Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive103

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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>, <10>, <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>, <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)

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>, <10>, <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>, <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)

Conservapedia Banhammer[edit]

NormanS could be due for the banhammer. Proxima Centauri 08:29, 2 January 2009 (EST)

I'm surprised he wasn't blocked right after creating cp:Bugler -- Nx talk 09:16, 2 January 2009 (EST)
I don't wish to blow any trumpet fanfares but I think ETrundel is someone we should keep an eye on. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 09:54, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Completely eradicated by TK. --Sid 10:28, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Not much of a surprise, he was deliberately poking at stuff with big red flags on them. --Kels 10:44, 2 January 2009 (EST)
I see TK is back to white-washing talk and user pages before deleting them. Deceit, thy name is Terry. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 12:21, 2 January 2009 (EST)

More proof that nobody actually reads the articles before posting them as CP News[edit]

In the case of the Detroit experiment in sex-segregated schools, this may seem to play in to Andy's idea of treating boys and girls differently, but the article used as the reference says differently. The main driver for the separation is to cut down on gender-based distraction, not competition. The article goes on to mention an all-girl's team competing head-to-head with boys in a robotics contest, where in a mixed-gender environment the girls would have been "designing the trophies or making the team T-shirts". The article then mentions that single-sex schools are only allowed public funding when they guarantee the same education to boys and girls, quite the opposite of Andy's approach of gender-specific instruction and easier, "chivalrous" testing for girls.

The best lulz come later though, when the article discusses why all-girl schools have better enrollments than all-boy schools. Turns out that the conservative parents who like the idea of separating the genders are also afraid that all-boy schools encourage homosexuality. "Unfortunately, we live in a sexist society and a homophobic society, and you have to take that into consideration when launching a single-gender school and undertaking recruitment efforts," said Leonard Sax, founder and executive director of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, eh Andy? --SpinyNorman 10:59, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Do we have a Conservapedia:Skimming article somewhere? Because it looks like the habit has spread from Aschlaughably to his fellows. Totnesmartin 13:05, 2 January 2009 (EST)
As one who attended a single gender secondary school, I think they're a "good thing". As a not very →boy oriented 'young lady' [sic] as well as not being a 5'7"+, curvaceous blond, I found that the lack of peer pressure to "score" with teh boys was very beneficial. My old school has since amalgamated with the boys' school next door and the academic rating, for both sexes, dropped catastrophically for about 15 years until they tried 'internal' gender segregation (I still keep in touch with the Old Girls' Assoc). Peer pressure can have very negative effects. Toast 13:27, 2 January 2009 (EST)
I also went to gender seperate secondary school. I hated it. It felt artificial and although I may have emerged with good grades I felt unprepared for a mixed sex society. It probably took me about 15 years to stop just looking at my feet everytime I met a girl. In my opinion scholl is not just about an education. It takes up too much of your childhood for that. StarFish 13:46, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Ah! I had these things outside school called "friends". :-) Toast 13:50, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Oh, I see. You're one of those people. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 13:53, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Jeez I was just posting my experience toast. I didn't say it made you wrong. I'm entitled to my opinion which is all I stated it as. Do I really have to say this? Ok then. yes I had friends too. Thanks for the implied insult. Every time I post here I regret it. This place is on a level with CP. StarFish 14:04, 2 January 2009 (EST)
(EC x 2) Sorry Starfish, I thought the smiley might have lessened the (unintended) insult. (Remember humour?) I'm undecided whether or not to take umbrage at your comment Mr. AK.( you deleted Starfish's comment Nx) Toast 14:10, 2 January 2009 (EST)
No -- Nx talk 14:16, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Oops, sorry, Nx: jumping to conclusions. (I seem to be doing a lot of apologising lately) Toast 14:25, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Not Toast's fault I'm having a mardy day (as my six year old son would say). Resolved on my talk page anyway. Thanks Toast. StarFish 14:51, 2 January 2009 (EST)

(Undent) Actually my mardy day probably stems from watching Ben Stein's 'Expelled' this afternoon. It's shocking! And possibly explains kenservative's recent habit of attaching old black and white youtube clips to his every comment. Expelled does that all the way through and I seem to recall Ken was a bit of a fan. It's bad bad bad. StarFish 14:59, 2 January 2009 (EST)

No problem. BTW, I rely on the show preview button (it warns me of ECs on wikipedia), is that feature missing from RW or am I doing something wrong? -- Nx talk 15:04, 2 January 2009 (EST)
I usually preview, but I was being edit conflicted like mad & wanted to get my point down in '0's & '1's before the urge had left me. (I had an EC deletion on WP just t'other day - it happens in the best regulated families. Toast 15:43, 2 January 2009 (EST)
I mean the software isn't working like on wikipedia, it didn't show me the ec warning when I previewed my previous post, and there was a new edit by StarFish. -- Nx talk 15:55, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Mostly Defensive Weapon of Gun control leads to socialism and genocide[edit]

He even has a source -- Nx talk 14:06, 2 January 2009 (EST)

HHAHAHAHAHAHahahahAHAHAH! I bet Andy read the first sentence and didn't realize what comes after: "Some Americans, it appears, believe that their country is on the verge--if not in the grip--of a virtual coup by a sinister international directorate of Jews, one-worlders, and Trilateralists. For them, acting on this belief means arming oneself and confronting representatives of government with distrust, if not open hostility. By now it is widely appreciated that people with this particular fixation can be extremely dangerous. Yet their delusions take a special bitterness from the fact that something real and terrifying, the problem of genocide, lies in the general direction of their paranoia." No need to dispute here, Andy pwns himself. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 15:01, 2 January 2009 (EST)
First sentence, btw: This essay seeks to reclaim a serious argument from the lunatic fringe - irony meter overload imminent! -- Nx talk 15:07, 2 January 2009 (EST)
I don't see the problem with that essay; it's saying that opposition to gun control can be based on sensible historical argument rather than racist paranoia. At least it acknowledges that it's supporting a position most loudly espoused by loons. pseudomonas 15:25, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Exactly. The essay is fine. Hence the irony of the first sentence. -- Nx talk 15:27, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Ah, OK :) pseudomonas 15:30, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Why is this thing suddenly lower-casing my signature? Has the software been updated since last week? pseudomonas 15:32, 2 January 2009 (EST)

The gall![edit]

  • (Deletion log); 14:46 . . Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) deleted "Conservapedia:AFD Debate: should atheists be barred from Conservapedia?" (no ideological prerequisites to be a contributor - must simply follow the project rules)

LArron 15:22, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Ed lies, that's no surprise. It's like saying "Ed breathes", about as frequent, effortless and ordinary. --Kels 15:41, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Too bad, I read it an hour before deletion. Ed makes a comment in the debate saying it's unfeasible to ban Atheists since you don't really know who is or isn't, but compromises with a suggestion that they should have an indication on their userpage saying their religion. (like Jews wearing the Star of David armband) Of course he doesn't want to show his ideology. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 18:10, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Update of Site[edit]

It's taken them forever to do what I think they're doing (updating software).--Iduan 16:06, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Picture 6.png
Or is Andy going on a memory-hole spree and trying to remove all traces of Bugler's tenure, Ministry of Truth style? TheoryOfPractice 16:14, 2 January 2009 (EST)
And they're back! Except because I don't have editing privileges, I can't see if they've updated the tech. :( Can someone find out what "maintenance" meant?--Iduan 16:28, 2 January 2009 (EST)
I'll wager that PF TheoryOfPractice is right & Andy was using oversight on it before and broke the database. Toast 16:32, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Bizarre, Andy just gave Tim back his upload and edit privileges, along with the Siteadmin that he had from before. --Kels 16:44, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Could Andy have realized he fucked up?-caius (spy) 16:48, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Do you mean ? Pseudomonas 16:59, 2 January 2009 (EST)

I edited there today from a library computer. Editing was normal. I think the site's been erratic though. I only edited there for about half an hour. Proxima Centauri 17:12, 2 January 2009 (EST)

WikiEd-->ConservEd Swap[edit]

Come on Ed, put some work into styling! Sigh, it's articles like that that almost make me want to go back to CP - I could fix that so easily.--Iduan 16:46, 2 January 2009 (EST)

(Honorarium, Ed) Toast 16:51, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Ed just called himself and the other loons at CP "nobody" since they ARE opponents to most of the points. lawl. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 18:12, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Wikistalking Ed[edit]

Just watching a bit of Ed's latest run-ins at WP over copyright and his enormous collection of subpages, and followed up a few links from what he terms an "important historical article about how to apply NPOV to the liberal vs. conservative split". Well, going back to the original conversation, it's rather stunning, although not terribly surprising given his later, uh, "contributions" at CP. Tossing crap like "If you think that way, perhaps you are evil. Beware. --your friend, Ed Poor" around so casually, it's a wonder it took another three years before he got dragged before Arbitration. They guy's never been fit to be an admin, ever, anywhere. --Kels 17:21, 2 January 2009 (EST)

It's the: "Uncle Ed" that really offends! Toast 17:29, 2 January 2009 (EST)

(Lifted from archive) Speaking of his stuff on WP, he's being called to task for having close to three hundred subpages in his user space, a lot of which are just POV forks and miscellaneous crap he could have just saved locally. this edit comment is priceless, considering the source. He's also getting a bit of a talking to on copyright and fair use. Poor, kindly Uncle Ed, nobody gives him a break. --Kels 16:36, 2 January 2009 (EST)


Bit keen there - some comments < an hour old banished! Toast 18:23, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Really? I think we need multiple talkpage or maybe we should resurrect the fourums for our discussions, the page was more than 200 kB long. - User 18:26, 2 January 2009 (EST)


  • 22:44 (cur; last) . . (-195,529) . . 3.14159 (Talk | contribs | block)
  • 21:54 (cur; last) . . (+24) . . Toast (Talk | contribs | block) (→Humble Ed - link to piccy in Kels' comment)
  • 21:36 (cur; last) . . (+621) . . Kels (Talk | contribs | block) (→Humble Ed - )
Toast 18:30, 2 January 2009 (EST)
There it is above in the (yet another) Ed section. Can we start and WIGO ED and just stalk him around the internet, he provides enough entertainment. - User 18:35, 2 January 2009 (EST)
(EC) Also people as a point of decorum when adding a new section use the + tab above so you minimise edit conflicting. - User 18:35, 2 January 2009 (EST)
When people archive they should still leave about 50K, otherwise the cupboard is bare. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:45, 2 January 2009 (EST)

"Gentlemen," we have a new Bugler[edit]

Anyone else seen this Bradlaugh guy? So far today he's sucked up to CPWebmaster and reminded a concerned mother that it's better to psychologically torture your kids into being straight than let them be gay and happy. To think I was worried where I'd get my lulz post-Bugler.-caius (spy) 18:33, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Seem to be an old user that has suddenly come back after 7 months (not unlike Rod). I bet everyone reckons they can do a Bugler now. - User 18:39, 2 January 2009 (EST)
All the cool kids are jumping off bridges these days. --Kels 18:46, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Well as someone who, until "Big Science", thought Bugler was genuine I don't suppose I have much expertise. However the chap is definitely British. He looks like he knows a bit about Kent, and North Wales. He had a pop about Everton's proposed stadium move, something only in the minds of Evertonians (who hate the idea) and red koppite bastards Liverpool supporters (who think it's hilarious). As
  1. he wrote more than twice as much about Everton than Liverpool and
  2. he has North Wales connection (they're all blues there)
I would guess that he's a second generation Welsh Evertionian living in Kent.--Toffeeman 19:14, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Oh no. I can personally vouch for Brian Radlaugh. --Marty 22:05, 2 January 2009 (EST) /joke
It is always fun to watch a known parodist argue with known socks. - User 22:08, 2 January 2009 (EST)
He's a cheeky little bugger too. Telling young Kotomi to shake a leg. No! Norseman! Down! --PsyGremlinWhut? 12:12, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?[edit]

I found this topic almost at the end of the list of debates at CP [1], and I wonder how this could have happened? History of changes show that only Karajou and Learn together edited it from CP's inner circle (at least those are the names I recognized) and the last edit was made by Karajou 3 months ago (reverted a funny one :)[2]) so the topic seems dead. But it actually contains this sentence: "Conservapedia is not meant to be fair and balanced...". I hope this is not old news, and that someone can make proper documentation of it before they read about it here. --Kangaxx 19:24, 2 January 2009 (EST)

It is an old one but a good one. - User 19:38, 2 January 2009 (EST)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean? Do you mean that they aknowledge that it's biased, or are you wondering if they labor under the delusion that it is? --US-O11 insignia.svg Gen. S.T. Shrink Get to the bunker 19:37, 2 January 2009 (EST)
I thought that CP says they don't need a conservative bias because the truth is confirming them (thats why it is "reasonable" to make a mystery about why non-conservatives exist) Where can I find this debate on RW btw?--Kangaxx 19:52, 2 January 2009 (EST)
No where you never saw me stuff up. - User 20:07, 2 January 2009 (EST)
This issue is at the heart of CP's schizophrenic existence. Sometimes they (the powers) will say that there is no bias and they want the "truth" in their articles. Other times they say that CP is a conservative encyclopedia and articles must be from a conservative point of view. Frankly, the two concepts just cannot be reconciled. Either it is an encyclopedia, which means that it should strive for NPOV, or it is Andy Schlafly's blog (which, in fact, it obviously is) in which case, who fucking cares. --Horace 21:07, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Contrary to what WP has taught us to think, an encyclopedia is not necessarily NPOV. The grandfather of them all, Diderot's Encyclopedie had a pretty clear ideological motive, as have many other encyclopedias to varying degrees. Interestingly, L'Encyclopedie was actually probably fairly close to RationalWiki in intent and mission. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 21:39, 2 January 2009 (EST)
It's actually pretty simple, if you start "thinking" like Andy. Fact 1: Liberals are Always Wrong. Fact 2: Any so-called "facts" that seem to contradict Fact 1 are WRONG. Now, imagine trying to build an entire version of Wikipedia around that, and you have CP. --Gulik 03:42, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Help, please[edit]

Can someone point out the CP page which lists all the words that are banned from inclusion in a username? I can't seem to find it. Thanks. DickTurpis 21:44, 2 January 2009 (EST)

A late Christmas present. - User 21:47, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Thanks, awesome. My theory is correct. DickTurpis 21:48, 2 January 2009 (EST)
What's your theory? You trying to make a sock with a dirty name? Shame on you! Or just your own name, Dick? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:37, 3 January 2009 (EST)
It appeared that you could not use Christopher as a name anymore because "Christ" has been blacklisted, due to consistent vandalism with that name. I was right. "Dick" has been baned for eons. DickTurpis 10:22, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Oh bugger, another archiving[edit]

I'd like to suggest that the archiving, while obviously being mindful of page length, should also be mindful of the right moment to do it. That's twice over the Christmas/Hannukah/Wotsit period that archiving has been done while many of the conversations on this page are very much alive. I'd ask the archivers to please be a little less hasty and a little more thoughtful of the ongoing dialogue that gets killed stone dead when an archiving happens. DogP 22:12, 2 January 2009 (EST)

This was discussed above. This is why we have to do so much archiving. - User 22:15, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Query: "'have to do" ? Toast 22:33, 2 January 2009 (EST)
It take too long to load the page, slowing the server down, when it starts to get to long. The only solution is archiving. - User 22:38, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Dunno much about servers etc, but I'd have thought that the frequency of such loads would not be too great here. Anyhow I'll bow to your greater knowledge but try not to archive such recent threads please. Toast 22:43, 2 January 2009 (EST)
Mr.Equations, when you mention "this was discussed above", yet there's literally no discussion above, that's a good illustration of EXACTLY what I'm talking about. There's no doubt that long pages load up the server, but then how about complex math equations as sigs and image capture bots on the WIGO? Seriously though, there was a large number of VERY alive and fun threads (Bugler & Tim's exits, most obviously) that are now stone cold DEAD as a result of the archiving. It radically reduces the lulz for those of us who might not be able to spend every waking minute here, so please - try to measure when a topic has run its course before archiving, OK? DogP 06:39, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Also, I would suggest that topics do not need to be archived sequentially. Some go nowhere while others run for a while. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 07:08, 3 January 2009 (EST)
I like the system on the Village Pump pages on WP - bot-archive any sections that haven't had any new comments for 48h. I assume this is judged by the signatures. Pseudomonas 11:02, 3 January 2009 (EST)
That'd be a nice system for here, although I'd extend the time limit a bit. --Kels 12:28, 3 January 2009 (EST)
They have the system on many talk pages. It might be better to just archive dead threads, rather than page sections. --Me 12:41, 3 January 2009 (EST)
It's a good idea, but round these parts we'd need more than 48h. I'd say double that. DogP 13:18, 3 January 2009 (EST)
If only unedited threads are archived, rather than whole page chunks then 48 hours should be no problem. That's how they do it over there. Toast 13:25, 3 January 2009 (EST)
I'd say we have somewhat slower traffic than WP, so maybe 72 hours? --Kels 13:37, 3 January 2009 (EST)
I'd def. agree with the "non-sequential" archiving bit. 72 hours also seems pretty reasonable. Also, people might "manually" keep an eye on "long" sections that may have run their course and just add them to the most recent archive? That would save space. Also also, one thing that we sometimes do is copy a discussion to a debate: page, but of course the link gets lost upon archiving. Perhaps we should maintain a "top section" with things like the "Use +" request, and links to all debates (etc.) that were spawned here for those interested? That could get clunky, maybe it should be a special sub-page or something? Things like, say, the Bugler outing convo could travel to the cpuser:bugler talk page, and the link added to the "special page"? (preparing for the inevitable EC...) ħumanUser talk:Human 15:33, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Hey Norseman[edit]

Conservative is trying to cut your lunch. - User 22:14, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Oh man.........icky...........tmtoulouse 22:24, 2 January 2009 (EST)
RRAAAAAAAAGGGH! Odin, may I borrow Gugnir plzkthx? AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 10:03, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Is that how fundamentalists flirt? It goes way beyond icky. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:18, 3 January 2009 (EST)


Jonah Goldberg's book isn't called "Liberal Facism", but I think it'd be far funnier if they had to pulp a bunch of pulp literature than it merely being kowardjou who couldn't spell. --JeevesMkII 08:02, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I like faces. Many faces. I even like my own face. I guess that makes me a...facist?--Bayes 16:21, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Rod Weathers[edit]

I can't help but notice that Rod hasn't contributed for three days. I guess it's not fun if you can't ban people ): . EddyP 10:17, 3 January 2009 (EST)

The only user more obviously a parodist than Bugler - I think Scaffold and the gang at CP are finally getting a little bit more on the ball. Although TK.... Matt oblong 10:32, 3 January 2009 (EST)
I can also only assume he's gone the way of Bugler (or doing some serious sulking). Although, seeing as he hasn't outed himself here yet, maybe he's one of EBaumsworld crowd. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:44, 3 January 2009 (EST)
I think his initials are quite clear. Matt oblong 10:51, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Yeah, I laughed when I saw that. But even so, he should be doing something. EddyP 10:59, 3 January 2009 (EST)
I've been wondering about this. He must know the game is up, so maybe he's decided not to edit again, or at least to give it a break. Or maybe he's got a strongly worded email from Andy or TK telling him to stay away & warning of blocks & humiliation if he does return. That wouldn't surprise me, although it's hard to see how it could make much difference to a parodist. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:09, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Oh, the humiliation of being blocked from Conservapedia after fooling them for so long and driving away many good editors! I daresay Rod can see defeat when it comes for him. EddyP 11:12, 3 January 2009 (EST)
One thing he's done is any RichardW's or RWatson's et al that sign up are probably doomed. --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:15, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Well, they probably didn't want Robin Williams anyway.
Maybe a bunch of dedicated parodists (hint) can see to it that, rather than naming socks with a common first name and a letter, create parodists with conspicuous initials in order to taint them for eternity. NightFlare 14:38, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, Foxtrot...[edit]

...glad to see you're happy that nobody is left to oppose your Andy-approved lies in the math articles... --AlanS 11:20, 3 January 2009 (EST)

That's ironic because yesterday I shot him an email saying "I told you so" about Bugler. FernoKlumpMr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition! 11:52, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Jessica's Sandbox[edit]

So Jessica is working on an essay about gun control in Japan. What's interesting is that she's trying to use Japanese gun-control laws to bolster an argument that the country is a de facto police state; presumably, stricter gun laws here in the US would lead to a similarly undesirable situation in the US.

What's interesting is that the situations she describes in the sections "house visits" and "is Japan a police state" actually reflect the kind of society Andy Schlafly would approve of; reduced rights for criminal suspects, enhanced ability on the part of police to arrest and aggressively interrogate suspects, close surveillance of the populace by the state--including reports on the "sexual morality" of young women. It seems like CPdians--even Jessica--are capable of working around a substantial amount of cognitive dissonance. TheoryOfPractice 11:26, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I believe Andy would prefer the clergy to the police. Or better still, himself. Who better to enforce chivalry upon a wicked and corrupt nation? We're lucky he's an incompetent, or he'd be dictator by now. --JeevesMkII 13:19, 3 January 2009 (EST)
I didn't read it as stating that the same thing would happen in the U. S. should similar gun-control laws be applied there, but that due to cultural differences stemming from historical backgrounds, notably when it comes to respect for authorities, the effect would not be the same (presumably there would be disregard for the laws in question, with all the undesirable situations mentioned and none of the security also mentioned). I don't really know if that's what she meant by that, but it seems pretty reasonable to me.
P.S. Does Kotomi-(kun? san? chan? sama?) actually approves of whatever Andy's image of an ideal society is? I get the feeling pretty much nobody else at Conservapedia shares Andy's view on almost anything. NightFlare 14:50, 3 January 2009 (EST)
The biggest difference between Japan's bad police state and Andy's good police state is that in the bad system, the police are all Japs. --Marty 14:49, 3 January 2009 (EST) that was a joke son
One would think that someone who has (apparently?) lived in South Africa for a time, where gun crime is rife, she would appreciate the absence of weapons on the street and accept the policing as a necessary evil. Me 06:00, 4 January 2009 (EST)
I dunno, I don't think she's anti it, more just saying "yes, we're safe, but this is the price we pay and we accept it." I agree with the comments that she's sort of hinting that these measures would never work in the US. --PsyGremlinWhut? 06:08, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Ed Poor's deleting course[edit]

What a writing course that must be. It must be wonderful to study with such a master, and pick up such pearls of wisdom as how to write succint stubs articles without including "too much info", like say: a list of an author's published works. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:34, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I wondered about his little tirade too. (Maybe there were no maths articles to delete. Ah no - he found one of those too.) Maybe his idea of a good article is "Stephen King. Wrote some books." --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:40, 3 January 2009 (EST)
"Robert" Salvatore? I don't think I've ever seen him credited as anything other than "R. A." --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 12:06, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Wait till you see "Alfred Yankovic"... --Sid 12:11, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Ow. The cluelessness hurt my brain.
Also, "...the correlation between hard work and success." - I guess such a correlation does not exist where Ed Poor is involved. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 12:27, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Where is the "propaganda" in the Correlation thing (not "article": "thing") ? --Me 12:29, 3 January 2009 (EST)
It used to be an article before Ed got at it. --Kels 12:40, 3 January 2009 (EST)
"Math teacher" Ed probably couldn't understand half of it. Also: "Caution must be exercised in asserting causation using correlation and claims to this effect must be viewed with considerable skepticism." and "Many common usages of the term are, therefore, substantively incorrect." Guess where such usage is common -- Nx talk 12:45, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Yes, start over and use "Causality", "Causation" is a nasty Americanism which hurts my brain and is a gateway to greater evils like "Causational" where we have a perfectly succinct and elegant word "Causal". This has been a public service announcement from the grammar police. --JeevesMkII 13:08, 3 January 2009 (EST)
New exam question: Use the word "Causationaltity" in a sentence. --Kels 13:13, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Apparently, that's the first time that word has been used on The Internet! I hope we can all work together on making RationalWiki a leading resource on "Causationaltity"! --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 16:00, 3 January 2009 (EST)


Must be fun to be a student in Ed's "writing" class. Imagine the end of a test - "Okay kids, time's up so put your erasers down". --SpinyNorman 14:12, 3 January 2009 (EST)

He claimed to teach music not long ago, probably decomposing. --Kels 14:37, 3 January 2009 (EST)

From the R.A. Salvatore page: "His real name is Robert." That was one of the few things to survive Ed's chopping. Well, I'm glad we found out what R.A. Salvatore's real name is! --Marty 14:52, 3 January 2009 (EST) That means we control his powers now!

I wonder how long it will take them to realize that that line itself is a mocking parody? ħumanUser talk:Human 15:45, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Clean Slate[edit]

Looking at this edit and the next one, why do I get the feeling our Andy isn't even archiving his talk page anymore. --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:22, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I noticed this recently. Since the last time he deleted & recreated his talk page (as he periodically does), there's been no link on it to the talk page archives (which was there previously). When the page got too long again, he just "cleaned out garbage". Looks like he's done the same thing today. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:50, 3 January 2009 (EST)
With the mass deletions and such, it might be the "Who's Bugler?" bleaching. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 17:08, 3 January 2009 (EST)

What time is it? It's "I-can't-believe-it's-not-Andy Insight Time"![edit]

Not sure whether to WIGO this, but: "[...] despite most of the best writing of the era [=1895-1930] coming from America"

Can I get the opinion of some people with actual history/literature experience here? After "most great achievements in history were made by teenagers", "adoption success stories" and "great achievements by people who at some point in time learned something at home homeschoolers", I have learned to doubt Andy's broad claims. --Sid 15:04, 3 January 2009 (EST)

When he was a teenager Andy managed to get to good universities and graduate. How is a mystery. Perhaps he could think better when he was young. The teenagers he teaches are smarter than he is. What does he do? Admit that his mind has deteriorated? It's less humiliating to assume that all teenagers are smarter than adults. Alternatively perhaps he's a bigger parodist than Bugler. Proxima Centauri 15:10, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Andy didn't add that to the article, though he did whole heartedly approve. It could have been added by a parodist. In any case, "best" is entirely subjective, and we all know that in Andyland Americans just do things better. DickTurpis 15:22, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Whoa, epic reading fail on my side there! *rubs eyes* *fixes headline* --Sid 15:29, 3 January 2009 (EST)
There's Thomas Mann, for one - who ironically wrote most of his works during pretty much exactly that period. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 15:50, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Literary authors of 1895-1930 from America: Mary Austin, Stephen Crane, Hilda Doolittle, Theodore Dreiser, T. S. Eliot, Robert Frost, Langston Hughes, Alain Locke, Jack London, Frank Norris, Katherine Anne Porter, Ezra Pound, Wallace Stevens, Mark Twain, Edith Warton, Booker T. Washington. Great names, but stating that America was the best source of literature for the first thirty years of the 20th Century, compared to authors the world around, is very Americentric. They appealed more to the masses of the time in America, rather than reached a true global audience when they were published. --Irrational Atheist 16:06, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Hey, let's not forget Fitzgerald. But anyway, do you mean to imply that Andy Schlafly, or even Conservapedia as a whole, might be Americentric? You just blew this case wide open. DickTurpis 16:14, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Faulkner just squeezes in there too, as The Sound and the Fury was 1929. He got his Nobel later, though. DickTurpis 16:16, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Who can do a two-column table? Here's my starter list of non-American writers 1895-1930 for comparison. Honestly I think a plurality of writers from that time period that are well-known to American (maybe even Western) schoolchildren are going to be American, just as a lot of well-known, let's say, 19th-century poets are going to be British. --Marty 17:13, 3 January 2009 (EST)

  • American: James Branch Cabell. Willa Cather. Stephen Crane. Hilda Doolittle. Theodore Dreiser. Paul Lawrence Dunbar. F. Scott Fitzgerald. Robert Frost. Ernest Hemingway. Langston Hughes. Joyce Kilmer. Sinclair Lewis. Jack London. H.L. Mencken. Frank Norris. Katherine Anne Porter. Ezra Pound. Carl Sandburg. Upton Sinclair. Gertrude Stein. Wallace Stevens. Edith Wharton.
  • Non-American: J.M. Barrie. Hilaire Belloc. G.K. Chesterton. Joseph Conrad. Arthur Conan Doyle. T.S. Eliot. E.M. Forster. André Gide. Thomas Hardy. Hermann Hesse. A.E. Housman. Henry James. James Joyce. Franz Kafka. Rudyard Kipling. D.H. Lawrence. Wilfred Owen. Luigi Pirandello. Marcel Proust. Bertrand Russell. George Bernard Shaw. J.M. Synge. Leo Tolstoy. Evelyn Waugh. Virginia Woolf. William Butler Yeats.
The big problem is the assumption that the Nobel Prizes are up to date. There is more than a 30 to 40 year lag in the prizes. The prizes in the first 30 years of the 20th century would by and large gone to pre-20th century authors. People who wrote in 1900-1930 didn't start receiving Nobel prizes until the 50's. Also you have to still be alive. - User 17:56, 3 January 2009 (EST)
That's not true for many of the Laureates. If you look at the list until 1930, I count at least ten (Eucken, Lagerlöf, Rolland, Pontoppidan, Benavente, Reymont, Shaw, Deledda, Undset and Mann) who were primarily or exclusively active during this period. I think a more important objection is that the Literature Prize has been rather Eurocentric, especially in the early years when works from other parts of the world may not have been well known or even easily accessible. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 18:50, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Can you view yourself objectively, admit when you are wrong, and change towards what is advantageous?[edit]

Being ablle to do this is a sign of mental strength in Aschlafly's opinion. Proxima Centauri 15:42, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Andy must have a weak mind. Captain Obvious
Nnnnng. What Andrew means is: Can you ignore objectivity, disregard whether Andy is wrong, and change to whatever he thinks? Matt 17:51, 3 January 2009 (EST)
You people all seem to misunderstand Andy's worldview. He is right, so therefor his views are the logical, reasoned correct view (the order of this statement is important). The fact that people can disagree with his correct can be contributed to 3 things. 1) They have not looked at things rationally with an open mined otherwise they would have the same opinion as him. 2) They have been tricked by liberal bias and deception. 3) People are being deliberately deceptive for material gains and so are choosing to ignore the truth. If people opened there minds and looked at all the evidence they would naturally agree with him, as he is right. - User 19:40, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Seriously-- Fix the typos and lose the obnoxious sig (pun not intended). Already. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


Anyone any idea how often Andy has used the word "final" (i.e. "STFU or you're blocked") in his edit comments? Toast 17:11, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Thousands? The one linked to is a classic of the form, exhorting the editor to contribute, etc. We should build a second assfly quote generator, for this style of dismissive talk page edits. It should include the "please add the references you are asking me to provide for my assertions" meme he loves, too. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:32, 3 January 2009 (EST)


I could've sworn that the Tribbles/Ed incident was posted here before. Is the poster sure that it isn't a repeat? POWER!UNLIMITED POWER! 17:17, 3 January 2009 (EST)

It may not have been wigoed, but it was at last discussed. It was what, a week or so ago? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:09, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Yeah, it's way down the page, though. Pretty much the exact same links. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 22:32, 3 January 2009 (EST)

RodWeathers is back![edit]

Move on, nothing to see here -- Nx talk 17:29, 3 January 2009 (EST)

The Ministry of Truth.[edit]

Bugler is the new Eff-Bee-Eye. TheoryOfPractice 18:01, 3 January 2009 (EST)

The block is for "namecalling". What namecalling? Saying that somebody who said "I am a parodist" is a parodist? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:56, 3 January 2009 (EST)


Andy's really scraping the barrel for things to bitch at WP about. Far as I can tell, he's bitching that Conservative groups get far more prominent treatment of controversy than Liberals, by comparing two articles that have controversy sections (albeit using different titles which mean pretty much the same thing) at roughly the same distance down the respective articles. It's like he's not even trying any more. --Kels 18:14, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Given Andy thinks you can find correlation with a list of ten selected items, he probably thinks it is an undeniable fact that WP is biased with 140. Given that most of his bitching is about IP vandal "jokes" that were fixed when someone noticed them it has never been an overly impressive list. - User 18:25, 3 January 2009 (EST)


Is it just me, or is Ken getting even more incoherent? I had to read that mess four times before I could make sense of it. And, of course, for Ken the world begins and ends with Google rankings, nothing else is important at all. What a maroon. --Kels 18:18, 3 January 2009 (EST)

You made sense of it? Please, for the love of all that is good and just, explain it! - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 18:29, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Let's see, using my knowledge of Kenese, secret decoder ring, and beating my head against the wall for about 20 minutes, I would translate that as "I'm embarrassed that an obvious parodist that I'd decided to trust has come back to tug on my sleeve, so I'll tell it to go away using the only important thing I understand and hope it gets the hint." That's a literal translation, of course. --Kels 18:31, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Okay, I read it through thrice, and you're waaaay off. Ken is apologizing. He's obsessed with google searches, and commissioned the article based on thirty searches per day. However, it now appears that that's not the case, so it won't get as many searches as he thought. Of course, no one on earth cares about this gibberish but Ken. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Or maybe it's the difference between 'belief' vs 'beliefs'? Wow. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 18:38, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Yep, and instead of renaming the article, he now wants RW to write a new one called Atheism and beliefs. Makes sense -- Nx talk 18:43, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Obviously I didn't bash my head into the wall enough. Or maybe it was omitting the six bottles of scotch? --Kels 18:50, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, this made me literally laugh out loud. --Kels 19:36, 3 January 2009 (EST)

He saw you were having trouble understanding him -- Nx talk 19:38, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Just wow. His whole response is over the singular vs. plural in the article title, and how they relate to his regarding of his SEO schemes? How many seconds would it have taken him to move it? (And link it from his 100 other atheism articles, and copy it into a new section at Atheism, along with a few hundred quote mines on the topic?) ħumanUser talk:Human 19:53, 3 January 2009 (EST)


Ken has edited his sandbox. (By the way who keeps a sand box on their talk page rather than user page?) - User 19:56, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Yes it was people laughing at you probably over the Bible or Obama. Did you notice I got pictures of your creepiness yesterday? - User 19:58, 3 January 2009 (EST)
It also might very well be an influx of people curious about the outing of Bugler, the new sysops, and such EOY hilarities... ħumanUser talk:Human 19:59, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Ring ring. Just the usual... -- Nx talk 20:00, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Only problem is Ken didn't write that. Kalliumtalk 21:25, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Yes, he did. The other guy put a parody under the same name after Ken deleted his original. --Kels 22:50, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Ah so. Kalliumtalk 23:01, 3 January 2009 (EST)
We got a shout-out! "By the way, congratulations on ranking in the top Google top 10 for milk before meat." (Then he pities us for there being so few searches for the phrase...) ħumanUser talk:Human 20:01, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Just what is going to happen, Ken? People on reddit are going to find one more thing to laugh at Conservapedia about? Because that's the cause of all your other traffic increases. --JeevesMkII 20:04, 3 January 2009 (EST)
It was pointed out the Bugler was a parodist on Fundies say the darnedest things the other day. He was one of their favorites. - User 20:08, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Just out of interest who here has an Alexa traffic bar, I don't? The only way it records data is for people that have one installed. - User 20:06, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I don't either, but what's Ken talking about there? As far as the link he gave shows, CP is exactly where it was six months ago. Where's the upswing he's ranting about? --Kels 20:10, 3 January 2009 (EST)
It has been up about a third more traffic than has been normal over the last three months yesterday. You are right there is no long term upwards trend. - User 20:13, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Okay, when I change it to 3 month view of pageviews, then I see a bit of a bump, which seems to be starting to recede now. Then I compared it to for the same time period, and that was much funnier. --Kels 20:19, 3 January 2009 (EST)

laugh that one off Ken. - User

Dammit, I just uploaded the same thing. --Kels 20:39, 3 January 2009 (EST)
You know, I think the ultimate win would actually be putting a gentlemen up before Ken gets a chance to. He always writes the name of his upcoming gentlemen in his sandbox, because he apparently can't figure out how to create a page that doesn't have a link to it. Plus since he's a borderline illiterate, he takes ages even to type a couple of sentences. If someone notices an incoming gentlemen it'd be great to get in there first and watch his crogglemnent as he gets edit conflicted. --JeevesMkII 00:04, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Good point, and, you know, if Andy hadn't block me for "a silly editing pattern" I would have done exactly what you suggest since even after I found the diff from the comments above, it was red, for at least five minutes. Of course, that would have spelled teh stupid blockie for me. Would it have been worth it? I dunno. For people with socks to burn or proxies to play with, absolutely. Next time, perhaps? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Ken can't read![edit]

Ken notes that a website has mentioned CP. Too bad they say that CP is an example of being unable to "(come up with) innovative ways to think and use existing tech more than rolling out your own redundant ideologically-branded version of a popular site." TheoryOfPractice 20:49, 3 January 2009 (EST) UPDATE: Ken finally gets that far in the article. Hey Ken: You're a moron. TheoryOfPractice 20:51, 3 January 2009 (EST)

This does have to be CP single weirdest phenomena. The complete inability to believe that a person writing a news article about them would say something bad. Andy has defended articles added to the front page which crap all over Conservapedia, all the while arguing that it shows how Conservapedia is a meaningful alternative information source. - User 21:08, 3 January 2009 (EST)
In this case, it's just ken looking for sites that link to Conservapedia as part of his overall SEO obsession. I guess he saw Ars, got excited and posted it, then read what it actually said. He just posted another news item, presumably from the next site that's on his list o' links, at least this one mentions his baby without comment. --JeevesMkII 21:12, 3 January 2009 (EST)
(ECx2) Not without comment, it's one of the examples for this statement: "Now, instead of using these domains for something useful, you’ve got a bunch of completely useless carbon copied sites - they’re not even properly monetized - which will only confuse potential visitors. And I think it sucks." Not really high praise. --Kels 21:26, 3 January 2009 (EST)
The desperation for recognition that's on display here is simply astounding. "Mum, look at me, I'm doing a handstand!". He must have been invalidated as a child and is trying to make up for it now, or he is a very simple person. Guess which one I have my money on. -RedbackG'day 21:20, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Haven't looked at the link, but just linking to any of Ken's articles (without comment) is still a stretch of making fun of CP. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 21:23, 3 January 2009 (EST)
The first was Conservapedia as a bad example of just rebadging an old product (CP is Wikipedia rebadged as a Conservative website) and the second was a website which sold domain names as WhateverPedia and used Conservapedia as an example. I think from Ken's earlier posing that if we wanted a good name according to some free advice from a guy selling things we should have called ourselves RationalPedia. - User 21:29, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Okay, I see it now. I think I was looking at the thing wrong. Mind you, this brings up a weird theory that maybe Andy's doing a bizarre form of cybersquatting himself. He's grabbed a prime piece of land and put up crap that nobody would miss if it were wiped clean without a second thought. Perhaps he's waiting for some bigwig in the GOP or something to come along and buy that off him for some huge sum and make it the flagship of the Conservative movement. That would be his pride, and make him millions! Millions!! --Kels 21:41, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Well, Kels, you're right, of course. It could have been otherwise, but the only thing of value the IdiotFly managed to create in two years was registering a rather compelling domain name. But you know what? The biggest domains these days don't even "make sense" - eBay, Amazon, and Google might as well be made up words. So Schlafly loses... and, oh, yeah "wikipedia"? How silly can you get? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:24, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Trained professionals? Nonsense![edit]

"...and the sooner one realizes it and utilizes mental and emotional self-defense, the better off one is..."

Andy takes on the APA, and as usual comes out looking like a moron. --Kels 22:07, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, snap! Andy has cured mental illness! His advice for the mentally ill? "Turn off the TV, stop reading the newspaper, and pick up a Bible" Because it worked so well for Ken. (Also, the Television is FILLED WITH DECEIT! It doesn't just display deceitful broadcasts! CRTs are worse than LCDs, since there's far more room for teh deceit inside!) --JeevesMkII 22:15, 3 January 2009 (EST)
My favourite part is where he criticizes the advice of "keep things in perspective" because it doesn't mention SATAN and then goes on randomly about gun control. --Kels 22:24, 3 January 2009 (EST)
I liked that bit too. Satan exists, but never fear! You have the defensive weapon of gun! Note: Satan can often appear in the guise of co-workers, friends or even a beloved grandparent. Don't hesitate to do the right thing, oh ye of great mental strength! I think the Assfly might have had a bit of a mental hiccup himself today. --JeevesMkII 22:28, 3 January 2009 (EST)
The sarcastic dismissal of the second-last point is classic Andy. I assume he doesn't realize that "spiritual practices" includes prayer. --Kels 22:45, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Rampantly insane. At least Bugler was kidding when he wrote "Big science" (now deleted). My favourite part of Andy's rant is the "take decisive action" bit. APA advise "Take decisive actions, rather than detaching completely from problems and stresses and wishing they would just go away". According to Andy "That recommendation is very bizarre", because of course Andy's reaction is always to ignore problems & wish they would go away. Then he suggests the most likely explanation for APA's advice is something to do with abortion, because they probably support that, & so that's probably what they mean about taking direct action. . . WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:48, 3 January 2009 (EST)
It's an instant Asclassic. We must, must, side-by-side this beauty of a rant. He's fucking clueless. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:52, 3 January 2009 (EST)
Gotta agree with him here, though. The very last thing I'd want Andy to do is become more self-centred. --Kels 22:55, 3 January 2009 (EST)
I think I'd go as far as to say it's his best insight ever. Every time you read it, a new insanity leaps off the page and melts a few more of your precious, precious neurons. --JeevesMkII 22:56, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Lynus dashes himself on the rocks. You fool! You had everything to live for! --Kels 23:01, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Good for Lynus. Nice work. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:11, 3 January 2009 (EST)
I'm late to the party, but this is very uncharacteristic of Andy: He's actually read all of something! Usually we could expect a reply based on the first 3 or 4 words; this was obviously a major task for him. Toast 01:07, 4 January 2009 (EST)
He did shorten it to a few words so he didn't have to read whole sentences. - User 01:08, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Honestly, if it weren't for Lynus, I'm not sure I would have noticed those sneaky little ellipses there. Like how the very first recommendation talks about "faith-based organizations" being helpful, and mentions spirituality a couple of times further on. --Kels 01:29, 4 January 2009 (EST)
This was truly awesome. 2009 starts out good. My favorite part is how he assumes that "decisive actions" has to mean having an abortion. Actually, I feel a bit mentally ill myself today, perhaps I should get down to the abortion clinic and get fixed. Thanks for the tip Andy. Etc 04:06, 4 January 2009 (EST)
I particularly love how keeping things in perspective, considering the stressful situation in a broader context, keeping a long-term perspective and avoiding blowing things out of proportion are mutually incompatible with self defense, perhaps to him that means shooting at anything as soon as it startles you with your mostly defensive weapon of gun. NightFlare 05:19, 4 January 2009 (EST)
It's times like this I wonder if Andy isn't actually a parodist himself. Etc 09:08, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Interesting. "My criticisms are well supported" = I say it, it's true. He changed his signature finally. AndyToad.gifNorsemanCyser Melomel 10:46, 4 January 2009 (EST)

An amazing essay which seems to encapsulate all of Andy's wingnuttery. It's just a shame that he omitted classroom prayer and a made-up 95% statistic, although the "My criticisms are well supported" statement comes pretty close to the latter. Of course the anti-APA rant is actually a diversion from the subject of the essay which is Quantifying Mental Strength. It strikes me that just like his justification for a belief in God he sees things which are not there in the APA article: giving "medical" advice, gun-control, abortion, liberal friendship, denial of faith in God, endorsement of same-sex marriage. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 11:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

"faith in God can overcome any crisis." Oh man, that's brilliant! Let's assume a serial killer were to attack Andy's home. I wonder how well that little gem would hold up?DSFARGEG 12:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Would probably switch to faith in defensive weapon of gun very quickly. --PsyGremlinWhut? 12:59, 4 January 2009 (EST)


Dare say it's been commented on before, but (some of) Foxtrot's userboxen are a tad ... aah ... unCP:

"This user has given up his Catholicism for Lent"
"This user has expertise in research and statistics." hah!
"This user supports the advancement of the scientific method/viewpoint." (with a piccy of Albert!)
"This user believes that the death penalty should never be used."
!!!!!"This user believes that guns harm more people than they help." !!!!!!!!!!!!!
"This user believes it is patriotic to question authority" (except, premusably, when Andy's the "authority")
"Freedom of speech can be dangerous, but must be upheld by every one of us." (with the picture!)(incidentally, I just accidentally (! how?) googled that phrase & we came out first, with cp second)

Toast 02:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Users on CP have every right to have opinions that clash with Andy's views - as long as they never defend them. Just look at Ed Poor: If I recall correctly, he's an Old Earth Creationist, but he remains silent on all YEC-as-truth issues and instead just pushes his anti-science views. Likewise, Foxtrot will be fine as long as he stays quiet about gun issues and keeps sucking Andy's cock with the whole "Axiom of Choice is evil and totally disputed!" gig. That's the key to success on CP: Be able to watch a moron demonize your views without protesting and then say "Yes, Andy, you're the greatest, Andy!" on whatever position you do agree on. --Sid 08:09, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Ed is an OEC? --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 08:38, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Yup! Have a look @ some of his WP contribs. Toast 09:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)