Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive10

This is an archive page, last updated 1 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

CP Sysops

Can CP Sysops tell what my username is just by looking at my ip address? Can YOU? 75.117.234.246 21:34, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

What they can do is user checkuser (a function available to sysops on CP) and load the IP # into it and see what usernames have used that particular IP. So, yes, they can.

CЯacke® 21:45, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Can the admins do that here to? 75.117.234.246 21:50, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Some sysops here have CheckUser rights, but they could only check which RW users used this IP. They can't cross-reference what CP names are connected to it. --Sid 21:56, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

But if a CP Sysop reads this page and sees your IP, they can look in their own "Checkuser" and see who used that IP there. Also, if a CP Sysop is a Sysop here, they can run checkuser at both places (wow) thats enough thinking for me tonight, lol. Refugee^{talk page} 23:24, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

The latter is highly unlikely, though: Only four people here have CheckUser rights, and I somehow don't think that they're going to become sysops on CP anytime soon :P --Sid 07:59, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and I just now realized that CP finally restricted CheckUser access a bit (at least by the looks of it). While in the past, every sysop could do it, now, "only" 16 sysops are allowed access to it. --Sid 08:02, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

That's a subtle misnomer. Up through the time I was a sysop, I had full CU rights even though I wasn't in the "checkuser" usergroup. --Ζωροάστρης 01:39, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Greatest Conservative Parables

Anyone else think that we should go in there and list Genesis as a parable for the creation of the universe and life through Big Bang cosmology and evolution? Stile4aly 15:17, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

The man is a complete and utter imbecile. A) "The Prodigal Son" is not about "accepting responsibility and viewing oneself objectively", and he got the citation wrong (Luke, not Matthew). B) "Workers in the Vineyard" is most certainly not about the "right of private property owner to be charitable". My god--how could anyone who claims to know anything about the Bible get those two parables so hopelessly wrong?! I guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering that he gets everything else wrong, too, but criminey....Idiot.--WJThomas 15:30, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

CP, as a whole, is still stuck in the Old Testament.. these are things he's heard mentioned but not yet read. They're still working their way through trying to figure out how Genesis disproves evolution and flood waters went along with obscure OT laws against homosexuality, wearing women's clothes, and such. Andy and Ken haven't gotten around to reading the bits about forgiveness, caring for others, or love - or for that matter, any of the ministry mentioned in the Gospels and instead skipped to the end to read about how the world is to get destroyed. As long as you've got the first and last books covered - why do you need to read the middle? --Shagie 15:51, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, we know Andy is a big fan of Clash cover songs, so the relevant justification here must be from Police and Thieves. human 16:01, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Got The Prodigal Son and The Two Sons mixed up, too. At least he got the Unjust Judge right, although he seems to have forgotten where it is... (Luke 18:1-8, Andy!) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:08, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Drug use

this is the most utterly pathetic piece of honky bullshit I have seen, ever, ever. Language cannot express how utterly pissed of this makes me... this insane level of pitiful ignorance, makes me want to slap a baby across the face. And then give it some dope. --Hjimachong 21:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Okay, THAT was funny.-αmεσ (tinker) 21:37, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

I wonder if Andy has ever watched Devil's Playground. Nothing quite like one of the people the documentary is following around is a teenage Amish meth dealer/addict. Of course there is no drug use in a community founded religion. --Shagie 22:11, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

I love the next thing out of his mouth. "Homeschool kids aren't isolated. That's a false stereotype. They are away from the atheistic environment of public school." (emphasis mine) I'd like to believe he was attempting to be funny, but on past evidence I don't think that's likely. --Jeeves 22:27, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Having spent my entire K - 12 educational years at a small/private/UMC Catholic school, with daily religion classes, prayers to start and end the day, a fair number of nuns and priests as teachers and administrators, weekly class-time mass, and so on, I am pleased to say that the usage rate of non-legal substances was similar (or worse) to that of the local public schools. Ditto sex/pregnancy/abortion and homosexuality. Indeed, as a teen, if I wanted a weekend of debauchery, I'd hang out with my classmates; if I wanted a weekend of sanity and Good Clean Fun, I'd hang with my "atheistic public school" friends.--WJThomas 07:34, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

AppleCyder

Anyone willing to sacrifice a sock to write "COME TO RATIONALWIKI" on his user_talk page? His e-mail's disabled.-αmεσ (tinker) 21:44, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Ames, chances are he is a sock of one of an rw user, in fact I bet he is your sock. Bohdan

Clever, Mr. White Hole, but no. Anyways, invited away... but you're quite right that Conservapedia users are most likely either (1) sysops or (2) socks of RW members. Face it, we're all that's keeping the site alive... us and our parasitic love of lulz -αmεσ (tinker) 21:57, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

White hole? Its just not the same. Bohdan 22:00, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm trying :-) -αmεσ (tinker) 22:01, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

• • Hello. Thanks for the invite! AppleCyder 22:27, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Dumbledore

Well, I guess this finally puts to rest the old "love the sinner, hate the sin". The character partakes of absolutely no homosexual behaviour in the novels. Nor does Rowlings say he did. She simply says he's a gay man. CP's response? Predictable hatred, including a repetition of the deliberately hateful Coulter quote. --Kels 06:54, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Popular Culture

Presumably they're okay with Prussian Blue. --Kels 18:18, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Conservative deceit and statistics

Did anyone else notice what a moronic piece of shit this graph is? Talk about trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. First of all, it would leave you to believe there was an instant negative reaction to Jimmy Wales promoting Essjay to the Arbcom (first star on the graph). Obviously this isn't the case, because at the time, as far as anyone knew, Essjay was just another very active Wikipdia contributor who many believed was a professor. No one, as far as I know, had any real beef with him. The first incident on the graph that is scandalous is the relevation that Essjay was not who he said he was (star #2) after which there is a slight drop, but you'll notice the graph is all over the place anyway. But the real kicker here is the selective portion of the graph that they show. If they showed all of February and March, you'd see constant fluctuations all over the place. See the source material here for February and here for March. You'll see fluctuations of anywhere from $700 one day to $102,000 another. On top of that, the month after these "scandals" (was a prankster briefly posting that Sinbad was dead really a scandal?) contributions almost doubled. And after that they've been all over the palce as well (see here) from a low of $30,000 in June up to $70,000 in September. It seems there is little rhyme nor reason to how much they make in a given month or day (I imagine their fund drives have an effect) but this idea they seem to be putting forth that the Essjay scandal (and I guess Sinbad too) have caused their donations to drop by 80% is ridiculous. DickTurpis 18:55, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, when it popped up I was curious, especially as to the odd dates chosen. Went to source data, made my own graph, yadda yadda. One thing that is funny is that the last day on that graph is wrong, and should actually be higher - 3/19 was just over $2k - which if, you ignore the peak on 2/23, makes the whole graph have no trend at all. They seem to have averaged about 1500 a day, end of story. Data mining (and lying), pure and simple, to try to make some sort of weird point. What's funny is that the bigger "scandals" (that guy accused of killing Kennedy?), which are in other time periods, were ignored. Why? probably no correlation at all, I'd figure. human 13:41, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, if memory serves, the Seigenthaler controversy was in November 2005, and they don't have statistics going back that far (not sure why). That, I imagine, could have had an effect, as it was pretty serious (more than Essjay and certainly more than Sinbad) and did get some pretty negative publicity for WP. Anyway, I had an idea for taking this graph (supplied by Icewedge) and inserting random things that happened on various days to show how they "affected" CP pageviews. Is there any way to go back to the changes from those months to easily scout for meaningless comments? DickTurpis 13:52, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

I thought there was some discussion over that crappy graph RobS "we don't need to make any conclusions" is defending, either on their talk page over the image or here in earlier CP WIGO talk entries. And for the CP graph, that spike in July is right around the time Lewis Black had that commentary from the Daily Show. Massive lulz. Norseman^Wassail! 14:19, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

I have no doubt that the spike was the Daily Show (hell, that's what led me to the trusworthy site), but I'm hoping to find some other thing that happened in CP the same day that I can attribute the spike to, and then something separate to attribute the immediate drop to as well (like some particularly retarded comment from Rob; there are several a day to chose from). This is basically what they did with their graph. It'd take some work to find edits so far back, though. DickTurpis 16:37, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

In Memoriam

Oh, clam, we barely knew ye. Why, why did those scientists have to take you from this world so soon? :(

• Really Old Clam
• 1602ish-2007
• Live Fast, Die Young

Slink 14:20, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Of course, if they hadn't killed it, they wouldn't have found out how old it was in the first place. Sort of a Schrödinger's Clam, I guess? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:26, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

I added this hilarity to the front page... check me to make it funnier/correct my misquotes of you.-αmεσ (tinker) 14:44, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

After such touching concern for this veritable Ronald Reagan of clams (not yet an endangered species I believe), I fully expect CP to start campaigning to save whales, polar bears and that little fish in the Colorado River. Kenservative 15:04, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Naw, the difference is clams vs. clam. They can protect a clam, but not a species of clams- over a large enough cross-section, it becomes a matter of personal responsibility for the clams. Slink 15:23, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Slink, I'm sure you meant that they don't care for the baramin of Clam, species being a term used by evolutionarianismists.-αmεσ (tinker) 15:29, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

It doesn't matter anyway. Due to the gross inaccuracies in dating technologies used by so-called 'scientists' these clams were almost certainly far younger than people are making them out to be. It is entirely likely these clams were only 20 years old, perhaps younger. Jeeves 15:51, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Jeeves, you are almost right. Owing to the greater hydrostatic pressure at 80m depth and the low temperature time passes much faster so I doubt if the clam was more than five years old at the most - it just felt that it was 405 years old. Genghis Khant 16:24, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Your math is screwy......standard dating procedures tell us that the earth is roughly 4 billion years old. In truth it is about 6,000. Thats an error ratio of about 1.5 x 10^-6...so really the claim is about 6 hours old! 24.141.169.227 16:06, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

But I thought all the "errors" made by evilutioniarianists are in the lie that the first seven days lasted 4.5E9 minus 6E3 years? Since that time things have proceeded at a rate of one year per year... scratching head... human 16:11, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

the clam??

I really don't see the big deal about the clam. Actually, I do....I mean that I don't see the big deal that it is currently dead, despite it being recently living (and defending its title?). From what I read from the article on the main page, the scientists had to kill it to count its rings to get its age in the first place... Karajou's statement about "killing the world's oldest organism, isn't modern science great?" is the stupidest statement i've heard all day......After all, its just a friggin clam...if somebody were to boil and wolf down that bad boy, it would've probably been delicious. ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 16:11, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Kangaroon said "animal" not "organism". The oldest "organisms" are thousands of years old. human 16:13, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Ah yes, you're right, I meant animal, not organism. The oldest organism would be those bristlecone pines, I suppose. ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 16:17, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Reuleaux, the big deal has nothing to do with the clam it's the goddam liberal, atheistic, evilutionary scientists that are the issue. If Ronald the clam had been shot with a handgun then it would have been self-defence, or if it had been a religious college instead of Bangor University then it would have been hailed as proof of something else/ Genghis Khant 16:24, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

And of course the idiocy is that the line is being used to attack "scientists", who of course never did anything useful for the rest of us anyway. He also missed this: it was the oldest known animal, prior to it's being fileted. There may yet be other, older such clams... I think it's cool that they found something that could grow so old! human 16:27, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Funny thing is, it probably had a higher IQ than all of the CP Sysops combined. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 16:31, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Also, it is apparent that the clam attended a public, atheistic, school run by liebruls, this is apparent in the fact that it was killed, and as we all know, that's more likely to happen in a public school, then anywhere else. </Assfly> Locke ^{Always Watching......} 16:31, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Lol to the combined IQ. ♠ ŖєuĻєəux ♠^{say wнäτ?} 16:42, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

<---
It's an analogy! "Crack the clam, and you DIE! Don't masturbate!" Norseman^Wassail! 17:07, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

I think we're all forgetting the REAL issue here. If scientists had found a way to determine its age without killing it, they could have auctioned it off to someone who wanted to eat the world's oldest animal. Science = Bad, but Free Market + Science = Delicious. Slink 08:48, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Is it worth noting that clams have no brain and surround themselves with a thick, hard shell? Perhaps this is why CP is sympathetic? Totnesmartin 09:20, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

stick this in - please. (ed. note - that's what she said!)

Somebody stick this in WIGO please:
"
Kick me out & my pictures come with me! [1]
"
(it's too big for me to edit) Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 18:05, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Will do/done.-αmεσ (tinker) 18:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Looks like "teh deciderer" didn't approve. Like they can afford to turn down content... --Kels 19:13, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Wonder if he read WIGO? Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 19:24, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Of course he read WIGO! Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 19:24, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

This just in! First he unblocks you, now personal messages. What do you have on him? :P --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 00:28, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Wha ... I mean ... Well ... (words have failed me) Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 00:37, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

If I touch you, will TK feel it? Norseman^Wassail! 09:18, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

We had enough of you Norse raiders a thousand years ago. The pillage & arson were surplus to requirements then & the touching is as well. If it hadn't been for you lot, Harold wouldn't have lost @ Hastings (?) & we'd not be half so francophone as we are - so it's all your fault, perhaps, or perhaps not, or something, or not. Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} Sorry - no sleep last night - I'm rambling. 10:15, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Bohdan Banned

Lolz (sorry).

Also: [2]

Uchiha 18:52, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Ah, I begin to see. TK banned Bohdan in order to have an excuse to delete his pages and burn the evidence, or rather break our links. Presumably after some short time, Bodhan will be quietly re-admitted, and there'll be nothing but our word for it that TK had endorsed Icewedge and so forth. --Kels 19:05, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

OMG. You're right. Brilliant.-αmεσ (tinker) 19:06, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

The only question at this point is whether he discussed it with Bohdan, or just went ahead and did it. --Kels 19:09, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Don't think so, but just posting on his talk page is trolling. What a deceitful ass. Norseman^Wassail! 19:23, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Well at least he didn't move anyone's userpage to "Fenton Klan Klux Ghosts Aryan SUPERIOR RACE". Nordic 19:26, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Kels was right! --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 23:58, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

I stand corrected. The master of deceit strikes again. Norseman^Wassail! 01:11, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Excuse me, but I thought only liebruls could partake of deceit. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 01:15, 31 October 2007 (EDT) </CP Parody>

"At what point"

Day One, I believe. --Kels 20:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure, actually. Part of me agrees, but back during the blog rush, there was talk of CP being a serious resource, and people actually almost believed it. The bias was mostly YEC-ish, but the anti-liberal wank had been more subtle. And now I see Rob and Andy yapping their drivel, and my first association is basically "Beavis and Butt-head". And it almost makes me feel nostalgic for the "good old" times... --Sid 20:47, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

It was certainly a lot more fun to read when you lot were over there, fighting the good fight with ideas on the talk pages. The problem really started with Andy's backing of Conservative's mental illnesses and just grew from there. The Night of Blunt Knives was really a death knell for any chance they'd have become something serious, instead taking the easy road and becoming a topic of ridicule, furiously isolating themselves from "TEH LIBRULZ". --Kels 20:53, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Andy backing Conservative was certainly one aspect of it, yes. But it went beyond that - he backed all his sysops, even in the light of horribly obvious cases of abuse. And when confronted with "us or them" choices, he always sided with his "trusted editors", chasing away tons of people and instead clinging to the people like Karajou and TK who now grunt their approval of Andy while hunting online for stuff they can copy-paste. Oh, and people like Ed and Rob, who just use CP as a cheap alternative to LJ to voice their wild theories of how everything from homosexuality to communism to global warming is a liberal (or anti-conservative, even though those terms are synonymous on CP) conspiracy aimed at undermining the American way of life. The Night of the Blunt Knives basically was just the execution that sealed CP's fate and sent it straight down onto the path of "We exist to mock everything that doesn't fit into our limited world view" --Sid 21:04, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Trusted editors is loosely applied. Often (if not every time) Andy would promote someone because of one edit he liked. Wiki experience, knowledge of teh internets, and coherent writing need not apply. Even early on, it was frustrating as hell to try to point out an error or make a suggestion without being labeled as a pest. And as we've all seen, once you were on Andy, TK or Karajou's radar you were screwed, no amount of quality work would take you off. Jrssr5 10:19, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Image names

Don't you think that BrianCo's taking the mickey now after his deleted conditional uploads? Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 21:23, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Paranoia runs deep. Into your mind it will creep. Better stop, listen, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down!........--Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 21:44, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

If you manage to rephrase that into Haiku form, I'll be impressed :D --Sid 22:50, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Sid! That really did a job on my keyboard. Much more I do not know I can stand. --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 23:55, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

NT - On my PC the character you use for the "T" shows up as a rectangle, so your sig looks like Night Drain :) Just thought I'd share that with you. Kenservative 12:27, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually...

Ed is the one who creates articles which all but say "go here for the real deal." Andy creates uncited stubs instead, that way you "can't tell" where he's lifing his work from. Lurker 00:01, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

I have to admit, that Wannsee Conference one was a little unfair, as it was one newbie. But I gave them most of the day to make even the most cursory of improvements to it, and no one touched it. And they still haven't, even after we pointed it out to them. I mean, come on, add 2 basic sentences and I'd let it go. I'd fix it myself by I'm blocked. DickTurpis 00:14, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, email TK, DanH or one of the others, and and give some sad story. That should work. --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 00:26, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Nah, my initial ban was too long ago, and I didn't feel like crawling back begging forgiveness anyway (my only offense was editing here, which doesn't seem to be such an offense anymore). My last socks were banned recently, and an email didn't accomplish anything. They never did revert my parodies though. Actually, they quite endorsed them. I don't really care that much. Their excuse for a Wannsee Conference article just gives me more to point and laugh at. I'm not going to beg to do charity work for them; they can fix their own articles. DickTurpis 00:35, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

how to get tk's GOAT

Heh, heh. Evil idea
(Shouts:) Tmtoulouse! can you block just TK, no one else, from reading us -(they do it on creationwiki I understand) please say 'yes' -it'll drive him spare. Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 00:44, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, you are not allowed to view this content. Return to Main Page.

nice one Hojisock Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...}

You think TK doesn't at least know how to work a sock? Or am I misunderstanding you? :/ Uchiha 00:54, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm not wikky savvy enough but there's always hope - even where there's no faith. It would be good though wouldn't it? Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 00:58, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Susan, he seems to have answered you back on his CP talk page! --Иight¤Ṭrain ^{♦Τalk ǃ} 02:50, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Heh, heh. Just let him wriggle a bit & then I'll strike & pull him in. I've got a little ace in mmy hand for Mr TK. Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 05:47, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

A well documented cite

this one cracked me up. Check out the first reference (certainly "authoritative" enough!)
Isnt that hearsay evidence? Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 01:15, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Everything from his lips of his mouth to the lips of his ass are truth. It's not hearsay, it's the voice of GOD! :O Norseman^Wassail! 01:20, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, I like a man who can make it stand up in court. Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 01:31, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, James Madison told me that the Establishment Clause hasn't been applied as broadly as he intended it to be. He thought everyone would have figured it out way before Burger's time.^[1] Go ahead, I dare you to attack my source. Bayes^update 01:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

1. Seance between James Madison and User:Bayes, sometime in 2007.

Susan, that defines hearsay, actually. Also, there are very good reasons why the rule of law shouldn't depend on a judge's ex post rationalization of his/her opinion, or what s/he says was "meant" by it. Not the least of which is credibility. Besides, if we were to allow judges to retroactively rewrite constitutional decisions, one might look to the late, great Justice Blackmun - who wrote Roe - and later became a very strong pro-choice justice, finding the justification more in women's rights than in substantive due process... a stronger approach advocated by wp:Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but not yet adopted by SCOTUS. So let's just read Blackmun back into Roe and overrule Gonzales & Casey.

Oh, by the way, Chief Justice Burger later told me that he thought Andy was a tool. Prove me wrong, kids.-αmεσ (tinker) 01:49, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Wht next: "I've just been up yonder mountain and the Lord gave me these here tablets of stone with laws carven upon their faces." Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 01:58, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Ah, but you're forgetting, the Bible says that those are true, and we know the Bible's right because the Bible sa... oh shit.-αmεσ (tinker) 02:03, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

And who says that the Bible is correct? That's right, the Bible. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 02:05, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

You know how the old saying goes, two can be encyclopaedic if one of them is dead. Oscar Wilde said it. Jeeves 02:29, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of my silly NASCAR article on CP, which I made back in the time when silly humor didn't get you banned forever. Look, Ed even archived it. :P --Sid 08:08, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, oh the hilarity, my silly piece was restored later on. Just check the History before MikeZoeller turned it into something serious. *giggles* Damn, now I'm getting all nostalgic again. --Sid 08:13, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

I, for one, completely believe Andy when he sez he had dinner with the former Chief Justice. However, given Andy's reading/listening comprehension skills (or lack thereof), what Burger actually said was probably something like: "Waiter! Waiter!--I asked for lemon in my tea, but you've overdone it--there's too much lemon! I'd like a fresh cup, please..."--WJThomas 08:25, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

This one belongs in Best Of. It's classic. So encyclopedic! human 15:58, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Another banished Jazz

Hard to believe Rob hammered HelpJazz. It seemed he was one of their better editors in a way, right-wing without being Rob/TK-batshit-crazy right-wing. They really are out to make sure only editing is limited only to sysops. Anyone know what edit was so "tendentious"? DickTurpis 15:07, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Funny thing: at least one newbie editor thought HJ actually was a sysop. It's not related, I just thought it was kinda funny.

As for the "tendentious" edits, I have no idea. It doesn't look like Rob has undone any of Jazz's edits, so....? CheFan 17:19, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

HelpJazz is still blocking users, though, even though he hasn't been unblocked yet. Norseman^Wassail! 21:19, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Poor moron even defends them when they don't want him anymore! CheFan 21:47, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

How trippy. I'm also interested in what was bad enough to earn him a ban like that. --Sid 22:05, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Apparently, suspected sockpuppetry. But where are the dirty socks? Behind Rob's dryer? Methinks there's more to this...--Bayes^update 22:15, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

what?

Er ... What's a Red Sox? Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 15:34, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

It's a "baseball" team. Or at least, a person who plays for the Boston Red Sox (they just won a few important games, causing typical rioting in the streets) human 15:41, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Er ... "important"? Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 15:45, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Important to them and a few deranged baseball fans in Japan, PR, and DR, yes.

Baseball, you understand, is one of the world's most tedious sports. In fact, it is exceeded only in tedium by American Football, the only game in the world that pauses for advert breaks. Baseball has what they laughingly refer to as a "World Series", which shouldn't be mistaken for a series of games in which all nations of the world are invited to take part. The world series is contested exclusively by North American teams (I believe they have some from Canada, to make the name a little less embarrassing.) This is in the grand tradition of other such sports, the Darts World Championship comes to mind which is a competition exclusively between British and Dutch pub landlords, with a bias towards the fat ones. Anyway, apparently the Boston Red Sox won this year, and that's apparently important to some people. Now, excuse me while I hide from the ensuing flame war ;) --Jeeves 16:00, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

You're forgetting cricket on the ol' tedium scale there. Although I'm not really into any sports, per se.

Also, I remember the outrage when a Canadian team (composed largely of ringers from the US and Mexico) won the "World" Series. There was serious talk in the US of banning the team because they won. --Kels 17:29, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, pshaw. Cricket is an absolutely fabulous sport. You can switch on the test, and then wander away and write a thousand lines of code, come back and glance at the TV and catch up on the match having missed more or less nothing. It requires so little of your attention, being a fan is easy. --Jeeves 17:42, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

That doesn't make it any easier for the poor players! How they suffer!

Also, bonus points for using "pshaw" in a sentence. --Kels 17:53, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

There I am, tryin' to get a rise out of these Murcans & an ex pat brit & a in pat brit spoil my fun! Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 16:12, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

I understand your confusion. Baseball is a "thinking person's game", so it's beyond some people.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 17:06, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Over this side of the pond 'Game' is what hunters shoot or children play. Adults indulge in Sport Susan^{You don't have to talk, but ...} 17:12, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Speaking of "ringers", the "World" Series was won by a team with (at least) one Puerto Rican and two Dominicans in the starting lineup (first squad), and a Japanese starting pitcher (individual pitchers rotate the "starting" chores). human 17:47, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

>>>>>>> I copied all this to fun talk:baseball for the lulz human 23:15, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Don't be silly. There is no fun in baseball! --Kels 06:35, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

hyperbole

I think I must be missing the point of that entry to wigo... human 15:34, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

The best part of the CP "Hyperbole" article is the redlink to "Yo Mama." Can someone sock up and un-redlink it? PFoster 16:27, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

OK, yes, that was pretty funny, but the link from here doesn't really "prep" the reader to know what to look for. In older diffs I noticed that line used Michael Moore... human 17:44, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

What's the problem with the redlink? -Smyth 12:56, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

The, er, "encyclopedic" tone of the example. Not so much that it's a link. human 13:11, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I shouldn't have put my comment under yours. I guess I was wondering why PFoster wants someone to "un-redlink" it. -Smyth 13:13, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

What was the worst vandal that ever vandalized conservapedia?

Or i guess you could call him the best vandal since he was good a vandalizing. Elassint Throw things at me 17:05, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Andrew Schlafly, duh. Close runners-up, Kenservative and RobS. human 17:43, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Greak Auks, Clams, and Creationism

Boy, the CPers are really on a "Science is BAD, mmmkay?" tear this week, aren't they? (And why are they so upset about the alleged extinction of the Great Auk? Surely, it must've been God's Will, or He wouldn't have let it happen, right? That seems to be pretty much their argument about every other impending ecological catastrope...) --SockOfGulik 17:52, 31 October 2007 (EDT) fnord

Actual Conservative?

We've got a group of people adding stuff to the October archive (and the Best of CP talk page) about how a "real conservative" got banned for posting a page about RW, but what's the proof that this was a real Con and not just another parodist? It's weird they're so certain about it. --Kels 21:25, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

It was kanadianKonservative or something, added a funny page about RW (screenshot somewhere on RW now). had seemed like a hardcore Cper, guess they just wanted to go out with a bang... Sorry for no links, I closed all those tabs... mybe someone else will fill in - or check "recent changes" or that recent uploads thingie MW supports. human 21:35, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

I dunno. He wasn't really around all that long, and he didn't sound much different from a dozen parodists that have wandered through. I just wonder about the veracity of the items, is all. --Kels 21:45, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Here, for your viewing pleasure. I have no opinion on him other than he hated all the right things to be liked by them, but making an article on RW is a death sentence. The timing tells me he probably made the article just to spite RW for the rampant wandalism minutes before. Norseman^Wassail! 21:47, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

RIP Hojimachong

Thanks for handing Andy a piece of his own ass on the way out, and exposing TK as the cowardly douchebag we know him to be. Stile4aly 23:52, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually I'm a little confused, what's going on with TK in that chat log? 124.187.145.237 00:16, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

He's exposing himself as a traitorious scumbag. --Ζωροάστρης 00:19, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

As in against CP? And will this mean Andy will desysop him? 124.187.145.237 00:21, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Plotting the ouster of all of the senior sysops (except TK), showing that TK is trying to work with us (so far as him gaining more control in CP), fostering infighting between sysops (I wonder what the sekret mail list is like) and then trying to look like the good guy to clean it up/show authority, showing that Andy has no backbone, and that TK tells a different story to each person. In terms of political capital, that chat log cost TK quite a bit (will Ken, Ed, or Kookie ever trust TK again?). --Shagie 00:22, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

The files are too big for the server to allow. Does somebody want to post the links to photobucket? --Ζωροάστρης 00:24, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Oh I see, so he wasn't a parodyist trying to wreck CP but he was working with RW solely to gain a better position in the organisation. Someone should correct the entry, I'm not sure how to word it 124.187.145.237 00:29, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Wait, so let me get this straight, TK was working with us (Or vise-versa?) and now not only has he been outed but a few RW members socks as well? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 00:38, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

At this rate Andy'll be the only one left at the end of the week... TheIPguy 01:02, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

I don't think TK was working with us, but more working for himself. The log reads as if he was going to play the sysops against each other, so that he could end up getting rid of Conservative and a few others. He would end up as Andy's right hand man. Andy would ultimately be a figurehead, and TK would be the de facto leader of CP. Very Voldemortish of him. Stile4aly 02:32, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Geez Hoji... I know TK acts like a total dick, and so does the rest of Conservapedia, but that didn't mean you had to retaliate by being, well, a dick. Really. Uchiha 01:46, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Heh, join the dark side, Uch. Lurker 01:50, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

I notice that Andy's passed the whole thing off as you just being bitter about losing your sysop status. So at least publically, he's done with the TK evidence what he's done with evidence about Dawkins, breast cancer, atheism, evolution, public school and just about everything else. --Kels 06:34, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

When all you've got is a hammer, everything starts to look like Liberal Deceit. Slink 08:52, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Hoji, I do have to wonder--HOW and WHY did you stick it out there for so long? Was it just a case of "sunk costs"? It couldn't have taken too long to figure out that unless Andy, Conservative, and Tk got run over by trucks on the same day, the place was going to continue to be a black hole of political idiocy. My sympathies, nonetheless. --SockOfGulik 13:46, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Felis Navidad

Or something like that. November 21 will mark the 1st anniversary of ashfly's first edit to CP. I hope they are stockpiling balloons, cookies, and kool-aid! human 13:42, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

They're ALWAYS drinking Kool-aid there. --SockOfGulik 13:47, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

subhuman

"Hoji, please, "subhuman" is rather over the top. No one ever made any statements, that I am aware of, that you, and/or persons advocating the ideology you openly align with, is "subhuman."" Funny, that's what the CP software calls me if I try to edit from my IP address... courtesy of one of their sysops... human 18:05, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't worry about it. Rob, like most of the crowd over there, seems pathologically incapable of telling the truth. --Kels 18:14, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

It's also funny how nobody there seems to realize that Hoji is banned. Rob wants an apology, Conservative launches his "Nuh-uh not me no sir here look at my bazillion cites!" speech... I mean... the dude is gone, ffs. No need to masturbate on his grave. --Sid 18:19, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Block first, then reply--that's how a sysops win arguments on CP. --Gulik 22:55, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

"massive vandal attack"

Questionable item. The links are going to keep "changing" to whatever is in the logs, and although CP's deletion and block logs are always full of lulz, that's not news. Someone should delete it, or back up whatever their point is with more useful evidence for us to peruse. human 18:16, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Anyway to keep it the same, there was a humourous vandal attack at about 2 pm this afternoon on Conservapedia --Uncle J 18:20, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Can you edit it to say that (with the date, though, not "this afternoon")? human 18:35, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Today, November 1st, I datestamped it --Uncle J 19:01, 1 November 2007 (EDT)