Conservapedia talk:Roger Schlafly

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Let's keep that picture nice and big, okay? Man, I want to print it off, cut eye-holes and wear it for Halloween. Flippin;-) 16:36, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

*shudder* this is almost as scary as the Burger King mask. Trashbat 16:41, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Interesting business model the guy's got there. Did economics expert Andy come up with it? --Kels 16:44, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm not going to change the caption but the person who put it there should, though I did get a good laugh from it...it's a bit on the libelous side. ~ Cracker 16:55, 25 May 2007 (CDT)


Good heavens, that grudge page is amazing. How unfair that our fair, unspoiled innocent of a Schlafly is cursed to be surrounded by such rogues. But fear not, our Roger is moral and steadfast! --Kels 21:20, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I think we need to add a section to CP's entry on mockery re. the therapeutic benefits thereof ;) --Robledo 21:30, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

We liberals (well, I'm actually NDP) rely on it, you know! --Kels 21:32, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

What is his problem with quantum gravity? ----Linus(plot evil tech) 07:32, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Roger and his little brother's little blog[edit]

Wait, Andy tried to keep Roger out of CP? Where'd this come from? --Kels 16:17, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

It's common knowledge, Kels - cp:user:RobS. No, seriously, it's a fact that someone dug up, apparently he found out about CP on the news (Fox?) or some such. The part about mommy beating Andy up to let Roger play with him, well, I made that shit it up. But it's some pretty dope shit, and probably true. 90% true. humanbe in 16:53, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Better than 98.73% of conservative facts! --Kels 17:47, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Roger said he found out about it through "reading blogs" -- I added a link to the edit. I wonder if John knows about it? --jtltalk 17:50, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Awesome, thanks for the fact link. I ref-styled it on the page. I think I am within bounds these days referring to "blogs" as "the news", right? humanbe in 18:15, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Seriously though folks[edit]

While we've had a bit of fun with this page perhaps we should stick to the facts. I'm sure we can find enough outrageous stuff in his own writings to send him up rather than making up silly (if funny) comments that only gives ammunition to CP to denigrate us. Mad Min 07:45, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

CP denigrate us? We are the website whose name they dare not speak! humanbe in 16:51, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Come to that, isn't it kinda like worrying that the monkeys are gonna throw poo at us? --Kels 16:52, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, for myself, I would be very much more concerned about poo-throwing monkeys. Criticism from CP is something akin to a badge of honour. --Horace 18:28, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Solicitations[edit]

Often some money paid for analysis in advance can save a lot of money and trouble later.

Doesn't this sound like a solicitaion for bribes? Mad Min 07:48, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

A solicitation for work, sure, but a bribe? He's a "patent agent", not a "patent investigator". An agent works for an inventor, essentially a patent lawyer who happens not to be a lawyer. On the other hand, I'm only finding one patent (5,460,511) that lists him as the agent, and that was issued in 1995; he's not even listed as agent on his 7 patents. You can't search the pending applications by agent, so he may have lots backed up in the queue, I suppose. --jtltalk 10:04, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
"Nice base you have here, Colonel, it'd be a shame if something were to... happen to it..."
I'm sure he has a lot backed up "in his queue" humanbe in 16:58, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

TK[edit]

Rashfly's mentor
Homo neanderthalis

And who is scarier here?--PalMD-yada yada 18:20, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Now you've gone and done it, using his initials... we have a distinguished user here who goes by TK... humanbe in 18:44, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

My bad.--PalMD-yada yada 18:46, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Whatever. We could have a UXB - "this user has pissed off TK X times" (on this site). With the other TK's picture! humanbe in 19:12, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Oh, so that's who thinks I'm subhuman? Hehehe! I'm actually a Hiver...... Spica 19:19, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

This guy…[edit]

is creepy. I'm scared to go to sleep now. --Linus(plot evil tech) 14:57, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Roger doesn't like me anymore[edit]

I have pissed him off over at wikipedia, I figure at this rate I might as well aim to annoying all the schlafly family. tmtoulouse beleaguer 20:43, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Tommy, your ownership of a website that publishes such masterpeices as this, this and of course this seem to prove his point quite well. Just sayin, that's all... SHahB 02:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Removal of material[edit]

A site administrator removed the following material from the article:

"According to court records Roger Schlafly was married in 1996 and has two minor children. His wife filed for divorce in 2003 after a separation. Roger has been fighting legal battles off and on for years over the tens of thousands of dollars the court has ordered him to pay in attorney's fees, child support and alimony. So far he has met with zero success, great legal skills truly runs in this family. [1]"

ref[edit]

  1. In re Marriage of Schlafly (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 747

Since said site administrator has all ready labeled me a troll I will drop the issue, but I think this is relevant and Roger has turned himself into a public figure by this sites standards and would like additional feedback. Fifth Horseman 14:34, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

I apologised for the "troll" remark, see the JS talk page. in regards to your point about "turning himself into a public figure," 1. Posting on a wiki hardly makes one a "public figure." 2. His marriage is not relevant to his activities on said wiki. How could it be? PFoster 14:37, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
I'd want a checkable innertube ref, first up. After that, I'm not particularly arsed one way or the other. He rarely edits CP these days, though, so I'd probably lean towards laying off his marriage. --Robledo 15:48, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
I started on writing a similar reply, but got diverted and cancelled it. However, having thought it over bit, I would regard it as a relevant fact if Andy and/or his mum were making a big song and dance about divorce in the same way they diss homosexuals. Jollyfish.gifGenghispillaging 16:00, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
When a flat-earther family-values conservative has a nasty divorce, that is just too ironic to ignore. Rational Edthink! 16:04, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Roger is also an active troll (or was one) on places like talkorigins. However, I do fail to see why the details of his marriage are important, if he is not publicly campaigning for "family values" himself (this makes people like N. Gingrich's marital states germane). ħumanUser talk:Human 17:45, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Human, do you know what ad hominem is? SHahB 17:47, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:59, 28 May 2008 (EDT)
Argument against the man. Attacking a factual statement by attacking the person making the statement. However, if one is making the statement about family values, the importance of family and the like - exposing the statement through action showing otherwise is not an ad hominem attack. If it was, any attempt to demonstrate hypocrisy "do as I say not as I do" would be an ad hominem attack. Unless, that is, you are referring to the bit at the end of "great legal skills run in the family" being the ad hominem against Andy, in which case it might be valid. Whatever the case, it is especially important (see that hypocrisy thing again) for those claiming that such and such is an ad hominem and shouldn't be used not to use such methods themselves - even in jest. It would reduce the effectiveness of their own arguments and moral high ground in pointing out other's use of it. --Shagie 18:02, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Roger, an atheist?[edit]

I was looking at his blog when I came across this little ditty Hmmm. DLerner 13:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Ironic, indeed, but if you look at more of his "posts", you'll see a common thread is that he tries to rip apart essentially logical fallacies in things he quotes. In this case, the thing he quotes takes a correlation between intelligence (or at least advanced education) and atheism and deduces that intelligence cause atheism. His comment, "Or maybe atheism is causing people to be more intelligent" is not meant to be "what he thinks", just the point that the correlation might imply causation in the other direction.
His comments tend to be so cryptic that I can see the confusion, though! ħumanUser talk:Human 14:18, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
PS, of course, you might also be right, and he is leaning towards untheism. Have to ask him, I guess... ħumanUser talk:Human 14:19, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Comparisons to Kaczinski[edit]

Are the comparisons to Theodore Kaczinski wise, given that Kaczinski was not just a "pretty bright guy", but a mathematical genius. Phantom Hoover 04:06, 24 December 2008 (EST)

I dunno... Roger is actually pretty sharp in the maths (maybe not at the "teach high school students" level, but at the advanced theoretical etc. level). But add that to the, um, borderline personalities and the picture where he looks like Ted's fashion mentee, and it's hard not to go there. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:21, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Drunk blogging?[edit]

http://schlafly.blogspot.com/2009/10/foreign-born-prize-winners.html

In here is a homophobic remark AND cite to the racist VDARE blog. AP 01:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That was nicely incoherent. - π 01:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
At least when I "drunk blog" it's a wiki where other, saner voices can rollback or cleanup... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You are expecting sane people to read something written by one of Phyllis Schlafly's children--Thanatos 05:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
== If your browser can display Chinese and Japanese, read this comment exchange and fall down laughing ==

http://schlafly.blogspot.com/2009/12/avoiding-goofy-character-sets.html

Responding to someone writing in Chinese: "That last comment just shows up as empty squares in my browser." The punchline: "You want me to admit the usefulness of posting empty boxes on my blog?" ROFLOLOLOLOL I wonder how much cocaine the CIA gave Roger that day?

AP (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a confession. All those posters were me. The French, Japanese and Chinese were produced by Google, but they do display properly in my browser. I had no idea RW had picked up on this little discussion until I saw a recent edit by Toast. I de-subbed from his blog a couple of weeks ago when I realised he was never going to have anything interesting to say. — Unsigned, by: SuspectedReplicant / talk / contribs
Been browsing his blog, apart from being a misogynist, anti-gay, anti foreigner; I found this little gem: " Eating more slowly will not solve the planet's problems. Obesity is a bigger problem than starvation." Which planet is he on? yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 08:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That blog is full of win. there is no reason for educated people to use anything but English. The man is a genius. --Worm(t | c) 08:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That whole comment block is foul:
Why would anyone want domain names in Cyrillic or any other goofy foreign alphabet? I hope that I will be able to confure my browser to ignore such domains. People use the internet as a universal communication tool. English is the universal language. Maybe Russian farmers talk to each other in something other than English, but there is no reason for educated people to use anything but English.
Fucking idiot. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Finite[edit]

Looking at this is confusing me. Either I don't get Roger's point, or he's completely wrong. He quotes this:

If there is a finite probability of something happening (ie. a planet forming around a star, or a galaxy forming), then in an infinite universe there will be an infinite number of that thing.

That makes sense to me. But not to Roger apparently:

In this sentence, the word "finite" has to be read as "non-zero" to make any sense. Finite means not infinite. He is confusing zero with infinite.

Umm, is he? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As any language, the English language is full of inconsistencies and odd phrases. Finite chance is traditionally used for a non-zero chance. I suppose, that finite chance even predates non-zero chance, and (nearly) everyone knows what is meant. I would imagine that it has something to do with finite odds. larronsicut fur in nocte 09:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Roger flip-flops on obesity, contradicts with Andy too[edit]

"Just look at how fat public school kids are. Maybe the statistic is slightly off, but I could find 5 stories in 60 seconds decrying the obesity in public school kids." --Andy, Dec. 21, 2008

"Eating more slowly will not solve the planet's problems. Obesity is a bigger problem than starvation." --Roger, Jan. 11, 2010

"The most nutritious foods are also the most fattening foods." --Roger, Feb. 8, 2010

Double U. Tee. Eff.

On a related note, why not create a new section documenting instances when Roger/Andy get into edit fights on CP. From WIGO, I've seen several, like: File:Wigo307_0.png, differences on "Quantifying Openmindedness" (july 2007), etc.? AP (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Rowan Atkinson?[edit]

I was just trying to be funny, and shouldn't articles inject humor where appropriate? Also, SPOV! AP (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it really funny? He doesn't even look like him... ħumanUser talk:Human 04:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
But I beg to differ. That's why I said...Rog has curlier hair than Atkinson. I mean, think about how George W. Bush looks like a chimpanzee. AP (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Post a picture here of Rowan that looks like Roger, then. Also, why on Earth is it funny that Roger might look like Rowan?? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe the Mr. Bean connection? Blue Talk 05:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, perhaps. I still wanna see side-by-side evidence, dammit, Jim! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia. And browser tabs. AP (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention Mr. Bean being "a child in a grown man's body" too. Roger boldly expresses antiquated social conservative views (how many times have you read him using "Moslem" and "Mohammedan" to refer to Islam topics?) under the guise of "American patriarchy". AP (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
They've both got big noses. That's about it.  Lily Inspirate me. 20:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Not similar, not amusing, not worth mentioning. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Why have this?[edit]

I haven't been around for all too long, but as far as I can tell Roger is a bit player at CP and always has been. Yes, he's an administrator, but only because he was born a Schlafly. Yet now when someone googles Roger, the first page is this hit piece which digs up all kinds of personal information, calls him a "raving paranoiac", finds a lot of objectionable things he's said, posts an old personals ad of his, etc. And of course none of this has anything at all to do with Conservapedia, which I guess is the purported reason for this page to exist in the first place.

Roger may be a total dick, but I don't think it's really fair to him to have a page like this. We could write a page to make just about anyone look like an ass if we looked at everything they've said online. IMO, this page has nothing to do with the mission anyway, so I propose to delete it, or to make it about Roger the Conservapedian. --Benod (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, we had an (AFAIR) inconclusive discussion about whether CP sysops are public figures. In my opinion, his behaviour on CP, views he's published elsewhere, and professional background are relevant and public information, so that's OK. His personal ad, on the other hand, should go. And the "failed cryptographer" paragraph is unsourced. Röstigraben (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me. But even if he's a failed cryptographer, who cares? I don't think the CP sysop pages need to be a chronicle of all their personal and professional failures. Stick to their actions on CP and maybe their other political activities as is relevant. --Benod (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it would be nice if we could use Roger's article as an example to develop a general guideline. The last time, I wasn't too sad to see the discussion peter out, because it just got people's tempers up and wasn't really going anywhere, but I guess that was because it revolved around the biggest asshole over at CP. Roger's an idiot, confirmed misogynist and right-wing hack, but he's not important enough to be universally loathed. Röstigraben (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
And when it comes to maths and physics, he's the closest CP has to a voice of sanity - David Gerard (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Isn't the personal ad just a fictional joke? Blancmange (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think this beardshifting guy have a certain degree of ignorability, and doesn't quite deserve to be detested. I think we should add some template call at the top of the page, claiming something like:

This article has been considered to reflect a generally ignorable topic, so if you feel you have better things to do, you may either press the Random page key at the upper left, or you might stop surfing and have some real life.

Rursus dixit (yada³!) 08:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nutty: Tempted to vape this and other hit pieces about bit players[edit]

I wouldn't stop you. Keep a bare-bones pgph as a subsection on Conservapedia P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 20:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm increasingly sensitive to the fact that RW 'must' go post-CP to some extent if it's going to help attract outside funding for the RWF. I don't see that as meaning that we need to stop commenting and covering the major players vis a vis Schlafly's inability to control the increasingly insane message over there, but stuff like this is plain inappropriate. The guy's a nobody and all articles like this do is open us up to potentially legit criticism. Nutty Rouxnever mind 20:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Nuke 'em. ТyYes? 20:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep it. Really, you behave as you have married upwards and are now trying to get rid of your family heirlooms as a paint-by-number picture of a couple of dogs playing poker drawn by your deceased uncle is beneath contempt for your new relatives...
I don't think that the pure information gathered in the portrait is worth very much, but it is part of our history. Live with it!
End of rant. larronsicut fur in nocte 21:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This one, at least, needs to stay. Rog's voice of relative (in both terms) sanity is definitely worthy of inclusion. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
In my expert opinion as an Internet wiki reading person who adds timely insights to discussions on talk pages, the relativity talk edits are fucking hilarious and seriously make it look like Andy's real reason for hating relativity is not the one he states. What really pisses him off is that his brother understands it and he doesn't. Maybe he used to think, "when I'm older I'll be as smart as Roger, or even smarter," but it never happened. Fonzie (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)