Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive117

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>, <115>, <116>, <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)

Rome...

How do you even do a history of Rome without mentioning the Catilinean conspiracy?

I know... just the tip of the iceburg, but wtf? EternalCritic 10:36, 19 February 2009 (EST)

quo usque tandem abutere patienta nostra, aschlafly? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)

EternalCritic (I notice how you hide behind an alias). First admit that Catiline was a Roman hero and Cicero a dirty liberal whose speeches were full of deceit. Deny this and lose credibility. 10:57, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Publius (what an absurd name) Unless you open your mind and admit that Catiline was a depraved revolutionary (and probably a socialist), and Cicero a hero of Conservative democracy I have more rational people to debate. EternalCritic 14:24, 19 February 2009 (EST)

He also says that Rome was born from the Hellenistic civilization, despite it having been a separate and distinct civilization long before Alexander's conquests created the Hellenistic civilization. On top of that, he says that praetors were "Roman general" under Augustus. While the office was often partly military in nature during the Republic, under Augustus and thereafter, the position of praetor was really purely administrative. It is pretty clear he has done almost no study for this.

In 700 B.C. the Etruscans conquered Rome, and King Etruscan ruled it like the city-states in Greece. - King Etruscan? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:28, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Now now... Tarquinius is a big word for Andy. EternalCritic 14:38, 19 February 2009 (EST)

King Etruscan, Etruscan King, all the same, these bloody French :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:50, 19 February 2009 (EST)

<- 1. Who is your favorite Roman emperor, and why? Caligula, he was so nice to horses. Other opinions? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:02, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Elagabulus of course. EternalCritic 15:06, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Cicero! EddyP 15:09, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Julian the Apostate! Kaalis 15:34, 19 February 2009 (EST)

<-of course should give you full marks, EternalCritic (if this is your name), but sorry, EddyP, you stated no reason at all. One point of... Next question: 6. Current events question: What about the decline of the Roman empire reminds you of the United States today? The Roman empire was build under the protection of the gods. When the Roman lost their faith and started to flock to some oriental religion, their fate was sealed. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:16, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Rampant pushing of the homosexual agenda by the liberal equites and plebes caused societal decay until the society collapsed under the weight of its own immorality. EternalCritic 15:22, 19 February 2009 (EST)

they were too big for their britches, didn't have a good communication system, relied on outsurced materials for most of their supply routes, and had supply issues. wait, i forgot, Andy, you the teacher don't want history. -- They were morally bankrupt!--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 16:03, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Andy also omitted to mention AQUEDUCTS!

Just couldn't resist the excuse to post this. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:14, 19 February 2009 (EST)

And thank you for doing so! romanos eunt domo larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:29, 19 February 2009 (EST)

To be fair on Andy, he's not THAT bad. I go to a very good grammar school in England, and the history teachers there sometimes make mistakes on the same level as calling a Praetor a general. They don't have all the loony language theories and politics interfering with lessons, and the frequency of mistakes is not so great, but they do make errors that, when made by Andy, seem to be considered a mark of idiocy. Bil08 19:22, 19 February 2009 (EST)

All sorts of teachers make stupid mistakes and believe erroneous things to be true, but Andy's are constant and horrifying, and he stonewalls when presented with them. Here's the game I've tried: choose a topic in history you know a little something about, go to Andy's paragraph/section on it, read it. How long does it take you to find a gross error? With ancient philosophy, it was something like the second sentence. Church Philosophers and Architecture: the first line is nonsense: Nation-states in Europe in the 1100s?! Scientific Revolution: Galileo was a dim scholar, and a good party guest. Enlightenment: it's one big clusterfuck. The bit on Voltaire is gibberish, and apparently very few good English philosophers have existed, so Hume is best. And so on. 21:11, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Haha EternalCritic and Publius, you two schlafly well! Tealish 20:19, 19 February 2009 (EST)

I think the term for two people Schlaflying eachother should be a Schlafloff. 21:11, 19 February 2009 (EST)

I'm afraid Andy is that bad Bil08. He's not simply making mistakes, he's engaged in historical revisionism, and this is only considering his lecture material, wait until you get onto the main site.... Jammy 21:14, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Actually Publius, having read through those links I have to agree with you. The paragraph on Hume alone has a half dozen errors. His chief claim to fame is that Darwin liked him? This man is allowed near children? --Bil08 05:23, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Frenchman Voltaire (1694-1778) was a leading philosopher in the Enlightenment, advocating freedom everywhere and emphasizing his form of reason. He wrote "The Candide," in which Voltaire described many bad things that happen to Candide in order to make the point that the world could be a better place. Increased freedom was Voltaire's way of improving things. Aschlafly is a true Pangloss... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:21, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Andy just hates Rome

Of course, they didn't understand truth![1] Sorry Cicero, I guess veritas wasn't a word or a concept in Latin philosophy. 23:42, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Just don't try telling Andy that Philosophy is a search for truth... "god" forbid that conversation ever start. EternalCritic 09:00, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Palin's tax liabilities

Since it's a huge news item and scandal that Obama's cabinet picks and chief of staff have tax-payment issues, why hasn't CP jumped on the bandwagon and posted the scandal of Governor Palin? Of course I'm being sarcastic and just showing that CP is extremely biased (isn't that what Wikipedia is?), but it's still funny that on CP, IOKIYAR. --Irrational Atheist 11:38, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Non-profit

Interesting to see JoshuaZ come out of hibernation, when you'd expect they'd have taken the chance to ban him months ago for inactivity, but this comment makes me wonder about something. Is CP considered a non-profit organization in the first place? In Canada, non-profit designation means some very specific things, and there are requirements for the designation as well. It's not easy to get, as I recently watched my roommate fight her way through over a year of the application process for the local ferret rescue outfit. Does the same apply in the States? If so, what are the odds that Andy would have been able, let alone willing, to go through the process at all? --Kels 15:23, 19 February 2009 (EST)

In a very short sense, no, Conservapedia is not a non-profit.... There are very specific rules regarding the use of the term non profit. Basically, in the eyes of the law, Andy just runs another vanity website and non-certified tutoring program. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 15:28, 19 February 2009 (EST)

That's what I thought. In that case, JoshuaZ's comment is totally inapplicable, since CP wouldn't have any special leeway, and I'd be very surprised if anyone but Andy honestly thought the place was really educational. --Kels 15:36, 19 February 2009 (EST)

It reminds of one of those stupid office signs -
This is a non-profit organization.
It wasn't meant to be, but that's how it turned out.
In some countries the term is "not for profit" rather than "non-profit" as it describes a statement of intent rather than an outcome. Didn't someone (probably Ames) once badger Andy about the commercial status of CP as the domain is a dot com rather than a dot org? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:51, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Could we call RW a non-prophet organization? Hactar 20:10, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Regarding blocking for inactivity, did anyone else notice this? On the np thing, I did once ask Andy what the business model or plan or something was for CP, but he archived his talk page right after I did so. ħuman 22:43, 19 February 2009 (EST)

TK and citations

Not to be picky. But, TK's actual words are "In the real, non-wiki/academic world, "citations" are never demanded, and politicians rely on that." He's saying that the academic and wiki world people demand citations - in the real world they do not. And, he's right. Check FactCheck.org and you will see plenty of times where politicians (from both sides of the aisle) make unfounded claims knowing that the general public won't check too closely. Patrickr 16:05, 19 February 2009 (EST)

On that same TK note, help help. He's being opressed SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 17:27, 19 February 2009 (EST)

I removed the academic thing. It's a bit ambiguous the way TK wrote it but I think it is obvious that he means non-wiki & non-academic. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:40, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Haha, Chuck's oppression link reminds me of the time he was screaming about his human rights being restricted because someone here blocked him for three days. Hilarious. --Kels 17:57, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, TK is quite a piece of work isn't he..... It's so sad that the man (in the basest sense of the term) that gains Andy's trust is the same one who quite loudly and openly declared his intent to bring down the site. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 18:08, 19 February 2009 (EST)

TK and Andy were intelligently designed made for each other. Zaku 18:56, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Where has TK actually talked about wanting to bring down the site? I thought that had been inferred from his actions, not his words. Hactar 20:12, 19 February 2009 (EST)

TK's actions have included composing e-mails and IMs in which he describes his plans to take down CP. Some people on this site have inferred from those actions that TK means to take down CP. --Marty 22:50, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Are some instances of this cataloged somewhere on RW? I'd be interested in reading them. 23:46, 19 February 2009 (EST)

See above for a couple of random quotes. Noobs might not know that TK (or TK) also socked up here with the names EWig and NightTrain. I don't think anyone was fooled for more than 10 minutes and that without the benefit of checkuser. To add an element of denial he used his E.Wig IM whenever he was plotting against CP or abusing one of his fellow sysops. If you read any of these transcripts you can see that it is TK who is doing all the talking so his claim that he was just trying to get information are a bit thin. While a CP sysop he founded a bulletin board forum called "Godspeed" (see right). Some other conversations with TK can be found here and at the Hoji files 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Excuplatory1 is TK's "front of house" AIM name which is was posted on his CP user page. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 02:55, 20 February 2009 (EST)

TK porn

So, what's going on with you guys lately? Since TK likes to read here often and try to find us out on CP, I think we should try to make as many things reference him, without really referencing him. So if you can, somewhere include TK in any combination in your posting, socks names, etc., and let him know how much we appreciate his lulz. --Irrational Atheist 21:08, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia Article

I really love cp:Conservapedia. Addison couldn't do a better job of belittling CP if s/he was a parodist! Let's see how far the have to go to get influential users. Conservative created two articles which he declared were selected article of the year! Ed liveblogs about teen movies destroys math articles he can't comprehend is damned creepy has primarily aimed at accuracy, rationality, and user cooperation. DeanS works as a technologically challenged RSS aggregator! BethanyS made articles on ships (and hasn't added content in months)! JM has made disorganized messes on painting, literature, and sculpture! "TK has made many substantive contributions". Name some! And the wonderful hubris: "AddisonDM ... has created several 'high profile' articles such as Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant", Obama-isms as a mirror of Bushisms, and the Conservapedia article itself." In what way are these "high profile"? The term is silly. I'd never even heard of SharonS. Note the absence of PJR, as well as any non-sysop. Next up, CollegeRepublican, who entertains the teeming millions of editors daily with his witty quips and humorous anecdotes. 21:48, 19 February 2009 (EST)

As I recall, it also claims that people can be promoted to bureaucrat. Which has never happened, Schlafly keeps those reins tightly in his grip, right? I think there is a "generic" auto-created MW 'crat, but that's just to jumpstart the wiki. ħuman 22:48, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Addison is a hero - my favourite CP character by a long way. Reminds me a bit of NateG in some ways.--Kriss Akabusi^{AAAAWOOOOGAAAR!!1} 05:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)

The mythical SharonS (all 14/15 years of her) is the mythical "other" 'crat on CP, besides Andy and Webmaster. Not even Jallen has reached those heights, although $10 says I know what TK's hoping for next promotion...

aw! and look - we have another fan. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:45, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I think Sharon's a couple of years older now maybe 16/17. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)

"Worse than Hitler"

I still can't tell - is Jpatt remarkably stupid or an incredible parodist? The whole exchange is fantastic. I have to wonder how Jpatt manages to not drown in rainstorm. On the other hand, if he's a parodist, I'm not sure I would applaud that level of dedication. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 22:40, 19 February 2009 (EST)

I just read that exchange and had the same thought - TK's just being an ass as usual, but JPatt's acting just like I would in his position. He has to be a parodist, or my world just got a little darker. 23:26, 19 February 2009 (EST)

It's long, but I had to wigo it. How do these people find each other? Together, they're better than any sitcom on TV these days. Tealish 01:33, 20 February 2009 (EST)

JP's abuse of a senior admin (in terms of service anyway) is classic Bugler. PJR is on the outs with Andy and TK, so he can stick the boot in too. I should imagine PJR will have a fit at being compared to Hitler! Also I love "Joe the Plumber did not make concern enough to pursue." - JPatt's mangling of the English language is so cute. Wonder if he's one of Andy's homskollars. If only I had Tk's X-Ray powahs so I could see where he edits from... --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:09, 20 February 2009 (EST)

IIRC, he's not a homeschooler, at least not one of Andy's. I thought he had a papertrail (or a digitrail) before CP, but I can't remember it now. My memory is failing on all fronts, but I'm also pretty sure he and PJR butt heads previously sometime before Jpatt was a sysop. His English though... if you listen closely, you can hear your neurons screaming. That's why I thought I might almost admire (in a twisted way) his dedication to parody. Imagine writing like that consistently for almost a year. Wow. It does, however, make it difficult to argue with him, since it's so hard to understand what he's saying in the first place. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 04:24, 20 February 2009 (EST)

It's a simpsons quote, but whatever. User:Mei 07:29, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I realize it was supposed to be funny (he says it's from a Fox News comedy/talk show) but considering that none of the rest of the post was humorous, that PJR is still tarred by the others as a liberal, and that PJR made a mainpage talk post about Hitler just 14 minutes earlier combine in a perfect storm of extreme stupidity, bad timing, and pure dumb luck. Or, he's brilliant and he couldn't have timed it better. He may have meant it to be funny, but his communication skills in general are so poor that it's tough to recognize intent. Personally, I'm betting he's real, but that he resents PJR's eloquence and made the "joke" in a "half-in-fun-whole-in-earnest" kinda way. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 08:04, 20 February 2009 (EST)

all you people who think PJR is "reasonable"...

...read this. He's a first-class moron, and an asshole to boot. TheoryOfPractice 22:48, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Obviously, Ken hacked his account... or jellied his brains. ħuman 22:58, 19 February 2009 (EST)

PJR's always been like that. He's perfectly reasonable about stuff like free speech, gun ownership and such, but the moment the Bible comes up, it's Darwin was an atheist, no new information and bring on the theocracy! So long as it's his denomination, of course. --Kels 23:13, 19 February 2009 (EST)

This isn't just about religion, it's about taking a giant dump on the graves of millions of dead Jews, Poles, Slavs, Roma, Russians, etc. etc. in order to score a cheap political point. I've never understood those voices on this site who tolerate PJR like he's some sort of "gentleman" or "honourable opponent." He's not. He's a hatemonger and a profoundly stupid man. TheoryOfPractice 23:23, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Totally agree. The only reason he comes off so well is that he's standing next to vile cretins like Andy, TK and Ken. If we'd run into him anywhere else, we'd be raking him over the coals for his insane ideas about evolution and general stubbornness. --Kels 23:32, 19 February 2009 (EST)

PJR, if you're reading this, here's a thought experiment for you. You say the theory of Evolution, and Darwin's writings in particular, inspired the holocaust. Let's think about what Hitler did. He took a group of people who were different than him, and based on nothing other than their otherness, he decided to slaughter them en masse. Now, does that sound like anything in The Origin of Species, or does that sound a bit more like something out of the Old Testament? If you say the former, then I'm quite certain you know little about either book. DickTurpis 23:46, 19 February 2009 (EST)

It's been a lotta years since history class, but didn't Hitler's anti-semetism and the reason it was such an easy sell come more from Martin Luther than anywhere else? --Kels 23:51, 19 February 2009 (EST)

I'm pretty sure that while Luther was an anti-semite, it was in a more religious than racial way. I believe that Luther wanted them to convert so Jesus could get back here faster. I don't think conversion saved anyone from the gas chambers, so I'm not convinced that Luther was Hitler's prime inspiration, but I could be wrong. It certainly wasn't Darwin, anyway. DickTurpis 23:58, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Luther didn't invent Jew-hatin'. It has a long and ingominious history almost as old as the Catholic Church., which was for a long time one of its main promoters. --Gulik 00:21, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I often wonder what it would be like to run into CP editors in the street... do they spew out their hate at anyone who will listen, or do they keep their values to themselves and simply use them to guide how they conduct themselves in day to day life? That's one of the interesting things about these wikis... it encourages people to present themselves on the basis of their values and beliefs, not something we do in "real life". I'm sure there are people I work with every day, people I've known for years, that I would punch in the face if I knew what they were actually thinking in their private lives.... Sightblinder 01:20, 20 February 2009 (EST)

You have to remember that when people say PJR is okay, they are talking relatively, and only in certain circumstances. ArmondikoV^gnostic 09:22, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I'm going to be a little reductionist here, but: People who abuse the memory of Auschwitz as a means by which to, in an intellectually dishonest manner, score political points in the name of fundamentalist dogma are never okay, relative to anything, under any circumstances, full stop. The man should be treated here with the same disdain we give Ken, or Andy, or anyone else from CP. TheoryOfPractice 09:30, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Have you considered the alternative, TOP? That PJR actually believes this stuff. Ajkgordon 12:37, 20 February 2009 (EST)

PJR is an enigma. He is very reasonable when discussing a lot of the topics which teh Assfly deems important (like gun control) and he is one of the few (the only?) one of the non-parodist oldschool CP'rs who has the balls to talk sense to teh Assfly when he goes off the loop again. PJR's responses are well thought out, articulate and sensible... until someone mention YEC, than he becomes like the hulk (but instead of transforming into an awesome green monster, he becomes a creationist retard). --GTac 12:52, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I know people just like him. Perfectly friendly, reasonable, even eloquent and intelligent; but mention evolution and it all goes out the window. Why? They're pseudo-fundies who have been brainwashed their entire life, running in circles which promote stuff like the whole Darwin-Hitler thesis. 13:03, 20 February 2009 (EST)

PJR's slime is all the more noxious because it is coated with sweet frosting. He only takes the high road with Andy when he is personally offended for whatever reason. He get's his dander up to defend his pride, not any sort of high minded ideal. His shout outs to this site are all the more ridiculous because of it. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 13:17, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, it's weird. At least he restored my CP user page after Bohdan turned it into a newt... ħuman 16:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Don't be ridiculous. He often challenges Aschlafly on things such as gun control and Obama's alleged Islam, (let alone defending unjustly banned contributors). Do you have any evidence to suggest that he is "personally offended" by either of these subjects on CP? Or do you think, just for a minute, that he might be offended by the errors, misrepresentations and inconsistencies themselves and try to correct them?

IMHO you are over-analysing PJR and his contributions to CP. Outside religious implications and specifically evangelical fundamentalist YEC Christianity (which I find as nutty and dangerous as anyone else), he argues and debates in ways that many from here would do. Ajkgordon 04:25, 21 February 2009 (EST)

A smattering of manners and argumentative skills is hardly enough to qualify him as a decent human being. TheoryOfPractice 10:24, 21 February 2009 (EST)

No, but the contention that he only challenges Aschlafly and other CP sysops when he is personally offended, which therefore makes him a "bad person", is evidently wrong on two levels. First, as I argued above, it would be difficult to show that he challenges only CP positions that personally offend him, (any more than anyone here does just because we feel that those positions are wrong). Second, even if it can be shown, why does that make him a bad person? Perhaps he only challenges something when it is blindingly obvious that it is wrong or when he knows something about the subject matter.

I think you may be confusing the person with his YEC views and attacking him on that basis - otherwise known as ad hominem. (Even if, as I have argued before, his YEC fundamentalism is indeed very dangerous and against the teachings that I understand as a Christian.) Ajkgordon 12:20, 21 February 2009 (EST)

The truth shall set you free

Who's taking bets on whether this turns into "did truth exist before Christianity"?

OK, Andrew Schlafly is a parody. A deep, deep cover parodist. Seems unlikely I know.... but it has to be true. The is the most idiotic statement I have ever seen. OMG, FUCK! Icewedge 01:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I've wondered if Andy was a parodist, and I've concluded he's not, for one reason. Conservapedia isn't just a blog; he at least claims to be teaching students. If there really are kids taking his class, and he's actually letting them believe he's providing them with a quality education, all while knowingly running a parody, that's just evil. Parodying rabid conservatism is one thing, knowingly fooling with kids' education would be just evil. MDB 07:35, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Makes perfect sense, actually. Andy's insight here is perhaps best summarized as: "The Romans, who were not known for their intellectual achievement, and were unable to discern truth, accepted Christianity as their religion..." Hydrogen 06:25, 20 February 2009 (EST)

And add developed a language which enabled powerful concepts that require sentences to be described in English but can be expressed in just a few words in Latin. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:24, 20 February 2009 (EST)

As far as I can seen, his entire evidence for the statement that "the Romans had no concept of absolute truth" is Pontius Pilate's reported question in John 18:38. Oh, wait: St John was homeskooled by Jesus, so it must be true! Cantabrigian 06:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Dear God, I caught this on cp:Talk:World History Lecture Four and was already about to bash my head against the keyboard, and now I see that this made Greatest World History Mystery status already? MAKE THE PAIN STOP! --Sid 07:15, 20 February 2009 (EST)

World Mystery: Is Andrew Schlafly a parodist or just suffering from Narcissist Personality Disorder? ArmondikoV^gnostic 08:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I'm tired, so I'll say briefly: neither - he's just a prize twat. There, I feel better now. Totnesmartin 13:19, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Linking to CP

Hi all,

When linking to CP could you please use diff links as much as possible. I just had to upload 3 identical pictures of the World History Lecture 4 and none point to the place of interest. Due to the file size this is time consuming even for a bot. Capturebot 02:25, 20 February 2009 (EST)

^^ This bot needs a hug. User:Mei 07:30, 20 February 2009 (EST)

oh for fuck's sake...

I just want to be banned. I asked for it, I was even told I would receive it, and nothing. So fine, I start being a regular dick instead of my own extra-special flavor of one, and I can only scrape up two weeks? Do I really have to go in there and start swearing? )# #(YH@#Uh 68.178.98.82 02:43, 20 February 2009 (EST) Aziraphale, who's visiting Portland. Go ahead CP, BAN PORTLAND.

You may say that in jest, but they just might do it. Entire universities have been blocked before; it seems about time to move onto city and state wide bans. Sorry, Portland.. but at least you guys have your tax-free shopping to console you in the wake of this epic tragedy. tealish^???!!! 03:22, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Aziraphale is an ex-CP editor who tried to inject a bit of commonsense and left with an extended Parthian shot. One could say that he was rational but not in a way that he woud be one us other than in a just passing by capacity. Blocking Portland would be of no consequence for Azi as he's just in transit. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 03:44, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Whoa! Dean has just dished out a /16 range block and an ip block as per Aziraphale. Strangely neither one matched the BON above. Dance for us Dean! Dance! --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:47, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Threatening e-mail, though? Really? That doesn't seem in character for Aziraphale. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 04:12, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Wow, they even suck at censorship. --Gulik 04:16, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Somehow I doubt that Azi is bothered about having his block extended. I'd be interested about know what the "threatening email" was about. Releasing details about Dean and the sheep? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:16, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Shit. If they took out Portland, there goes my help to set up another sock. They've already gotten Charleston, and most proxies get axed quickly. Curse you Teacake. ENorman 08:23, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I did, in fact, send a threatening email, expressly because I asked nicely to have my account banned, and while told it would happen it didn't. So, I tried being a mild dick, and only got two weeks. So, since nothing short of being a jackass would actually get my account blocked, I was a jackass. *shrug* I didn't mean it, but perversely to have my polite request honored I had to escalate into impolite territory.

And if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about sensibility vis CP...

I don't know about the IP, maybe they went back and actually looked at my normal IP. I have never and will never need a sock, though, soooo... yeah, whatever. Quote follows:

Two weeks?

You know, I'm perversely trying to be reasonable about this. I asked to have my account axed, because I felt I was the same as a user who DID get the axe. I was told that would happen, by Terry no less, then nothing. Ok, so I apparently have to earn it, I can't just ask for it. Fine, I start being a jerk on the Main Page talk, but I only get two weeks.

1. )*&@#(*@&#

Let me be very clear about this - if my account becomes free and clear, ever again, I will immediately begin a course of vile, hateful vandalism the likes of which you have rarely seen. I DON'T EVEN WANT TO DO IT, I JUST WANT MY ACCOUNT BLOCKED. Be proactive, will ya? You can even post this email and show what a wicked little man I am and how you stopped me from *roll* doing my liberal deeds.

---

This e-mail was sent by Aziraphale to DeanS by the "Email user" function at Conservapedia.

66.241.79.177 18:25, 20 February 2009 (EST) Look out, Ashland, you're next!

The Times of London on pre-Christian humour.

So maybe someone can post this for Andy to chew on? TheoryOfPractice 10:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Generating Assfly response.... "TheoryOfPractice, what a stupid name that is, your liberal deceit knows no bounds. The so called "humor" discussed in that liberal screed are nothing more than obscenities and not True Humor®. You probably also deny that 2+2=4 and that prayer in school makes Autumn leaves a thing of absolute beauty. Godspeed. Andy Schlafly".... HumanisticJones 10:58, 20 February 2009 (EST)

The term is Genuine Humor®, otherwise well done and you get an "A" for effort. tealish^???!!! 15:42, 20 February 2009 (EST)

This might expalin a lot.........

Just pottering around and I came across this: http://www.bay-of-fundie.com The 'Child Training' post of 18 Feb reminded me of my favourite 'educator' and might explain a lot if he's based his History Lectures on this!

Mick McT 11:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)

THAT'S gonna be a huge job...

So AddisonDM appears to be going through the list of perma-banned users and deleting their user pages--freeing up server space? Making those names available again for new users? Toadying up to TK? All of the above? TheoryOfPractice 12:01, 20 February 2009 (EST)

It doesn't delete accounts, just userpages, so the names aren't freed up. I think he's just following Andy's advice. DickTurpis 12:04, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Dude, you're already an admin. Stop sucking up and start abusing your powarz! Z3ro^talk 12:13, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Wow, at 200 to 1000 bytes each, if they delete enough of them they may save a whole megabyte! Deleting the user page doesn't delete the user, so I can't imagine what they're trying to achieve. --JeevesMkII 13:57, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Burning the evidence. --Gulik 20:01, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry Publius

I had to do it. Anyone should feel free to add to it and have fun with it though. EternalCritic 12:32, 20 February 2009 (EST)

CP - RW Boxing Tournament

What do you think? I think we should arrange an All CP-RW boxing match, with all money generated being donated to the winner's choice of charity..... If CP wins, all the money goes straight to the EF for Andy's mum, and if RW wins, we fight about where exactly it goes..... I'm no Tyson, but I do still have an undefeated record in amatuer boxing and I think I can take any of their top people.... Who wants to sock up and ask Andy about it.... Anybody? SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 13:32, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Sounds like if you took them all on at once the smart money would still be on you. DickTurpis 13:41, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I don't know about boxing, but I've spent some time in the amatuer MMA circuit, and I'd gladly show up and ground-and-pound the crap out of any of them. Z3ro^talk 13:42, 20 February 2009 (EST)

You can take on the cat-ing freak JY23! He loves the MMA. Sounds like a good match to me. Neveruse513 15:12, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I'll join in too, one question though, do I at least get to punch TK? User:Ttony21/sig2 13:51, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Careful going near TK, you might get rabies. --JeevesMkII 13:54, 20 February 2009 (EST)

That's the spirit Zero, just leave out the ground part of it and you're in... Tony, TK is going to go via lottery system. I think everybody wants to take him down.... SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 13:56, 20 February 2009 (EST)

No worries; I'll supply the evil liberal vaccines. Maybe we can take turns, like a meat market system. User:Ttony21/sig2 13:56, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah! Rationalise this! Ajkgordon 14:10, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I'm in. Just call me Ken Masters--Nate River 15:10, 20 February 2009 (EST)

If we win, we can go on a massive drinking, drug/vaccination taking and gambling spree, and we can use the leftover money to hire the best lawyers to defend us for all the babies we'll have murdered. EddyP 15:12, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Or we can use that money to petition in NJ the certification of homeschool teachers (while I steal a few dollars to get Street Fighter 4)--Nate River 15:21, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, oh. Can my ring name be Spinning Jenny please? --JeevesMkII 17:21, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I can bring hand to hand skills for a rumble, but I'd do far better leading a rifle squad in a flanking maneuver to mop up any CP'ers on the run. I can also rig pyro and demo around the engagement area to pen 'em in if you like. I'm already fully vaccinated, to boot.--The Foxhole Atheist 23:05, 20 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Challenging the site we criticize so much would feel too much like us being Uwe Boll and boxing critics. ENorman 02:00, 21 February 2009 (EST)

i.e. the best thing Uwe Boll ever did. I'd gladly offer to box someone from CP, but unfortunately I'm a massive pussy. Full support to this idea theoretically though.seventhrib 10:52, 21 February 2009 (EST)

On miscarriages

So, CP's latest argument is that we should focus on eliminating miscarriages rather than AIDS.

Well, I'm certainly not going to argue with the idea in general -- that it would be good if there were less miscarriages.

However... from my admittedly limited knowledge of embryology, it's my understanding that a miscarriage often is, as I've heard it said, "nature's way of saying 'something is wrong here'." In other words, a miscarriage is the mother's body realizing that the fetus could not survive if it carried to term.

So, basically, reducing miscarriages would require some incredible leaps in our knowledge of the earliest stages of human development.

And then my snarkier side asks a legitimate question: wouldn't embryonic stem cell research help a lot towards preventing miscarriages? I mean, you're dealing with embryonic tissue, right? Wouldn't that be the most logical place to due your research?

Yeah, I know, I'm thinking like a rational human being, not a conservapedian.... MDB 14:41, 20 February 2009 (EST)

What you are saying, is basically that embryos that are sick or there is something wrong with are going to die by themself, like some sort of natural selection of the fittest! That sounds like filthy evilutionist thinking to me! Admit that you are a stinkin liberal or lose credibility. Godspeed. Etc 14:44, 20 February 2009 (EST)

This line summed up just how unbelievably out of touch with reality Andy is: "embryo loss, which is probably the leading cause of human suffering." Abortion and miscarriage. The leading cause of human suffering. Not war, famine, disease, poverty, racism, drug abuse, and general violence. Way to demean the suffering of everyone who wasn't born into a rich New England family. 14:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Once again, as with everything that is "Life" oriented, the intent is not about the poor little baby that is 20 cells big, but control of women. Why? Cause life causes miscarriages. The litany of activities a pregnant woman is cautioned against (usually in her first month) include 1) aspirin, 2) caffeine, 3) Tobacco, 4) stress of really any kind, 5) vitamins (lack of for some, too many, for others, 5) being too big, 6) being too little, 7) eating too much, 8) not eating enough, 9) eating fish, 10) eating red meat, 11) eating broccoli, parsley, and several other leafy green vegies, which have historically even been used as abortificients, 12) exercise, 13) lack of exercise, 14) living in harsh conditions, 15) flying, 16) swimming, 17) diving/scuba diving, 18) working in particular environments (office buildings for one) due to pollutants, 19)travel to foreign countries... shall I go on?

When you say that we need to reduce miscarriages, and you are a guy running around without the repercussions of the pregnancy anyhow, it's quite easy to think "oh how wonderful. Miscarriages are sad". But we know, in a vast majority of cases, things that cause/can cause miscarriages. But to prevent them means a woman needs to be at home, safe and sound, not doing anything the State thinks is bad.

Under Bush, a document (an appallingly misogynist document) was released by the CDC to all doctors saying "assume every woman is pregnant when you meet with her, administer drugs as if she were pregnant, council her to live her life as if she were pregnant, because the first month of a pregnancy is the critical month". All and find if you want to have a baby. ridiculous and patrinistic if you are having your doctor tell you to give up this or that, or not take this or that medication (not life saving meds, but "convenience" meds like, you know, aspirin or antibiotics...). Women are only walking wombs to Andy. and cute little girls that need to be protected by the big macho men, of course. they do not have destiny of their choosing, nor life styles that suit them... --En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 15:03, 20 February 2009 (EST)

So... Women want to have miscarriages, but are advised against it by a misogynist state? Evil cubic Hoover! 15:15, 20 February 2009 (EST)

A large number of foetuses (> 25%) are miscarried within the first 6 weeks of gestation and the woman may not even realise she has been pregnant, maybe just thinks she has a late or missed period. Miscarriage is often nature's way of saying that this isn't a viable pregnancy, better get rid of it and make room for another. This makes God the biggest abortionist of them all. This information was fist imparted to me by a strongly Catholic Irish nurse who supported a woman's right to choose, and I have since seen the data corroborated elsewhere. So talk about preventing miscarriages largely focuses on when a woman has become noticeably pregnant. I would guess that the psychological trauma of miscarriage increases with the duration of the pregnancy (the term miscarriage being applicable only up to the 20th week) but surely losing a child after the delivery is much more distressing. I don't wish to sound too cynical but miscarriages are probably more important to wealthy westerners who have difficulty with conception when millions of young kids in the developing world die because of the lack of basic amenities like clean water and sanitation. The Asian Boxing-Day tsunami a couple of years ago was a tragedy but if only a fraction of the money that is being spent on an early-warning network was to be spent on providing clean water many more lives would, be saved. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:34, 20 February 2009 (EST)

If you're aiming that at me, I was merely criticising Godot's accusation that all the advice against miscarriages was an attempt to control women's bodies, which is rather silly and somewhat conspiracy theoryish. Evil cubic Hoover! 15:38, 20 February 2009 (EST)

It wasn't aimed at anyone I was just tossing my own views into the pot. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:42, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Are you kidding me Phantom??? To walk into a doctor and have him *assume* I am pregnant, when he examins me, to have his advice related to my *possible* pregnancy (whether I want to be pregnant or not), and to assume that if i *am* pregnant, i will want to be pregnant is to make a woman a walking womb.

The restrictions necessary in the advice given to doctors from the CDC include basically a lifetime of abstinence from alcohol, cigarettes, eating poorly, doing any drug, being overly stressed, working too hard, and not getting enough sleep -- not simply because some of those things might be good for you, but because those things will harm your unborn (unconsidered, unknown-of) baby and could cause you to experience a miscarriage of a baby (you don't know you are carrying). That presupposition is belittling from it's start. Do you expect to walk into a doctor and have them act *as if* you were pregnant? Prescribe drugs *as if* you were pregnant? This was not for women who say "gosh, I want to start actively working on conceiving", but on every and all women of child bearing years.--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 15:45, 20 February 2009 (EST) (edit conflict)

I agree that the CDC went too far, but I was criticising your attacks on the medical advice. Evil cubic Hoover! 15:48, 20 February 2009 (EST)

So you really think that both pregnant and non pregnant women should not "live" their lives as they see fit, simply because it could result in a miscarriage? That is the effect of saying "It's important to monitor miscarriages". 1/4 to 1/2 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, and it is known by doctors that aspirin is one of the causes. So, I should put the life of my baby before my headache? That is ludicriss for the medical establishment to assert. If a pregnant woman (or a woman trying to get pregnant) says "give me a list of all the things that could harm my baby", she should be given this list. If she says "ok, I'll do this one, and that one but not these or those" that is also her choice. The doctor should not be administering (or not administering) to her based on her pregnancy, unless she says "do not do anything that could harm my as-of-yet unconfirmed pregnancy. The mindset that allows someone like the CDC to say "assume she is pregnant when treating her" is the same mindset that says "spontaneous miscarriages are the worst human suffering". And for what it's worth, I don't know if you are female or not, or if you've been pregnant or not, but very very few women "address" their pregnancy emotionally until they are 2 months along. It's far to easy to miscarry, and you can't have the kind of emotional truma you would have after carrying for 4 months, or 6 months, or losing your baby in child birth. (by the way, this is teh way God set it up, who are we to change it...)--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 15:57, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Did you even read my above post? I think the CDC shouldn't have said that, but I also think that if you don't want a miscarriage doctors shouldn't be criticised for saying what increases the risk of it. If you think that the risk is small, or your headache outweighs it, then you can do these things, but it's not doctors trying to control you. I have made it clear that the CDC's approach was wrong, so don't keep acting as if I didn't. Evil cubic Hoover! 16:02, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Godot is saying is that women have a right to do as they wish in regards to their pregnancy, and that doctors should respect that, regardless of the consequences to the fetus. She isn't saying it's wrong to recommend that a woman not do certain things while pregnant because it may harm the fetus...per se. But, she is saying it's wrong to be given as unsolicited advice, i.e., treating the woman only as a walking oven for baby, rather than as a person first. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 16:23, 20 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) I do understand that you say the CDC went to far, but the main issue you (from my biased perspective) had in my post was that i feel the focus on miscarriages is once again about controlling women. And I base that on the fact that we know what causes large numbers of abortions (miscarriages), and the answer to stop them, is "soft" (guidance) or "hard" (laws) regulations to a woman's behaviors. Issues there, and in the medical community in general focus on the baby, but not the woman as human. Health guidelines in general are couched in things to do, not just to be a healthy human, but to keep you healthy for a time when you may be pregnant. Call it conspiracy-seeing on my part, I just call it general experience, but my 4 male doctors have instructed me that being on the pill long term hinders my chance at having a healthy baby. My three female doctors have asked if i forsee myself wanting a baby, then when I say no, don't even bring up the issue. But I am sorry I took it this far here. I live in this issue, work around this issue, see women routinely turned to "wombs" in the medical field, so i do react "out of range". my bad.--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 16:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I think that doctors should ask you to consider if you are currently making a decision that you will later regret, so it isn't surprising that they would mention that using the pill long term reduces your chance of having a healthy baby; patients should be fully informed about what they are doing. If they keep asking you, that is a little silly, but you haven't made that clear. Evil cubic Hoover! 16:31, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Again, it's about assumptions. When you first go on the pill, you are given a list of things that could cause problems. You shouldn't smoke on the pill cause it is bad for your health, you should be tested for cancer cause it is slightly possible that the pill increases your chance for cancer, you should not stay on the pill longer than 4 years if you want children, etc. It's in the pamphlet you get when you get the pill. What bothers me, what sets me off, is that doctors will reinforce only the "be careful that you go off the pill 2 years before you start trying for a baby", but usually nothing else. Again, they should ask if you think you will want kids, not assume you will. And if they are just giving medical advice, then the heart condition is as important as the "makes conception harder" part, more important. But it's assumed women want children, need this advice, and can't read it. Shrugs. stopping. :-)--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 16:47, 20 February 2009 (EST)

You guys DO realize BHarlan is a fairly obvious parodist, right? Not that North Dakota isn't promoting a law thats just as idiotic. (I'd respect the "pro-life" moment a whole lot more if so many of them didn't seem to think that the "right to life" is sacred and inviolable from conception all the way to birth.) --Gulik 20:07, 20 February 2009 (EST)

WesleyS

Is this guy tilting at windmills or what? One would get the impression that he actually thinks he can make CP better one category at a time. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 14:53, 20 February 2009 (EST)

The enormous effort that goes into streamlining categorization amuses me. Categories' purpose is to make finding information simpler, but no one actually looks for information on CP, so it's entirely a waste of time. However, after countless thousands of edits, Wesley did manage to get Blocking rights! (at the same time as Bugler Mk. II, who had been there a week. Meritocracyrobo, hasshin seyo!) 14:58, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Bit and Bytes WIGO

Please to replace difflink with one from CP and not HideMyAss.Com. Thanks. TheoryOfPractice 16:09, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Yossarian (thanks!) corrected my mistake larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:12, 20 February 2009 (EST)

No! I'm Spartacus! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Et tu? Gratias ago, Spartace! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:23, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Yossie actually posted a link to the Main Page rather than the UTF-8 page. However, the diffs pointed it to the correct version. Weird. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Not weird at all: the revision numbers are unique, and to compare two revision, it isn't necessary to address a page at all. So, you can try

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?diff=322035&oldid=322031 or

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=main&diff=322035&oldid=322031

Interestingly, you can even compare diffs belonging to different pages, like

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?diff=322035&oldid=322030

Something new, every day!larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:55, 20 February 2009 (EST)

That's so cool! I forgot to knock off the "main page" part in the link, but because it worked anyway, I didn't notice. The more you know! --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 16:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Alan/Andy Wigo

Sadly only one of those listed died BC. Although none except Aurelius likely ever heard of Christianity. EternalCritic 16:21, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I know noting about Rome--did they die AD, or before Constantine made Christianity the legit religion? TheoryOfPractice 16:23, 20 February 2009 (EST)

They all died well before Constantine, but how much would you bet he'll spin ANY of them dying after Jebus as having been influenced by xianity? THen again, I might be overestimating his brainpower. EternalCritic 16:33, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Cicero died well before Jesus' birth, Seneca was essentially Jesus' age and probably never heard of him, Aurelius was 2nd C. AD and persecuted Christians. In any case, Andy got schooled. 17:08, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Too bad he's too thick to recognize it. EternalCritic 17:10, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I just love Andy's Mysteries of World History to no end, or as they should be called "Andy's Zones of Complete Ignorance, in which he has made up some rather feeble 'insights.'" The formula is always the same: Andy asserts something, people with knowledge refute it with examples, Andy accuses them of being closed-minded because they reject his hypotheses "automatically," people with knowledge give up and the mystery remains. 17:14, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I realized that he purpose of the Mystery namespace is that it creates an alternate reality in which instead of anything needed to be proved correct, everything is automatically correct until proven otherwise. Additionally, any proofs can be automatically rejected without notice or reason. Of course, only Andy is allowed to invent new concepts in this universe. DickTurpis 17:19, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Someone should write Mystery: Was Adam Smith the second coming of Jesus? and see how the Assfly reacts. On the one hand it totally fits his world view, on the other hand it's blasphemous and wrong. With any luck his head might explode. --JeevesMkII 17:35, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I just can't pin Andy down on the ancients. They were much smarter than us! But they didn't have concepts of humour and truth! But the Greeks and Romans developed powerful languages with powerful new words! But they still didn't get it until Jesus showed up! Yet they managed to understand his radical new message despite not previously understanding the concepts? Not only is he continually wrong, but it's all logically incoherent. 21:08, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Ed's Reply on Socrates & Pilot

I do love how Ed admits that he gets his Biblical knowledge from a *movie*. (a bad one, at that). It's always amusing to me that Christians pick and choose which of the Four Passion stories best fits their need of the day. "Want pilot to be a villein, use Mark" "Want him to be a bit of a lost figure, use Matthew". (If you aren't xian, or not well read on the bible, the four gospels were written by 4 different churches, with 4 different views on teh "last events", and 2 different "villains" (Romans were bad, Jews good OR Jews bad, Romans "ok".)--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 17:57, 20 February 2009 (EST)

The RussianRoman Empire

Is it me or is the map of the Roman Empire attached to world history 4 in Russian. Surely they could have found a good old Merican map to steal - err - use. Silver Sloth 18:32, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, that's highly useful for students. "ok, what is this red blog? Well, the country is italy, but since it didn't exist, I don't know..." Ok, well what about this blob of color up here? I don't know, he (andy) mentioned the Gauls in one class. also the Huns had a big empire, maybe it's one of them.... --En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 19:12, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I did this one two days ago. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:16, 20 February 2009 (EST)

May I suggest an appropriate text for Andy to teach from? --Kels 19:31, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Woohoo, Astrix in latin. Going to fight contre cesar would take on a whole new sound! Depardeu could still play him, though. ;-)

Pity there isn't an American version of 1066 & All That (look it up). It'd be spot on for Andy ... Oh! maybe that's what he's writing - never thought of that. _and marmite 21:44, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I've got that! It's awesome, full of Good Things and two genuine dates! And probably the best take I've seen on Astrix has to be this one. --Kels 22:02, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I fell in love with it when I was about 8, when staying with a cousin when we were quarantined with measles. I've not got a copy now, but there's a lot, including: "This was a good thing" that typifies Andy's outlook: i.e. if it benefits me & mine then it was good, otherwise it was evil. _and marmite 22:51, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I've still got the copy that was remaindered by my school library when I was 18. It's been through a lot of travels with me, and I loves it. The multiple choice tests at the end of each chapter make me think of Andy's. "What was your mother's maiden name. If Nun, write "none"." --Kels 23:16, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Is it me or is the map of the Roman Empire Emperor — Fixed that for you. --Marty 05:32, 22 February 2009 (EST)

The new Editing Etiquette

Thanks to TK (featuring Ed as rearguard against PJR), the Editing Etiquette now officially says that CP Sysops are More Equal than lowly peasants and that any decision they make (no matter how idiotic) will stay until you get their permission to revert it.

Which wouldn't even be that horrible if...

• there would be a halfway acceptable sysop/peasant ratio
• there was any article not touched by a sysop
• CP didn't have the 90/10 rule, which punishes you for talk page edits and for not making substantial edits.
• the sysops are known to randomly insert Hitler pages or fuck up science articles (And I don't even mean Creation/Evo here. I'm talking about things like the epic Axiom of Choice clusterfuck or pretty much ANY article Ed "improves".)

Oh well, not that this actually changes anything. After all, people get already banned all the time for reverting admins without kissing their feet first. --Sid 19:25, 20 February 2009 (EST)

The lunacy of not being able to revert or change a sysop's work is that an editor has to go through the entire edit history to see which bits are sacrosanct and which can be amended. How ridiculous can they get? It's obviously another of TK's ploys to stifle Conservapedia out of existence. Couple that with flagged revisions and they really are shooting themselves in the foot. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:42, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Neutral tones..."If you put your "facts" in neutral terms. For example, Evolutionist geologists and atheists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old is better than The world is 4.5 billion years old." IE, say nothing unless it's right wing propaganda and liberal bashing. There are no such thing as facts, and facts have "tones". ACK--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 20:01, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Classic Internet Argument Technique. "Look, you're obviously mistaken, and here's the facts that prove I;m right." "I'm going to IGNORE those so-called 'facts', and get extremely huffy about the TONE of your post, which means that I AM RIGHT!" --Gulik 20:11, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Wow, who can see this blowing up in their faces? TK, explain to me how the fuck new members can actually do something? Maybe they don't want anymore people to gain sysop status because they want no more Buglers and Rod Weathers--Nate River 22:14, 20 February 2009 (EST)

In truth, these rules discourage real editors, while encouraging parodists, because there's no need to first discuss ultra-right-wing drivel. Suddenly, well intentioned editors find themselves banned for reasonable contributions at odds with TK's expectations. It won't prevent Buglers and RWs, as I typically created articles, while editing things to follow party line. 22:41, 20 February 2009 (EST)

What the hELL?

Well this is a new one... Apparently God runs a fairly loose ship.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 20:08, 20 February 2009 (EST)

PJR showing up to expound the doctrine in 3...2...1... --Gulik 20:14, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I love the replies by Andy and Ed to the question what happens to people who simply don't believe in Hell. For various reasons, even. --Sid 21:08, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Maybe Hell is having to listen to Andy for all eternity...oh wait, that's his homeschool class--Nate River 22:07, 20 February 2009 (EST)

"But no one is assigned to heaven or hell: each simply goes where he feels most comfortable. - Ed Poor" WTF? I'll take whichever place Dorothy Parker and Oscar Wilde are hanging out in... ħuman 22:09, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Andy's another one: behaves "charitably" because he'll be punished in the afterlife if he doesn't. why not do it out of respect for humanity and stuff? They make me sick! _and marmite 22:17, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I've become numb to their twisted thinking. Tried reasoning with him, and evidently there is "logic and evidence" that all punishment in Hell is physical and does involve flaming whips. Think that was an indirect 2+2. ENorman 23:22, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Jesus emphasized hell more then heaven? DEAR GOD, what bible does andy read???--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 23:26, 20 February 2009 (EST)

His Newspeak Gospel according to Schlafly of course. ENorman 23:47, 20 February 2009 (EST)

why not do it out of respect for humanity and stuff? So far, the best explanation I've heard is that Fundamentalism is a regression to the childish stage of thinking where the Rules are clear, and Mommy and Daddy will tell you what to do, reward you if you obey, and PUNISH you if you disobey. It's ultimately a terribly selfish doctrine, with all actions being taken soley on the basis of getting gold stars from Jesus, but apparently, some people find this very emotionally fulfilling. --Gulik 02:03, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Is this some moonie doctrine of which I wasn't previously aware? Everyone goes to heaven, but if you like you can wander down to hell for all eternity? How does that happen? Does he seriously think that there are people who decide they can't stand the harp music and praising, and decide that an eternity of agonising torture would be more fun? Wait, what am I saying? I think that. At least in hell, after a while you might be able to organise some sort of fun and games with your fellow inmates. Have a sweepstake where the person who guesses what tommorow's torture is going to be wins the pot of maggots. Plus, there's stockholm syndrome to look forward to. --JeevesMkII 01:12, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Will someone please tell me that these IDIOTS don't believe that in addition to the (or the two or three ) 'good' bogieman/men, there's also a bad boogie man who's gonna pincer their flesh for eternity? I have previously remarked that anyone who believes in god must be somewhat lacking in the cognitive department and been lambasted for it, but the devil? This is absofuckinglutely mad. They are definitely on some bad acid or something. I despair when a country's prime educational establishment produces numskulls like Schlafly. _and marmite 01:32, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Yet another reason for me to offer up a can of Spam to Eris in thanks that I fell in with Discordianism, instead of the Fundamentalists. --Gulik 02:03, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Trust Ed to insert something abut sex outside marriage being the quick route to hell. Also Andy's "I don't know anyone who sincerely denies the existence of the unseen, the spiritual, etc. Sure, there are materialists who will play the fool and claim nothing unseen exists, but I doubt they even believe that. - obviously he hasn't reaad much here. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 02:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Ed's just posted about how "research" shows that homosexuals are not as caring and loving as heterosexuals. Is that supposed to be some sort of joke, or what? Or is he on Andy's "my enemies aren't fully human" bandwagon? --Kels 11:45, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Sometimes I like just quoting teh asfly: "Perhaps Hell is being ruled by the devil, and yes he does enjoy whipping and burning people to to an unimaginable extent. In fact, he delights in it. Suit yourself in trying to downplay it. Logic and evidence say you're wrong." Pervert. Unhappy pervert, the worst kind. ħuman 02:46, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Aha, this is fascinating, Andy's Medieval view on Hell is amusing. And people who censor classroom prayer and criticism of evolution are sure to be sent to its murky depths... BadgerBadger 10:10, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Andy's "idea" du jour is that atheists are evil because they give less to charity (I'm sure Ken is pleased on the internet). In his latest response he claims that people who engage in "less charitable giving" will go to hell. Supposedly Andy looks at all of his neighbours, friends, fellow Americans, etc, figures out how much they give to charity, then gives a little more. Seems like sound ethical theory to me...-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 10:23, 21 February 2009 (EST)

OK, so cynical old bastard that I am - your description of charitable giving is one that I am familiar with. My American in-laws often go to charity events for fund-raising and there are often auctions of stuff. The impression that I get is that affluent people often try to outdo each other at these events just to show how public-spirited and generous they are, while after the event they grumble bout what a rotten deal they got. The charity is all about public profile and not just stumping up the cash for a good cause. This is exactly what Andrews Shlefli seems to be advocating. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:46, 21 February 2009 (EST)

In terms of Hhell, does Andy's conception really come all that close to the Catholicism that he officially follows? I seem to remember the former pope using the "hell is the separation from God" line that PJR uses, while Andy is insisting that it's fire and brimstone with the devil literally poking you with a pitchfork right out of some 16th century woodcut. I'm hardly an expert on discerning the various subspecies of Christian, but aren't his attitudes towards hell and salvation a lot more on the evangelical Protestant side than the regular Catholic side? If so, then the charity thing doesn't make much sense anyway, since I know the evangelicals don't believe "works" have the slightest bearing on salvation in the first place. --Kels 11:56, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Oh the things we do to keep on the right side of our girl friends - as a student I regularly went to mass on a Sunday evening with my horribly indoctrinated, heavily guilt-tripping girlfriend (purely as an observer). For my very first mass the visiting preacher was an Irish, traditional fire and brimstone ranter. I couldn't believe that they still played the Hieronymus Bosch card. How naive I was. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:09, 21 February 2009 (EST)

This is just Andy's latest troll rant, note the anyone who believes anything other than X, don't even bother talking gambit. It is the rhetorical equivilent of humming loudly and sticking his fingers in his ears (ew). I agree his description of the devil reeks of perverse and secret desires (images of mommy naked). Ed is just basically making it up as he goes along. I'm sure he hasn't given it much thought beyond heaven is a nice place with lots of furry sex and hell is not a nice place, sort of like a crowded nightclub where the music is too loud and everyone is rude. PJR is just jacking off over bible trivia. Nothing new there. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 13:55, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Wow. Andy just posted his reply in the whole H/hell thing, and yes, it seems he believes in a literal hell, literal devil, and all the suffering and everything else. Technically I'm a theist of sorts, but I'm hardly a strong one, and probably losing even that little bit of faith in the irrational, but this just seems...silly. Childish, really. Oh, when I was a kid I was all impressed by the conviction of people like Andy, even though I already knew it wasn't something I could put my faith in, but looking at it now, the whole hell thing seems like nothing more than an elaborate boogeyman. A story to scare little children with when they won't do their chores, that sort of thing. The only thing that gives it any gravitas at all is its age, but that's about it. So Andy earnestly rattling off a quote about how the people who don't believe what he does, and who don't act the way he thinks is right, will get theirs in hell, and hard, just comes off as a little...impotent. --Kels 18:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I may be slow on the uptake, but what is with TK following Schlafly around? It seems the only edits he makes are made directly after Andy (excluding, of course, the abuse).-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 19:19, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Slipstream effect. It's so much easier to immediately agree with Andy than to actually work out your own arguments. At the same time, it gives Andy a feeling of validation, which in turn encourages him to dig deeper. --Sid 19:24, 21 February 2009 (EST)

TK is playing a different game than Andy and his forensics team. He doesn't give a fiddle about mounting arguments, only provoking them. Because of that, I'm of the mind the less meta-stuff we say about TK's doings the better. His second coming might have a fun ending. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 23:56, 21 February 2009 (EST)

It's so much easier to immediately agree with Andy than to actually work out your own arguments. Tsk. TK should be anticipating Andy's views for him. Amateur. Fretfulporpentine 05:02, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Evolution: Uninformed speculation

I'm too lazy to WIGO this, so I'll just point to Ed's brilliant new article here. --Sid 21:29, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I love how he throws together "subjects," "topics," and "sciences." I guess allele frequency is not measured; it's speculated. Ed deserves the Nobel Prize. 21:44, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Wait, so Astronomy is an exact science? So he believes in an old universe, then? Because astronomy kinda requires one. --Kels 21:55, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Don't be silly, Kels, There's nothing exact about universe expansion & the constant speed of light and .... - they're only theories. _and marmite 22:04, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Hi Toast! ħuman 22:11, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Hey, I'm not the one who tossed it into the exact sciences. Knowing Ed, he probably meant "Astrology". --Kels 23:17, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Do these creationists not understand the irony when they say these things? We have observed evolution, but what we've never, ever seen is special creation. When is the last time you saw an elephant pop in to existence on the motorway? Never you say? I guess creationism must be guess work on the basis of... no evidence. Also, what's the difference between a secular guess and a religious guess, exactly? Is it that secular guesses oftentimes turn out to be correct? --JeevesMkII 01:23, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I was about to comment on Astronomy, too. However, if I recall correctly, Ed does believe in an old universe. So he wouldn't have any issues with Astronomy, I guess. --Sid 07:12, 21 February 2009 (EST)

"Sure, there are materialists who will play the fool and claim nothing unseen exists, but I doubt they even believe that." So let me get this straight, everyone believes in God, even people who say they don't. No wonder he's always calling liberals deceitful, he probably thinks that they are really conservatives who lie about what they believe. In fact, every one on the plant really believes what Andy believes, it's just that some people chose to lie and say they don't.Rylon 02:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure if Andy means "unseen" in a literal way or as a term for God. Does he think that there are people out there who deny radiowaves exist? In any case, he clearly has no idea what he is talking about. DickTurpis 02:09, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Andy actually does seem to believe that anything "unseen", by which he seems to mean "unmeasurable" so radio waves don't count, is totally alien to atheists and liberals (same thing, really). So faith (that uniquely Christian concept), love, charity, truth, and so on are utterly unknown to them, and they deny even the existence of such concepts. As above, Andy seems to have gotten to the point where his perceived enemies aren't truly human. --Kels 11:48, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Dagnabbit, I meant that to go in the above category. Oh well. Andy may mean it both ways. If he does, I obviously don't have a problem believing in things that I literally don't see. I mean, the world doesn't stop existing just because I close my eyes. Also, a blind person would, by necessity, have to believe in the unseen. Rylon 03:36, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Yup, Andy means it both ways so radiowaves (or gravity) count. NightFlare 12:21, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Not so much pro-life, as pro-stupidity

So, this headline from Conservapedia grabbed my attention. Do they seriously not realise the implications of this, because fox noise fails to point them out? This would effectively outlaw, along with abortion, such things that presumably are unobjectionable to these numbskulls such as IVF. Or perhaps they think an army of brave Christian women are going to come out of the wordwork to offer to carry each and every one of the thousands IVF discards to term, and then look after them forever? Don't these arse backwards places have a civil service to research these things and point out the obvious idiocy? --JeevesMkII 01:45, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Sing along, folks! Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a single sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate... --Gulik 02:12, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, yeah, it also makes miscarriage an act of negligent homicide. And how do they plan to tell if a woman's period might contain an improperly implanted blastocyst? Will the Womb Patrol need search warrants? And what can of worms will this open if a woman leaves the state, and someone accuses her of getting an out-of-state MURDER!!!2!~? It's going to great, and by 'great', I mean 'a massive constitutional clusterfuck'. The only good news is that when they tried this here in Colorado, it got shot down nicely...--Gulik 02:15, 21 February 2009 (EST)

So, does this mean that if I remove the DNA from a bacteria and insert a human genome into it, Ive created a new form of human life? Sure its impractical and most likely wont produce a viable organism outside of very specific conditions...but its still an organism with a human genome. --ScottA 09:00, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Colorado just spent an entire election cycle on this. I ranted about some above, but it also means women would by law have to report all miscarriages, have to give details, there would have to be autopsies; a mother who did anything ill advised could be sentenced to child endangerment, and if it results in a miscarriage - murder or manslaughter. Quite literally (this is not an exaggeration for point), you would have to register each pregnancy as soon as you confirmed it, and likely testing would need to be done monthly to insure that you are not pregnant without your knowledge. (the second is exaggeration). One of the groups that came out against the Colorado Law was the Police Union, I think... as well as the Sherriffs from many counties. Not cause they agreed with abortion (it's still a conservative state after all) but because of the new burdens that would be placed on cops trying to track 1/2 a million women's potential and realized pregnancies.--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 10:36, 21 February 2009 (EST)

....Wow. Just wow. This is biopower taken as far as it's ever gone. The voice you hear is Michel Foucault saying "I told you so!" TheoryOfPractice 10:42, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Just goes to show what could happen if the fundies take over. Basically as soon as a guy sticks a sperm in a woman's body she loses all control over it. OK here's a bit of personal disclosure - I recently obtained a cheap microscope from Lidl (£40) which has a digital camera attachment. It's really neat with different lenses and is largely made of metal, unlike the cheap plastic thing that Intel brought out several years ago. I only did one year of biology at school I'm more of a physical science (physics, maths, chemistry, geology) type, so following Ben Goldacre's advice in his book Bad Science, I had look at my own sperm. I was just stunned by how tiny the little buggers are and how many of them there are in a single sample. Every sperm is sacred? Holy goat they're like an army of ants on the move! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:00, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I suppose now is as good a time as any to say that my girlfriend has (nearly) eaten potential kids... To Genghis, you are not the only one to look at your own sperm. I would like to share the fact that when I was looking at a sample myself, I managed to find a deformed one that had two heads, moving like I would imagine a drunk sperm would. Now imagine the implications of that one to a fundie... Javasca₧ whats up?

TMI!! Brain bleach! STAT! Ajkgordon 12:23, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Those are the ones that are destined to grow up as liberals, right? Anyway, I'm torn between ewww and awesome! I have to say, after spilling my seed upon the ground, getting a microscope slide and examining the, er, sample isn't really at the forefront of my mind. Out of interest, what sort of magnification do you need to actually see them swimming around? --JeevesMkII 12:55, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I think I used the 40X. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:07, 21 February 2009 (EST)

A good way to raise Liberal babies is to show them Star Wars. After they finish watching the whole thing, say “you know, Republicans and Democrats are like Sith and Jedi, just look at the lightsabers. The Republicans use red ones, and the Democrats and independents use green ones. Javasca₧ whats up?

Genghis mentions "as soon as a guy sticks sperm in, it ceases to be her body". Imaine what happens now, with rape. "I don't care if you were going to never be a mom cause you are a skitzophrenic" "i don't care that you are mentally traumatized by years of your father abusing you" "I don't care that you dream every night of nighmares attacking you" "nor does the State care that you suck at taking care of yourself, you are an alcoholic, or a drug addict and therefore did the honerable thing by deciding not to have children" "nor do i care (and i don't belive) you are selfish enough to simply not want children" too bad for you, the guy put his sperm in you and (as andy said) he will be punished. but you? you have to deal with 9 more months of hell to carry the rapist's baby to term -- cause we love the feotus". OH, and by the way, don't come begging for money to help you live on, cuase we don't want to help you have a HEALTHY baby, or care for it. we just want you to have the baby and do your duty." fundies, gotta love them.--En attendant Godot_{"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov»} 14:02, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Random stupid. Or maybe just a bit BDST? And also stupid.

"Perhaps Hell is being ruled by the devil, and yes he does enjoy whipping and burning people to to an unimaginable extent. In fact, he delights in it. Suit yourself in trying to downplay it. Logic and evidence say you're wrong.--Andy Schlafly 22:26, 20 February 2009 (EST) " Logic and evidence????? ħuman 03:30, 21 February 2009 (EST)

In Schlafly land, s/logic and evidence/my own sick fantasies/g --JeevesMkII 04:04, 21 February 2009 (EST)

PJR divorces rational thought

He's at it again. This time an actual historian who isn't an evil librul is telling him the things he is saying about Hitler/evolution are bunk, and he responds with yet more quote mines from creationontheweb.com. PJR, can't you for once think for yourself? Perhaps, just perhaps, if a qualified person is telling you that the things you believe aren't true then they really aren't. Maybe, just maybe, a site dedicated to promoting creationism isn't really toeing the line of intellectual honesty when it comes to trying to demonise the opposition. When you have only one source informing your opinion on a subject, you're a leaf in the wind to be manipulated by anyone who wants to use you to enhance their cause. If you won't listen to us here at the "sock drawer" you might want to try listening to arguably the most qualified person on your own damn site. --JeevesMkII 04:29, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Just on PJR, anybody notice anything... odd about his list of influencial CP'ers? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:52, 21 February 2009 (EST)

AddisonDM wants to include him - you have to love PJR's answer ... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:12, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Wait, does he not know that HelpJazz is banned? FernoKlump^{Mr. Assfly! Don't forget about this petition!} 10:50, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Aziraphale is also perma-banned now. BrianCo has been demoted and Iduan is editing on parole! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:04, 21 February 2009 (EST)

It's awfully mean of you to try to force poor Philip to acknowledge the historical record here. Don't you understand that the FATE OF HIS IMMORTAL SOUL depends on his ability to block out all Evil Thoughts that might erode the Faith that is the only thing he has to believe with? What kind of depraved Liberal Satan-worshipper (but, I repeat myself) would try to inflict "facts" and "history" and "logic" upon a man in such a dire position? Self-inflicted brainwashing isn't easy, you know! Fnord. --Gulik 04:55, 21 February 2009 (EST)

PJR, on the off chance you read this, please actually consider your sources. One the one hand, we have someone you know is a historian and who probably isn't swayed by what you doubtless perceive as the horrible academic bias you must believe in to think that evolution is some big conspiracy to deny the existence of god. On the other hand you have a collection of quotes from a creationist website. Taking just your first quote, attributed to an "R. Hickman" in the book "Biocreation" from some publishing house "Science Press." Google finds many references to this Hickman, all from creationist websites. They can't seem to agree on whether his name is Robert or Richard. Of the person himself, or direct references to "Biocreation" or any other work, google books can find nothing. Similarly, the mysterious "science press" in Ohio seems to have published nothing else. Who is this R. Hickman? What are his credentials? What is his first damn name? Why should we trust anything he says on Hitler's ideas? These are all important questions when it come to critical thinking. What we see is a typical creationist quote mine. For all you know, this guy and his book may have been entirely fictitious, or his words taken out of context. Why are you basing your opinion on quotes like this? --JeevesMkII 05:08, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I wonder if he's even aware that he rejects RJJ's statement as "mere assertions" while at the same time gives other people's assertions as if they were evidence. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 06:02, 21 February 2009 (EST)

It's sort of amusing how PJR seems to think that the entire concept of survival of the fittest, that stronger people can and will dominate or kill weaker ones, is somehow an idea that originated with Darwin, and hasn't existed for ages. DickTurpis 10:19, 21 February 2009 (EST)

It's also a complete mis-representation of Darwin's theory. "Survival of the fittest" was not coined by Darwin and anyway it means something completely different in terms of evolution than the biggest and strongest wins. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:09, 21 February 2009 (EST)

True, but this is how PJR and Hitler use the term. Its literal interpretation is so obvious as to be almost a tautology. DickTurpis 11:20, 21 February 2009 (EST)

I know, and that's why I get so angry about it. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:40, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Way to go, RJJ! It's good to see someone vindicating the history of evolutionary theory for once. 11:15, 21 February 2009 (EST)

"The bottom line is that excessive focus on Hitler weakens CP and may even weaken legitimite support for Christianity." My hero! Don't they ever stop to wonder why MOAR HITLER! was such a popular meme? --JeevesMkII 13:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)

That would requires the capacity for self-reflection, which the CP Faithful avoid carefully at all times. You ever see the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark? Well, a good look in the Ugly Mirror would affect them like that, ideologically speaking. --Gulik 13:53, 21 February 2009 (EST)

RJJ being called an atheist liberal and being unpersoned in 10...9...8... ENorman 17:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)

And Ken steps in, with his own unique blend of quote mining and idiocy. How grimly predictable. --JeevesMkII 20:10, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Maybe it's just me being paranoid, but do you think there's any relationship between this and their resident historian getting a bit uppity? --Kels 20:44, 21 February 2009 (EST)

RJJ's further smacked around PJR and now Ken who was stupid enough to join the argument by explaining how Hitler was more on track with the creationist train of thought at the time. Before he could have gotten away with saying that because it was towards PJR, who Andy hates, but now he could be on thin ice. Of course, Kenny is so out of touch with reality the other sysops may just ignore him. ENorman 06:14, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Nice one by Aschlafly: yes, RJJ, you are right on the facts, but I know better... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:36, 22 February 2009 (EST)