, check. As far as "only", you are correct, but think about it - whether Andy thinks there is anyone besides the devil who is more deceitful than liberals, he doesn't name names. All he comes up with is the devil. So, "apparently", it's all he can think of. "Apparently" is a key word here. humanbe in 18:11, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Read it carefully. C never says its Andy's word. He simply quotes TK's statement including his (TK's) saying that he (TK)requested Andy's word. Nowhere Does Conservative say that this is Andy's opinion. It is his (Conservative's) answer to TK's question. Bohdan 18:14, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
Good point, I stand corrected. It's very unclear, though. humanbe in 18:45, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
I think the quote makes it unclear. If Conservative stopped quoting before TK's asking, it would be much easier to understand. Bohdan 18:50, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Bohdan, between Schlafly's "Lie, Stonewall, Deny, Deny, Deny" approach to the FBI question, his implication that liberals are second only to Satan himself in their mendacity, and allowing his website to categorise all Democrats - somewhere around half of the American voting population - as deceitful, is there *anything* that will make you stop standing up for this loser? PFoster 18:19, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Bohdan's correct - Andy hasn't said shit on the page we're linking to. The real story is TK in ultra-tool mode and he's pretty much off the chart here. --Robledo 18:30, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Rob, I think it depends on how you read it - I see TK writing to Andy for his thinking, and Andy's reply being: "That is so easy! Scripture declares: "He [the devil] was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies" (John 8:44)."" If the quoted passage is TK reporting what Andy said, then it's what Andy said. If the quoted passage is TK mouthing off again, so be it. I think we can agree on one thing, though. TK is a tool. PFoster 18:34, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Read it again! It is neither TK nor Andy writing. It is conservative giving his opinion. Bohdan 18:37, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
Tk jokingly asks "who is more deceitful than modern liberals?" Conservative responds with someone who is. It is not andy speaking, and Conservative is not saying that the devil is the only person more deceitful than liberals, which is what your article states. Bohdan 18:39, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
While I hesitatingly agree that the scripture part comes from Conservative, it's quite telling that he cannot or will not name anybody else other than the devil. --MStort 18:41, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, we could argue whether it was TK, Schafly or Newton/Conservative, but ultimately it doesn't matter. It's Andy's blog, and he gets final word on what it says. TK and Conservative generally reflect the prevailing attitude at CP, and if the boss doesn't agree with them, he could shut them out. For all the policing of every comma on CP to ensure it toes the party line, I gotta see this "liberals are Satan-like in their mendacity" crack as something Andy "The Buck Stops Here" Schlafly either silently or explicitly condones. PFoster 18:43, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Condones, most likely. Said, not here, and there's plenty of madness to report directly without having to infer stuff like this. And, yes, TK is an abject tool ;) --Robledo 18:49, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I've been bold and rephrased the section in question. Comments welcome. Also restored two comments that got accidentally edit-conflict-vaped. --MStort 18:50, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I was going to report that. Good job. And thanks to Bohdan, too, for catching that slip. humanbe in 18:52, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
Looks good :) --Robledo 18:57, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

"Apparently the homeschoolin' grammar ain't what it used to be..."[edit]

Back before I was persona non grata on CP, I would spend HOURS correcting Tash's writing on his/her NBC news entries. If twriting like that is what homeschooling produces, I'll take my chances at public school any day.PFoster 21:21, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

It depends on who the individual being homeschooled is. Take, for example, Will N., and compare his… works, if they can be called that, to me. --Linus(plot evil tech) 21:23, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh, hey, Linus - no offense meant if you're a homeschooler. I just cant stand Asshat errrr...ASchlafly pimping the homeschool as the cure for all the education system's shortcomings when - as you point out - it's about the kid and the parents, not the system. Kids who work hard and are supported by their folks will do well, in school or at home. Kids who don't and aren't won't...PFoster 22:49, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh, obviously. The school system where I live is not the greatest, so… and no offense taken. --Linus(plot evil tech) 13:56, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

"YEC PRATT's, yep, nearly every one of them."[edit]

On the Young Earth Creationism page is a list that includes this gem;

"Petrified wood was believed to required thousands or even millions of years, but a US patent now exists that is able to produce petrified wood rapidly."

Yep conservatives think a US patent is that powerful. But not as powerful, apparently, as conservatism is in turning brains to rocks. And let's not even look at the grammar, which is classic home schooled.--Remarcsd 06:24, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

That's pretty good ... somehow a new patent is responsible for all the petrified wood around the world? those crazy evolutionists must be traveling back in time planting "evidence". Jrssr5 08:02, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
I confess...God sent me back to do it. And, damn!, but them pterodactuls is tasty!--PalMD-Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice! 08:07, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
It gets even better. I wanted to know more and googled for petrified wood patent. The first result? The Most Reliable Source In The World (right after CP, of course). --Sid 08:15, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
That was the first time I ever read anything from that site and wow ... I hope Darwin was right about survival of the fittest, because those nutjobs won't last too long. Jrssr5 08:56, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

"Does TK need his own page? / Andy's future."[edit]

This page is becoming rather large and we are only halfway through the month. TK seems to be getting weirder and weirder, so his output is likely to increase. Does he warrant his own page? Also, how long do other RW denizens think it will be before Andy either smacks TK down or TK takes over? Given the nature of the beast they have created, if Andy is not careful TK will be making all the decisions and he will be sidelined if not actually removed.

As I see it Andy has four options.

1) Do nothing, and become obviously irrelevant.
2) Assert his authority and smack TK down.
3) Promote another sysop to TK's level and let them slug it out.
4) Say he is voluntarily giving control to TK in order to give himself time to concentrate on ???.

Have I missed any?--Remarcsd 20:44, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

You're right - a battle looms. I noticed in passing today that Andy didn't ban SimonJohnRitchie and invited him to stay (with a smack on the wrist), but TK banhammered him. TK routinely overrules Andy these days. Andy's smart move would be #4, but his knee-jerk reaction is to be a fightin' manly man, and TK impugning his All-Seeing-Power won't go down lightly, I predict. Hopefully we'll see them duke it out soon. Doggedpersistance 21:01, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
I see no reason why TK doesn't deserve his own (sub)page. Although, some items involve it him and others, so it might be confusing. And, hey, if the page is getting huge, split the months in half to archive them? Or even archive big "weeks"? humanbe in 21:27, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
As far as Andy's future... he's enjoying learning by writing a book. As long as TK keeps the roadkill pushed into the gutter, does he really care? He's still the figurehead, after all. humanbe in 21:27, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
I think what we need, as it develops, the story of TK's coup. Look, already he's gone and deleted Template:CP Leader, which most users used to show that they <3 Ashlfly.--Offeep 22:05, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

He had posted the template with "TK" as the rightful leader of Conservapedia on Benefit's page - all deleted now. Probably just an attempt by everyone's favourite sub-human (he banned me once and called me that...) to be funny. PFoster 22:28, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Vandals reading this should take note - try to set Andy and TK against each other. That's your motivation for this week. We want to see RESULTS! Doggedpersistance 22:22, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm guilty of inflating the page recently (free time, boredom, and CP are an interesting combination...), but a half-month archive sounds like a solution. I wouldn't try to split things up since many of TK's adventures also involve other sysops or issues.
About TK taking over: Yeah, it's pretty obvious by now. How many sysops have been told to sit down and shut up by now? Always, of course, with the mandatory "Andy said so", "The majority said so", or "Andy agrees".
It's too late for option two by now. Sure, Andy could of course smack down TK, but much of the damage is done already. Editors were alienated by his "You do things MY... er... ANDY'S WAY!" attitude in the most random scenarios, tons of people were banned simply because TK doesn't want people who question his poor judgment, and the general atmosphere is hostile. Fixing that would require more than just smacking down TK. And I honestly don't think that Andy would do all that fixing. He'd just go all "Yeah, now editors will rush to CP and be happy", ignoring the batch of people who were already chased out and might want to return to a TK-free CP.
It's either (1) or (4). It's possible that there will be a subtle change once the courses start. Andy will certainly be tied up by teaching three courses, so he will surely be glad that TK, his greatest sysop ever who never does anything wrong, is willing to sacrifice himself by shouldering the extra responsibility... *rolls eyes*
The sad thing is that several people here predicted this, and we were always told "Nuh-uh! You're just being paranoid! It will all work out just fine! TK just wants to help, and he only does what Andy tells him to do!", but now several other people join here and come to their own conclusion that yes, TK is running things now.
Oh, and Doggedpersistance: Won't work. Andy knows that TK copy-pasted articles like Fox News Channel and Morality. He has been alerted of abuse cases. Several sysops read these pages and surely asked Andy about it. But Andy blindly approves of TK and anybody else who became sysop back then. TK is allowed to copy from Wikipedia, LA Times columns, and whatever else he wants to copy from. If fifty people complain about TK, then those fifty people must surely be liberal deceivers because TK never does anything wrong, y'know? --Sid 06:24, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
I wonder if TK will be the next Sejanus? DickTurpis 08:38, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Am I missing something, or did TK just block a user with no contributions for vandalism?--MountainTiger 10:09, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Which user? --Sid 13:09, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
I get nothing when I check New25's contribs. Someone more experienced with teh wiki software might be able to explain it, but it seems like TK completely made up his "vandalism" charge.--MountainTiger 13:12, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Well, cross-checking with the deletion log, it's possible that that's the account that added the (now deleted) "The Great FBI Fiasco!" article - not sure, though. Deleted articles don't show up in the contrib lists. --Sid 13:22, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

MASSIVE cull going down at CP, with poor excuses abound[edit]

Hmmm, it seems like the normal parade of vandals and unimaginative losers with usernames like "AschaflyIsStupid" and "HitlerIsBackBaby," along with a fairly normal amount of unwarrented blocks. It's hard to call it a "cull" when most of these users, like the "TJ" who posted this item, only joined in the last day or so...PFoster 10:12, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

My apologies; I was getting overexcited. I think it's best if I lurk a bit for the time being. Sorry for any inconvenience I caused. --TJ 11:12, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Best of the Best?[edit]

There's so much good stuff here, but some of the best is getting lost among the merely decent. Should there be some sort of way to decide what is the very best and log it separately, maybe at the end of the month? DickTurpis 15:52, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

With reference to the volume/size of file comments above, you remind me of something. I've been following random "best of" links for quite a while, and the quality seems to have dropped a bit. This is already supposed to be "best of". All the links should be very entertaining (except perhaps follow ups to other comments, ie, "xyz schools Andy on deceit, then gets banned" - the ban link is just an extra). Maybe someone can simply cull the "not so best of" stuff? And people could maybe exercise a "little" restraint before adding links? humanbe in 12:27, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I feel for you human. Against your best interests, we continue to simply make RW a CP commmentary site. I know that doesn't make much sense, but there's just so much good material there and it seems quite a few want to monitor that. How about two links in the CP header on the Main Page - 'CP Current Events', and 'Best of CP'? Doggedpersistance 13:01, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Hahaha... well, what I mean is that the quality of "best of" just seems to have dropped a bit. Also, people are ignoring wiki-things that happen - EG, the last entry about citizendium is almost certainly a non-alerted edit conflict, rather than an explicit deletion by assfly. Anyway, sure, I'd be just as happy with a sub file that is the "best of best of", I could watch that instead for the really good meat (sometimes the CE aspect of best of makes it so things get mentioned several times as they unfold, that could one bobo link). Anyway, it was just my .02, I'll certainly defer to the people who do all the work to build this file on how they want to handle it. humanbe in 13:17, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
I think what human's getting at here isn't that we shouldn't be commenting on CP here, it's that the quality of stuff getting put into "Best of CP" is going down. Rather than a "best of" with quality, uh, boners, it's descending into a collection of rather ordinary crap. We have Conservapedia:What is going on at CP? for that stuff, and this page should be reserved for the really prime lulz. --Kels 13:15, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, but Conservapedia:What is going on at CP? has become very dead, and Best of... is much more current, probably because you have to really look for it. Once Best of... got linked directly to from the Main Page, all the current events just went straight in there. I think the problem is simply linkage. But yeah, we need to really savour the Best of's...keep 'em meaty. Doggedpersistance 13:43, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
I completely agree. I think most of the stuff on this page should be move the What Is Goin On, and all new info should go there too. I also think the Best Of should be taken from What Is Going at a later time. The question is how to choose which of those items are the best. Should it be a sysop decision? Should it be by mobocracy rule? The latter makes more sense, but how does the mob make its voice known? Shoud we set up a voting page to, say, vote for the best of each week's or month's events? ThunderkatzHo! 13:59, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
Human, Is a non-alerted edit conflict possible where the time difference between the edits is just over an hour? I'm no techy but wouldn't the time stamps be about the same time? WhatIsG0ing0n 13:33, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
You may be right, but the time is not the issue, really. I think what happens is that someone edits an "oldid" they have open. When they save it, a later entry simply vanishes as if it was deleted. Happened to me and thunderkatz a couple of days ago. So if AS clicked on his watchlist and opened that version, but didn't do anything with it til an hour later, any intervening edits would be lost. I try to reload pages before editing, to edit the current version, I always get nervous if my edit bar says "oldid". But I sometimes slip. Keeping in mind the amount of back-and-forth AS is involved in (his talk page, main page talk, keeping up with liberal deceit, etc.), it's quite likely to happen from time to time. So, since it is possible for it to be an error, not intentional, the accusation of deletion is "weak" not "strong". humanbe in 13:48, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
And also keeping in mind that nobody at Conservapedia really seems to understand the details of how the Wiki software actually works, least of all Schlafly himself. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:53, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Some of the examples on the page certainly are on the mundane side, but many of them still shoudl be preserved for posterity. Maybe there should be a Hall of Fame or something for the pure gold ones. Elections could be at the end of each month or something. Sysops nomimate a few, everyone votes? Sound appealing to anyone? DickTurpis 14:23, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

How about if as they are added, the editors self-police/congratulate and also add them to a "bobo" subfile if they think they are worth it, and, if anything, we look it over at the end of the month? Or others can delete them as they go if they aren't that great?
I was of the understanding this was supposed to be the pure gold file. We seem to have strayed a bit from that ideal, though. --Kels 14:37, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
The problem stems from the reorganization of the main page that happened a couple of weeks ago. The "According to (ahem) Some People" section was getting filled with too much CP news, so it was split up into two "latest news" things—one for non-CP, and the other for CP. That fixed the non-CP problem just fine, but the CP part was pointed at this "best of CP" page, which means it has become the "latest stupidity at CP" page. Which isn't what "best of CP" was supposed to be.
I would suggest making a category "Conservapedia Classics" that contains only the best. In somewhat longer article-like form. And we should rescue the real classics from here and move it to that category. Then people can continue to post (and enjoy) random craziness here, and it can have the same "older items below the line" mechanism that "According to..." has. When a particularly good item from this page comes along, someone can polish it up and put it into "classics".
And the "best of CP" page should mention that category. Something like "For some all-time classics, in somewhat expanded form, see ..." SJIHAS 15:57, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
If we do that, the "What Is Going On" page should be merged with this page, then deleted. Right now, and if your idea is implemented, having both seems pointless. ThunderkatzHo! 16:18, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Are we doing this or what?[edit]

I believe it's simple:
  • Link on Main Page to What Is Going On at CP?
  • Link at the top of What is Going on at CP? to Best Of... with a note to the mob to choose wisely the selections to be moved over.

Would that work? Doggedpersistance 12:13, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that is exactly what we need. I think as we were setting this up we had some crossed wires and unintended consequences. The only "hard" part will be winnowing down "best of" and moving the chaff to "what is going on". Thanks for figuring it out! WIGO becomes the "ticker" of every little silliness for the OCD CP watchers; BO should be fascinating stuff that would amuse anyone. humanbe in 13:12, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Agreed then. Hit the trigger whenever you like and we'll pile in and help with the switcheroo... Doggedpersistance 18:07, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Ready, Set, ...Go! Do I need to do anything? humanbe in 19:17, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, are we at cross purposes here? Do you want me to do it? We need to do this, the buildup continues. The pressure mounts. She's gonna blow cap'n! Doggedpersistance 17:39, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Ken waxes on atheism[edit]

Blah blah blah Googledumping blah blah typical conservative deceit

I'm loving this testosterone-fueled charge at the Googlebot, Newton. You're obsessed with it aren't you? I say we delete your stupid links from here, as that's the only reason you're depth-charging them here.

Newton 16:48, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Would you mind if we were to link to some of our articles from CP then? - Icewedge 16:51, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
I think that both sections (and really the article as a whole) would benefit from reformatting. Fewer horizontal lines and blockquotes would be less disruptive to the reader.--MountainTiger 16:55, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Icewedge, I don't see that happening given the vandalism from RationalWiki members and the RationalWiki refusal to strongly condemn it. I guess if you can't out argue Conservapedia with legitimate arguments and evidence it is tempting to resort to vandalism. Newton 16:58, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
What vandalism? I get the impression most of the long-termers here are content to point and laugh at this stage. And if they _did_ "condemn" vandalism, you'd just say it was more "Hypocritical Liberal De3ceit", anyway. --Gulik
No, you can't out-argue Conservapedia, that's for sure. Anyone does (and plenty do) gets a permanent ban and CP declares victory. DickTurpis 17:19, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Well, then can you please stop link spaming our site. CP needs you now anyways, have you seen the alexa data recently your page veiws are falling again. People have finaly gotten over laughing at the intertubes latests stupidity. - Icewedge 17:06, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Given by your posts on numerous talk pages, they are an attempt to bait RW readers into vandalizing the page along with getting some of the admins who are taking over to look upon you favorably in the "see the pretty picture that I drew? Those atheists are evil." In the mean time, I have notified the website that you copied the image regarding donation from as to the copyright violation. Apparently, conservatives to not respect property rights.
You also lack basic page layout skills. The "Atheism and" section titles are repetitive and boring. The article is about atheism, not making the reader fall asleep. Actually, the article isn't about atheism, its about Ken's campaign against atheism, but thats another matter. The table you have has significant wasted white space. You really need to do a better job of naming your references so they are not all URL names. Additionally, you apparently failed your classes that required writing a paper. 'i.e.' has no spaces. The page looks very funny when 'i.' is on one line and 'e.' is on the next.
Regarding the organization of the article, go back and write an outline for the article. Think about what concepts are strictly children of other concepts - and then lay it out accordingly. The current evol change over time within the article shows a random collection of ideas that have been loosely glued together and certainly no intelligent designer. This is clearly shown within the edit history where edits are of the sort "ohh! This is something related to that" and then poorly tacked on within the sentence. You might ask Ed or Tk to help with the copy edits in the article, but that is beneath them.
On the immoral views, could you hunt up the percentage of the atheist population that actually participates in these actions compared to the population at large? Is there a larger theist alcoholic population than atheist alcoholic population? How about illegal drugs? It may just be that atheists are more forgiving of the flaws in human nature than a theist is.
I am also curious about what philosophy classes you have taken - especially regarding modern philsophy. Materialism has nothing to do with atheism - it just says that which exists is material in nature. It rejects such ideas as Platonic forms existing (just because you can talk about a circle doesn't mean the thing exists any more so than one can talk about purple people eaters means that they exist). Spinoza was a materialist and had one of the most thought out proofs of the existence of God.
You might also want to properly explain what atheism is beyond a single definition copied from a dictionary. One sided articles rarely win minds. Look at the history of philosophical writings and you will see dialogs between ideas, not just simple essays. Socratic dialogs or Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems as notable examples. To win a mind you have to show what the other side actually believes and why it is wrong, and provide citations for each side. I suggest you watch Jonathan Miller's Brief History of Disbelief which does a better job of stating what atheism is and why it is. As it stands, your article reads as an extend whine "They believe this and this is not what I believe."
I would suggest that you ask Andy to offer classes in modern philosophy and type setting. However, his suggestion would likely be you should write a book about it. --Shagie 18:00, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

1. Give us a link to the study. 2. What's immoral about "illegal drug use; getting drunk; (did it last weekend) having a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex to whom you are not married (doing it right now); having an abortion (can't, I'm a guy); living with someone of the opposite sex without being married (doing it right now, see above); using profanity (fuckin' hell, I do it all the time); gambling (Like at Church Bingo?) ; looking at pictures of nudity or explicit sexual behavior (Bring it on!); and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality (Don't knock it 'til you've tried it, sweetcheeks!). PFoster 18:02, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Shaggie, a librarian told me that using a image that is posted on a goverment website is fair use. I doubt you are going to have much look with the FL gov't regarding the use of the image. Given they are in the south, they probably like the use of it for the purpose used. :) Newton 18:54, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
An image produced by a government agency is acceptable. Pictures from NASA or the military are one such example. However, the government websites also license images from other companies. These images still have all of their copyrights intact. Just because it shows up there does not mean that it is usable by all. Furthermore, the image I found was from Volunteer Logue. It is possible that they both bought the image from the same stock agency.
Next, fair use has nothing to do with government. Fair use is the idea that you can make limited, use of a copyrighted work that does not diminish the commercial value of the work. If this image was licensed from a stock agency, by using it you have diminished its commercial value - it is not fair use.
If you are curious about what fair use is, read Title 17, Chapter 1 Section 107. That is, criticism of the copyrighted work, or comment about the copyrighted work, or news reporting, teaching about the copyrighted work, scholarship regarding the copyrighted work, or research about the copyrighted work. It is allowing you to copy a portion of Harry Potter in a critique about it. It is not letting you copy the book cover for an article on magic. Nor does it mean you can copy any copyrighted work and include it in website that then goes on to allow anyone to copy any part of it without attribution.
I still remain amazed that all of the emphasis about how much liberals ignore laws and moral codes that Conservapedia condones such blatant intellectual property infringements. This is especially the case when the website wants to claim the moral high ground. One can only hope that at some point you do not find yourself on the wrong side of an infringement of something that is a registered copyright - that can hurt. I'm fairly sure Andy would not like to be paying those fines as the site owner and publisher of the information.
So, to summarize:
  • Only works of the government and items in the public domain are without copyright.
  • Not everything on a government site was created by the government.
  • Check the copyright status of an image before you copy it.
  • Remember that stock photography houses always register their copyrights (its their livelyhood).
  • Respect all aspects of copyright law or stop pretending that only liberals ignore laws.
--Shagie 19:22, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Of note, looking at the source, all the links are rel="nofollow" which means that even if they were left in, google ignores them (see preventing comment spam - designed to foil exactly what Ken was trying to do). Ken's googlebot attempted abuse fizzled as soon as he hit 'Save page'. No harm in leaving them in other than the poor formatting. --Shagie 19:32, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

atheist and IQs[edit]

You are missing a important point. People with higher IQs get into colleges more. Secular universities are pretty liberal and many professors indoctrinate students into atheistic dogmas such as the theory of evolution. Therefore, it is not surprising that some students adopt a atheistic view in college and your IQ studies could be flawed as a result.

Newton 16:52, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Data?--MountainTiger 16:57, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
If non-atheism made so much obvious sense, wouldn't people with higher IQ's be much more resistant to indoctrination? (not that I'm atheistic, but it's such a huge, gaping hole in Ken's "argument"...) --Kels 17:18, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
If atheism made so much obvious sense then why is a relatively small sliver of people atheists? Show me a study showing that Liberty University or Regent University students with higher IQs are more likely to be atheists (I still think your studies are likely flawed due to secular university indoctrination). Newton 17:32, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Non-sequiteur. I'm not an atheist, so I wouldn't know in any case. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in your little fantasy-world argument. --Kels 17:50, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
"If atheism made so much obvious sense then why is a relatively small sliver of people atheists?"
Well, the Evolutionists would have us believe that it's because most people are intellectually lazy, and Magical Thinking is VASTLY more natural to semi-evolved apes than scientific thinking is, but all True Believers know that it's because when the the great Yetis of Atlantis created "Humans" as a slave-race, they deliberately encoded our behavior with certain behavioral structures that make us VERY easy to dupe in specific ways, "religion" and "sex" being two of the main triggers. We half-breed Yetinsyny are somewhat more resistant, but we still bear the genetic taint of the vile miscegenation that spawned the first SubGenii.
Do You Believe That? -- 18:09, 14 August 2007 (CDT)(Gulik@work)

How would the study be flawed if you pinpointed a possible explanation for the result? If a large part of atheists (enough to tilt the survey like that) went to college (and thus have a higher probability of having a high IQ, according to you), a random sample of atheists would of course give a large part of atheists who went to college (with said higher probability of high IQ). And I'd also like to see the data. Oh, and evolution is hardly an "atheistic dogma". Otherwise, a few people would be terribly screwed, and I think that the tons of Christians who support evolution would be kinda pissed off by your assertion. --Sid 17:33, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Sid, if the case for naturalistic evolution were so strong then why do so many USA scientists believe that God gave the "umph" needed for it to happen? We certainly do not have a lot of scientist asserting "theistic gravitation". And then there is the fossil problem and the scathing reviews of PE from evolutionary biologists. :) Newton 17:38, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Newt, I'd love to comment on your above post, but you write like someone unfamiliar with the English language. First, USA is a noun; try 'American.' Secondly, 'scientist' should be plural, that is, with and S at the end. Thirdly, it's considered bad form to start a sentence with "And." Fourth, this whole post is irrelevant, as the above poster was talking about theistic evolution, not naturalistic evolution. QED, bitch. :) --Offeep 17:52, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Smart way to avoid ALL questions and challenges I posted. :)
And let's see numbers for the entire planet. What share of scientists worldwide thinks that God is involved in evolution? If you want to evoke the Magic Majority, let's think big. (Oh, and I also want the data that shows exactly how "many" scientists think so and whether they're all from the evolution field or ANY science field - if just to have more stuff to shake my head at.) --Sid 17:44, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Atheism vs. Man-n-the-Sky-ism = classic Occams Razor material. Sorry, Godism makes no sense. Doggedpersistance 17:42, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I really wish all you people would stop treating theology like a natural science. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:51, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
That's right, it's either literature, mythology or philosophy, depending on its beauty, fictionality or rigorousness, right? It sure isn't science of any kind. humanbe in 18:36, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
It's an academic field, closely related to both philosophy, history and religious studies. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:10, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
Even the pope gives evolution the thumbs up, so why do low IQ Americans go against his holy words? Isn't Andy Schlafly a Catholic? Shame on him that he rejects the pope's teachings. Genghis Khant 17:59, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
He's from a Catholic background, but I doubt he identifies as one. Catholicism and the whole born-again Christianity thing are pretty difficult to reconcile. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 13:10, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I remember seeing a study somewhere that the vast majority of prisoners in the USA claimed to be Christians. Atheists were a scant 2% of the prison population. (However, Scientologists were an even smaller percentage, so we shouldn't draw too many conclusions....) -- 18:11, 14 August 2007 (CDT) (Gulik, again)

Here is what WorldNetDaily reports: "A comparison of a 2000 survey of the British prison population with the 2001 national census revealed that whereas individuals claiming atheism or no religion make up only 15.5 percent of the British population, they comprise 31.9 percent of those imprisoned." [1] 2000 is fairly recent and I think the Brits do not have as much racial issues as America which could be argued to effect incarceration rates. Anyone have any additional research? Also, can anyone find the actual study above? Newton 18:56, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Here's some statistics from 2002 on the religion of the prison population in England and Wales: [2]. Table 7.2 shows that non-religious inmates are 31.5% of the population whereas self-identified atheists make up 0.2% of the prison population, but there are a number of confounds that make it unreasonable to directly compare these figures with the 2001 census:
  • Different questions were asked in different ways. (2)The census question was effectively anonymous, whereas the prison question was not.
  • Younger people are less religious than older people[3][4][5], and prisoners are on average younger than the general population, so the census figures would need to be weighted by age to take this into account.
  • The categories are not mutually exclusive -- less than 2/3 of British Christians are theists and many theists are not religious.[6]
The WorldNetDaily figures are presumably taken from [7]. The blatant equivocation between "atheist" and "non-religious" demonstrates either a complete ignorance of the nature of religious identification in the UK or deceit.--Barnaby 04:24, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
You want us to take WorldNetDaily seriously as a info source? Why not just quote the Weekly World News or the Onion? (Scratch that--the Onion does their research for their articles.) -- 18:59, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

"People with higher IQs get into colleges more." - Not necessarily true. Lots of very bright poor kids can't afford to go to college. Lots of morons with money get to go to Harvard. "Secular universities are pretty liberal and many professors indoctrinate students into atheistic dogmas such as the theory of evolution." If, as you believe, these kids are so bright, how are they so easily indoctrinated? What about the religious indoctrination they've been going through since the day they were Christened, be it by the Church or the not so subtle reinforcements of religion in everything from the president "God Blessing" America to the motto printed on the money and Charlie Brown Christmas specials? Is that really so easily undone? "Therefore, it is not surprising that some students adopt a atheistic view in college and your IQ studies could be flawed as a result." Does not follow. PFoster 19:10, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

  • Just curious, why do liberals seem to over-rely on mockery so much. It does not bolster your claims, in fact it makes you look irrational. Bohdan 19:12, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
The cute thing is you think its a liberal thing, you really think that half the crap Schalfly write about liberals at CP is anything but mockery. Just because he doesn't have enough integrity to label it as such doesnt make it any less true.
I fail to see the "cuteness" of my comments, but I guess I'm flattered. Stop trying to make this about CP or what I think about Andrew Schlafly's writing about liberals, and look at the above conversation. Its full of mockery, and for the record, I changed my comment to be more clear but someone changed it back. Bohdan 19:45, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
"Stop trying to make this about CP" - um, have you looked at the title of the article this is the talk page for? Not "atheism", or "atheism and IQ". It's an article about conservapedia - one that is intentionally mocking. That is what this article is for. There are other less mocking ones, though it's hard not to (I did read a good stub about Eleanor of Aquitaine at CP once). We also have articles about things like atheism. But not this one. humanbe in 22:21, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Ah, but Human, look at my original comment. It had nothing to do with CP. the response given said something like "CP mocks, so it is ok to mock". I am not asking about atheism, or anything else. Perhaps my original complaint belonged elsewhere. Bohdan 22:26, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Bohdan, it'll be a lot easier to stop making this about Schlafly's BS if you didn't quote it! -- 20:00, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
What's wrong with mockery? Mockery's great. And it's kind of the only credible way to talk to people who, despite overwhelming evidence, choose to ram their heads in the sand and continue to believe that black is white. Doggedpersistance 19:56, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

First of all, Bhodan, I don't consider myself a liberal - see the page I wrote on radicals for a little disambiguation on that. Second of all, it's because I have a sense of humour. That's why I'm here, for teh funny. If I want serious debate, I talk to real people. If I want serious ideas, I pick up a book. Wikis, blogs and chat rooms are for fun. PFoster 19:16, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Liberals like mockery because it makes charlatans who pass themselves off as VERY SERIOUS PEOPLE look like the fools that they are (it helps that conservative humor is seldom funny -- conservative comedians really shouldn't work political, because they tend to look like pigheaded jerks when they do). On a related note, conservatives often complain about liberals' use of profanity. That's even simpler to explain -- unlike conservatives, most of us aren't afraid of words, and feel that every word has its time and place (well, except for words whose sole purpose is to exclude and foster hate, but that's another story). If we want to say something is bullshit or that someone is a fuckhead, we tend not to feel bad about saying so. EVDebs 21:25, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
While I disagree with the OP, I think he raises a good point, if by mere accident; "correlation does not imply causation", and it's important to remember that.-- 23:27, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Brits in chokey[edit]

Dunno about the census figures but I don't think we brits (horrid word) are 1/10th as bothered about religion as those transpond. In my unscientfic opinion the great mass of the lower orders will go to church about 5 times in their lives of which 4 will be to weddings but, if asked, they will still claim to believe in big juju because they think that's the right thing to do. Once in the nick their social conformity constraints are removed (and they're probably getting better education in jail too). KeepYour legs together! 19:18, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

(sorry for posting like this but i've got to jump in as best I can)

A reminder[edit]

Tenia solium scolex.jpg
Do Not Feed the Intestinal Parasite,
for you will only make it stronger.

Also don't worry to much about the google dumping all the links Ken drops get a nofollow tag. 19:29, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

1/2 Hour News Hour[edit]

Wow, I hadn't heard about that show before. Way to rip off This Hour Has 22 Minutes, dudes! --Kels 17:49, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

"Conservative's feeble attempts at humor": Maybe it's just me but this comes off as a bit nit-picky. I mean, come on, give the kid a break, after all, he only learned how to upload pictures three weeks ago! I am, as always, CЯacke® 18:01, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

But they are pretty feeble, he needs to spend more time with us, we might rub off on him and he could do something funny. 18:03, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
Right, they are bad, to be sure, but at least it shows he's not all work. (And of course, by "work" I mean copy & pasting quotes lifted out of their original contents as carefully as a 6000 year-old fossil, the oldest such a thing can be.)
When one attempts humor one needs to be totally neutral to the subject matter, (at least for the "moment" the attempt is made). "Gallows humor" shows the god-like power human beings have to divorce themselves from the moment to comment as if from an outsider's perspective.
I would go so far to say that these attempt aren't even "humor" as much as they are lambasting a defenseless foe, i.e. bullying. CЯacke® 18:16, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
The poodle one is hilarious. I think they are all funny. Bohdan
Seriously? First off, he needs to learn what the definition of parody is, thats bugging me, and second of all you don't stick two paragraphs of a quote mine in the middle of an attempted seemed so down on mockery bohdan, but thats just liberal mockery right? 18:06, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
It's not mockery, its parody. Bohdan 18:07, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
How is it parody there is no parody anywhere on that page, its mockery, which is fine, I dont have a problem with mockery I use it all the time. Its a great rhetorical technique when done correctly and in a funny way. I am just calling you out for a bit of hypocrisy. 18:10, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Again, Bohdan seems to inexplicably support Ken, regardless of merit. Strange trait, that. --Kels 18:09, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

It's not parody, it's just shit. Comedy's not longwinded jokes that take forever and ever to set up and then you get some ranting and conservative opinion in the middle bit like I'm doing here when I go on about mountains or poodles or Dukakis or someone with a burka on in this way and then you turn your lumerbing gag around and you head off toward the punch line like this and then you make your funny point like this with this kind of semi-explanation of the joke in case they missed it and then that's it! HILARIOUS!

He's not making' me laff, there's fer sure Doggedpersistance 18:12, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree they do go on and on. Bohdan 18:13, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
An they are not parody. Why do conservatives have to constantly pervert language!!!!! 18:14, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
I will make no comment on your spelling error. Oh wait... Bohdan
I would argue spelling errors, typos and the like are not a "perversion" of the language. Degradation maybe, but not perversion. Perversion comes from twisting the meanings and uses of words to the point that they become meaningless. 18:20, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
I think you've got something there, DP. One reason so-called "Conservative humour" works so poorly is that it tries to be Conservative first and humour second. The politics are the heart of the jokes, not the funny. And, well, propaganda ain't funny. --Kels 18:18, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
Parody is ToE over to CP. It describes nothing of the theory itself only what could be wrong with it. CЯacke® 18:19, 16 August 2007 (CDT)


Parody relies on its audience knowing the "real mccoy" to discern the laughs in the parody. The more edumacated the audience is to the "real" thing the funnier it is liable to be. Really good parody is subtle and can do some of the education (of the audience) while it is going on, informing as well as doubling the laughs since in doing the educating before a pardoious joke, the audience can feel "in on the joke". CЯacke® 18:27, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

He is not even attempting basic parody here, there is no parody. He is merely mocking. Thats it. 18:28, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
As I said above, it's more like bullying than comedy. Since no one can refute the alleged humor, (for fear of banhammering), the crowd is cowed into silence. (Think of "Joe Lowbrow" slamming Jimmy up against the lockers and when Mr. James comes around the corner "Joe's" defense is "I was just kidding with him.)CЯacke® 18:39, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

That is absolutely correct, Mr.Cracker. Also both mockery and parody require there to be laffs, yuks, or lulz. Guffaws, howls, "woo-hoos", "har-de-har" or thigh slapping is also acceptable. None of which are created by these risible ....things. Doggedpersistance 18:36, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I feel like I am making fun of the special Olympics for not running the mile fast enough. 18:40, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Now, now, cheap shots have their place too. CЯacke®
Ah, see now that's humour. 18:42, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Conservapedia maths[edit]

There seems to be some mirth over poor 'Uncle' Ed's deletion of the original probability article. I can see his point, as it is probably something that a young student might actually need to read and learn, unlike most of the other one-line filler that makes up the 16,300 "quality" articles. If CP is presenting itself as a family-friendly student resource then they should be concentrating on articles about history (other than the Bible), geography, mathematics, languages, science and the arts, instead of obsessing about homosexuality, abortion, the right to bear arms and justifying a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Quite frankly the whole operation is really depressing. Genghis Khant 11:03, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, I don't know how good or bad the original article was, but assuming the content to have been essentially correct, wp:WP:LEAD would certainly have been a more reasonable approach than deletion. But for CP it is certainly much safer to just delete anything that's over their head (i.e. quite a lot), since it might be bogus and they're unable to verify it (with all the scholars pouring from WP into CP...). -- 11:21, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
Does anyone have a saved copy of the deleted article? I'd like to see just how far over people's heads Uncle Ed thought it was. And compare it with some other articles that he didn't delete (yet). See Conservapedia:Best_of_Conservapedia, bullet number 11 or so. I've noted with some amusement that someone at CP (Jaques, to be precise) copied a whole bunch of really esoteric (grad-school level!) math one-liners from some book somewhere. Gotta pad them articles, and make the place educational! SJIHAS 12:06, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
The original text is (if DanH preserved it correctly) as follows:
Probability is the mathematical chance that a certain event will occur out of a number of various possible events. Probability is represented as a number between 0 (representing impossibility), and 1 (representing certainty). Sometimes percentages are used, with numbers from 0% to 100%.
The letter P is used to indicate the probability of some event. For example P(heads) could represent the probability of tossing heads on a coin. More generally, probability can be described in terms of events. These relate to set theory in the following way. The sample space S can be thought of as the set of all possible outcomes. P(S) = 1, as it is certain that one outcome must occur. An event can be thought of as a subset of S. For example, heads would be the subset of the outcomes where heads is tossed on a coin.
I notice that on Bronzefinger's talk page Ed claims to be a "math expert". Genghis Khant 18:22, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

As to the esoteric one liners, if a person was to add a line or two (preferably correct and at the appropriate level) to the existing ones so that Ed sees them and deletes them... This could even be done with less work by un-dead-ending them (and to cover your tracks, un-dead-end others in the same block) or adding the appropriate gradschool level math category to them. Just a matter of bringing them to the attention of over zealous admin types again. --Shagie 18:37, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

I am Bronzefinger (on conservapedia), so I'll clarify. The bit posted above was some of my material, but there was quite a bit more. This covered some fairly basic concepts, such as the propositions 15 and 16 from this article ([8]), and conditional probability ([9]). I've asked Ed Poor for a copy of the stuff that was deleted on his talk page, without success (so far at least): [10]. I gave examples for each term, and tried to give an intuitive idea of probability. I'm not sure what Ed Poor had trouble with, especially as a "math expert". Silverfish 09:40, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Andy and the Goths[edit]

In my more curmudgeonly moments, I might find it a little bit hypocritical that an Evangelical Christian like Schlafly would write that the Goths are "zombie-like" in their behaviour. "Bleat for Jesus," and all that. Luckily, I'm feeling pretty good about my fellow human being today. Must be the cooler weather. PFoster 14:37, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Cooler weather? Undeniable proof that global warming is an aetheistic liberal communist scam!!!one!!!11!!eleven!! ThunderkatzHo! 14:39, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
Aetheistic thats an awesome word, some sort of aesthetics atheist combination, we need an article about that! tmtoulouse pester 14:43, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
Clearly, because atheists care about nothing more than aesthetics, especially when dealing with the "global warming scare." C'mon, it was one typo, Mr. "I hate apostraphes." ThunderkatzHo! 14:47, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
I demand that thunderkatz receive a 40 second block for perversion of language. Bohdan
Oh I am not making fun at all, sorry, you have been a my personal savior many times in regards to that. I just really like the word. tmtoulouse pester 14:56, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
I demand that Bohdan receive a kajillion year block for not capitalizing my name. I then demand that I be blocked for two seconds for using the word kajillion as an actual number. ThunderkatzHo! 15:00, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
Oh yeah? Well I demand that you be blocked for a kajillion plus one years for NOTHING! Bohdan 15:01, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
Then you wold no longer hold the record for longest block ever bohdan! tmtoulouse pester 15:05, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
Mediawiki does not recognize Kajillion as a valid block time. tmtoulouse pester 15:07, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
That is so damn lame.Eye Eye.jpg See You 15:26, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
Block 'em both for a googol seconds! (Offwith their heads!) humanbe in 16:10, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Kaz done gone[edit]

Hm - saw Kaz had gone red earlier - had a good run for his/her money though. Keep garlic for vampires 17:41, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

The TK Manual of Style[edit]

LOVELY exchange going on at Talk:MoS right now. TK is insisting on his messed-up style (using capital letters in titles, even if the title isn't normally written that way, like "Liberal Bias", "Capital Punishment", "Average Velocity", etc.), even while sysops PJR, CPAdmin1, and Ed Poor go all "...dude, no. You're just causing editors more work."

Best part: Ed, despite speaking up against this, apparently gets suckered into applying a "software solution" to solve whatever problem TK thinks people are having. To me, this looks like "Ed will patch the MediaWiki software so I don't have to revert my decision".

Great Lulz all around... and at the same time, it's so incredibly sad. Shows just how much power TK has, though. --Sid 16:02, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Ed Poor - 'greatest Mediator on the Planet' - heh. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
He is in one way, if forced to deal with Ed "self-fellatio" Poor for any length of time I would think even the most bitter rivals would find a compromise to escape! tmtoulouse pester 16:29, 18 August 2007 (CDT)
Wasn't his de-adminship over at WP because he deleted that page and refused to have any mediation over it at all? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
No idea, I couldn't stomach reading another site with Poor rantings, CP is enough for me. I have avoided as much as I can CPers vs. WP links. tmtoulouse pester 16:34, 18 August 2007 (CDT)
Yeah. Or they'll choose the easy way and escape out through the next window. The result is sorta the same, anyway. Ed's great compromises usually can be summed up with "I side with the guy sitting at the longer lever and then try to convince the other guy that his complete surrender will be a compromise." --Sid 16:36, 18 August 2007 (CDT)
That part got a weak laugh out of me, too. Especially when Mr. Greatest Mediator does stuff like threatening to banhammer people for things that happened a full month ago (See here for the month delay - also note the edit summary - and here for the warning.) Ed is Da Man!!1!one!eleven111 --Sid 16:36, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Potato. Kangaroo.

The Big Switcheroo[edit]

I decided to just go ahead and pull the trigger on the page switcheroo. They are now switched as follows:

  • Main Page Latest News from Conservapedia now links to What is Going on at CP?
  • There is a link from What is Going On at CP? to Best Of.... to encourage users to move stuff across. It may not be enough, but we'll see.

Now, the hard part - the merge. In an ideal world, we would remove the 'newsy' tidbits off Best Of... and put them into What Is Going On?, leaving behind the classics. And the opposite - remove classics from What Is Going On? and get them over to Best Of..

Whelk Oil. Doggedpersistance 18:07, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Well lets break out the beer and get at it. Are archiving older months here as well? tmtoulouse pester 18:16, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, let's move the older months to Best Of to start. Doggedpersistance 18:21, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I am still not understanding, do we want the archives of older months to be split as "news" and "Best of" or are we just going to start that with August. I can see pros and cons to either way. tmtoulouse pester 18:23, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Holy Bumhole, that will be a lot of work. How about we start by simply merging August, then leave the Archives of previous months till later? Doggedpersistance 18:25, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

The archives are fine, they are all before the newsy stuff started getting added to best of, I'm pretty sure. humanbe in 21:50, 18 August 2007 (CDT)
Okay so we will pull out the "newsy" stuff form august and move it over to whats happening then? tmtoulouse pester 18:27, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I stuck a split heading in the middle so we can edit the section and avoid edit conflicts, want to take top and I take bottom? tmtoulouse pester 18:30, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

OOooer! Missus! Lawdy-me! Hohum. Anyway, yes, that's a smart move. Let's try to go one direction only - if we try to do both directions at once it could get confusing. So....newsy stuff out of BO and into WIGO? Doggedpersistance 18:33, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Hang on a sec - what's the best/fastest way to ensure we get the results properly chronological? Doggedpersistance 18:35, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, this IS going to suck. We need a plan, and a system. Any bright ideas? Doggedpersistance 18:39, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

How much does chronology matter? Really? tmtoulouse pester 18:40, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, I guess really not much - especially in Best Of... I guess this is just going to be a bunch of dog work. but I s'pose once it's done, it's done, and then there's the Archives to leave to someone else? Doggedpersistance 18:43, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I am going to dump them over at whats going on, at the bottom chronology can be maintained moving forwards. tmtoulouse pester 18:46, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

It's like watching the fleet manouvering just over the horizon - you can just se the masts and the occasional puff of smoke. Keep garlic for vampires 18:50, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Very funny Susan. I enjoyed that. Have a biscuit. Doggedpersistance 18:54, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Dunkin' my biccy in my coffee - yummy. Keep Dunking - Rich Tea 19:06, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Arrgh, this does suck! Are we winning? Doggedpersistance 19:11, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Imagine what’s happened as in a William Gibson cyberspace 'landscape': gigantic towers being dragged floor by floor from one location to another, with another (talk) tower slowly growing alongside. Over all godlike machinery hefting the huge blocks. Keep Dunking - Rich Tea 19:23, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Don't Create a Page about RationalWiki on Conservapedia[edit]

This user who was probably a genuine Conservative has just been banned for five years for creating a page about Rational Wiki --Uncle J 20:09, 31 October 2007 (EDT) [11]

For your viewing pleasure: Image:Cprw 20071031.png --Shagie 20:36, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

How did you get that? --Uncle J 20:42, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

I randomly hit CP while the page was there in recent changes, followed the link and sat around awhile (waiting to see if someone more active would have grabbed a screen shot). When I saw it was deleted, asked a cow-orker how do you do a screen shot on a PC, tossed it into a gimp from the clipboard, saved it to desktop, and uploaded it. --Shagie 20:44, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

This...uhm...hasn't really worked out very well[edit]

This Best of CP page is dying, as almost nothing ever gets moved in here, and there are classics that aren't here. Yet I for one think such a page should exist. The WIGO age is lively and fun, but it's just not easy to cut and paste the Best of... items over here and remove them from there. What to do, what to do? Anyone got any ideas as to how we can best preserve the All-Time Classic Boinkers? DogP 20:07, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Idea One: Draft Sid back to BoCP and let him loose. He pretty much owned it back in the day, only adding good stuff, with only one link to ongoing lulzfests. WIGO has, for better or for worse, far lower standards. Otherwise, the only thing I can think of is to remind the WIGO regulars to port over the high points. humanUser talk:Human 20:30, 12 November 2007 (EST)
This is kind of a pipe dream, but do you know what would be cool? Some kind of in-line voting system on the WIGO entries that would lead to the higher-scoring ones to be included in BOCP. Sort of how its done on forums like Fark, for example.--Bayesupdate 20:53, 12 November 2007 (EST)
I had that same dream a couple months ago. If only there were an easier way to "vote" than editing the whole damn article... A simple pair of yea/nay vote buttons next to each item or something... humanUser talk:Human 20:57, 12 November 2007 (EST)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................maybe..........hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm tmtoulouse pester 20:59, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Oooh, I like it when Tm's gears begin to turn... DogP 21:48, 12 November 2007 (EST)

The forums, perhaps? --Linus(plot evil tech) 22:04, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I am starting to get code burnt, but is someone available to go over to rationalbeta and play with what I have done so far to see if they can get something to look more visually appealing? here like maybe using tables? tmtoulouse pester 00:38, 13 November 2007 (EST)

It works though it's ugly. Maybe something like this? CЯacke® 00:48, 13 November 2007 (EST)
Ah bloody....argh...okay I will work on it.....I can't just do it like html though its this fucked up pseudo php shit you have to od everything in under mediawiki so its a bitch to format. tmtoulouse pester 00:51, 13 November 2007 (EST)
I know nothing about coding...a long time ago I made a promise to myself that I would learn no code, to give myself a chance at life. I had friends who got into writing code and made millions...but ALL they DO is write teh code. I'm less rich but I can, like, play volleyball and stuff. CЯacke® 01:01, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Took another swipe at it. tmtoulouse pester 01:41, 13 November 2007 (EST)

I seen. Ah, since I cannot login/create account over there I'll sprechinze here: Better...much much better, mine only nitpickle would be: "thumbsdown" really isn't a "thumbsup" rotated 180°, but (and do this yourself, now: do a "thumbs up!" there as you sit reading a "thumbsdown [only if you're NOT holding a cup of hot coffee, not that you'd be seeing this as the blinding pain wouldn't permit it], see?) Thumbsdown is a back view of a hand. I think it matters because I think voters would tend to shy away from physically impossible voting icons. CЯacke® 13:04, 13 November 2007 (EST)
Can I assign you the task of picking out the thumb icons then? Find them and upload them to replace the following files: Thumb2.gif and Thumb3.GIF then it will update automatically. I stripped the text and changed the display to give a value that is thumbsup-thumbsdown more like the "digg" system, is that better or worse then before? 13:08, 13 November 2007 (EST)

I'll initial cursory research showed an abundant lack of visually appealing dual thumbs up/downs that were logical and possible...I'll try again. CЯacke®

How's about[edit]

NBCP.gifThis for not quite good enough for BofCP and BCP.gif This for stuff that is "excellent" for best of CP? CЯacke®

Both Krusty and the Thumbs (great name for a band in the 70's?) take up a lot of space. How about a small green or red blob? If you can pull this off it would be great. DogP 14:48, 13 November 2007 (EST)

The thumbs would be ok if they were at the left of the entry, with the numbers. But a red and green blob sounds good, too. Oh, and not every item should have voting icons - just put them in if the editor thinks they might be best of? humanUser talk:Human 14:51, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Yes on that suggestion. DogP 14:56, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Check it out now please, and read my comment on the talk page for some exposition.......thoughts? Feedback? 16:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)

I have ported the system over to the main wiki and have set up a sample at User:Tmtoulouse/wigosample feel free to leave comments on that page. tmtoulouse pester 17:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Doubtless, all of you have already discussed this[edit]

Priests abused only 100,000 children? Well, aren't they the paradigm of morality! After all, they fuck little boys at a slower* rate than atheists!

Allow me to borrow Schlafly's logic for a moment:
The Rwandans massacred only one million people. They are obviously morally superior to the Germans, who killed 12 million.

*100,000/50 years= 2,000/year= 5.5 children/day= 1 child every 4 hours, 23 minutes. We can reasonably assume this continues at a similar rate through today. By the way, Schlafly compares just Catholic priests to the entire public school system, which in America easily dwarfs the size and reach of the Church. Proportionally, priests are probably worse. Why not throw Orthodox rabbis in—possibly even worse than Catholic priests—in an attempt to even things out a bit? --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:38, 12 January 2008 (EST)

It's really getting into the semantics of it, but was I the only one who read it as literally 4.5 children out of 50 million? That would make a rate of about 0.00009%... -- the.ip.guy/69 Talkroute 02:15, 12 January 2008 (EST)
It was particularly rough for that half child. Seriously though, he probably meant 4.5 million, even though that's a lousy way to say it. Don't even get me started on how messed up it is that he tries to justify the abuse of a single child, much less 100,000. --BillOhannitygodvelocity. 10:43, 12 January 2008 (EST)
Rabbis molest children? I know they're allowed to get married, which probably takes some of the pressure off, unlike Catholic priests. --Gulik 12:21, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Where is pants?[edit]

What happend to the one about women wearing pants? I know it was high top in the vote before wandals attacked. (declared interest: it was me what put it there) SusanPurrrrrrr 10:57, 17 January 2008 (EST)

What the hell is this doing here?[edit]

"A new year and Andy carries on grooming Beth after her block for this piece of wanton vandalism. Excuse me while I puke. Even though he also thanks HelpJazz, Fox, Dan, and Taj, here at RW we only focus on Bethany. And Andy's the creepy one. Yup. -->"

You can even see the second half of the no-show brackets ("-->"). NightFlareSpeak, mortal 00:42, 22 February 2008 (EST)


I recently came up with an experiment to perform on conservapedia. I made my username "Morality" (In a similar trend to my "Sanity" username here), and my password "Schlaflysucks". Go ahead, I've logged out, feel free to test it. I was banned promptly (before attempting to point out the Non-Extreme-Liberal sites that gave "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" VERY, VERY bad reviews) and was banned PERMANENTLY, as in FOREVER, on the basis of "Username". Bullshit. They wouldn't permanently ban somebody for a username, because then they would never be able to come back on any account.

I think this should be pointed out.

The link to the banning proof is here:

What do you guys think? Should we add this? Sanity 14:49, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, if you register a username on CP that isn't a real name, there's about a 50% chance that some over-zealous sysop will deal you out a ban. It's usually a short one (2 days?), but if there's been vandalism recently it's likely they'll assume you're the vandal and permaban you. Ludicrous, I know. Jellyfish! 14:52, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Well darn it. There goes a potential blown cover. Sanity 14:54, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
The truth is... they might actually have banned you anyway. You wouldn't get banned for a username like "Morality", and you might not get banned for liberal talk page contributions, but together they just look a you at say "troll" (or as Jelly pointed out, "vandal" for any newly registered user). Really it's more arrogance then anything else; they'll allow the occasional liberal on site, but never for moment think they have a shred intelligence, wisdom or morality - and of course to proclaim otherwise is deceitful, in their eyes.
Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong (I don't know how wiki software works). It's just not certain from your example. Sysops can be particularly capricious at times, you might have just posted the wrong type of comment in the wrong place. UchihaKATON! 14:57, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
I don't think the MW software lets anyone see editor's passwords. humanUser talk:Human 15:10, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Hard To Choose[edit]

After spending some time randomly reading Conservapedia, the thought has crossed my mind that choosing the Best of Conservapedia is difficult. The entire site is full of tortured logic, hypocricy, ultra right-wing bias and the closed-minded ravings of their Great Leader, Schlafly. The video on Youtube underscores how paranoid and just plain goofy that guy is. Historygeek2007 12:03, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Very true. Honestly, the Best of Conservapedia is simply go there, have a poke around, you'll find some Best Of material pretty damn quick. DogP 12:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Also it's the time aspect: as new insanities appear they'll probably end up here. A lot of the Best stuff was twelve months ago, but they're still producing it. SusanG  ContribsTalk 12:33, 4 June 2008 (EDT)


You guys really need to archive the conservapedia stuff. The majority of these links have long been deleted from the CP database. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Just wrong[edit]

Hey guys. Feel free to delete this from the talk page, but mother of fuck, CP's so so so wrong. Anyone who'd pay for Andy's wisdoms, quite frankly, deserves them. (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't it look pretty?[edit]

Like what the WIGO page itself and the archives does look like all pretty and that y'know? (With the pretty boarders around each entry and a green/yellow/red bar (but no up/down arrows of course)) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)