Conservapedia talk:Bugler/An open letter from a disillusioned conservapedian

Keep in mind, in Ed-speak, "free speech" means "creationism and prayer in classrooms". He uses the same words, but it's a different language. --Kels 10:03, 11 December 2008 (EST)

And Andy once again demonstrates his complete lack of management skills. This does remind me a bit of May last year, though. Maybe we're gearing up for a repeat of the Night of the Blunt Knives? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 10:19, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Ed Speak for "free speech" and the actual meaning of "free speech" just adds to the irony. There's is clearly "it's only free when we agree with it". ArmondikoV^theist 10:22, 11 December 2008 (EST)

As I recall, Andy seemed much more involved and less outright incompetent when the NotBK happened. These days, he's not a hell of a lot more than a puppet. --Kels 10:24, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Well TK offered to help him. Proxima Centauri 10:26, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I think we could well be gearing up for a night of the blunt knives. This time the losers will be those conservatives who fear Aschlafly is harming their cause. Proxima Centauri 15:32, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Don't you know that any conservative who doesn't agree with Andy isn't a real conservative? Stile4aly 15:36, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Thinking back, Andy was pretty much the same incompetent, blindered, poor administrator 18 months ago. As far as a new "NotBK"? I doubt it. That purge cleared out 30-odd active editors who had something in common - backroom chat about CP on RW1. All were liberal, mostly agnostic or worse, etc. No, the "great attrition forward" will be just to get the slightly more reasonable or moderate conservatives there to just go away. IMHO. ħuman 23:09, 11 December 2008 (EST)

In other words, the people that Bugler et. al keep calling liberals. It's the same thing in spirit if not in practice. (Assuming it happens... and I'm not so sure of that. Of course, I wasn't around for NotBK1). JazzMan 23:36, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I feel sorry for the people who are actually trying to fix up the site. Assuming there are any left who aren't parodists or loonies. --Gulik 03:41, 12 December 2008 (EST)

I feel sorry for them too. They are Conservatives. I want them to lose. I still know it hurts them when their misguided cause fails. Proxima Centauri 03:50, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Responses

I've used the meme "Teh stupid! It burns!" a few times before... but never before have I actually tried to claw teh stupid out of my eye sockets. My hands were literally clawing for a second before I recovered. Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 09:12, 12 December 2008 (EST)

It floors me though, how Andy is in effect calling PJR a filthy atheist. He sets the ideological bar pretty high when he's riled up, don't he? --Kels 09:12, 12 December 2008 (EST)

If truth is beauty, and beauty truth, then absolute truth implies absolute beauty, and anyone who claims beauty is relative is claiming the same for truth, and all true christians believe in Andy's definition of absolute truth. But I doubt he's worked it out that coherently. In any case, I didn't read too much, because of the aforementioned danger to my eyeballs. Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 09:16, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Delete/Don't Delete

I say don't delete. There is good information here, lost to the ages on its original site (I presume), about the attitudes of current/former CP users/sysops. It includes almost everybody who was anybody in 2008 when it was originally played out. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 22:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ty is on a mission to gut the RW history he doesn't like. The worthless fag-nuts complies a list, waits until he has enough numbers then fucking guts it. Ace^Moderator 22:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's nice Ace. This was deleted over two months ago. delete it again. Тyrannis^Plead 22:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Then recreate, repeat. Ace^Moderator 22:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the list? I remember looking at it/voting on some of them (all of them "keep" votes I think, but tl;dr. It would have taken days to go through the whole thing. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 22:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing here dude, only a person as anally retentive with fuck all else to do like Ty would bother with a list like that which plays into his hands because as soon as he gets three votes to one he'll delete the page knowing no one will be the wiser. Then i stumble on a page which links to one deleted and recreate it, wherein Ty pops up and yells about how it was voted to be deleted. Ace^Moderator 22:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing links here but a talk page archive. Тyrannis^Plead 22:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, links to Ed Poor. Ace^Moderator 22:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Make it a subpage of the Bugler article. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Good plan, done. Ace^Moderator 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You could make it sub-page of my article - except I never made enough splash to get one. LowKey (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since this is about RW history as much as CP history (see the below section) maybe this and the other refugee articles should be carted over to RWW. Since the CP-RW relationship is part of RW history and since RWW amongst other things documents RW history they surely have a safe haven there. Make it a sub-page of my article there, and while you're at it someone could lob in a copy of my final spray at TK - if anyone knows where a copy is (I don't think I kept one). LowKey (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A newbie comment

I'm a newbie here and ignorant (by choice) of any politics. All I can say is that I found this excerpt very interesting, particularly the discussion about "Absolute beauty" - a curious aspect of CPism that I was not previously aware of. The article certainly seems to be well within the remit of RW (at least as I understand it), so deleting this seems a poor decision. Peace, out. Voxhumana (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Many of our old CP articles have been deleted so you are seeing the last of RW's collective history. Ace^Moderator 23:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking (and I'm not trying to open a heated debate) what is the reasoning for the deletion? Voxhumana (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ask This guy who has been vocal about for longer than most. Ace^Moderator 23:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I shall await his input. While patent nonsense can be deleted, this article should not have been IMO, as I found it both interesting and enlightening. Voxhumana (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

oneday nutty tried ot delete some old articles he saw as bad image for RW, others took notice and the great de-CPing began, on a giant list about... 6 or so people voted on. --il'Dictator Mikal 23:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Schlafly is one lone crackpot who almost no one in the world has heard of, operating out of New Jersey somewhere that all these kids have formed a website to obsessively watch and hang on every single word he says just to go "lol wut?!?!" at it. Frankly, if you're proud of some of the hateful, spiteful immature crap that's been written about Schlafly here you're as much a fucking moron as he is. I think we should gut some more until he's where he deserves to be; standing on a street corner desperate for the attention by handing out pamphlets and wearing a sandwich board. ^postate 06:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Schlafly is one lone crackpot who almost no one in the world has heard of... That is excepting the regular viewers of the Colbert Report, yes? ListenerX^TalkerX 06:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That was a 5 minute interview years ago. I mean, literally, years ago now (like the Lenski thing, that was years ago, and the science behind that has moved on, yet this wiki insists on emphatically refusing to move the fuck on). While Colbert has been producing other stuff and interviewing other people since and for long before. Regular viewers of that show will have forgotten about him probably by the end of the week, unless they went online and got sucked into stalking the guy on a website beginning with R. The Colbert-Schlafly relationship can be summed up as "this looks great on your CV, not so much on mine". ^postate 06:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. Most lone crackpots do not have the media exposure that Mr. Schlafly has had. Conservapedia still gets cited as representative of conservative opinion. I think we should at least be archiving this historical material someplace. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the Bugler stuff, but you've seen some of the shite on here, right? Most of the stuff that was pulled up for deletion was beyond awful and barely good enough to be hosted on Conservapedia itself, and frankly I'm embarrassed to be even marginally associated with people who want to keep it. ^gnostic 06:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree about deleting puerile trash such as Conservapedia:Mystery:Who earned Andrew Schlafly his degrees? and Fun:Andrew Schlafly, but not historical material such as this or Conservapedia:The week that never was. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The week that never was, summary: in Jan 2009, CP's server crashed and things went tits up. The end, now let's look at how much material we can stalk from the site to try and justify this single inconsequential event taking up an entire article.

Brilliant historical scholarship there and totally worth every single bit of bandwidth and server power it costs us! ^pathetic 07:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

More like: "CP's server crashed and they lost a week's worth of edits, but Mr. Schlafly pretended that nothing had happened." ListenerX^TalkerX 07:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For sure some of it was puerile but some of it was historical. Ace^Moderator 08:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The ash piles I grew up next to were also historical, but we got rid of them and built a park on top of it. ^postate 08:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

So we'll just disappear it and pretend it never happened... Ace^Moderator 08:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Gawd, Armonikov, you are being an ass and making no sense. "taking up an entire article"? What does that even mean? If they get few hits, they cost nothing. And the guy was on CC's fake news show. What's your claim to fame? Andrew may still have tricks up his sleeve in the future, and we have the documentary on him. Sure, it's overweighted, but his site is how we all met. Idiot. ħuman 03:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Except for the vitriol/personal attacks, ListenerX^TalkerX 03:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Liberapedia

if you delete this I'll copy it to Liberapedia, it won't be lost but fewer people will read it there. Proxima Centauri (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)