Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive115

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>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <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)

Question re. Checkuser

Can anyone explain to me the limitations of CP's checkuser extension? I'd like to send one of my sock's on a path of somewhat-inevitable destruction, but don't want to have my others taken down with it. Is there a time limit of how far back it can see IPs used? 17:52, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Two weeks, according to the guide to villany. Z3ro^talk 17:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

But there's nothing to stop anyone keeping a record of IPs off wiki (I used to, just for interest) or just looking through the blocklog. I can quite see TK spradsheting everyone's IP. _and marmite 18:19, 10 February 2009 (EST)

He very very very likely does, yes, good point. ħuman 19:35, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Karajou will only get you if you use more than one sock in two week, TK blocks you for having long dead socks so he has to be keeping records. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)

And he must routinely check every new user, probably after 1/2 a dozen edits or so. _and marmite 20:23, 10 February 2009 (EST)

He checks up on established trying to catch them out if they are editing from the same IP as a sock or old troll. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 20:26, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I wouldn't do such a thing, unless you have proxies. See, there's a little thing called the range block that they use. They won't just block your account- they will block every IP you have ever used. My IP has been blocked for about 2 months. Don't try it, unless you have something really good planned- like Bugler. --"CUR^talk 20:29, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Using proxies (at least commonly used ones like TOR) is a sure way to get banned, for being a sock of people you've never heard of. It is an option if you want to keep your own IP safe from blocks, but your TOR socks won't last long. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:14, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I don't think range blocks are terribly to be feared. A regular old IP block is just as damaging to you, the wandal, because even if you have a dynamic IP you probably don't control how often it changes, or in what range; and you know where to find proxies if you need them. But a range block is far more devastating to everyone else, the general populace, because it keeps 65535 other people from editing CP at all. --Marty 20:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Do you guys know for sure that the checkuser is set for a two week expiry? Two weeks is the default, but it can be extended. In light of Π's comment, I think it is more likely that the checkuser extension just holds data for a long time, not that this TK guy keeps a spreadsheet of everyone's IP's or whatever, that would just be OCD. ® 20:49, 10 February 2009 (EST)

You don't know TK very well do you? Actually, they probably have extended the default. _and marmite 20:56, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I have good reason to believe that though they've kept it limited to two weeks, someone, TK or Karajou, keeps a spreadsheet. Use a Proxy, Publius.-Diadochus 21:04, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Can anyone pull some kind of percentage of the amount of proxies that are blocked in total? FurryQuack 01:58, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I have a vague recall of the range blocks approaching 1% of all IPs, but that's unsubstantiated. I think it was "somewhere" in a discussion of range blocks. Yours truly^{Dear Sir} 13:46, 11 February 2009 (EST)

You can find the numbers you're looking for at Conservapedia:IP blocks. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:31, 12 February 2009 (EST)

It looks as though DeanS may have a way round the two-week rule too (either a spreadsheet or extended checkuser). He blocked RegalBruin for having the same IP as Bugler, who was blocked a lot longer than two weeks ago.--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:21, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Why doesn't Andy

just put a note on conservapedia and say if you are a liberal, an atheist or anybody who disagrees with Andy you have a closed mind. therefore he can stop saying it incessantly like a total freaking moron and expose his friggin hypocrisy to the entire world. this man has a messiah complex like crazy. D-Rock 20:01, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Because he's a moron. And I'm not actually sure it is a messiah complex- he merely thinks. . . wait. . . never mind, he doesn't think. That's the problem. --"CUR^talk 20:04, 10 February 2009 (EST)

While I understand what you are saying I really do think he has a messiah complex. he talks incessantly about only a few people in the world can actually have an open mind and naturally he is one of them. His way of thinking is the only way of understanding the world. his humor is the only way to understand humor. despite the fact that humor in and off itself is a social construct. (Sorry I am a sociologist)D-Rock 04:55, 11 February 2009 (EST)

This whole humor jazz is just like when the Fly decided that beauty wasn't subjective just out of the blue. It seems that the more people argue against him, the more fixed his beliefs become. When he does this kind of crap it's just best to ignore him (which is hard to do, since you won't see insanity of his level anywhere else in the world expect in a few tin-pot doctatorships). EddyP 05:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Ignore him???? Watching him defend his untenable positions is the funniest thing going at CP! Yours truly^{Dear Sir} 13:42, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Where would i put these?

I noticed two posts by Mike Dunford on ScienceBlogs.com:

• http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/02/more_conservapedia_fun.php
• http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/02/its_been_a_while_since_the_las.php

However I'm not sure on which WIGO thread to post these.--AP 01:30, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Here'll do nicely. Running his own WIGOCP isn't he? _and marmite 01:39, 11 February 2009 (EST)

WIGO blogo would be the place to put those. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 02:37, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Matter of opinion; I think that the CPishness outweighs the blogishness. _and marmite 13:24, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I think just linking to them here is enough, there's not much there that we haven't done to death ourselves. ħuman 14:33, 11 February 2009 (EST)

We must immediately call to vote on the procedure for handling WIGOs that transcend genre. Neveruse513 14:36, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Kotomi has noticed the first one now: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ieuan Kirkburn  talk  contr   18:37, 11 February 2009 (EST)

and Boom! the whole lot have gone the way of the Death Star. The force is strong in that one. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:05, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Charity

I stumbled on an interesting assertion on CP's front page about "liberals and charity". I can bet this was written by our best friend conservative... Did anyone notice that the "ABC article" given to back up the claim is:

a - An editorial

b - Written by a complete fuckwit. In order to compare charitable spending, they look at Salvation Army donations in S.F. and some red backwater whose name I cannot remember. Yes, you read that correctly. An openly homophobic christian organisation dedicated to "The advancement of the Christian religion as promulgated in the religious doctrines". In San Francisco. What next? Maybe a study proving that liberals are illiterate based on how many Ann Coulter books people have bought?

To be honest, I was pretty surprised that a mainstream news organisation would print that kind of tripe. Do we have an article about that assertion so I can go and continue my rant on it? HWessel 06:07, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Do you mean This one? No, we don't have one yet. Bondurant 06:52, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Mystery: Did idiocy exist before Andrew Schlafly?

Commenter 1: There are clearly examples throughout history of people doing unwise things...

AssFly: That doesn't fit with primary dictionary definition of 'idiocy', which is 'extreme mental retardation'.

Commenter 2: Dostoyevsky published The Idiot in 1868.

AssFly: That's the idiot, not idiocy. Anyway, Dostoyevsky was a Russian, not a good American. And the Czar had him arrested for being a radical, so he was probably a Communist.

Commenter 3: Doesn't the Bible repeatedly use the word 'fool'?

AssFly: Fools and idiocy aren't the same thing. See my dictionary definition.

Commenter 4: Could you cite an example of what you consider idiocy?

AssFly: Go watch the movie Dumb and Dumber. We've learned something from this discussion today -- its not just pre-Schlafly-ites that were intelligent, its everyone but Andy Schlafly and his followers.

^{— Unsigned, by: MDB / talk / contribs}

Assfly Editing

Teh Assfly gets the picture just the right size. Neveruse513 10:58, 11 February 2009 (EST)

hmm...9? What the fuck...I'm WIGO'ing it. Neveruse513 10:59, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Presumably it now fits his monitor perfectly. Pseudomonas 12:02, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I wonder which resolutions/browsers/OS's are liberal... Neveruse513 12:10, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Clearly the Mac is a libb-burr-ull computer. MDB 12:22, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Going by that open-source parody-article, you can probably count in Firefox and Linux (except for Ubuntu Christian Edition, of course). ListenerX^TalkerX 12:31, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Older stuff?

In reading Conservapedia's article on Albert Einstein today, I came across this astonishing factoid: according to E=mc^2, "if you increase the energy of a substance, for example by heating it, it gains a minute amount of mass." Looks like the caloric theory is alive and well over there. This edit has been in place for at least several months; does an old item like this still deserve a WIGO entry, or is it old news? - Cuckoo 13:08, 11 February 2009 (EST)

This is in keeping with CP's line that we are les intelligent than our ancestors - but do they know this theory was put forward by - ZOMG - a Frenchman? Totnesmartin 13:36, 11 February 2009 (EST)

The CP Einstein article is an enormous, and typical, pile of stupidity—see Conservapedia:Conservapedian_relativity. And there's a lot of misunderstanding, at CP and elsewhere, of what E=mc^2 really means. But that particular statement is kind of correct, in the context of those common perceptions of "mass". Gauss 13:39, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Um, I'm no physicist (I've never actually taken a physics class) but is that actually incorrect? Wikipedia seems to back up that statement (or at least something like it) as does the equation itself: energy equals mass (times the speed of light squared). That is not the same as that caloric theory. DickTurpis 13:45, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, it is. Energy can be converted to mass, and vice versa. Heating a body does not increase its mass, it increases its thermal energy. If it spontaneously cooled without releasing energy, I'd expect to see it gain mass (is there even any extant method of converting thermal energy to mass? my knowledge of nuclear physics is little better than DT's) 13:49, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Re: converting thermal energy to mass - probably quite possible, but it would take one hell of a lot of thermal energy to get anything measurable. ħuman 16:22, 11 February 2009 (EST)

While I realize WP is not the most authoritative source, it says "In relativity, all the energy which moves along with a body adds up to the total energy of the body, which is proportional to the relativistic mass. Even a single photon traveling in empty space has a relativistic mass, which is its energy divided by c2. If a box of ideal mirrors contains light, the mass of the box is increased by the energy of the light, since the total energy of the box is its mass." That seems to back up Assfly's assertion, though I concede that true or not, it is phrased very poorly. DickTurpis 13:53, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I'm a total ignoramus on relativity & quantum stuff, but if mass consists of energy, then increasing the energy of an object must increase its mass, surely. Admittedly the amount of mass increase would be infinitesimal at the sort of temperatures referred to but it would still exist, wouldn't it? To reach any measurable mass increase the temperature increase would have to increase the molecular/atomic movements up to relativistic speeds for a detectable time, something that's unattainable in a solid body. Look at the LHC: the particles whizzing round that have speeds (i.e. temperatures) approaching C & correspondingly high masses. Or am I totally wrong? _and marmite 14:10, 11 February 2009 (EST)

mass is only one kind of energy. Increasing the energy of a system wouldn't necessarily increase its mass - it may increase its heat, motion or other form of energy. Totnesmartin 14:24, 11 February 2009 (EST)

The problem we're having here is mixing the details of classical and relativistic notions of mass and gravity, especially relativistic and invariant mass. Relativistic mass is essentially the total energy of the system, momentum and kinetic energy (and others?) added to the intrinsic "mass." Now I'm intrigued: does relativistic mass produce gravity, which is to say, do photons, which lack invariant but possess relativistic mass, warp spacetime? 14:33, 11 February 2009 (EST)

And the answer is yes! Energy warps spacetime. Theoretically, dense enough light could cause a black hole, called a Kugelblitz! Science is neat. 19:50, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I am going to guess that CP's "if you add energy to something, then it gains mass" is based in a misunderstanding of "E=mc^2". Divide both sides by m, and you end up with E/m = a constant, which means the more mass you have, the more energy you can convert it to (and vice versa). I think CP's mistake is in thinking that the more mass you have right now, then the more energy you have right now; in other words, if you double the mass of an item, then it automatically contains twice as much energy to compensate! Or, let's say that 'm' is the amount of money I have and 'E' is the number of espresso beans I have; I can spend my money to buy espresso beans, or I can sell my espresso beans and get money back for them. If you give me some more money, this does not mean I suddenly also have more espresso beans. - Cuckoo 16:00, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Of course, the really dumb thing is that when you heat an object, it loses mass, through being burned. QED, and completely pwned. --"CUR^talk 19:54, 12 February 2009 (EST)

That requires, at the very least, oxygen... ħuman 20:08, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Okay, you have me there. So it needs oxygen- something which we have here with abundance. --"CUR^talk 20:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Physics is about more than just things happening within a few miles of our planet's surface. ħuman 20:12, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Something I am well aware of- I read Astronomy solely for the astrophysics. But I was talking about on earth. I suppose that that wasn't clear. And even in space, melting will cause the object to lose mass. --"CUR^talk 20:14, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Well, you were the first person here to limit the location. And, no, melting does not cause "the object" to lose mass, although it might turn into "multiple objects". ħuman 20:46, 12 February 2009 (EST)

You don't lose mass when you burn things it goes from, carbohydrate + oxygen to water + carbon dioxide. The mass of the carbohydrate + oxygen is equal to the mass of the water + carbon dioxide. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 20:47, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Dear RegalBruin

Assuming you're a parodist from here, my compliments on one of the most fawning suck-ups to the AssFly imaginable. Sheer brilliance, so congratulations from one bear to another. MDB 13:09, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Not any parodist. It's Bugler reborn. Bondurant 13:28, 11 February 2009 (EST)

If it is, hopefully FP was able to change his IP. I'd hate to see another parodist go down in flames to checkuser. And if it's not FP, try not to be so obvious. Z3ro^talk 13:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)

The wonderfully colourful verbiage reminds me of FP, so my vote is yes. 13:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)

His name is an acronym :P Kirkburn  talk  contr   18:42, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Of? (long time no see, Kirkburn- how you keepin'?) _and marmite 18:53, 11 February 2009 (EST)

uh-oh --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:35, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Yup, Dean's blocked him. Bad luck Fretful. Super sleuthing, Phil.--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 06:19, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Not a "greatest author" then Andy?

"As was typical for many of the greatest authors,... Isaac Newton also delayed publication of his great mathematical discoveries for decades. As long as something can be improved further, there is no reason to publish it prematurely and confuse the public with multiple versions."

How like the dear leader's methods. _and marmite 13:15, 11 February 2009 (EST).

So how do they publish while they're still teenagers? Pseudomonas 13:49, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I suspect this is meant to back up his teenager theory, in that they got all these great ideas when they were 15, but didn't publish them until later. Brilliant in that it is very hard to disprove, as it's the publication dates for most writings that survive much more often than when they were conceived. If Andy were to say that Shakespeare wrote all his plays before age 19, they were just hidden away secretly and published and performed later, it would be a huge chore to try to prove him wrong, especially as he just moves the goalposts and insists all evidence contradicting him actually supports him. DickTurpis 14:01, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Something I've not seen mentioned: Andy is slightly past his teens (!) so what notice should be taken of his insights? Particularly when we recall that he didn't become wedded to YEC until (was it?) 2000CE. By this fact, his early, teenage, beliefs, when he was studying engineering and was presumably fairly reasonable are more likely to be right. _and marmite 14:26, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Wait a moment! You're not Miss Jackson! Didn't Darwin delay publication of Origin? Totnesmartin 14:33, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Could someone add this to CP?

http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/021009church-manifesto.pdf James Adkisson, the guy who shot some people at a Unitarian Church had this as his manifesto. -Lardashe

Where'd you find that? (Edit: was wondering if this had been picked up by mainstream sources or if it was a small paper or somesuch) -Hactar, not logged in and not caring, as his IP is banned already.

Holy shit, this is right up Andy's alley. He'd probably never allow it on his site, though, as it is basically a reductio ad absurdum refuting his whole worldview. Neveruse513 15:29, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I found it through crooksandliars. -Lardashe

Just to add some commentary... I'm originally from Knoxville and I've followed this story closely, since I could easily have seen myself knowing some of the people that were in the church that, if not being there myself. (The liberal/progressive community in Knoxville is not large.)

The response among conservatives has been either denial (he's not a conservative, he's a loon) or an attempt to portray him as a liberal (he also indicated a general dislike of religion and Christianity, so he must be a liberal. I suspect that would be the CP response.)

Also, note that the shooter had copies of books by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity in his apartment. Once that hit the news, the story disappeared completely from Fox News' web site -- straight down the memory hole. It eventually returned, but Fox buried the story for a time.

Its not getting a lot of attention now, because the shooting was during the summer, and there was no trial -- he plead guilty (and interestingly, refused to plead insanity, despite his attorney's recommendation, because he felt an insanity please wasn't "honorable" -- yeah, jackass, how honorable is it to shoot up a church while kids are putting on a play?)

Also, the people at the church that day subdued a heavily armed man without firing a shot. Two people died, and more were injured (he used a sawed off shotgun, so it made it easy to hit a lot of people). MDB 19:13, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Barak Obama, soviet mole

There's a pretty funny column on that other reliable source of right-wing lunacy, worldnetdaily.com, claiming that Obama's a Soviet mole: [1]. It's about halfway down the page, below the seductive picture of Ann Coulter flogging one of her books. I'm kinda surprised that CP hasn't picked up on this yet. Of course, it would tend to refute the notion that Obama is a Muslim. A round of internet beers if someone can put this on CP's news page. - Simple 15:44, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Surely not even CP would assert that the Soviet Union still exists. --"CUR^talk 18:44, 11 February 2009 (EST)

While Reagan killed it, it was resurrected with Obama's election. At the moment Obama was inaugurated, Putin put on his old KGB-hat, a ceremony signalling the rise of the NCCCP. Why do you think they never buried Lenin? 19:38, 11 February 2009 (EST)

One more lie about Clinton they resurrected for Obama. Righties claimed that Clinton was a Soviet mole, based on a trip to Moscow he took when he was in college. MDB 19:43, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Silk road = Internet

Someone tell me Andy doesn't really teach children. Please? DickTurpis 16:49, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Honestly the first question pissed me off even more, although the second is more crazy. -Hactar not signed in and TK can suck my balls

The silk road is not a big wagon, it's a series of threads! (Too lame?) Z3ro^talk 17:43, 11 February 2009 (EST)

"H3. How do you think the major belief systems of today, as ranked in the lecture, will rank in 100 years?" Atheism rules! _and marmite 19:05, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Wasn't zero invented rather than discovered? _and marmite 19:07, 11 February 2009 (EST)

"God created the integers. All the rest is the work of man" Zero is an integer and hence therefore was invented by God. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 19:56, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Which do you like better, India or China? China, natch. Thems got eggrolls! If only high school was really that easy. Czolgolz 19:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)

"H2. Some question whether Confucianism is really a religion. What is your view?" Andy will not accept any belief that it is a religion.--Nate River 20:27, 11 February 2009 (EST)

A new photo for Ken Doll

Here you go Ken! Isn't he cute? Moar evolutionist babies! HWessel 17:24, 11 February 2009 (EST)

News: CP's proofreaders go on strike

It was announced today (Darwin's birthday) that Conservapedia will not be benefitting from proofreading by the mob until further notice. _and marmite 19:26, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Except for Kels. --"CUR^talk 19:29, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Waste. Of. Time. --Kels 19:27, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Agree really, Kels. But it's fun. _and marmite 19:35, 11 February 2009 (EST)

No it's not. It's boring and annoying. --Kels 19:36, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I actually agree with you. It only needs to be done once every ten years. Other than that, it really is just a waste. And you've got the fact that they could make a bot to access their own site. . . --"CUR^talk 19:29, 11 February 2009 (EST)

The fact is, we've done this before. Several times. And gotten the EXACT SAME RESULTS. Namely, a dip in CP's traffic and a number of editors getting bored and annoyed because they're not allowed to do what they find fun. I'll be honest, I neither see the appeal nor point, and I didn't even know the discussion was happening until a half hour ago. So put me down as strong dissent. --Kels 19:36, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Kels, I would 'never put you down. _and marmite 19:42, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Are you saying I'm an interesting read? --Kels 19:48, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I am ignoring the strike and perusing Conservapedia per normal.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 19:54, 11 February 2009 (EST)

To the non-boycotters, just save your WIGOs til it's over, and don't hold back on screencaps of likely memory hole denizens. ħuman 20:11, 11 February 2009 (EST)

for the record and as a matter of principle, the boycott is always sort of on for me. I generaly don't go to CP directly. It is just to dirty. I rely almost wholely on the editors of RW for my news (though I do often follow the links dep into the bowels of CP) so the boycott is depriving me at least of easy lulz. This is a fundamental injustice for I am without sin . . . or socks. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 22:31, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Did I miss where this was discussed or was it a bit of a last minute thing? Anyway suits me perfectly as I go on hols tomorrow. I'll be a stone's throw from this place and am very tempted. StarFish 02:38, 12 February 2009 (EST)

A word of advice, hold back on the stone throwing, OK? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:49, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Screw the Boycott for a Second--Interesting Development...

Andy wants to get CP certified as an educational provider under NJ state law.... TheoryOfPractice 21:30, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Oh this is too fucking good. Lets call the boycott off until this blows over. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 21:32, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I thought you might say that. TheoryOfPractice 21:33, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Christ almighty! You'd think there were limits to human self-delusion, but Andy just keeps pushing back the boundaries. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:34, 11 February 2009 (EST)

What a copulating Cheney-head! You'd think that this moron had come up with everything- but he hasn't! CP AS AN EDUCATIONAL PROVIDER! --"CUR^talk 21:37, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Sigh.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 21:40, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I gave it high marks. We need to WIGO this. By the way, I take it you know what the first sentence means? --"CUR^talk 21:42, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Alright, there are two possibilities at play here: 1) Andrew Layton Schlafly has completely deluded himself into thinking CP is a viable educational resource, or 2) Andrew Layton Schlafly is a crafty bastard who is doing this knowing that he's going to get rejected by--what, the board of education? well, whoever is responsible--so that he can than play the martyr to show how the government wants to suppress the truth and to indoctrinate children as atheists, evolutionists, etc...I vote the second...TheoryOfPractice 21:45, 11 February 2009 (EST)

First signs of skepticism from AddisonDM. CP has to prove it's a neutral, non-ideological, educational resource. This may present a small obstacle to the application. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:48, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Proof that boycotts work! Within hours of starting B6, Andy rounds yet another bend! ħuman 22:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Apparently, he's after the money. ħuman 22:06, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I was wondering if it would give him tax breaks on the server. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:18, 11 February 2009 (EST)

No, read the second line or so of the SIS article... he wants the MONEY! Cash! ħuman 23:44, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Oh dear God. Think of the children. The already-failing, at-risk kids who qualify for these programs. TheoryOfPractice, I actually hope your #2 is right.--Too tired to log in 22:41, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Oh good lord he is threatening us with maths again. At least HSMom is coming to our aid again. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Yes Andy, that's an excellent idea. Please, please submit your course materials to the board. PLEASE!! --Kels 23:14, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Go HSMom! Once again, Andy bangs his clumsy head up against "real world" rules. ħuman 23:44, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Is it possible to send comments to the appropriate people (who?) with links to instances where Andy has given full credit to abysmal writing? Additionally point out the boy/girl tests and assorted other fun. Ask if Andy alone is the teacher or if he is relying upon the other sysops to assist in some way, shape, or form - and get Ed and Ken certified? Or are they certifiable? Having Andy apply to the board of education is a wonderful way to get his class into the eyes of those who can shut him down. Just need to make sure those in charge can see Andy's absurdity. --Shagie 01:17, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Oh man, this is destined for epic and lulzy fail. Note the section that asks for evidence of qualified teaching staff. Andy doesn't have any qualification in any of the subjects he "teaches" let alone any qualification in education. He also fails on the setting and monitoring the achievement of goals part, well unless his goal is to pass every student regardless of merit. I do hope he posts the refusal in a fit of petulant rage along with some rant about how the education system is run by lieberals who hate Christianity. This is going to be soooo good. --JeevesMkII 01:44, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I hope so! Priming myself to update the Andrew Schlafly article accordingly... Madeleinebiscuits 04:45, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Actually, looking more carefully I'm guessing the lulz are going to very quickly peter out. He has like ten days to prepare an application that looks like it ought to take a couple of months to compile. There are very specific financial documentation requirements that he probably can't fulfil except perhaps under the banner of Eagle Forum. Add all that to the self delusion inherent in him thinking that his courses that claim the world is 6000 years old, and that Jesus is lord are secular and in line with state curriculum, I reckon he'll come to his senses in a couple of days and realise he can't possibly succeed. --JeevesMkII 02:32, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I'm quite certain he'll be way off coming to his senses or realising anything. There'll be something that comes out of this for us to enjoy. Didn't you know that application deadlines favour the thinking processes of lieberals and anti-Christian humourless atheists? Madeleinebiscuits 04:45, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Hi everybody, I'm relatively new here, and still finding my way around - could somebody please point me in the direction of some history on this boycott? I don't know what we're boycotting and why! Thanks. Madeleinebiscuits 04:31, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Here is what you're looking for, Madeleinebiscuits. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:38, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Perfect! Thanks very much Essayist. Madeleinebiscuits 04:46, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I must admit, it's very kind of Andy to give us 09's Lenski affair so early in the year. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:51, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Hehe, my name's "Radioactive afikomen" (or just "RA"). But I don't mind. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:56, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Oh yes, I see. Sorry! The boycott is a fucking great idea, by the way. I've occasionally wondered how much of CP's traffic comes from here and if there was some coordinated way we could give them silence. And now I find there is, and it's in action! If only there was some way we could see for ourselves the kind of difference the boycotts make. Madeleinebiscuits 04:59, 12 February 2009 (EST)

You'd think after doing the same thing what, FIVE TIMES ALREADY, someone would know what the effect is by now. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. So what condition do you do the same thing and expect the same results you already knew about? OCD? --Kels 06:45, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Moreover, it hardly seems a good idea for RW to shut down its number one attraction for most of its regular visitors. OK, a handful of the most active people get their shits and giggles. Tee-hee! I doubt I'm the only one who won't be back before the 16th. Enjoy your boycott.

Since Schlafly and his sysops think that CP is a profoundly popular place (eg see the "woot, CP's page on evolution gets, like, really massive results on google!!! Tremble liarberals!!!!!!1" topic below), I argue that it's a fantastic idea to cut off their oxygen for a while and show that most of their traffic comes from people who don't like them. Madeleinebiscuits 07:51, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I've added an embedded link to the boycott announcement so that visitors don't have to repeat this question. Hope this is okay. Madeleinebiscuits 05:16, 12 February 2009 (EST)

It's perfectly fine. I'm surprised it wasn't there to begin with. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:24, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Is there a way of seeing what the NJ education people say about CP? If there's a public statement like a pdf or whatever, I can put this in the wp:Conservapedia article. Totnesmartin 05:03, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Citizens of the US will be able to get the response from the state government for a small per page fee under the provisions of OPRA. If he actually submits his application, I'll happily pay the fee to see the marking and response for it if some US citizen is happy to act as proxy. However, I really doubt he'll actually go through with it. It's way too late to be starting this process just now. --JeevesMkII 05:18, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I'm happy to chip in too for any costs in relation to this. It'd have to be posted up unedited as a pdf somewhere (wikileaks?) to be a reliable source for WP though, not just a cut'n'paste to here. Totnesmartin 05:22, 12 February 2009 (EST)

See here. Andy doesn't really want to teach those kids; he's just doing it for a big public show of charity & Christian spirit, & so that he can act agrieved when the application is rejected. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:54, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Pretty transparent, really. It's clear that CP holds no chance of certification. Christfags like Schlafly just love to be the martyr. Neveruse513 09:08, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Just a thought I had during a smoke break... could Andy's very debatable policy of public grading of homework hurt him in this regard? I just imagine a real educator looking at the site and saying "wait a minute... you don't just publicly post the grades, you post your comments on homework? What kind of 'school' are you running here?"

Not to mention the incredibly lax grading standards. MDB 13:36, 12 February 2009 (EST)

The timeliness for our serious Andrew Schlafly article is PERFECT. If anyone googles the internet machine for "andrew schlafly teacher" or "andrew schlafly homeschool", they'll find our article. DogP 13:55, 12 February 2009 (EST)

My own amusement of Andy's delusions: You need a 1 Million dollar insurance bond. "Oh no I don't, I'm a charity". What the f does that have to do with it. I work for charities, and we still have to maintain liablity...--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 16:07, 12 February 2009 (EST)

ZOMG Conservative!!!

Gentelmen,

If you are an evolutionist you might not be happy if you click this link

Ken. Give it up.

(taken from the latest gentelmen, at http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/Gentlemen

The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 21:41, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I still get Wikipedia when I searched. Proves nothing.--Nate River 22:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

All he has done is remove the first page of results in the link, it starts at number 11. I still get 15 when I search through non US google. Oh well who gives a shit, no matter how high it is the page it is still full of logical fallacies and incorrect statements. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:37, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Yet he thinks he proves something. The cockiness is strong in this one. Oh yeah. bottom of pg 1 for me. --Nate River 23:08, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I have experimented with Google rankings and even with a clean cache (as Ken insists we do) then the results vary with Google sub-domains. However, it also depends where your requesting IP is located. So there are two variables at play. If you want to try it for yourself use a proxy IP from another country and see if you get the same results. There are several automatic ranking checkers and their results depend on the country where they are located. However, I found that the Rank Checker extension for FireFox seems to use your own location. Currently my default Google is from the Ukraine and puts Ken's pet at #17, Google.co.uk puts it at #18 while google.com is at #13. As an evolutionist Ken's Google wanking doesn't bother me one iota, so even if his SEO operations made it to #1 I wouldn't care. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:26, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Urk. Comes up fourth on my google. However, if I click that handy 'x' alongside it... gone! btw - how does one read the comments associated with a search result? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:33, 12 February 2009 (EST)

PG - Did you check on the Google page? Ken's link was to page 2 (ranks 11-20). So it might have been 14 not 4. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:05, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I think you have to sign up to google in some way to read the comments. Personally i nexer remove or promote things in google rankings, but only because I need to know how articles rank when having AfD debates on WP, or for snarking at CP. Totnesmartin 04:57, 12 February 2009 (EST)

The rankings only affect what you see, not what other people see. It's because people just use google as a lazy way of getting to a site without memorizing the URL (or using bookmarks or speed dial...), so the next time you do the search, your useful links are at the top ready for you. The comments, however, can be seen by others. ArmondikoV^pathetic 14:02, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Internal links on WIGO:CP

Internal links in WIGOs do not display on the "Best of" pages. Does anyone know why this is? ListenerX^TalkerX 22:29, 11 February 2009 (EST)

Titian & Conservapedia

I'm sure CP would love to use this story about Titian's age being altered on WP... except for the fact it was the Conservative party that did it. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 05:53, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, but the British Conservatives are a bunch of atheist pinko libruls on the Assfly scale. Cantabrigian 07:50, 12 February 2009 (EST)

The British Conservatives pretend to be liberal, so as not to come across as nasty. It's not as black and white as it used to be - Liberal conservatism it's called, and the Tories are appealing to the increasingly liberal public's belief that they're the political party to take this seemingly reasonable middle-ground. Better that than outright Conservatism I suppose, but behind the scenes it's the same old horrible Tories that we threw out in 1997. Madeleinebiscuits 08:31, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Maggie herself was a pinko liberal on Aschlafly's scale. Bondurant 08:00, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Andy, let us not forget, is the same person that said not using American spelling is an indication of someone being a liberal. Not Being American is a well-known liberal trait! Dreaded Walrus 08:38, 12 February 2009 (EST)

This is true. "Humour" is a librul deceits imitation of the real authentic "humor" that only true American Christians possess. Madeleinebiscuits 08:46, 12 February 2009 (EST)

It's definitely true that the tories aren't as conservative, well Conservative at least. Though it does remind me a little of 1984 and the memory holes. Think about it, WP as a resource isn't incredibly accurate. It's very good for what it is, but it's not written-in-stone gospel truth, and some people forget this. So you can just alter infomation and suddenly it sticks. Thankfully, the Government(s) don't and probably can't control WP, but imagine if they could. ArmondikoV^pathetic 14:05, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Imagine? [2] User:Mei 19:42, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Report of the Fallen

I know I should be observing the boycot, but just one tiny look at CP can't hurt anyone, right? Anyway, a parodist status report. MattL and RegalBruin are blocked by DeanS - MattL accused of being a sock of CherylE and CWood, ReagalBruin a sock of Bugler and LeonC. Try not to be so glaringly obvious next time. Also, our lovely JessicaT has deleted no less than 67 (maybe 68) articles on Star Wars books by Ieuan for being plagarised. This site is growing rapidly!!! EddyP 08:08, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Ah, no! I was wondering how far I could go under an anagram of Brian Ugler. 212.219.153.15 10:35, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Ha! Brilliant. --Marty 12:41, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Another day, another sock. That makes it 8 for me. Neveruse513 10:47, 12 February 2009 (EST)

TK's IP list

Some people have speculated that TK holds a list if usernames and IP addresses, garnered from checkuser, that he uses to perma ban anyone suspected of being against the Party message. I was wondering what people think about the legality of this. I suspect that in the UK, this would be against the law due to the Data Protection Act, particular points being:

• An IP address is a piece of personal information, and many users legitimately log onto CP using their real first name and initial. Some users will have multiple IP addresses corresponding to their home, work or place of study. In fact, it is possible to find out some of this information using whois, and this info is sometimes posted publicly on the block logs.
• In the UK (maybe elsewhere), anyone holding a file of personal information is obliged under the DPA to register with the Information Commissioner as a Data Controller
• The data that he holds has to be used for the purposes it was submitted and only held for as long as is necessary
• The person logging onto or registering an account with CP should be told by the terms and conditions that this information is being gathered and what it is to be used for
• Anyone who wishes to be removed from the database (i.e. TK's own database) should be removed on their request (similar to being removed from a marketing database)
• The data should be held securely and should not be divulged to any third party without consent of the Data Subject (i.e. the user).

While I'm sure that for the purposes of reporting vandalism to the FBI, Aschlafly is within his rights to report IP addresses as pulled from the internal CP database, holding a separate database and occasionally reporting people's personal info on the block logs is a breach. So my question is, under US law, is there anything equivalent? Can we stitch TK up in any way? Bondurant 08:15, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I think the legality is an interesting issue to discuss, but I don't think "stitching TK up" would be a good thing for RationalWiki to be involved in, if you mean actually reporting to the authorities. If you mean contacting TK or Schlafly about it, maybe. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:43, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Well, obviously, we did just contact TK about it... ħuman 16:49, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Maybe "stitch up" was a bad choice of phrase and it seems to have taken the discussion off topic. What I was hoping for was a view on the legality of what he does. We already know that, if nothing else, it's just damn creepy that he looks up people's IP addresses, then checks whois and then plasters it all over the block logs and keeps a record for later. It's a lesson in why RW is far better off to never have checkuser.

TK is a scumbag, so if he is doing something illegal, then he'd be getting his just desserts if he got caught, however unlikely that is. Bondurant 10:12, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Are you sure that those laws apply to personal databases as well as shared ones? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:22, 12 February 2009 (EST)

So what do we think about TK?

Do we support TK in his efforts to destroy Conservapedia? Or do we hope he fails, because he is so very mean in the way he goes about it?--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:12, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I don't want CP destroyed. It is a window into the mind of a Christian conservative fundie and it's fucking fascinating. TK wants it off so Christfag conservatives don't look so stupid. Plus he's an asshole. So, no.

Fuck TK. Viva CP. Neveruse513 09:20, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Definitely don't want CP to be destroyed. It's a home for lunatics who will remain harmless as long as they stay there. Schlafly's homeschool is something I'd quite happily see wiped off the face of the earth, however. His indoctrination of impressionable young people is immoral. Madeleinebiscuits 09:29, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Very true. But I try to take solace in the accessibility of these kids. Just imagine how many homskollars there are who never see any dissent or differing views. Neveruse513 09:45, 12 February 2009 (EST)

As has been pointed out, though, if those dissenting views are purely people expressing disbelief and anger at CP, then Schlafly can pass it off as "See? Told you - they're manic and aggressive, trying to force their liberal deceit and atheism upon us." With his control of CP I'm sure it would be quite easy for him to cast all dissent and differing views as "that lot trying to cause mayhem", but I do hope there are efforts slipping through that are genuinely persuasive and could ultimately make a difference. Madeleinebiscuits 11:21, 12 February 2009 (EST)

There is definitely a lot of "told you so" going on. Super cheesy, but if we get one kid off the wagon, it's worth it. Not to mention, I really enjoy seeing crazy ass people I would have never gotten to see. I knew of homskollars in my neighborhood when I was growing up. Maybe even knew their name somehow. But never, ever found out what the hell was going on in Boo Radley's house. At CP, I'm fascinated all the time. Neveruse513 11:26, 12 February 2009 (EST)

CP on its own could be fine to continue. However, given that Andy is using it as a basis to inflict his insanity on children, I would love to see it go down. And let's face it, TK is in a far better position than any of us ever will be to bring CP down. The very fact that he's been allowed to get where he is again means that CP deserves whatever he has in store for them. @ Neveruse - he doesn't want it off to stop making conservatives look stupid, he wants it off because that's what he gets off on - he did that to Hotornot. I doubt TK is truly conservative or even Christian for that matter. I would, however, be equally happy with seeing him getting his own comeuppance. Maybe we can call him out next time he copies something - that's what drove him away last time.--PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:05, 12 February 2009 (EST)

<- I feel so bad for the actual students. But I still think it's a good piece of comedy. I mean, even most far-right christian conservatives would think Andy is crazy. I can't help but empathize with PJR and the like against TK and parodists like Bugler, for some reason. dream^ing _{Hail Eris!} 09:58, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Really? What's this about Hotornot? Neveruse513 09:59, 12 February 2009 (EST)

The older members might know more about it, but I think RWW might have some info on it - but he basically did the same - got into a position of power and turned the moderators against each other. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:24, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I can only judge TK by his comments, and extrapolate his influence by the changes which happened at CP (have a look at the Desk/Abuse section). My conclusions: If TK is a mole, his behaviour is despicable. If he's for real, well, then it's even worse. In both cases he doesn't seem to be the man I'd enjoy to have a drink with larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:05, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I think the side we see of TK as a sysop on CP is not what he is really like. However, that doesn't mean that his real nature is any more lovable. On CP he's playing a role to suck up to Andy. Ever since he came back he's been very heavy-handed with the American Christian Conservative line because he knows that goes down well with the Schlaführer. Interactions that people here have had with him show that he only cares about himself and is prepared to lie, cheat, besmirch and plagiarise if it furthers his own ends. Whether he really wants to bring down CP for "the sake of the children" is a moot point, it's not the end that gives him a kick its the means. Right now he's playing the marshall who cleans up Dodge City from the outlaws but his stated goal is to be a bureaucrat which would then give him dominion over the other sysops. PJR has scaled back his contribs, CPAdmin1 has gone, Learn together hasn't edited for over a month - these were all what I would call "moderate" by CP's standards. I wouldn't be surprised if TK has constructively forced them onto the sidelines. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:13, 12 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) It's quite simple.... TK is a dick. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 14:34, 12 February 2009 (EST)

"I mean, even most far-right christian conservatives would think Andy is crazy." Wouldn't it be interesting if we made an attempt to bring Conservapedia to the attention of right-wing heroes such as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh? If one of THEM told Andy and his posse that they're giving conservatism a bad name, d'you think it would be heeded? - Cuckoo 15:54, 12 February 2009 (EST)

That's the logic behind this addition to the main Schlafly article. Persuading prospective parents of Schlafly's homeschool that even sensible conservatives think he's crazy, and not just liberal nutcases like us. If more wide-reaching (and fully citable) evidence can be added to that section, it'd would be gratefully received. Madeleinebiscuits 13:44, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I believe that TK is actually acting in our best interest. He has been gradually restricting the use of CP down to a core group of users. This makes things regularly entertaining for us, but also reduces the possibility of rational people participating, thus giving the project credibility. -Lardashe

It's a shame that he seeks and destroys his natural allies, however. I miss seeing the antics of parodists with block rights. 16:25, 12 February 2009 (EST)

It would absolutely not be heeded. It would just be another name on the list of people who want to destroy them.

This, in turn has led to the accusation from Conservapedians that "left-wingers are out to suppress their free speech". One anonymous 15-year-old in New Jersey, who penned an entry on Irish dancing and "uses the site to research papers", said: "I had heard it spoken of, but it had never really hit home before just how hostile they are. There are people who want to destroy us."

Some sick shit. Neveruse513 16:31, 12 February 2009 (EST)

From the "old days," the most important thing about TK is to not feed him. TK is the uber-troll. Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 17:37, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I really don't think that is true about Hotornot. Wikipedia says the site sold for 20 million US dollars a year ago. Hardly sounds like "shutting down" the site. Bluefish 15:40, 13 February 2009 (EST)

What I understand happened was he managed to create chaos and infighting among the admins there. They booted him and straightened things out. ħuman 17:58, 15 February 2009 (EST)

In honour of the boycott.

Andy borks CP once again (and tells us something we already knew)--PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:58, 12 February 2009 (EST)

If I were of a more conspiratorial mindset, I'd charge Andy with doing that intentionally, so he can say "those libb-burr-ull atheists at that other site can't prove their boycott did anything, because we were down during it!" MDB 09:50, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Doubt it. I think Andy's in the minority of active Conservapedia sysops that doesn't read RW at all. (Hi Andy if you are reading this. Why not sign up? TK can't block you.)--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:52, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andy is the only one over there who doesn't read WIGO. Something about the purity of his soul, I think. Or about just ignoring any kind of critique. --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:56, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Andy may not read it, but I wonder if his subordintes pass reports on to him. "Lord Schlafly, praise be unto you, our agents report that the web site whose name must not be mentioned are organizing a libb-burr-ull atheist boycott of our blessed site."

To which Andy, if he follows the logic of one of his political idols, probably will respond, "those fiends! lets invade Iraq!" MDB 10:08, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Looks like our DoS campaign on CP is working quite well. Neveruse513 10:49, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Who's this "our" you speak of?-Diadochus 11:41, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, mate ;-) Neveruse513 11:45, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Page Load Error now. I'm guessing its the same for everyone? StarFish 11:37, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Hats off to Andy, when he breaks something, he does it properly. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:43, 12 February 2009 (EST)

So basically, no one is observing the Boycott... HONOUR THE CARNEIA!! ArmondikoV^pathetic 14:09, 12 February 2009 (EST)

"This history is important because we can embrace Darwin's account of evolution without embracing his metaphysical naturalism and unbelief"

Something tells me Crocoite didn't read the article he posted to the main page all the way through... TheoryOfPractice 17:24, 12 February 2009 (EST) _{Boycott THIS.}

He never reads anything, other people give him the articles and he puts them on the frontpage. He just adds what he would like it to say. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 17:30, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Give him a break, he's not that bright. A little more time at RW might help. Hi Dean! Neveruse513 17:38, 12 February 2009 (EST)

So I am not the only one who failed to fully observe the boycott? Ace McWicked^Revolt 17:46, 12 February 2009 (EST)

No, no you're not. I think it's being observed about as well as an abstinence program. --Gulik 15:14, 13 February 2009 (EST)

CP: "Darwin's Birthday Poll: Fewer Than 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution. "

I got a bit of a laugh after researching this one. Apparently that article was more about the tie between education and belief in evolution, "Just 21 percent of respondents who had up to a high school level of education believe in evolution, compared with 74 percent of those with postgraduate degrees." That's still Faux News though, the PEW Research Center's article on it was a bit more interesting. User:Ttony21/sig2 19:02, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I love the bit in the PEW article about how a quarter of the population thinks both evolution and a literal account of Biblical creation are true. Doublethink, anyone? I also like how the two groups least likely to believe in evolution are the uneducated and the religious. But wait, that's one group. DickTurpis 19:12, 12 February 2009 (EST)

There's a lot of talk about this over at the Saloon bar. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:15, 12 February 2009 (EST)

It remains to be said. Pew pew pew. Thank you. User:Mei 19:16, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Ah I didn't see that; last time I checked the Saloon Bar I thought it was dead, but apparently I was looking in the back alley by mistake. Pew ftw.User:Ttony21/sig2 19:21, 12 February 2009 (EST)

It seems the Brits are about as silly as the Americans. Proxima Centauri 15:30, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Rod Weathers

...has officially retired from CP.

"RETIRED!

This user has left Conservapedia. God Bless. Sadly, I cannot contribute in an environment where I am so deeply mistrusted, so I must consider myself retired until I or others have a change of heart. I hope some good will come of my contributions.

Best of luck to all,

Andrew Rod Weathers

“ In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution. - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers " "

Come now, surely Bugler's partner-in-parody could have gone out with a bigger bang than that? EddyP 05:35, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah after he lost his block rights he would be pushing shit up hill to get them back, especially as he far too often formed a double team with Bugler. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 05:39, 13 February 2009 (EST)

The question is, will TK block him and delete his userpage as he did with CPAdmin1? I doubt it, seeing as how Bugler and RW often operated under TK's protecting shadow. EddyP 05:42, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Get some screenshots if you want, they might have something useful. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 05:44, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Got it in Word. EddyP 05:50, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I have picture of his retirement diff and all his talkpage. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 05:59, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Got it in plain text, to recreate the page here. Gauss 13:46, 13 February 2009 (EST)

What sort of big bang is even possible from a rightless user? 15:45, 13 February 2009 (EST)

A nice Parthian Shot would have been fun. --Gulik 00:37, 14 February 2009 (EST)

This is the way RodWeathers ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper. ENorman 22:14, 13 February 2009 (EST)

If he comes here, I'm going to block him in vengeance--Nate River 22:27, 13 February 2009 (EST)

He's already here. Maybe. Or not. TheoryOfPractice 01:26, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I'd be rather frightened if he isn't. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 11:58, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Richard Dawkins

Ken's article of the month is Richard Dawkins, he has started a giant quotemine on him and is keeping track of the pageviews on his start list. I was rather unsurprised to discover that his article has not gone down well at the Richard Dawkins' love in. A few of them had something to say about homeschooling in general. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 06:12, 13 February 2009 (EST)

How about a link to the thread? ħuman 16:12, 13 February 2009 (EST)

You have to sign up. Here. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 21:08, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks - are you sure one has to sign up just to read threads there? ħuman 17:59, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Vulgarity

DeanS Hi Dean! personally thinks "asinine" is so vulgar as to necessitate the banhammer. I know his mind is so open that it cannot be changed, so $1,000,000 internet dollars if someone can even engage him in a conversation about the alleged vulgarity of the word without being banned. Neveruse513 14:57, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Gayest guy on CP

Daniel1212 is officially homosexuality's Ken

. Of 128 mainspace edits, over 94% are homosexuality related.

His baby, is so viciously TL;DR and steeped in the rhetoric of apologia that I can't nail his position down. Whatever it is, I'm 94.5% certain this guy lives in the closet. Neveruse513 15:59, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Ken

doll used to be homosexuality's Ken

. He made 50+ articles on homosexuality, before he turned his attention to pimping atheism and evolution to any website that would link to him. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 21:11, 13 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) "Homosexuality's Ken

"? This makes no sense, given that Ken

himself has a serious obsession with the subject. ListenerXTalkerX 21:12, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Range blocks

I count something like 9 new /16 range blocks in the past 3 days. Are we keeping track of these? How many IPs have been banned just on the /16 range blocks alone? DickTurpis 02:33, 14 February 2009 (EST)

9 times 65536 is 589824. FurryQuack 03:07, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I'd liek to know the total number, not just the ones from the last few days (which, incidentally, also include some /17 and /18 blocks). DickTurpis 03:10, 14 February 2009 (EST)

File:Ipblock-range-contrib-Conservapedia-20090125.png range-blocks

I try to keep track of those ->

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 03:27, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Wow. Fucking hell. People here never cease to impress me. Thanks! DickTurpis 03:56, 14 February 2009 (EST)

*blushes* you're welcome! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:36, 14 February 2009 (EST)

It really looks like TK is hell-bent on blocking as much of the internet as possible. Often for spurious reasons. I just checked their block log (not a countable page) and saw he blocked a Dutch IP range -Using anonymous proxy: Koninklijke KPN N.V. Pro-Face Europe BV, Confirmed proxy server, Netherlands. KPN is the Netherlands equivalent of BT or ATT, the biggest ISP in the country and not a proxy server provider. Furthermore checking the hostname for the range shows it to be static.kpn.net thus it is a static preassigned IP for which a rangeblock is inappropriate.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 13:07, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Here is another view of the range-blocks. The numbers slightly differ from the previous one, due to blocks of different ranges which overlap. TK has blocked quite a few legit ISP, including the main telecommunication providers in the Netherlands or Spain, and substantive providers in Germany or the UK. He'll always find a reason for doing so: The bigger an ISP, the bigger the number of users who allow TOR, et.al., to use their IP. Ergo, we'll have anonymous proxies, especially for the greatest ISPs. And shutting out whole universities? Please! That should be a no-no (unless you think you clientele will never visit those schools.) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:27, 15 February 2009 (EST)

My experience is that anonymous proxies are single IPs which act as a gateway for inbound and outbound traffic from a large user. They are usually fed through "fat pipes" such as T1 lines and accessed by an internal network. It's not internet connection sharing of an IP by a few users as maybe a home or small office might do but a way to firewall and security check bidirectional traffic. So yes, when a range gets blocked for being an anonymous proxy it's way over the top. The morons don't even seem to know the difference between an anonymous proxy and a proxy server. They use their pet IP address checker and see "proxy server" and think it's something like hidemyass.com. If you actually check those anon proxies then they only use a couple of single IPs and ususally in different address ranges so the range blocks are using a steam roller to crack an egg. Thankfully the morons will just keep on blocking in their windows but eventually it will cut off the light. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:15, 15 February 2009 (EST)

An invitation to commit wiki-suicide...

... by math. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:38, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Rod Weathers...

Rod Weathers lost it. http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:On_the_Present_State_of_Conservapedian_Defenses ^{— Unsigned, by: Tripcode / talk / contribs}

Archived. --Marty 14:35, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Meh, what a pointless essay. Everyone who is going to read it either knows these things since the dawn of time, or doesn't care, or is completely delusional and doesn't believe any of it. In some cases probably all of the above. --79.41.234.146 15:00, 14 February 2009 (EST)

So I'm guessing that where he says he's immortal, immune etc. he's referring to this site? I'd be quite interested in seeing some of those e-mails in which he has tried to convince people to leave; seems he wasn't quite the monster we all thought (though he did once block a promising sock of mine >:O). I see he hasn't been blocked yet though. I also know what he means by inserting false information; a friend of mine once managed to keep the CP bromine article saying that bromine was extracted from clams by a process called 'clamscrubbification' for a month. All I really want to know is: which of you is he? EddyP 15:40, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, and don't worry Rod; that's better than a Parthian shot. EddyP 15:42, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, clamscrubbification. I loved that one. It's a real shame that it was discovered and had to be nuked. 15:48, 14 February 2009 (EST)

We should all add that kind of stuff. They'll have trouble distinguishing Rod Weathers from us. I wonder why they haven't blocked him, though? --"CUR^talk 15:53, 14 February 2009 (EST)

That's the question I kept asking myself, which kept me from just nuking the account to begin with. Andy refused to ever communicate with me after the failed sysop gambit, so I could only assume, that 1) he thought he was playing me for a chump, adding good articles in an attempt to regain status or 2) he wasn't sure if I was a parodist, which is horrifying. 16:08, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Ha, I just made the link while I was re-reading your essay just now; "Publius, where have I heard that before?"; then it hit me; 'Gentleman Publius'; I'd seen that name around here a few times. Tell me, were you working in concert and communicating with Bugler/FP, or was it just coincidence? EddyP 15:55, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Pure coincidence. We never chatted until he outed himself. When I arrived at CP, I had no idea who or what a Bugler was, but coincidentally adopted the same belligerent, sycophantic style (though I could never match his verbose tirades, and was doomed to a shorter run) 16:04, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Did you also see the Rhodium misinformation? It was by the same person, but it got nuked. I do the same kind of thng, but I'm less ambitious (and consequently I don't get discovered). EddyP 15:58, 14 February 2009 (EST)

No, never saw that one. 16:04, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Well, well done anyway. But damn you for blocking NeilEG! 'We hold ourself to a higher truth' indeed. EddyP 16:06, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Damn you for blocking HDCase, as well. --Barikada.

Bravo Publius, Bravo. Not that anyone at CP will read or understand it, or that you told us anything we didn't know. But nicely put. Z3ro^talk 16:17, 14 February 2009 (EST)

It gives TK more ammo for his blocking spree and, if Andy reads it, will sow more seeds of paranoia. Well worth the effort I say, Pubes. Was it fun? Matt 16:24, 14 February 2009 (EST)

The initials were intentional, right? FernoKlump^{Mr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition!} 16:59, 14 February 2009 (EST)

No! That's the horrifying coincidence which doomed me before I began. Rod Weathers is a throwaway name I came up with a few years back, before CP and RW existed. 17:03, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Ha, don't feel too bad about getting blocked by you now I guess. Good run though bro. ENorman 17:22, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Excellent work, Gentleman Publius. Too bad about the terrible coincidence with the initials. I would have bet money that was intentional. Still, it served the purpose of making you look bolder and Andy look stupider, so you've got that. What kind of things *did* Andrew demand in his "paranoid information request"? -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 18:47, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Looks like TK finally got around to deleting the page and blocking Rod...along with Parts of DC and a university in Canada. Come one TK, they can't all be Rod can they? --ScottA 18:51, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Nice work, Gentleman Publius. Too bad they memory-holed it. ħuman 19:25, 14 February 2009 (EST)

As if they'd let it stand. I was frankly startled that it wasn't removed within minutes. TK didn't block me until I emailed him with some questions out of curiosity, and he acted startled that I was a parodist. (Either he's a terrible liar or terribly dim) 19:32, 14 February 2009 (EST)

There's no reason he can't be both. TheoryOfPractice 19:36, 14 February 2009 (EST)

You were the @#$@#% who banned me. Nice to know that you were a parodist.--Nate River 19:41, 14 February 2009 (EST)

"There's no reason he can't be both. " - He IS both. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:19, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Haha, nice work Publius. Very nice. I'd admit, you had me fooled. It's honestly hard to tell the difference sometimes. Must have been fun talking and working with those loons, though. Tealish 22:29, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, working with Ken was especially... fun. Suffice to say, Ken is just as insane sounding when talking one-to-one via email. He actually tried to get the phone number of my church so he could check up that I was a member of a good conservative denomination (he actually specified this). In return, he'd give me the secrets to high google rankings! (I'd never mentioned nor cared about search rankings) I can only imagine the response of other apologetics groups he comes into contact with. "Hi, Ken? Go away. Please. You're creepy." 02:48, 15 February 2009 (EST)

1. RodWeather 's parody is exactly the behaviour Tony Sidaways criticized in his articles.
2. How is this high-fiving not an endorsement of vandalism by RationalWiki?
3. Lichtenstein said The greatest lie is the truth, modestly disfigured...
4. There are still teenagers left at Conservapedia - besides the home-schoolers? Poor boys and girls!

BRichtigen 03:00, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I'll be the first to admit that parody raises a number of moral questions, but let's be clear. TS is suggesting "they are unlikely to appreciate the strength of this argument when faced with deliberate and organized attempts to embarrass them by planting parodic content." Andy? Andy appreciating the strength of arguments? Andy blaming poor content quality on parodists? Parodists differ from his dream-editors only in that they don't actually believe what they're saying. The core problem confronting CP, as we all know, is not parodists, but a totalitarian control system which attacks anyone with expertise and suppresses discussion, while rewarding overtly belligerent behaviour among parodists and ideologically aligned jerks alike. We are not "high-fiving" vandalism, but rather an exposition of its internal workings.

One of my first moves with Rod was to turn cp:Bigotry into a list of examples of liberal "bigotry" (very loose) drawn from the news list. It was challenged, discussed, rebalanced. Then Andy reverted it back to the way I had made it. I dismissed reasonable objections on the main talk page with glib drivel about censorship and balance. Andy would respond saying I was right. I blocked users with vigour, for pitiful reasons. In the odd case they were challenge, Andy responded, noting I had never yet made a mistake in blocking.

TS is absolutely right that CP's administration has very limited culpability for the crazy pseudo-hitlist (but let's remember here Pat Robertson calling on the nation to pray for Judge Reinquist's death or resignation), but when a Bugler or RodWeathers conducts parody like this, and it is explicitly and routinely defended and legitimized by the CP administration, they have no possible defense. When this behaviour is so clearly sanctioned, it is not vandalism; it is doctrine. Buglers and RodWeathers are exactly what Andy wants. He just wants them to believe it as well.

As for teenagers at CP, I have some hope that they're there entirely to create articles which interest them, rather than read, as CP is far too scanty a resource to be of any use in all but the rarest of subjects. 03:27, 15 February 2009 (EST)

<high fives Publius> An excellent run, and an excellent explanation. Fretfulporpentine 06:53, 15 February 2009 (EST)

This is all great. I completely agree with Publius and his moral position. Vandalism is very different to this. I also think it's great that RodWeathers was given a send off once his work was done. Better to expose the totalitarianism of CP than to just let the character continue its work without anybody knowing about it. And I know this is banal but I really hope that the work of RodWeathers (and his final departure announcement) will make an impact on more than just us over here. It's funny you know - I really wonder how many people at CP really believe what they're doing and saying. I'm gradually feeling that I'd not be surprised at all to receive an announcement some time in the future that Schlafly himself has been a parodist all along. Madeleinebiscuits 08:42, 15 February 2009 (EST)

What were the events that led to the banning rights being lost, by the way? I've only just read the other "Rod Weathers" topic above. Madeleinebiscuits 09:16, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I have absolutely no idea, and maybe Fretfulporpentine has an idea here. I was never given an explanation, so my guess is that sysops convinced of my parodyship finally convinced Andy to be cautious. (Though this doesn't explain why he nominated me for Sysop at the same time). Possibly a clever cautious move to prevent a MexMax incident? 12:04, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I think there is a clear distinction here between vandalism and what I might possibly refer to as being an agent provocateur (or at various times in a well-oiled bar - being a shit stirrer). It's rather like a lawyer or policeman saying something designed to get the antagonist to reveal their true nature and this I heartily endorse. It's not vandalism it's a traditional form of journalism. Making Wikipedia better is not going to put an end to Conservapedia. But, getting them to reveal their prejudices, biases and hateful viewpoints does them more damage by marginalising them. At the risk of supplying to many analogies, it's like just giving them more rope with which to hang themselves. By the way Publius, you completely pwned Geo.plrd with your medals. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:35, 15 February 2009 (EST)

There's just too much back story required to understand what everybody's going on about. Sigh. Sounds good though. Madeleinebiscuits 14:42, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I would consider it my greatest achievement, far outstripping all, if they were someday awarded. "Conservapedia: Only parodists can use Photoshop half-decently." 13:39, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I have absolutely no idea, and maybe Fretfulporpentine has an idea here All I can think of is that we wetre closely associated in the Schlafly mind, such as it is, and that when I stupidly pushed the Ugler angle too far, Publius shared in my downfall. If that is the case, I am sorry. Fretfulporpentine 14:14, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Possible, but did all of that occur before he removed our blocking rights? 14:27, 15 February 2009 (EST)

IIRC, he removed Bugler's and RW's "rights" on about 12/29 or so, and we all thought it was prepping for the simpler "sysop" rights at the turn of the year. Then FP slipped on the Ugler banana peel, probably taking RW along for the ride, and CP got what, five, new rather unexpected sysops? Oh and what I was "high-fiving" was RW's carefully thought out essay pointing out the fundamental inability of CP to defend against even honest errors in articles, due to their lack of expertise and manpower. ħuman 18:07, 15 February 2009 (EST)

That's probably it. The banana peel I slipped on made far less sense. Andy sent me an email asking for "Can you provide your real name, location, and some other persuasive personal information (e.g., reference, attendance at a conservative event that you can identify, phone number, something." So I responded with a bunch of information (almost entirely true), asked him what sort of references would do, and left it at that. But I responded a good 12 hours later, because, you know, I had a life around New Years, which freaked Andy and TK out. After New Years, Andy informed me that my answers were "not persuasive" and that I had failed to make a substantive edit for nearly 48 hours! (You know, since that's what a parodist would do, as opposed to a person with a life around new years). He was looking hard for a parodist, but was never sure enough to actually block me, perhaps. 18:26, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Hi all, it's good to finally find this place. I too have wondered whether Schlafly himself is a parodist. The recent spat that I had with him over the Law of Gravity just raises too many questions about whether or not he actually has an engineering degree from Princeton. By the way Publius, I forgive you for being the one who blocked the first version of the account I use now. I remember being mildly nervous that you would spot the current one, but alas, it all worked out. Glad to hear we're on the same side. (P.S. I'm the one who emailed you saying there are more of us than you think) --IlTrovatore 17:30, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Ah, indeed! Best of luck to you. How Andy got degrees in anything is a true Mystery of World History. 17:52, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Spat over the law of gravity? Please clue me in. I take a particular interest in Andy's science/math delusions, and I missed that. Gauss 18:53, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Abstinence isn't 100% effective

A CP wandal has pointed out (in a not-particularly-hilarious way, so there's no point in linking to it) the proper response the next time Andy claims that perfect abstinence is a 100% effective defense against STDs and teen pregnancy: "Well, 100% abstinence didn't work for the Virgin Mary!" Heck, she's just lucky God gave her a baby instead of the clap. --Marty 04:17, 15 February 2009 (EST) You think it's gone, and then three days later it flares up again.

I made this same point 18 months ago and got blocked for making silly edits. However, I didn't explicitly state that it related to the virgin birth. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:45, 15 February 2009 (EST)

It depends how you word it. Abstinence is effective - it's abstinence programs that aren't. Totnesmartin 06:11, 16 February 2009 (EST)