Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive108

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>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <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)

Something that has struck me....

You know, I have been thinking this over for awhile but it was the WIGO:Talk comment about Andy using Native American blood types being similar to Asian's in order to prove that we are all related i.e. Noahs Ark that made me finally post this. On the CP carbon dating talk page Andy Assface argues that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that things decayed faster in the past than they do now hence carbon dating is unreliable (sorry no links but I am on a roll). But this is the same YEC mindset that states that the universe is so perfectly tuned for human life, such as the so called "Goldilocks Zone" Earth inhabits, that any tinkering with any physical law would make life impossible. See what I mean? Or am I muttering? Ace McWicked^Revolt 22:53, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Not quite right about the Native Americans thing. Andy was saying that their blood types etc. are substantrially different from East Asians --> therefore they're not related --> therefore they didn't cross glacial bridges during the Ice Age --> therefore the Ice Age didn't happen; only the Flood & other stuff in the Bible. I doubt that he really thought of the implications of saying that they're not related. As for carbon dating, the past is a liberal & unChristian concept & only a fool would seek to measure it. Something like that anyway. The YEC mindset allows God to make & break all the laws of physics, speed up & slow down natural processes, make the universe look older than it is, etc. It does not make for logical consistency. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:08, 16 January 2009 (EST)

I know weasel, someone stated that Andy could use that as an answer - not that he did (I have been drinking so not as clarity as I would be normally). But as for the rest of my point it just shows the flawed "logic" of YEC and, more specifically, the logic of Schlalfy. Ace McWicked^Revolt 23:12, 16 January 2009 (EST)

1. Andy sometimes "proves" conflicting "theories." Notice here where, while trying to prove to PJR that YEC adherents are liberal, his statistics could be used just as convincingly to argue that evangelicals are turning away from conservatism.
2. YEC certainly seems to be built on an ever-growing stack of miracles big and small.
3. As far as maintaining a consistent, logical basis for argument, Andy only looks as far ahead as the last thing that hit his windshield. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 23:31, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, it is a contradiction in the same manner as stating that evolution is false because brand new species aren't appearing all the time (ignoring the caveats for now) while simultaneously claiming that all speciation from ancestral "kinds" has happened in the 5000 years since the flood- roughly 100,000x faster. Given a "conservative" estimate of about 10 million species which arose from a relatively insignificant number on the ark in ~1826250 days (5000 years), there should be a new species popping into existence about every 4.5 hours. So obviously the rare real-time observation of new species is evidence against the theory that says not to expect it, while supporting the idea of a 5-a-day regimen. And if the rate is lower now, it would have been all the higher in the past, making it even more visible for people to document... Kallium^talk 23:47, 16 January 2009 (EST)

On a related note to the original post, CP's radiometric dating page says "the rate of decay of radioactive material...was almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe". Of course, they offer no reasoning, just that it might interfere with dating methods- but they're pretty confident considering the rate of decay assumption is "unable to be proved one way or the other". While this then leads to the Ace's question (especially since "in the beginning god created the heavens and the Earth"), it is also ironic that this is not a problem for the so-called "evolutionary position", because a) there are plausible mechanisms by which decay constants may have been slightly different at the veeeery beginning of the [big-bang originating] universe, and b) radiometric dating is only used from materials on this planet (/solar system), which came waaaaaay later, making it a non-issue. (Enough rambling?) Kallium^talk 00:09, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I always imagine YEC arguments like trying to put a corset on a fat person - the more you tighten the laces, the more bits that pop out that elsewhere. It's like that "evil=absence of god" thing. Whoever wrote it thinks they've come up with some smug proof but fails to realise that it contradicts the god is omni-present part of their belief. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 03:18, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I think somewhere in his fevered brain, Andy thinks he has proven that Native Americans actually don't exist. Certainly they weren't the original inhabitants of the country (who was there before them, then?), and there's no place for them to come from, so therefore they actually weren't there at all. QED. --Kels 17:33, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Don't complain

Look, I know. It's just a typo in a diff comment. But it's a lovely typo in a diff comment. Matt 04:39, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Blocks at CP

What's infinity at the web? Well, one year is a eternity in web-time. So, one can say that over 16,000 times, an eternal block was handed out at CP...

LArron 05:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Andy the Educator!

When the first few paragraphs of the first 'World History Lecture' include these gems, I start to worry for the world:

"Ancient history is everything before about A.D. 500 or 600, and it established every major religions today except Islam, which was founded soon afterward" (emphasis added) - gotta keep learnings Andy

"When did mankind first begin? There is no reliable evidence of man existing before 3500 B.C." - if you say so Andy

"Historians feel that spoken language originated in southeastern Europe near the Black Sea, not far from the Ararat mountain range cited in the Bible in connection with Noah." - Only your kind of historians Andy, especially since this matter isn't really one for historians, it's more the realm of anthropologists and biologists, consensus is that language developed in Africa.

"Using population estimates, we know there were about 300 million people existed in the world at the time of Christ, and extrapolating backwards yields only one family in the year 3300 B.C. The oldest trees do not predate this time; the oldest sequoias, which never die of old age, are only 4000 years old." - For one thing, your grasp of mathematics would have to be especially poor to achieve that, especially since I'm 99% certain Andy has not even seen or done any calculations based upon this as you would have to so monumentally skew the information. And as we all know, Seqioias are indeed immortal!

History books speculate at length about "prehistory", which predates writing. But there is no reliable evidence to support this speculation, and not worth spending time on - that's right you just sweep all that science and stuff under the rug....it had better be a very big rug Andy

The "Neolithic Revolution" means the "Agricultural Revolution," when farming became dominant. The dates of these ages are controversial, and historians have a bias for giving them older dates than proven by archaeology. Oh, so I guess we're now talking about those nasty historians, not like the ones you mentioned earlier

And I've only read the first section so far! I just want to cry or scream after reading this, Andy is going to be teaching this stuff to children! --Jammy 06:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)

And having skimmed down further, as a geographer this one puzzles and pains me: The Nile is the greatest river in the world, and is unique in flowing south-to-north --Jammy 06:51, 17 January 2009 (EST)

We actually reviewed all this a while ago here, although there may be a need to update it based on his "improovmunts". As these lectures generate a lot of lulz, it might be better to post comments on the respective talk pages, otherwise we'll be arkivin' this page every 5 minutes. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:52, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Only noticed it since it was WIGO'd, but Andy "Americans did all that is good and just in our world by using their conservative values and the power of God" is going to teach World History Lectures now? Really? And oh dear God, the "There is no reliable evidence of man existing before 3500 B.C." line really sums it up for me. And hey, by sheer coincidence, that time estimate perfectly fits with Young Earth Creationism! ;) --Sid 06:58, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Just a minute - isn't the Bible "reliable evidence" of man existing in 4004BCE? Andy, you naughty liberal heretic! Cantabrigian 07:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Anyone else tempted to sign up? :D --Jammy 08:32, 17 January 2009 (EST)

"in the 1970s the two superpowers began to collaborate on docketing their spacecraft together in orbit" (emphasis added) Does HE even read what he writes. I'm willing to bet most if not all of his 'students' actually use Wikipedia for the homework questions. --Jammy 10:58, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Re:Tree age. Someone needs to point Andy in the direction of Pando.

"The oldest known clone in existence is called "Pando" and is located in the Fish Lake National Forest in central Utah. It has been aged at 80,000 years! [...] Current research on fungal mats in Oregon and Creosote Bushes in the Desert Southwest may dethrone aspen from the title of "Longest Living Thing.""

Obviously this is all wrong and down to inaccurate dating methods, or something. Dreaded Walrus 11:35, 17 January 2009 (EST)

The so-called "National Parks service" is a liberal organisation designed to prevent Conservatives making money by making paper out of aspens, and as such its data are not to be trusted.  ^(Crumpets) _and butter 11:45, 17 January 2009 (EST)

How long until Andy "trims" their article on the subject? Dreaded Walrus 11:50, 17 January 2009 (EST)

It's Sunday er, Saturday insight time

Oh look, the Assfly has coughed forth another masterful insight. This part I found especially amusing "rates of recession or decay observed today are somehow constant for extrapolation backwards in time" in light of the part of his world history lecture that says "Using population estimates, we know there were about 300 million people existed in the world at the time of Christ, and extrapolating backwards yields only one family in the year 3300 B.C." I guess expecting consistency from the liars for Jesus is a bit too much to ask. --JeevesMkII 09:19, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Arrrhhh... The stupid... It burns...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 12:22, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Wow, someone should burn a sock and suggest he change the "beating your wife" question to the "using rodents for sexual pleasure" one... Anyway, it's not a "new" insight - it's a new title for Andy's favorite eight whinges. ħuman 21:22, 17 January 2009 (EST)

T his is probably WIGOable, but I just woke up and my brain is fuzzy. Andy is writing out a list of what he calls "common fallacies", most of which are based on fallacious thinking. Things like "rates of recession or decay observed today are somehow constant for extrapolation backwards in time." Well, yes, that one of the techniques behind statistics and probability and we know just how good you are at those. There's serious lulz in here, but I can't find the words. Help me RW, you're my only hope. - Hactar, too lazy to sign in, like ususal.

ETrundel realizes that a placing a list of common fallacies on conservapedia might make Ken look like a blithering idiot. Just in case he didn't look like one to you already.Bil08 14:06, 17 January 2009 (EST)

So...anyone want to sock up and create an article for "uncommon fallacies"? You know just so CP can cover the ones Andy has been removing due to them being uncommon. --ScottA 15:49, 17 January 2009 (EST)

See two or three sections above. Anyone want to merge them? ħuman 21:25, 17 January 2009 (EST) Done. - Weaseloid

ETrundel really pisses me off. I know he's probably just one of you guys, but come on. What a sycophant. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:37, 17 January 2009 (EST)

He still hasn't got block rights though. A pity; he's twice the parodist that MikeSlater(Salter?) will ever be. He's been there for over a month now! Bad show, Andy. EddyP 15:53, 18 January 2009 (EST)

The Daily Mail

Andy probably thanks the Daily Mail refers to what he orders his wife to fetch from the box in front of Chez Schlafly every day (except Sunday, since that would be working on Sabbath), and he thinks its libb-burr-ull because

• All stamps do not feature Saint Ronald de Reagan
• The post office insists on George W. Bush dying first before getting a stamp
• The annual Love stamps do not have a caveat that says "between a man and a woman only"MDB 10:29, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I think he's got a point about the Daily Mail being liberal. They're well-known for their liberal pro-abortion, pro-immigration, pro-EU editorial standpoint. oh wait... Dreaded Walrus 11:45, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Not to mention their disdain for falling house prices.  ^(Crumpets) _and butter 12:04, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Wait. Andy's married? Czolgolz 20:01, 17 January 2009 (EST)

He's apparently got a daughter, so I have to assume so. (Good to 'see' you again.) --Gulik 20:17, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Now hold it, boys!

Does a "Cross-cut cleavage" lift & separate? I appreciate that this might be a genuine term but ...  ^(Crumpets) _and butter 11:38, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I call repeatedly replacing that page with #REDIRECT [[Hillary Clinton]]. --Marty 05:55, 18 January 2009 (EST)

relatively inactive re. substance?

WTF? BrianCo, a quiet inoffensive user who has been around forever, writes articles and does wiki housekeeeping work gets demoted, while TK a loudmouthed, backstabbing traitor who does nothing but block half the world's IP addresses gets promoted. It's like the Assfly wants to destroy his own wiki. Or perhaps substance in the Assfly's world is blocking people. --JeevesMkII 13:10, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Gone on a wikibreak = deserter? (& he is British - i.e. can't be conservative)  ^(Crumpets) _and butter 13:18, 17 January 2009 (EST)

BrianCo should have been made Sysop ages ago, yet he's passed over for ;the most inane editors. Funny though how demotion involves the inability to edit at night. In what world does that make any sense whatsoever? Andy is only making it harder for a good contributor to contribute.

The Meritocrats Act III, Scene ii: Andy: "Hey, Brian. You haven't been editing enough. Thus, I don't trust that you won't grievously vandalize the sight during the night hours. Keep editing at only a moderate rate, and I'll suspect you of planning to upload pornographic images and remove that right too!" - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 13:19, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I do not understand why Andy doesn't just make CP invitation-only. By now, you'd think he'd've figured out that the only people interested in "contributing" to his blog are overt liberals, who think he's wrong about everything, and covert parodists, who are even MORE wrong about everything. --Gulik 13:23, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Especially funny considering the promotion of MikeSlater, who follows the vandal guide to a T. Self-improvement is masturbation. Now self-destruction...Z3ro 13:27, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Of course being a Brit only really means that he wouldn't be able to edit in the morning as I doubt he edits until 5:00am. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:50, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I do not understand why Andy doesn't just make CP invitation-only I think it's because he believes that most Americans agree with him. See this latest headline (which conveniently ignores that the poll in question shows that more US Americans call themselves "moderate" than "conservatives." He believes he is reflecting "real American values" on CP. Besides which, for him to make CP "approval only" or "invitation only" like that creationist wiki would be to admit defeat--something he is incapable of...TheoryOfPractice 19:58, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Heh. I don't think I'd be able to find it, but in one of his many "you must agree with me or you are a liberal" tirades he once came up against someone who calmly said "no, I am a moderate". His response was that there's no such thing as moderates, they're just liberals who want to deny it. So, which is it Andy? Matt 20:45, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Andy wants to beat Wikipedia at their own game, so doing restricted logins while WP's are still open is like admitting defeat to his Most Hated Adversary^tm. And that's on top of the other reasons already mentioned. --Kels 23:54, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I don't remember BrianCo threatening and insulting other users while labeling everything bad as liberal (or everything liberal as bad), so yeah, he's been extremely inactive in Andy's eyes. (As a disclaimer: I didn't keep a too close eye on him, so I might have overlooked something.) It all makes perfect sense when you distance yourself from the idea that Andy gives a shit about actual encyclopedia work. --Sid 20:14, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Native Americans

Andy just doesn't have a clue does he? (That's more a statement than a sudden discovery on my part ;) He thinks fingerprints and intelligence are used as indicators of genetic origin...not only would they make useless indicators they cannot even sample such things from their ancestors.....and he obviously has no idea how DNA testing works, since although the prevalence of certain blood groups can be an indicator, this has nothing to do with DNA testing, which in fact shows the complete opposite to Andy's argument. --Jammy 17:52, 17 January 2009 (EST)

"Jammy" (if that is your real name), you're clueless. Show me one "Native American" and one Asian with identical fingerprints. Of course, you can't, which proves the point. You can start earning some credibility by admitting that liberals censor prayer in public schools. DickTurpis 18:07, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Another example of Andrew Layton Schlafly's fundamental ignorance, stupidity, incompetence and hubris in one easy-to-digest package. You know, I've been coming here every day for 18 months, and every day for 18 months, someone has pointed out something that that man is wrong about. But he just keeps on going, convinced that he is correct when everyone else tells him he's wrong, and believing in his own expertise on every possible topic, from economics to biblical exegesis to historical anthropology to statistics to biology and so on. Amazing...TheoryOfPractice 18:09, 17 January 2009 (EST)

And you desysoped yourself here for, what, two mistakes? Three? ħuman 21:31, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I love the "intelligence" inclusion in his remarks. That's steering into some dangerous waters. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 18:29, 17 January 2009 (EST)

I was just going to say that. Thank God we have Andy to point out inferior races in the world.DSFARGEG 18:32, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Do we have some sort of a record of the racist commentary at that site? Between this and the, uh... commentary on African Americans not long ago, it's really making me wonder how often CP has wandered into that field, or if it's a more recent form of horrific stupidity. Photovoltaic Array 19:21, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Well, my dad says that all conservatives are racists, although I have yet to pin him down on the argument for the case. What we do see is the glee they evince when some tidbit of information reinforces their racist tendencies. (It lets them think/say/type "I'm not a racist but... ") ħuman 21:31, 17 January 2009 (EST)

"I'm not racist, but Native Americans are unintelligent savages." --Barikada, not signed in.

They're not all racists. Some of them just hate all poor people, regardless of race, creed, or color. --Gulik 22:26, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Tracking CP racism would be a good thing to do actually. We should start a page. Insert Name Here 05:12, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Mostly it just used to be Ed Poor, but it is becoming more overt everywhere. An article on it would be good. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:58, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Will do. Insert Name Here 06:15, 18 January 2009 (EST)

World history students?

Anyone willing to make bets as to what percent of American history students sign up for World history? Bonus points for correct answer for BethanyS. --Shagie 01:27, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I think Bethany has already taken his world history course. As I recall, it was the original homskollar course on CP. Now he's teaching it again, he'll have to get some fresh meat, and preferably fresh meat he hasn't already pissed off with his misogynist testing policies. --JeevesMkII 02:14, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Does he know any world history? Oh god, I gotta follow that course. Insert Name Here 05:08, 18 January 2009 (EST)

In Lecture One, it takes just getting to the "Introduction" for fun facts to begin: "There is no reliable evidence of man existing before 3500 B.C." Another gem: "Using population estimates, we know there were about 300 million people existed in the world at the time of Christ, and extrapolating backwards yields only one family in the year 3300 B.C. The oldest trees do not predate this time; the oldest sequoias, which never die of old age, are only 4000 years old." --Cwaddell 12:31, 18 January 2009 (EST)

IRS

So they've banned someone from the IRS, rudely. Is that not just a little foolish? Isn't there the possibility that Andy claims CP expenses as deductions (charitable donation/education etc.) Isn't there the possibility that it being a blog would render any deductions invalid. Isn't there the possibility that, if you piss them off enough, the IRS might want to investigate? --Toffeeman 04:52, 18 January 2009 (EST)

It's the same guy Karajerk blocked earlier for having a silly name (see recent archive) and using the IRS as a proxy. Of course, now that the swabbie is faced with admitting he might have made a mistake, he takes the easy route out - kill the witnesses. More conservative deceit (and stupidity) at work. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 05:00, 18 January 2009 (EST)

They should report the IRS to the FBI. Insert Name Here 05:07, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I think Kaka genuinely thought that a government department proxy server is the same as an anonymous proxy. Let's face it, those guy's IT skills are pretty poor. However, you probably misunderstand the conservative mind-set. Assuming they believe that BDL is a genuine guy from the IRS what I read into the block summary is "government employee using tax-payer's dollars to access teh interweb". I mean why would someone from the IRS need to access Conservapedia except for his own amusement? (Unless of course he was investigating why CP is a .com rather than a .org but is claiming charitable or tax-deductible status?) There was an interesting article (which was highlighted in SciAm) called Facial Expression Processing Varies with Political Affiliation which purported to demonstrate that those who identified themselves as Republican were more likely to interpret vague or blank looks as more threatening. Conservatives generally seem to see more things to be afraid of. Andy's demonisation of moderates is probably just another example of this trait. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:56, 18 January 2009 (EST)

It's interesting that you point that out, considering that one of the first things I noticed about Andy (during the Lenski affair) was his repeated use of "insulting" or some version of it in reply to the most innocuous posts. When Brossa wrote that the letter in its then-current (and incidentally final) state "would not warrant publication by PNAS or any other reputable scientific journal", Andy replied "Your insulting tone (any other "reputable" journal) discredits yourself, but I'll respond this one time to you below." Other than the arrogant latter part, he was insulted by reputable. Don't ever tell him that something he has done isn't good enough or not up to other people's standards, as he'll see it as a personal attack and attempt at censorship, even if- as it was in this case- you are actually offering genuine suggestions for improvement. Of course the venom he shoots at others is okay, because the dirty Liberals only "feign offense", which would be extremely insulting in itself if it wasn't one of the most childish excuses I've ever heard. Kallium^talk 10:43, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Well, it's a scientific fact (in Andyland) that Liberals are not human, but soulless golems made of bullshit and discarded pornography animated by the will of Satan, so their lack of offense is a logical consequence of their total lack of any emotions beyond hatred for Jesus and America. --Gulik 14:13, 18 January 2009 (EST)

(semi-undent to allow discussion above here about the "blank looks are threatening" bit, which I do find quite interesting) I'm yet again fascinated by Kara's mindreading abilities. Who says that he used the computer without authorization? Tons of employers allow their workers to use the net for non-company use. The conditions are usually "As long as you get your work done on time" or "just during break time, etc". But nope, Kara knows the IRS better than IRS employees, it seems. No surprise there, really. --Sid 10:48, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Can we get some links, please? TheoryOfPractice 10:57, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Copypaste of the WIGO item in question: Karajou is a genius. Really. Update: The word is jerk, not genius. Really. --Sid 11:20, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks Sid---didn't know this was about a posted WIGO...TheoryOfPractice 11:23, 18 January 2009 (EST)

"So you're an admin now..."

Ever since TK/Bugler/Rod/Foxtrot/etc. made their combined moves to drive any halfway sane person away from CP, I can't help but chuckle every time I see TK smacking down yet another user. But today/yesterday really made me laugh (the "Obama-isms" incident that's also WIGO'd). The best part is that he got away with it. That's bloody brilliant. I honestly can't tell if Addison accepted TK's bullshit claims (about Addison or anybody else having contradicted Ed The Almighty) because he also failed at reading comprehension or because he realized that kissing TK's feet is necessary for long-term survival on CP.

And to follow up to the headline: I just love how the new sysops are still second-class citizen, compared to the senior sysops. --Sid 10:41, 18 January 2009 (EST)

...except for Teacake of course. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:19, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I just wonder how many of the noobs actually get admitted to whatever passes for the SDG nowadays. I can only imagine Teacock being a definite, if he wasn't invited then he would have demanded to be let in. And if they didn't have one then TK would create one. Remember how he started the Conservapedia Discussion Group to get RWers discussing how they were going to post parody etc. There was also that other sooper seekrit forum The GodSpeedBoard which was rather short lived as TK lost his sysop rights. Argh! Just remembered I've got some screencaps of that (see right). For those that don't know, TK uses the alias Night Train and GL is GregLarson whose pages TK has just memory holed at CP. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:37, 18 January 2009 (EST)

It's amazing how things just don't seem to change, that post pretty much sums up TK's antics at this very moment and yet it was written 15 months ago. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:40, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Surely they wouldn't be dumb enough to let him back in after his antics last time (said while trawling through the old SDG stuff found via wikilinks - that stuff about Rob and Slim Virgin is fascinating!)? I mean if we can see that he hasn't changed, then surely Andy... oh, never mind... answered my own question there... --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:57, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Honestly, I had completely forgotten about this. It was only the (night) train of thought about TK and his backroom antics that reminded me (I'm getting too old). I think this explains the whole HelpJazz thing. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:03, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Boy, that sure is picking up steam

Great job, Ken. Commodore Guff (only a small child would use such a name) 12:01, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Ace. At least it's still in the top results. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:29, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I was going to ask this earlier, but I didn't knew how to put this delicately: Why am I staring at a bull's balls in the front page of an alleged family-friendly encyclopaedia? And where did he find people who still use Altavista? (Why, I didn't even know they have updated their index since 1997.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:09, 19 January 2009 (EST)

New Sunday Sermon WIGO

My favourite part about that whole "idolatry" thing is the part about "focusing on money" rather than God. Because rich men like Andrew Layton Schlafly NEVER think about money. TheoryOfPractice 12:15, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Indeed, like the atheist who can't stop talking about God, money is only of a concern to people who don't have it! ArmondikoV^theist 12:20, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I believe you must love punany bad, but not put it in front of your dollars or your god. --JeevesMkII 12:33, 18 January 2009 (EST)

All television watching is idolatry? Thank god I download my television programs and thus spend considerably less time watching due to no commercials; my idolatry-factor is low enough that I can still get into heaven. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 12:38, 18 January 2009 (EST)

He relates everything to "time spent on prayer", which later is how he defines "time spent on god", saying that you idolize anything that you spend more time on than prayer. Well, let's see, assuming Andy gets his 8 hours, and let's say an hour of prayer, an hour for other things, then the entire rest of the day on CP, his idolatry factor for CP would be about 14, showing "immoderate attachment or devotion" to it. And since he is CP... well, you see where I'm going with this. He's got another self-defeating one there.

Also, isn't "time spent on money" a bit odd coming from a far-right laissez-faire capitalist?! Of course TOP is right- when you've always had money without needing to work for it, you don't worry about it much. Kallium^talk 12:48, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Of course the idolatry factor is meaningless for most here, as that would require dividing by zero. But I'm sure Andy the Professional Mathematician will find a way. Kallium^talk 12:52, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Well, if we just redefine our particular idols as Gods.... My time obsessing over the Britney Spears, the Jonas Brothers, and Wolf Blitzer is a form of prayer! - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 12:58, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I was going to say; ditto me for John Coltrane, Michel Foucault and Doonesbury. TheoryOfPractice 13:01, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Phew, and here I was worried praying to the Great the Platypus was idolatry. Turns out Idolatry is all about TV and money. Guess I'm safe. --ScottA 13:21, 18 January 2009 (EST)

If you divide something by zero you get infinite, so technically that would be right on for our idolatry factor! - Chris(Perhaps I should actually make an account...)

I wonder where "spending the Lord's Day working on self-indulgent blog masquerading as a wiki" fits into the idolatry scale... MDB 13:55, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Mind you, I think The Almighty Dollar has been America's One True God for quite a while now, so I'd say "idolatry" is time spent NOT making money. :-P --Gulik 14:35, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Andy's Linguistic Statistic Clusterfuck

So, he's begun to actually do the linguistic analysis of candidates.[1] It's funny how his insane obsessions are the most important conservative terms. Self-indulgence? Dumb down? Homeschooling? Meritocracy? Yeah, those are really important. He doesn't even have faith or religion on the list, for god's sake. Best of all, though: phonics! - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 14:37, 18 January 2009 (EST)

The fact that "meritocracy" made the list surprises me: I don't think I ever heard that term anywhere outside of CP. And WTF is up with that uber-wide table? He has a 6*21 setup and chooses to go with twenty-one columns? --Sid 14:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Andy honestly seems to see himself as a, if not the, archetypal conservative. Hence, anyone who isn't more or less a clone of himself isn't a conservative at all (cf. PJR.) He doesn't really seem to understand that his obsession with trivialities like school prayer aren't shared by the vast majority of the people he gleefully cites as collectively conservative. Indeed, if he were to actually ask his laundry list of questions to the 60 odd percent of Americans he so often uses to reinforce his opinion, I suspect he'd find no more than a handful that were actually conservative by his definition. --JeevesMkII 14:53, 18 January 2009 (EST)

It's indicative of the man's staggering stupidity that he think some sort of objective knowledge can be gained from this. He picked 20 arbitrary words (most of which would never be used in a speech), declared them the most conservative, picked arbitrary speeches of varying length, counted the number of uses, and this tells him how... conservative... This may actually be how Andy thinks. A person's conservatism is defined by the frequency of their use of these terms. Thus all the Abortion/Prayer/2+2 nonsense he continually spouts to keep his conservative linguistic frequency high. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 14:55, 18 January 2009 (EST)

It may indeed be how he thinks. See "quantifying idolatry" above. He seems to believe that issues like morality or political stance can be gauged by simplistic & ill-thought-out checklists & equations. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:23, 18 January 2009 (EST)

And the arch-Republican, McCain, in his CPAC speech used how many of the magic 20 words? 5. Big woop. Has anyone checked how many Obama et. al. have used in their speeches? Maybe Andy's using the wrong words? (no .. I'm using all the right words, just not necessarily in the right order....) Worm ^{(t | c)} 15:51, 18 January 2009 (EST)

By my count, Obama scores 2 for his DNC acceptance speech - so he's as 'conservative' as Palin and Huckabee? er....ok Andy, I guess your magical system is flawless. Worm ^{(t | c)} 16:01, 18 January 2009 (EST)

This really is politics at its most lizard-brained. "I'll vote for whoever says the Magic Words I like the most often!" --Gulik 17:50, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Andy "refines" the search terms. Now he'll look for "free " (note the blank space after "free" to at least exclude "freedom" and other words) to get hits for "free market/enterprise". I will sacrifice my last shred of good faith by not WIGOing it and instead assuming that Andy will actually verify his search results to make sure that things like "free press" and "we are free to do x" don't count. But I somehow got the feeling that Andy will disappoint me. Again. --Sid 20:16, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe Andy had read this NY Times article? Worm ^{(t | c)} 06:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Waterboarding

I do love seeing conservatives struggle to justify waterboarding. The only colorable case that the Bush admin used to trot out was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded and under torture gave up the name of Jose Padilla, who (according to KSM & Bush) was planning to dirty-bomb NYC. It was Al Gonzales' favorite talking point for a while - "torture saved New York!" - until it turned out that Padilla was basically just a petty criminal. Epic fail. I do look forward to seeing CP's list.-Diadochus 15:24, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Seeing as TK undid the edit, that's not too likely.TheoryOfPractice 15:30, 18 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) Well TK's response is quite unequivocal - conservatives don't care about the human rights issue, as long as the end justifies the means. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:32, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Sigh. Two more days of this not-so-crypto-fascist bullshit, then we get to start repairing the USA's tattered reputation. --Gulik 17:42, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Same old... same old...

Looking at the last 500 entries on their Recent changes, and ignoring the various "log" entries, we find the actual editing being done by... 31 people. Of which, 10 are sysops, 4 are blocked and the remaining 17 are all familiar names. Yup, the site is growing... at least until TK finds a way to drive away those 17... --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:38, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I took a closer look:

Editors Jan 2008

Editors Jan 2009

red	black	blue
blocked editors	commoners	sysops (light)

I hope that the names are readable - yes, SSchultz is blocked, but still member of these weird groups: ‎nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW

LArron 17:59, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Those groups just mean he was part of a team contest. he can't do anything with them other than enter the nonsecret secret namespace. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 07:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Greatest Myths of World History

Anybody with a sock to burn want to add "Columbus was the first to discover America" to the list? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)

LOL! I'd do it, but they'd match my IP to JPatt and then that'd be the end of my sysop career :(-Diadochus 16:59, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Are you honestly saying that you're Jpatt? Phantom Hoover 17:00, 18 January 2009 (EST)

He's Jpatt, I'm Karajou and Kotomi is my wife. Eek... where's the Viking??? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:03, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I'm pretty sure the picture of Karajou & Kotomi together would make Norseman's head explode with righteous rage.-Diadochus 17:04, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Holy shit. Maybe I'm actually Etrundel, who just added a (different) Columbus entry to the myth list.-Diadochus 17:09, 18 January 2009 (EST)

"Let them eat cake..."

Jammy--and Andy, are right. Mind the company you keep, Jammaster. TheoryOfPractice 17:38, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I simply don't want people to get the wrong impression about Andy...if we start linking to things he gets right (or partly so) people might start thinking he's reasonable! :-) --Jammy 17:44, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I dunno, it's pretty big news when teh assfly does get something right. I don't think it happens often enough to ever make him look sane... ħuman 18:45, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Sorry, he's not right, as she never actually said it. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 22:54, 18 January 2009 (EST)

That's pretty much what he's arguing. That would make him right. TheoryOfPractice 23:04, 18 January 2009 (EST)

That's what RodWeathers is arguing. Andy claimed that it was a "rational response" based on a different concept. Different concept sure, but it never occurred, and would not have been rational. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 23:17, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I think you and I are talking at cross purposes here: my point: Andy said Marie Antoinette did not say "let them eat cake," and for once Andy was right. Beyond that, I know not of what you speak, my friend...TheoryOfPractice 23:22, 18 January 2009 (EST)UPDATE: *read diffs* Shit, you're right, that was RW (heh) and not Andrew Layton Schlafly. So we take it all back: Andrew Layton Schlafly was not right about something today after all. TheoryOfPractice 23:25, 18 January 2009 (EST)

There's another theory out there.... It claims that what Marie said translate as let them eat Brioche (or something like that... my spelling in French is horrible) which was an expensive type of cake eaten in the palace....They beleive that, if she ever said anything close to the so called quote, she may have been saying "If they are poor, they can have some of this good food from the palace." But it's obviously just a theory. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 04:05, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Hukt on fonix werked form ee!

When exactly did phonics become a conservative touchstone? Can someone who understands the politics of this godforsaken country explain this to me? Now, apparently, anytime someone mis-speaks or mis-reads something, Andrew Layton Schlafly can blame it on liberals. TheoryOfPractice 17:53, 18 January 2009 (EST)

I think it's just part of his general attitude that everything that's happened since 1928 has been an evil plot by the Communo-Atheist-Vaccination Conspiracy. --Gulik 17:57, 18 January 2009 (EST)

The argument, I'm sure, is that the public schools de-emphasize phonics, there's some evidence that suggests that's bad, and inflating it lets Andy blame public schools for all the world's ills again. Game, set, match.-Diadochus 17:58, 18 January 2009 (EST)

(EXx2 grrr!)It's got something to do with homskollars being taught phonics, and public skollars aren't, so they aren't taught to pronounce things proper - thus all mispronunciations are the fault of the evil librul schooling system (still doesn't explain the British upper classes tho...) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:59, 18 January 2009 (EST)

ECIt gets better, Diadochus. Andrew Layton Schalfly once argued--stay with me here--that teachers' unions promoted whole language over phonics because it was less successful in providing students with basic reading skills, and because, according to Andrew Layton Schalfly, people who read poorly are more likely to vote Democrat, the unions would therefore continue to promote their preferred party. My question is, are their conservatives beyond Andrew Layton Schalfly who believe phonics are "conservative?" TheoryOfPractice 18:03, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Teh Schlaflinator typically represents a small segment of like-minded people, in brief, his sysops and the 10% of the readers of his mom's column in Human Events who think she's right (read the comments sometime, even paleoconservatives think she's a moron lately). Re: his theory of the "school to union pipeline," the man is insane.-Diadochus 18:06, 18 January 2009 (EST)

People who showed interest in Andy's recent phonics hard-on also enjoyed: Mystery:Why is Phonics Taught in the UK but not the US? --Sid 18:17, 18 January 2009 (EST)

As a public school student who had phonics as a child, I can say from my own experience that phonics was a bad idea. Yes it gave me an edge when I was learning how to read, but at the same time it still effects my spelling to this day since I have a habit of spelling words based on their phonetics rather than actual spelling.(thank the teacup for spell check) And honestly, having a reading comprehension edge in 2nd grade isn't worth poor spelling. --ScottA 18:40, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Coming from someone in the field of education (I don't know if anyone else around here is) Phonics is very good for teaching basic prounuciation, but it sucks for actual comprehension.... The trouble is, kids need to learn to recongnize the word, not how to say it. Phonics works great for kids with good vocal skills but poor reading, because it teaches them to isolate the sounds, but it does nothing for those just starting to read. Another huge issue, is that with English, several words have similar spelling but completely different sounds (through, though, rough, cough, bough, etc...) Phonics actually works better in Spanish than English. Another epic fail for the Assfly... but that's nothing new. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 19:10, 18 January 2009 (EST)

OMG stop misspelling stuff you guys. Recongnize that you are haveing a proununced affect on my sanety. --Marty 22:02, 18 January 2009 (EST) I hear they don't even have the concept of spelling bees in Spanish. For real.

As someone with poor literacy and no educational training but an opinion on nearly everything, I think phonics is good for some students and whole language is better for others. The problems is students get a different teacher every year so there is no consistency in there language development and with so many students it is not possible for one teacher to tailor a course for each individual students who need varying levels of phonics/whole language hybridisation. This is something you can do if your are homeschooling one or a few children, but really is not practical at a national policy level. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 20:27, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Unindenting some here- phonics is seen by many conservatives as the English equivalent of New Math/the Math Wars stuff that happened both in the 70's and the 90's. It's 5am right now, so I'm not going to go into extensive detail, but drop me a note on my talk page if you're interested in my theory on this. - Hactar, as usual not signing in (phonics prevented me from learning to read. It took me a summer program that worked with whole language to learn)

*bring bring* Is this for us?

I'm not sure if this is Ken's new way of talking to us, since he got chastised for doing the "HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMEN" pages...-Diadochus 23:23, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Perhaps, but I believe it is now unspoken policy not to answer. Let the machine get it...TheoryOfPractice 23:31, 18 January 2009 (EST)

Awww, but look, he's misspelling things he's so anxious to talk to us. I'll break policy and blame it on my newness: *picks up red telephone* "Hi Ken!! Look, popular support does not indicate scientific truth. Okay, bye now!"-Diadochus 00:43, 19 January 2009 (EST)

He continually quotes that statistic, but he doesn't seem to have a clue what it actually means. So, we have the percentage of people certain that evolution happened declining five percent over two decades, but in the same time frame the number of people on the fence on the issue soared by 14 percentage points. This of course means that at a minimum, 9 percent of the previously faithful creationists now have doubts about their faith. The trend is actually in the wrong direction for Ken

, while the idiotic "creation science" movement may have succeeded in injecting some doubts in to the minds of certain people, science is doing a far better job at communicating its message. --JeevesMkII 00:56, 19 January 2009 (EST)

He also fails to realize those polls are meaningless. The answers vary widely depending on exactly how the question is asked. DickTurpis 01:15, 19 January 2009 (EST)

"...since he got chastised for doing the "HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMEN" pages" He DID? When did that happen? I'm surprised I missed that. I know people have been pointing it out on Andy's talk page for a long time, and Andy has consistently avoided doing anything about it. What changed? --Johann 04:58, 19 January 2009 (EST)

If there was any chastisement, I expect it took place along private lines of communication & not on the wiki. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Final exam

Andy's tests are always good for a laugh. Now does #51 actually have a right and wrong answer? Obviously Andy wants you to answer c, but it is a matter of opinion. Also, is the girls question really easy, as WiGO indicates? I know what the correct answer is, but I half expect Andy thinks democracy is in fact uniquely American (he certainly thinks it's uniquely Christian). And if baseball is based on British sports is it uniquely American? DickTurpis 00:38, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I'm 100% sure Andy thinks democracy is American in origin: if you put yourself in his mind, then (a troubling proposition to be sure), then the answer is easy. Remember, this is not a mind that respects nuance. More often than not, you know, nuance is satanic trickery.-Diadochus 00:45, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I do wonder if even Andy is that delusional. Surely he knows democracy long predates the US, though I suppose he'll just say all other democracy is "real" democracy. You know, unlike the US. DickTurpis 00:47, 19 January 2009 (EST)

The question is even more nuanced than that. If by "democracy" he means something that purports to be a representative government, even if it really isn't, then Rome beats us by a solid 2200 years, and Athens by longer than that. But if he means something that purports to be a democracy, and actually functions as such, then England beats us by a few years, as they were the first to truly provide universal suffrage. If he means a government that purported to be a democracy, and vested full voting rights in at least some segment of the population nominally regardless of class, then I suppose America wins.-Diadochus 00:51, 19 January 2009 (EST)

For the first time ever, if Andy said something wasn't a "real________________" he would be right. American isn't a real Democracy... It's a Democratic Republic... But we all knew that. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 04:08, 19 January 2009 (EST)

So I guess Andy decided that it was too much work to make separate exams for boys and girls- his stance on chivalry ended up being two silly extra credit questions. What a fraud, this guy. The man has such strong convictions until real work on his part is required to carry them out. I also think the disparity in the difficulty level between the homework assignments and the tests are ridiculous. I hope half of the students' checks bounced. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 07:46, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Hang on, even if Assfly is somehow using twisted logic to argue that democracy was invented in America, then he's still wrong, because, even going by that, the answer's I, II and III, which there isn't an option for. Baseball was, in fact, invented in Britain, or possibly France. It was taken to America by settlers, where it became very popular. Maybe he's thinking of the claim that Abner Doubleday invented it in 1839, which has been thoroughly debunked, not least by references being made to the game in Britain as far back as 1744, or possibly even earlier (there is a disputed claim that Thomas Wilson, who was an Anglican bishop in England, made his displeasure known about 'Morris-dancing, cudgel-playing, baseball and cricket', sometime around 1670-1700), and Jane Austen referring to it in Northanger Abbey, written in 1798. The idea it comes from France is that there is a mid-14th century manuscript with an illustration showing a game that has a distinct similarity to baseball, but there's no real conclusive proof it is. 92.20.29.63 10:42, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I'm pretty sure the answer he wants is Mormons, Jazz, and baseball. And he's basically correct there. While baseball certainly has its roots elsewhere, the game as we know it today was codified in the US (not by Doubleday, but by Americans). I'm not sure how similar the earlier British (and, I suppose, French) versions are to modern baseball, but I imagine there are many substantial differences. His problem is calling it "uniquely" American. That can be misleading. In any case, I'm pretty sure he's not throwing trick questions at his students. If there's one thing Andy and his students don't get it's nuance. DickTurpis 10:53, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Well, the British version, from what I have seen, it was incredibly similar - including the 'three strikes and you're out' rule, running around bases to score runs, managing to hit it across boundaries before it hitting the ground to run around for free. There was some differences, but those seem to be differences in rules, rather than distinct differences in how the game was played (such as scoring a run for every base reached, rather than a complete run around the bases, so a home run actually scored four runs with empty bases). Now, if he is defining baseball as 'baseball with modern rules', then that's like baseball was invented in 2008, because that's the last time there was a rule change (specifically, that consulting instant replay video footage is now allowed for umpires on boundary calls for home runs or foul shots). 92.20.29.63 11:35, 19 January 2009 (EST)

BON, your last point is a little nit-picky. Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth or even Mordecai "Three Fingers" Brown could step out of the grave tomorrow and pretty much play the "modern" game after maybe a quick briefing on the DH...TheoryOfPractice 11:42, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe it was a little nit-picky, but, by the same token, I dare say any of the players of the 18th century British baseball could also play the modern American version, if they were briefed on the rule changes. However, it has occurred to me that, if you assume that Andy is ignorant of the fact that games typically don't start out as professional sports, and thus count the 'invention' of baseball as when it started to became a professional sport, then he's right to say that is American - the 18th century British version was seen more as a pleasant pastime to occupy one's spare hours. 92.20.29.63 14:44, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Nice point from Dinsdale in regards to HELL!!. Question 62: Will Andy:

• (A) Admit he was mistaken and remove the liberal bias?
• (B) Make up some reason why he isn't wrong?
• (C) Block Dinsdale?
• (D) All of the above, also including the phrases "2+2=4", "substantive contributions" and "Hell-denier"?

--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:08, 19 January 2009 (EST)

It seems apologies are in order. Credit where it's due, that is a friendly, measured and sensible response from the Andinator.--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:23, 19 January 2009 (EST)

...Hmm... 38 is my favourite so far. It reminds me of the Mock The Week sketch on rejected exam questions; "Are exams are becoming too easy? A) Yes B) David Beckham". Actually, the ENTIRE thing reminds me of that program ( It's on YouTube, amazing :P ). ArmondikoV^theist 12:35, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Anyone take the exam yet? I just wrote down my answers, an I have to admit there several I really didn't know. Then again, I didn't just take Andy's class, or any class on American history in the last 15 years for that matter. I'm sure Andy would use this as proof that his students are smarter than me. Maybe I'll look up the answers in a real encyclopedia and see how I did. DickTurpis 12:52, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Can anyone help me out with the answers to a few questions? Quick research didn't give specific answers, and I don't want to spend too much time on this. #19 (I think it's a? or d?). #21 has to be a, right? It's such a retarded question I honestly don't know what the fuck is going through Andy's head. Is #26 d or e? And what's the answer to #42? CP didn't seem to have an article on this. (Does the fact there is a final exam question on this topic make that seem like a significant oversight, Andy?) And is #52 a or b? I assume the boy's bonus is about the Civil War and baseball, based on the Doubleday myth. Is that right? DickTurpis 13:55, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I don't understand the point of this exam. I know next to nothing about US history, but I can answer half the questions at least. The Assfly's style appears to be to provide 5 answers but make two so ridiculous that even a blind, syphilitic simpleton would know they aren't right. What's the point? Why not just have three answers? What's the point in the multiple guess format in the first place? If your goal is to find out who has actually absorbed and understood the material, ability to score well on this exam tells you nothing. Since when was history about rote memorisation of a bunch of useless facts? --JeevesMkII 14:19, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Andy's tests are always about 1/3 incredibly easy questions; 1/3 not so easy in theory, but easy when you eliminate the 4 other ridiculous choices; a bit less than 1/3 questions on some idea of his or rather obscure fact you'd likely only know by taking his class; and a few legitimately challenging questions. Of course, there's always a bunch you can get just by knowing Andy's political views. 67.242.66.251 15:09, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Something a teacher told me a long time ago, that I have found very true - "Multiple choice examinations, at best, only tell you who's the luckiest, not who knows the answers." 92.20.29.63 14:47, 19 January 2009 (EST)

#21 really is retarded, and that's why I'm betting on D. If Andy can force homeschooling in somewhere, he will. I like what it says about CP that you can't find all the answers on the Trustworthy Encyclopedia, or the articles even directly oppose the answers (their article on baseball says it's not American, so the only remaining answer is denying that the Mormon church is American) --GTac 14:51, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I don't think it is d. Homeschooling wasn't big in the 50s, and Andy admits it is a new and growing trend (remember, the 50s was before CENSORSHIP of PRAYER so everything was just fantastic in public school then; God made sure of it, before he was evicted). Also, Andy is disdainful of what's "cool", so its not a boost to homeschooling to label it as such. Homeschooling isn't what the "cool" people do, because the "cool" people are all fornicating drug addicts. No, his students are an oppressed minority of rich, conservative, white kids who, like Jebus, are practically crucified by liberals everywhere. DickTurpis 16:20, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I do my damnest to crucify at least three conservatives a day.... It give me a feeling of accomplishment, but it does tend to make a mess on the porch. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 16:55, 19 January 2009 (EST)

At least you're saving them the trouble of trying to do it themselves. Getting that last nail in is a pain. --Gulik 17:04, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Does any one else imagine Andy having a huge S*** eating grin when he posts this?. Actually follow the convo. The whole thing is Andy being an ass. Also, TK the creeper gives his 2 cents. As well as a not so subtle "I know where you sleep" comment. --ScottA 23:52, 19 January 2009 (EST)

WIGOed. Thanks, Scott. What an ass. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 00:10, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I was enjoying the banter, until TK got all creepy and stalkerish with his "I haz checkuser, I knows youz iz in Canada." Then I had to go throw up. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:10, 20 January 2009 (EST)

51. The year is 2023, and you are over 25 years old. Based on current trends, the Constitution, and anything else you learned in this course, what do you think will most likely be true then?

(a) Barack Obama will be president, serving his fourth term.

(b) the most successful companies will be using unions.

(c) even more people will be homeschooling than now.

(d) even more people will be moving out of the United States than moving in

(e) there will be no terrorism in the world

For the love of God, what is the answer? I will not sleep until I know. What does Andy predict for the future of our country? What's going to happen without conservative values. 65.65.35.81 04:07, 20 January 2009 (EST)

It is an odd one, to be sure. He could mean (a), but that would require an amendment, and I don't think Andy really thinks Obama will be that popular/successful. (b) is almost illiterate, and there's no way he thinks it could be true. (d), again, mildly illiterate (it implies "more" are now, and in the future, "even more" will be), and no way he believes the good ole USA will cease to a be a magnet for immigrants. (e) is just funny, really. (C) MOAR HOMSKOLLARZ!!! has to be the prediction. What's weird is the year/age thing. Since it's about 15 years from now, is he talking to ten year olds? Or is that part of the question just irrelevant? As I read it the first time, I thought one choice would be "I will be running for Congress", as I think that being 25 is one of the requirements. ħuman 14:51, 20 January 2009 (EST)

There has been some talk on the usual suspects right-wing blog sites about some Dems making plans to try and push through that amendment. (I only skimmed the headlines). So "a" is a snark. The obvious answer is "c" because homeschooling has been increasing over recent years so on current trends it will continue to so. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:15, 21 January 2009 (EST)

WIGOs to tests, lectures, etc

If the link goes to the page, please at least tell us what to search for. Or link to a section. Better yet, do both, and link to a static version. Or I will nastily vote your WIGO down. Make it easy for us, eh? ħuman 01:14, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Or just alter the WIGO to something better if you find out what it means? ArmondikoV^theist 12:38, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Sure, if I can even find it. The poster is looking right at it when they add the WIGO, so it's easier for them... ħuman 15:45, 19 January 2009 (EST)

WIGO 1213

If anyone has a copy of the template mainpageright wigo (the edit comment Andy does not want us to see) could they upload it as Wigo1213_0.png , thanks. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 01:38, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Why does Schafly try to diminish Einstein's legacy

Why does Schlafly try to diminish everything Einstein did? even making the absurd argument that the theory of relativity is linked to cultural relativism. Does this guy not understand the difference between the social sciences and physical sciences?

Shappy77

No. No he does not. DickTurpis 02:44, 19 January 2009 (EST)

A lot of Creationists can't. See "Social Darwinism". --Gulik 03:12, 19 January 2009 (EST)

See Conservapedia:Einstein_and_Relativity,_Censorship_of#Why.3F. Gauss 05:38, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Short answer--he lives in an absolutist and positivisit universe, and therefore sees Einsteinian relativity as a justification for moralistic relativity. TheoryOfPractice 08:49, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Not to mention that the use of relativity in correcting GPS. Apparently it's just a simple error that engineers can just "account for". No theory needed. I was thinking looking into this as a blog post or essay type thing. I think it's to do with getting rid of the scientists (evil, white coat wearing elitists out to destroy God at every turn) but keeping the engineers (hardworking, have practical applications, blue-collar/overall wearing workers, honest, republican voting). Despite the fact that you can't separate science and technology in that way!!! ArmondikoV^theist 10:29, 19 January 2009 (EST)

To quote that great philosopher Linus Van Pelt: "You can if you're stupid!" --Gulik 17:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

A new era of peace and tranquility at CP

Or at least MYOB in action: For one month - the longest time in recorded history (a whole month!) - no complaint was made at the now squeaky clean Conservapedia:Desk/Abusepage. The new benevolent rule of TK doesn't allow for discussing even the dumbest of all sysop's actions, like:

• 10:04, 16 January 2009 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked BruceDLimber (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Nonsense name; use of Internal Revenue Service site as a proxy address)
• 21:49, 18 January 2009 Foxtrot (Talk | contribs) blocked Pyfgcr (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Inappropriate or vulgar name: we won't be doing that with any "pygs". recreate with your real name)

Beware of the anagrams of your chosen name - there is always an illiterate who may get you wrong - or right :-)

No doubt, Andy will be pleased, as there are no longer these annoying discussions on his talk site, all the messy stuff which happens when a place is really alive... LArron 02:45, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Of course, his other crime was to edit the math articles. Oh, btw Foxyroxy, how the hell is he supposed to recreate his account, when you've tagged "account creation disabled"? Idiot. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:56, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Foxtrot (Talk | contribs) blocked Pyfgcr (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Inappropriate or vulgar name: we won't be doing that with any "pygs".   I take my hat off to you, Foxy; that is a block summary worthy of the late Bugler himself. --Marty 04:35, 19 January 2009 (EST)

That's why I packed it in; my feeble parody is no match for these masters. Yours truly^{Dear Sir} 04:55, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Foxtrot on math

Foxtrot thinks he knows some mathematics. It's actually kind of cute, like watching a cat play piano. Coarb 03:59, 19 January 2009 (EST)

My attention was actually drawn to the comment above Fox's, AndyJM justifying his changes to a math article in an attempt to avoid the banhammer. What a sad state of affairs, a user being scared of damnationbannation because they contributed to a wiki article. I know, I know, common CP practice is to ban anyone who makes a change to a mathematics article, but the stupidity of that practice never really hit me until I saw this. (Please don't ban me for this comment, btw!) -Redback^{is gonna bite you} 04:17, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I can't blame AndyJM for being paranoid about the banhammer: Remember that he was banned (by Foxtrot) for removing factually wrong information and that pointing this out (by at least two people, including myself) has only led to more blocks. --AlanS 14:21, 19 January 2009 (EST)

The pain, the pain, he doesn't realize that the continuum hypothesis is the question whether the cardinality of the real numbers c equals ℵ₁, the smallest cardinality greater than ℵ₀. LArron 04:39, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Edgar Allan Poe

CP's article of the week vs. WP's article of the day. An interesting comparison.131.111.8.98 09:37, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Dear old Joaquin sidesteps the largely ineffective committee of review and plonks EAP in unannounced... and unapproved, as the Featured Article. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:40, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Well, three-quarters of the CP article is taken up by a list of Poe's works (no doubt copied & pasted from WP or somewhere else). If Ed "Writing Course" Poor catches sight of that, it'll be gone for sure (like this one). Other than that, it's barely more than a stub. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:56, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Weekly features are JM's baby, just as yearly is kendoll's and broken news is Crock o' Shite's. While technically there may be a process, only Joaquin actually gives a shit and therefore he just does whatever he likes (which usually is showcasing his own irrelevant image strewn garbage.) --JeevesMkII 10:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I love how they bascially cover his whole birth, life and death in one short paragraph. But that's CP for you - concise!--PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:07, 19 January 2009 (EST)

You would think that they'd make a mention of why it is AOW, like January 19 2009 being the 200th anniversary of his birth. Actually it's mentioned in the borken news (but not the article). Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:12, 19 January 2009 (EST)

It's a step up from cp:Literature, which is nothing but quotations without context. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 11:10, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Literature is another JM "compilation" - you expected context from the man who adds random "See alsos". Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:20, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Jpatt, OJ, and Jeremiah Wright

Does anyone understand this "debate":

http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Why_the_people_who_supported_OJ_Simpson%27s_not_guilty_verdict_also_support_Rev._Wright%27s_public_statements%3F

--Simple 15:45, 19 January 2009 (EST)

"Why the people who supported OJ Simpson's not guilty verdict also support Rev. Wright's public statements?" <-- Why Jpatt fail English again? --Sid 15:56, 19 January 2009 (EST)

think jpatt talk about black people.</jpatt> Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 16:43, 19 January 2009 (EST)

The MLK WIGO was another one of those that make me wish I could make five "up" votes... ħuman 19:40, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Translation: "Liberals are EVIL RACISTS who hate white people! And they hate black people, too!" Or something. --Gulik 19:43, 19 January 2009 (EST)

In the vanishingly unlikely chance that JPatt actually is interested in this question and isn't just using it in a cheapo attempt to smear Liberals, I'll try to explain. Because at his murder trial, it did seem like the LAPD had tried to frame Simpson. Once that was established as true, OJ's guilt became irrelevant. If the cops break the law, the defendant walks. That's the law.

As for his RECENT trial for armed robbery, I say throw away the key--the guy's gone nuts.

As for Rev. Wright, I honestly haven't read/listened to all his speeches, but from what I have heard, he's done a lot of ranting about how blacks are second-class citizens in the US. This is still true, Obama's impending inauguration notwithstanding.

So, what was your point again, besides "Libruls r EVUL!"? --Gulik 19:48, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Of course, don't you see.... Liberals are the real racists, they only pretend about black people... and I can prove it because Martin Luther King was a Republican.... OF course, the fact that the modern Republican is against just about everything Martin Luther King stood for means nothing, because more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act blah blah blah. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 19:51, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Given that King was a commie in his later life (well, between "I Have A Dream" and his assassination, anyway), I don't think the GOP would REALLY want to claim him. --Gulik 19:56, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I've heard that fact, along with his supposed womanizing (I don't really know about that one way or another) as an argument against having a Martin Luther King Jr. day. I had a hard time believing that that was the real crux of the argument, however. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 21:28, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Gee, ya think? (embarrassed to live in one of the last states to honor MLK day, although now that teh ebil liberals have taken over, at least we legalised civil onions toot sweet!) ħuman 22:29, 19 January 2009 (EST)

(UNDENT) Black is a Country by Nikhil Singh has some great writing on the later King and how the anti-imperial, anti Vietnam war version of his discourses--which are really inextricable from his larger vision--are conveniently omitted from his public memory...TheoryOfPractice 22:43, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Quotes, and addz to artikle pleez? ħuman 22:52, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Book loaned out...it'll have to wait...TheoryOfPractice 23:00, 19 January 2009 (EST)

NEVER LOAN BOOKS = BEST WAY TO LOSE FRIENDS. Seriously. ħuman 00:02, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe if you said "a very large sum of money" or "your seeing eye dog" I would agree, but I think loaning a book is a wonderful opportunity to share ideas, stories, worldviews, etc. When I find myself re-purchasing a good book, assuming it isn't an expensive textbook, I don't really mind at all. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 00:14, 20 January 2009 (EST)

When I find myself repurchasing a $40 trade paper copy of a treasured tome, and at the same time the person I "lent" it to happens to be in the bookstore... I disagree. A library is a treasure. "Recommend, don't lend"? There's a quote out there somewhere, about this... ħuman 00:38, 20 January 2009 (EST)

March for Life

CP is chartering a bus for the March for Life rally in D.C. I oppose their politics (well, I oppose just about everything about CP), but I think it's actually pretty cool that Andy is taking students to some kind of political event in D.C. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 21:33, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I'll (albeit reluctantly) second that praise. But the wording, "Our group is larger," demonstrates yet again that Andy is incapable of not being a dick.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 21:58, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I'll third the "praise" - at least he's getting them out of the church basement and into reality. If one of them becomes saner later in life, this could be a useful lesson in organizing. ħuman 22:33, 19 January 2009 (EST)

To finish that sentence: "Our group is larger than any other group  church or school  single church or school  single church or school traveling from New Jersey." I wouldn't say Andy's being a dick there; he's just being... um... Andy. My condolences to the kids; I wouldn't wish a Schlafly road trip on anyone. --Marty 22:36, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Wow, the largest group from New Jersey? Now that's impressive! Of course, if it's anything like his course... Kallium^talk 22:54, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I'm sorry, in what way is this cool? He's exploiting kids who are too young to form a sensible opinion about abortion, and doubtless for the most part haven't been exposed to any sort of meaningful sex education other than "don't have it, or your dick'll fall off" for the advancement of his own political agenda. If the kids were at university, and had had some time away from the family home to see the world and form their own opinions I'd be all for it, but this is just cynically exploitative. Can you imagine the outcry on CP if a school shipped its kids out to some pro-choice rally? --JeevesMkII 23:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Well, these kids are like 15 or 16, not 7 or 8, so yeah, they're old enough to have an opinion. And of course CP would kick up a shitstorm if it were a liberal group sending kids to a pro-choice rally, but CP is a pile of festering fucknuggets after all. DickTurpis 23:29, 19 January 2009 (EST)

No need to imagine Jeeves. See fifth item here. But I'm not really upset.... that's part of being a kid, you kinda get stuck with your parent's feelings. I'm actually kinda glad he is taking. If just one kid sees the fanatical idiots that frequent this march and turns away.... then it was worth it. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 23:36, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Um, there is a big difference between chartering a bus to a political rally for high school students who come voluntarily, and taking a bunch of young kids who don't have a choice in the matter to a homosexual wedding while they are at a very impressionable age. --CPAdmin1 23:49, 19 January 2009 (EST)

I don't really see the differnce between "chartering a bus to a political rally" and "taking a bunch of young kids who don't have a choice" in this situation. But, as always, thanks for your input. ħuman 00:01, 20 January 2009 (EST)

In one instance, you have a bunch of high school students who fully understand the implications, choosing to attend a rally for a political cause that they support. This is facilitated by the bus being chartered. The other case is a bunch of first-graders (who shouldn't probably don't understand the implications) being taken (apart from their own choice) to a same sex marriage ceremony. One is giving high-schoolers the ability to voice their political opinion. The other is trying to indoctrinate (yes I am using that word) very young children to believe that same-sex marriage is a normal, ok thing to do.--CPAdmin1 00:09, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I think the word "indoctrinate" is still applicable in high school. My political beliefs at that time were certainly and fully the result of indoctrination. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 00:17, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Whoa, whoa, hold on here. Yes, kids@gay-marriage is indoctrination. Virtually all of grade school is a deliberate process of indoctrinating children with society's general values. What's wrong with teaching kids tolerance all of a sudden? Seeing a gay-marriage != taking them to a gay-rights rally. And I hate to tell you this, but same-sex marriage is a normal, ok thing to do. As to taking a bunch of highschool students to a rally for a cause they "support" (as if they've ever been given a chance to have reasonable debate or proper information on the complex matter. cp:Abortion is a clusterfuck), would Andy give one second of thought to a student if they bucked the trend, were pro-choice, and wished to attend such a rally? - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 00:45, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Let me see if I can paraphrase Andy's reply here into English: "GHEYS R TEH EVIL. GRRRR. HATE GAYZ." That sound about right? --Gulik 02:04, 20 January 2009 (EST)

At DT, "CP is a pile of festering fucknuggets after all" Nicely encapsulates the entire project. ħuman 23:57, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Well, they they call the 21st century Oscar Wilde with good reason. DickTurpis 00:09, 20 January 2009 (EST)

(unindent) There is a major flaw in your logic Tim. The kids themselves came up with the idea. They heard their teacher was getting married and they asked for permission to take a field trip to the capital and watch the ceremony, just like I would've done at that age. When kids are that young, they don't discriminate against gays yet, they haven't been taught. And High schoolers are certainly open to indoctrination... Specifically, High Schoolers have a hard time distinguishing good information from bad. They years they spend in school teach them to always trust their authority figures when they give information. That's what makes school dangerous. Kids have a tendency to just accept whatever teachers tell them as facts, without being able to look at the issue independently. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 02:24, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Not to mention that 1st graders are asexual. A wedding is simply a large party...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 09:35, 20 January 2009 (EST)

"Oliver speculates that Obama will have a secret private, inauguration using the Koran."

Who's Oliver? Oh, he's some parodist making his first edit on the wiki. Please don't out obvious parody on teh wigo...TheoryOfPractice 22:27, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, and teh voting down is how new WIGOists learn their chops, I guess. ^{— Unsigned, by: human / talk / contribs}

WIGOists are born, not made. Either you got it or you don't. WIGO or WIGO not. There is no try. TheoryOfPractice 22:34, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Aw, I dunno, surely we have some WIGOvians who learned "on the job" and eventually got it "right"? ħuman 22:36, 19 January 2009 (EST)

As usual, sir, you are most probably right. TheoryOfPractice 22:38, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Although some certainly do seem "born to the manner" - Sid's older WIGO page was all gems. I miss it, still, a bit. ħuman 22:57, 19 January 2009 (EST)

"Sir"? Who is "sir"? Not even my dad goes by sir. If you would "like another", drop and give me fifty! Otherwise, stand at ease, men, ladies, girls, women, boys, and etc. ħuman 23:51, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Mea culpa. I'll pay more attention next time. Though I will point out the edit is still there. MDB 06:09, 20 January 2009 (EST)

All Presidents-Elect should take the oath on a copy of the Constitution. THAT is what they are swearing to uphold. Let them swear to Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Baal, Russell's teapot or nobody at all.Jimaginator 09:01, 20 January 2009 (EST)

The Constitution is not a religious document... or is it!?!? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 22:45, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Ed Poor liveblogs something off the radio

[2] --Marty 22:39, 19 January 2009 (EST)

UPDATE: It's over now. Heh. --Marty 22:41, 19 January 2009 (EST) timestamps are for losers

Full text of article - cp:Roy Haynes:

Roy Haynes is a jazz drummer.
A small NYC radio station broadcast his complete discography on 89.9 FM in January 2009. A small NYC radio station broadcast his complete discography on 89.9 FM in January 2009.

Yes this is just the sort of substantive contribution that separates the sysop elite from the CProles. To Ed's eternal credit, he did add a category. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 04:04, 20 January 2009 (EST)

That initial edit is almost poetic in its uselessness. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 04:48, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Roy Haynes,
a
jazz drummer.

A small NYC radio station
is
broadcasting his complete discography on 89.9
FM.

-- e. e. poor

Poetic, and somehow wrong, too. Roy Haynes started playing and recording with Bird in 1949. Playing his complete discography--even the woefully truncated version listed on his wikipedia article would take weeks...TheoryOfPractice 09:13, 20 January 2009 (EST)UPDATE: Apologies, Ed...it turns out that, after reading a PROPER online encyclopedia, that "WKCR-FM, New York, surveyed Haynes's career in 301 hours of programming January 11-23, 2009." So it can be done...wish I'd been there to listen. Three hundred hours of Roy Haynes=good times...TheoryOfPractice 09:16, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Guess that headline

Here's a game: let's take this unique opportunity to guess how the "Obama's first day" headline will read tomorrow, for instance: "The Obama Administration begins today, as does the demise of American freedom". Whoever comes the closet will win, um, the satisfaction of having had the best guess! Kallium^talk 23:01, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Prize = goat, of course! ħuman 23:52, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Well, still being relatively new here I didn't want to presume. Or unwittingly volunteer to pay for it. Kallium^talk 01:50, 20 January 2009 (EST)

My guess--they will not dignify it with a mention. TheoryOfPractice 23:08, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Well, I'm game. I'll say something like "Dow drops 83 points on the inauguration of Barack Obama, proving the concept of the Obama recession." Ignoring the fact that an 83 point drop in the Dow is utterly mundane these days. DickTurpis 23:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

"We don't care that he used a Bible, he's still a Muslim dangnabbit!" ENorman 23:17, 19 January 2009 (EST)

"Obama fails to even mention homeschooling in his inaugural address and still refuses to answer questions about his citizenship." Commodore Guff (only a small child would use such a name) 23:18, 19 January 2009 (EST)

"Obama sworn in as president. Let's hope <insert liberal bashing> and God <insert conservative claptrap>" is my guess. Though as Turpis said, I wouldn't put it beyond CP's imagination to take a broken mirror as an omen to the fucking world. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:19, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Bah, tomorrow isn't exciting because it's inauguration day. It's exciting because it's the first episode of the new season of lost (thank goat for bittorrent.) The more important question is, will Ed liveblog this historic event for posterity or does he only do teen girl movies? --JeevesMkII 23:30, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Obama's kids are a bit young to hold Ed's interest. Give 'em six or seven years, anyway. With any luck, Obama'll still be in office by then. --Kels 23:42, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Isn't Lost Wednesday? DickTurpis 23:40, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Oh. Yeah. Fuck. Dammit, I need my fix! This is the problem with only watching three tv programs all year, you get withdrawals when none of them are on. --JeevesMkII 23:47, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Only 3? Fair enough. One of them 30 Rock by any chance? DickTurpis 23:52, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Nah, my regular yearly viewing is Lost (because I'm a hopeless addict), The Apprentice UK (because watching people big themselves up, then fall flat on their face is endlessly amusing) and Peep Show (because it's the only funny sitcom being produced in the world at the moment.) Of course I'll watch anything with Stephen Fry in it in the mean time, but those programs don't tend to be so regular. --JeevesMkII 23:58, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Stephen Fry... Would that explain the Jeeves username? --CPAdmin1 00:00, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I have heard about these sorts of shows, that use something called "actors". They involve no drawings whatsoever, and I rightly distrust them. --Kels 00:07, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I sound like a huge optimist today, but I think they'll show some decorum. If I remember right, they were very civil the day after election. Now when Obama starts (or so I hope) signing a flurry of executive orders reversing, among other things, anti-science and anti-reproductive rights initiatives from the Bush administration, they will be in a DEFCON 1 freakout. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 23:39, 19 January 2009 (EST)

They were bitter the day after, saying "unfortunately he won", and talking more about how honorable McCain was than congratulating Obama. They also didn't mention he won in his article for two whole days. ENorman 23:42, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Hey, compared to the usual wild-eyed accusations that seems downright gracious. Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 23:46, 19 January 2009 (EST)

"Obama sworn in on Christian Bible to hide his Muslim faith" ħuman 23:55, 19 January 2009 (EST)

A block was instituted for someone putting that in the Obama article earlier, saying that more proof of his muslim faith was the fact that he swore in on a bible. Maybe if it had been phrased better...^{— Unsigned, by: 96.224.19.9 / talk / contribs}

{ud}"Gays, Liberals and Muslims cheer the end of the American Dream". Damn, I'm kinda proud of that one. Andy - lookee lookee! I can haz zyzop job now? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:00, 20 January 2009 (EST)

"Psygremlin" (your chosen name is obviously unacceptable), I looked at your contributions and found liberal opposition to chivalry, so anyone with an open mind can see that you're a homosexual. You are in complete denial that that prayer deters depression. You can whine all you want, but ideas do have consequences and do cause harm. The rules are clear: don't emasculate Christianity, don't dumb down the Bible, don't pretend Hell doesn't exist, accept the full logic of the Bible and use the powerful new words that come into the English language.--aschlafly 12:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I consolidated the entries into Conservapedia:Inaugural Headline Contest for posterity. Once they put up their headline, we can add voting arrows. Kallium^talk 09:49, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I moved it to CP namespace. ħuman 14:05, 20 January 2009 (EST)

And it's in!

(Well, the first of many, though it sets the tone) "Will Obama deliver the most meaningless Inaugural Address ever? Don't expect him to say something substantive like Ronald Reagan: 'In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.'" Pure vindictive speculation. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 10:20, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Ironic how Reagan's words apply so well to the current outgoing administration. Good riddance. --69.248.141.220 10:27, 20 January 2009 (EST)

And I thought I was the first one who noticed :-(. Ah well, I put it on WIGO. Is anyone else seeing that weird missing screenshot link? Did I do something wrong there?

Also, I'm still betting that there will be a headline later which will say something like "Now the liberals won't have anyone to blame for the coming mess". --GTac 10:38, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Well it looks like Andy got out of bed the wrong side this morning! Ha, you can almost picture him grumbling as he begrudgingly types it into his keyboard, fearing for the future of the country. Dreaded Walrus 10:39, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I suppose Andy thanks "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" was one of those later lib-burr-ull additions to the Bible. MDB 10:53, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Oh dear....here we go [3] Mick McT 10:59, 20 January 2009 (EST)

There can be nothing less confidence inspiring than the government telling you government isn't the answer to the problem. Isn't that just a fancy way of saying "fire me!"? --JeevesMkII 11:01, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Speaking of the Obama article, are they EVER going to alter the first line to say that is IS the president? Surely that's the most important detail of that mans life. ArmondikoV^theist 11:03, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I like their Inaugural address article. Nice choice of quotes. Dreaded Walrus 11:24, 20 January 2009 (EST)

What happened to "nothing to fear but fear itself" and "ask not what your country can do for you..." oh... they were said by libruls. and didn't mention God. Any bets we'll see something like 'Obama didn't say "God" until the 5th sentence, all the others said it in the third" --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:30, 20 January 2009 (EST)

"A crowd far smaller than the millions predicted by the liberal media show up in D.C. for Obama's swearing in as President.[1] His first official order is expected to be to authorize taxpayer funding for abortion in foreign countries." Andy never disappoints! --GTac 12:30, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Why is it when the Assfly talks about FDR, he always types out his full name? So we get "Franklin Delano Roosevelt", but not the infinitely amusing "Richard Milhous Nixon"? Is this some tag by which we are to recognise the evil lib'ruls? --JeevesMkII 12:32, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Does Franklin sound American to you? What about Delano? Roosevelt? His names are German, French, and Dutch! Any real American would have changed his name to a good, Christian, American name. Same thing with B. Hussein Osama. Funny how you liberals always demand censorship blah blah blah. Dreaded Walrus 12:44, 20 January 2009 (EST)

And now BHarlan is insisting Obama's not REALLY the President. --Gulik 15:03, 20 January 2009 (EST)

And of course, it is pointed out at the source he uses that the oath is not really important - he legally became President at noon EST, before the oath was even administered. ħuman 15:28, 20 January 2009 (EST)

By the way, as someone who was in DC for the inauguration (no ticket, no, don't be jealous), Andy's totally wrong about the "mass exodus." Crowds were at or above what was expected, and trust me - the city was WAY beyond capacity. It's indicative of the fact that he truly lives in another world.-Diadochus 17:20, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Top Blockers at CP

Whole time

last 90 days

last 30 days

While Karajou still owns the golden banhammer, TK shows a strong return... LArron 05:46, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Only 174 for Ed? That's a surprise. Certainly looks like JPatt and RodWeathers took to their new powers with relish. "Bugler" too...ooh wait... do I see a pattern emerging? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 05:55, 20 January 2009 (EST)

DanH was formerly Mountain Dew so the totals should be combined. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:12, 20 January 2009 (EST) Changed the pic LArron 08:35, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Or to be really impressive, you want to try and find a way of displaying the lengths of blocks too. :P ArmondikoV^theist 10:54, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I thought the pics were impressive. Bugger. Virtually all of the blocks included in the pics were timed for an internet eternity, i.e., one year or longer, because:

1. Only the blocks which were in place at Jan 17th, 2009 are included
2. Most of the blocks are for one year or longer, anyway:

LArron 12:28, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Good charts LArron - wow BrianCo did 243 blocks, Helpjazz did 299, but they both got their "powers" removed. You have to wonder what is in the mind of ASchlafly when he does these things - Refugee^{talk page} 12:50, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks! LArron 14:04, 20 January 2009 (EST)

A WTF range block from Teacake:

03:23 . . TK (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 195.89.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) (IP of vandal(s): The Girls' Day School Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne/London, U.K. - Confirmed Proxy Server)

Do they really understand what a proxy server is? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:59, 20 January 2009 (EST)

No, they have no ideas - but TK likes to do range-blocks, nonetheless. They keep piling up:

Blocks of IPs at Jan 18th, 2009

Range	\16	\17	\18	\19	\20	\21	\22	\23	\24	\25	\26	\27	\28	\29	\30	\31	\32
Numbers in Range	65,536	32,768	16,384	8192	4096	2048	1024	512	256	128	64	32	16	8	4	2	1
#Blocks	86	3	16	27	12	1	46	5	137	1	0	1	1	5	0	0	695

LArron 14:04, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe we can have a celebration when they finally get up to having blocked a whole /8's worth of IP addresses. 1/256th of the internet down, only 255/256ths to go! --JeevesMkII 14:34, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Hey, LArron (if that is indeed you "real" name), can you run a similar set of stats for RW? I think the results might be quite amusing. This from the guy who added our block log to "best of fun"... ħuman 22:46, 20 January 2009 (EST)

A new Bugler?

Newly promoted wunderkind MikeSalter seems to have caught on quickly... now 90/10's being dished out - where did he learn about them in the week he's been there? When will Andy learn not to dish out block rights to parodists editors as their first promotion? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:31, 20 January 2009 (EST)

• 08:36, 20 January 2009 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked MikeSalter (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Same IP(s) as previously blocked user(s): Bugler) *LOL* LArron 08:38, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Ah, bugger! Fretfulporpentine 08:39, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Bad luck -although, you can unblock yourself can't you? Wheelwar with karajerk a bit. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:42, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Ahahah, oh god! It wasn't just Bugleresque, it was Bugler?! Well done, FP. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 08:46, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Even better, until Andy actually does anything, Karajerk and Jess are powerless to stop him. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:50, 20 January 2009 (EST)

This checkuser business seems to take a lot of the fun out of Conservapedia. Much better if admins have to make a call based on people's actual contributions.--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:54, 20 January 2009 (EST)

It doesn't take the fun out of it when pretty much everyone here guessed he was a parodist, yet Andy proved Poe's law (a law that CP hilariously continues to miss the point on) to be utterly correct, at least among fundamentalists themselves!

To be honest, it's a bit of a shame that considering how Bugler basically ruined much of CP's chance of ever being taken seriously as an encyclopedia by getting people desysopped and making PJR untrusted by everyone else, Andy seemed so eager to make the same mistake again. He chose to desysop BrianCo for being "relatively inactive re: substance" despite him being one of their most valuable (and undervalued, it seems) long-term sysops, and ended up replacing him with someone who had less than a hundredth of the edits of BrianCo, simply because he echoed Andy's opinions on every subject.

Will Andy ever learn, do we think? Or will he end up running it into the ground alongside TK, Ken and the like? Dreaded Walrus 10:17, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Oh Andy, you are like the moon, unchangeable.Z3ro 10:46, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Mike Salter was given block rights after 8 days but is now being blocked for being Bugler however he now undoes his own blocks. Will Andy be forced step in and admit that he has been conned again? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:39, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Look in the section above, guy. :) Dreaded Walrus 10:43, 20 January 2009 (EST)

If you weren't so damn trigger happy I would have removed it. But then got EC'd. :( Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:53, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Fretful, why not go on a silly block rampage now that you've got the chance? You're only going to get desysoped & blocked anyway, so there's nothing to lose. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:46, 20 January 2009 (EST)

(ECX2)Strong Agree...it's just a matter of time...you cannot win this one. go big....TheoryOfPractice 10:55, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Well, not that Bugler's been outed, we can have fun taunting that every editior is Bugler in disguise. ArmondikoV^theist 10:53, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Could this be done to the block-log? LArron 10:54, 20 January 2009 (EST)

That's amazing. I've never seen anything like that before. It's a shame some of the edits/pages have been deleted since, but it doesn't take much of a brain to add the missing letters. Dreaded Walrus 11:04, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I remember that one, pretty much THE best series of edits ever. ArmondikoV^theist 11:08, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Actually if MS is Bugler then then it could be an ominous sign. I can just hear old WormTongue snivelling in Andy's ear,"Oh master, you shouldn't have to deal with all these parodists who have block rights. Let me do it for you, all I need is the key to the Bureaucrats'washroom." Then, finally, he will have got his dream. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:12, 20 January 2009 (EST)

That would be brilliant. Phantom Hoover 13:27, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Fretful- unblock Ames! Corry^{Baby, you got a stew going.} 11:16, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, unblock everyone on the unusable names matrix. DickTurpis 11:21, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Or give Karajou 1000 1-second blocks, one after the other.--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:24, 20 January 2009 (EST)

That's a really low blow. I had him down as a pompey fan personally. You know, plucky underdogs made good and all that. --JeevesMkII 13:13, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Hah, excellent. As a West Brom fan, I don't mind who goes down, so long as it's not us! :P Dreaded Walrus 13:17, 20 January 2009 (EST)

As a spurs fan, I've got a bad feeling about this. --JeevesMkII 13:19, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Well it's no surprise you're down there when your entire team roster supposedly consists of three goalkeepers and noone else. :) Dreaded Walrus 13:26, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I came here for a community that wasn't football obsessed! Phantom Hoover 13:29, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Or, MS could get 'crat privilages and demote Andy. How? Make lots of other users that are parodists. Drive teh fly nuts. Get promoted. GO CRAZY! That is an excellent way to take them down in one blow. We could completely destroy CP. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{recent changes patroller} 14:51, 20 January 2009 (EST)

With one of TK's blocks of MikeSalter clearly stating that he's "on UK Dial-Up" TK must be getting his info from this page. And all we really have to go on is someone claiming to be Bugler and MikeSalter. This is the internet. You can't really prove anything (same as when someone appears very knowledgable and intelligent; they could just be getting info from google and wikipedia). So the blocks are still unjustified as there is a clear and present chance that Bugler is not Fretfulporpentine and Fretfulporpentine isn't MikeSalter. Just saying, that's all. ArmondikoV^theist 15:37, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I'm pretty sure FP is Bugler. --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{recent changes patroller} 15:39, 20 January 2009 (EST)

With entries like this, how long before parodist editor BHarlan becomes a sysop? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:06, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Not if you out me, I'm not!!! Jeebus... ħuman 22:48, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Obama

Andy updated the Obama article in a timely manner. That's a first. EternalCritic 12:36, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Andy's slant kills me.--TimS 12:42, 20 January 2009 (EST)

The Mind Control commentary is still in there it seems ENorman 13:15, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Well, I've added a quote from Obama's inaugural address to the CP page. I knew which snippet to use when I heard "...in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things". Let's see if it's allowed to last, or if Andy will quote-mine it for something that like "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers", or even better, "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." --69.248.141.220 13:32, 20 January 2009 (EST)

It's interesting that the preprepared version (as shown on the CNN link you provide) is slightly different in parts to the version as spoke, which can be seen here at the BBC. For example, the final paragraph in the BBC transcript does not appear in the preprepared version. Dreaded Walrus 13:41, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I almost feel sorry for Andy..... From a Psych standpoint, it must be rough to see your entire life view so utterly rejected and destroyed by the masses. Not to mention seeing what used to be your prime tactics crash and burn. The last poll I read had Obama at some 85-90% approval rating, despite everything the right has thrown at him for the last two years..... I would give anything to get Andy in a therapy session right about now. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 13:43, 20 January 2009 (EST)

You'll never see him in therapy because that would require him to acknowledge that he needs to work on himself. Instead, I'm certain you'll find spending more time in church praying for God to "fix" everyone and everything around him instead until it all conforms to his worldview. --69.248.141.220 13:50, 20 January 2009 (EST)

(undent) Here's a safe prediction. There's no way Obama's approval rating will stay at 80% once he starts having to make tough, necessary choices, and you can count on Andy to play up "Obama's plummeting approval rating" at the first opportunity. --69.248.141.220 13:53, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Of course that's going to happen. You can see it now. Andy always dismisses GWB's horrible approval ratings because of flaws, but trumpets the Congressional approval ratings to anyone who'll listen. Whenever someone brings up the fact that Congressional approval ratings are ALWAYS lower because there are more variables, he spouts on about opening your mind and crap like that. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 14:06, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Of course congressional approval ratings will almost certainly now soar, demonstrating that the majority of the people asked don't understand the question. Andy will also fail to mention this. --JeevesMkII 14:12, 20 January 2009 (EST)

You never know, 64etc. People sometimes show respect for leaders actually doing their jobs. ħuman 14:16, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I'm sure Obama's approval ratings will drop once Conservatives start piling on and Liberals stop buying into that shit about him being some kind of uberliberal, but I think they'll remain respectable. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 14:25, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Of course he's not "uberliberal", in fact, the only "anti-Obama" arguement that's valid (next to the "he's actually a Muslim!" or "he's not really American!" type) is the gentle reminders that he's just one man and one man cannot influence an entire country and economy overnight. He'll have to make hard choices and do what's right for the country and hopefully the world too; some of these things people will just plain not like. But since that's true of ANY president or political leader anywhere, let's just think positively about the situation. ArmondikoV^theist 15:41, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Obama has the advantage that compared to Bush, seeming like a big improvement is....not difficult. --Gulik 16:12, 20 January 2009 (EST)

TK's shooting blanks today

He's going after MikeSalter's IP address now since it's pointless to block someone with block rights. I'm wondering if that also lets Mike unblock his own IP as well. --SpinyNorman 14:38, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Yup. They're chasing their own tails until Andy comes along and sorts it out somehow. EddyP 14:39, 20 January 2009 (EST)

haha. Teacake has blocked some significant part of Virgin Media's address space, and Mr. Salter simply unblocks the one IP address he happens to be using. They're only hurting themselves with this idiocy. Oh, if only the Assfly trusted anyone apart from his hand raised homskollars. --JeevesMkII 14:43, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Oh man, this is classic. It now appears Teacake doesn't understand that 80.0.0.0/16 doesn't address the same IP addresses as 80.2.0.0/16. This just gets better and better. --JeevesMkII 14:47, 20 January 2009 (EST)

And this gave me my biggest laugh of the day. Dreaded Walrus 14:48, 20 January 2009 (EST)t

I thought TK was a yank. Is he going to get 1980s Scouse references, Lar? --Toffeeman 17:58, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Well, he has trusted people that weren't his homeskollers before and we know how that ended. ArmondikoV^theist 15:44, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Have they borked checkuser? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:47, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I never used any version of CheckUser, but TK mentioned "useful tools". By chance, there is a section about "useful tools" on the Wikimedia helppage. Maybe their old version had hotlinks for those tools? I dunno. --Sid 18:01, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Hey, Mike--Unban then re-ban all the currently banned users. They'll be able to get back on when they toss you and revert all your bans. (Assuming they don't let them all stand "just to be safe.)" --Gulik 18:16, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Not sure what Andy's doing. He's removed MS's block rights but not banned him. The rest of the team are obviously pretty frustrated about his inaction on this. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:02, 20 January 2009 (EST)

He was already blocked though (without unblock this time), about 15 mins prior [4]. Dreaded Walrus 19:22, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Ah, I must have missed that. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:40, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Let CP do the work?

As fun as it may be to watch parodists wreaking havoc over there, especially those who aren't noticed, should we really be pointing them out on here when TK especially seems to read this? It seems the Mike Salter think only started after RW suggested it. We shouldn't be making their job of running a terrible website in a terrible way easier should we? :-) --Jammy 15:16, 20 January 2009 (EST)

TK is a dick and a paranoid dick at that.... He refuses to come out of his fly to meet the ladies (Don't ask me where that came from) He doesn't need us to point things out to him. Sadly for us, he is one of the few that notices obvious parodists when they show up. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 15:20, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Well, it is a bit late for Mike Salter now, but I think the blocks only started shortly after RW discussed him. --Jammy 15:26, 20 January 2009 (EST)

While I agree that we shouldn't point out subtle parody that hasn't been noticed, how long was Bugler called a parodist here before he finally outted himself? As long as Andy doesn't care, it doesn't matter what TK does.Z3ro 15:27, 20 January 2009 (EST)

How about claiming various CP editors/admins to be stealth parodists? Then they can chase each other round in circles at our behest. It'd serve them right for reading RW (a website set up to oppose them!) and being paranoid freakazoids. But certainly, openly discussing genuine parody here is counter-productive. We should remove such comments rather than have a BIG OBVIOUS DISCUSSION about why we shouldn't talk about it. Yours truly^{Dear Sir} 15:36, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I agree, to be honest. I don't think the fact that everyone insisted upon using 'Bugler' and 'parodist' in the same sentence helped him with his sysop chances at all. And don't say 'Well, he's a dick, he deserved it!' This website is set up to catalogue the dickery (lol) that goes on at CP; without people like Bugler, you'd be out of a job. EddyP 15:40, 20 January 2009 (EST)

The real problem is that for the most part, we don't know who is a parodist and who isn't. There was alot of speculation about Bugler before he outted himself, but no one knew for sure. I don't think calling someone a parodist when it's REAL OBVIOUS they are does any damage.Z3ro 15:42, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, and on the lack of dickery, I think the genuine articles (Assfly, Ed Poor) would provide more than enough.Z3ro 15:44, 20 January 2009 (EST)

the problem with that is it leaves it up to individuals to define parody... For example, I don't think this is very obvious, but a Brit who read it might see it at once. Suppose they post something about it and another deletes it... I would start asking what was parody about it. Besides, I think the TK thing was more coincidence that anything else... They really don't read us that much. There are still about 20 editors who we've outed as obvious parodists that they haven't done a thing about SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 15:46, 20 January 2009 (EST)

I am Karajou. Tee hee hee. Pretty good imitation, isn't it? --"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{recent changes patroller} 15:48, 20 January 2009 (EST)

It's uncanny. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:07, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Impostor! I'm Karajou, and Ken

is my bitch wife. --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:12, 20 January 2009 (EST)

NO! I'm Sparticus! EternalCritic 17:18, 20 January 2009 (EST)

(unident)Locking turbobanners on target. . .--"ConservapediaUndergroundInductor^{recent changes patroller} 21:21, 20 January 2009 (EST)

"Entitlement Mentality...."

This is great...a website run by a man whose whole life is defined by his own entitlements runs an article bitching about "entitlement mentality." My irony meter is broken....TheoryOfPractice 16:56, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Mine was busted by the second point there, criticising public schools where "students have come to expect that they will receive good grades and promotion to the next grade level regardless of the amount or quality of work they do". Not at all like those one-sentence homework answers and multiple choice tests of Andy's history class. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:04, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Best. Parody. Ever. ħuman 17:23, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Oh man I was sure Andy had written this. And about that second point, how the Hell is that supposed to illustrate consequence free actions? Isn't that the opposite, an action free consquence? --GTac 17:31, 20 January 2009 (EST)

So, how many of these apply to George W. Bush's public behavior? --Gulik 17:34, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Can we start outing the "parodic elements" in it or do we have to keep quiet? ħuman 17:55, 20 January 2009 (EST)

SHHHH! Let it ripen a little first! (Hm. Has Andy been on at all today, or is he too busy crying in his beer?) --Gulik 18:14, 20 January 2009 (EST)

you mean "near-beer." TheoryOfPractice 18:17, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, he's there and he's got issues!!: "The D.C. area has over 5 million people. Saying that between 1-2 million went outside during a holiday or after work is hardly meaningful. There may have been a net exodus from the city!" [5] ħuman 18:42, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Dear GOD! I'm used to seeing Andy in denial, but this is... wow, I mean, just... argh... someone WIGO this, please. And could we get our resident psychologists checking Andy's contribs between his "There were no two million people!" and the "Two million is nothing special!" posts? We got two phases of Denial, so maybe we can spot Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance, too. That WalterE block might be one example of Anger, but I didn't check the timing. Or maybe this is just one, long phase of Denial... --Sid 20:38, 20 January 2009 (EST)

(undent) I think you're onto something there. At 9:42 he edited some Jeebus thing, mentioning HELL. The next edit: "Template:Mainpageleft‎ (78 million page views!!!)". Since then he's just been puttering around saying strangely disconnected things about Osama [sic] and trying to pwn Dinsy over his test results. ħuman 21:27, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Andy's always Angry, so I think that stage is out of the way. I wonder what form Bargaining will take? --Gulik 01:36, 21 January 2009 (EST) (PS: For the record, Andy does not have "Issues". Andy has a Subscription.)

I thought the bizarre "2 million people outside is no big deal" edit was a bit bargainy - "Sure, there were 2 million people, but they were only outside for a ciggy after lunch". On the "issues", good one! ħuman 15:35, 21 January 2009 (EST)

Also under bargaining, I smell a bit in his comment over the Georgia Senate re-election, and his comments "predicting" a routing in Congress a la 1994 for Obama's midterms. There's probably some depression floating around, too. Acceptance? Probably never. ħuman 15:43, 21 January 2009 (EST)