Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive121

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 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>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <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)

What?

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User%3ATK&diff=634599&oldid=626023 This is odd, but the edit comment is bizarre... Anyone able to explain? Broccoli 17:54, 4 March 2009 (EST)

TK likes watching really bad spy movies.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 17:59, 4 March 2009 (EST)

'π -- i have never received any invite to be told what is removed, nor do I even know who that user is' This bit really confuses me, especially since TK himself added the userbox: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User%3ATK&diff=286765&oldid=281342 Broccoli 18:09, 4 March 2009 (EST)

See?-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 18:44, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Not at allBroccoli 18:46, 4 March 2009 (EST)

It's TK's version of the red telephone - he makes a meaningless edit, and says what he wants to say in the edit comment. Pi said he offered to tell TK exactly where edits had been hidden on RW. Not that it would matter. ħuman 19:19, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I made him that offer last time he was editing here using a proxy. TK show up with your actual account, list on my talkpage what is missing in the history you are interested in and I will check to find out what has been removed for you. You can't ask for fairer than that. I can just about tell you what is missing now: one of RA's subpages some shit he wrote about users here he doesn't want us to see; this page, pictures of Karajou's house, phone number, etc.; Andrew Schlafly talk, a link to his address and a link to the location on Google map; CUR's talkpage, some newbie fucked up his test using the hide/show on it; else it has been done by a user to their own userpage. We have nothing to hide here and I have followed up what has happened each time hide/show has been used. - User $\pi$ 19:46, 4 March 2009 (EST)

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TK&diff=prev&oldid=634665 Anything you have got to say to me you can leave on my talkpage. If I see an email from you I am chucking it without reading it, I have a personal policy to only ever discuss RationalWiki on site where everyone can see. I can't be fucked reading your edit summaries all day I have better things to do. - User $\pi$ 20:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Also, I think Tony somebody might have just experimented with it on Nx' talk page, but I'm not sure. ħuman 21:25, 4 March 2009 (EST)

"I can't be fucked" Wow. My condolences. --Kels 20:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)

No, he's saying he "can't be fucked" while "reading [TK's] edit summaries..." so it's all good. @ TK, "no way to contact"? You have an account right here on this silly wiki! or you could create an "obvious" sock. ħuman 21:25, 4 March 2009 (EST)

You know if he had an account on RW, his strict moral code would require him to block himself on CP for posting on a "vandal site." No one could ever accuse TK of making one rule for everyone else and another for himself. No, never. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:41, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Well, he certainly feels that his rule about not deleting changes made by a sysop doesn't apply to him. And he'll have to block himself for posting here - remember the "talk about lack of development" post he made just after returning to CP. Of course, that would also require him to actually have a shred of credibility. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 06:10, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I don't know jack

But I know that WIGO@CP, the wikipage of record for CP (the trustworthy encyclopedia), is ugly. I've adding my stentorian might to that of some other editor on the main page talk page (along with a plan) to protest this affront to reasonable design. Further, my wikicode skills are poor, and thus, I lack the strength of my convictions. I won't be able to actually do anything about this other than complain, but that's not important. I urge you to open your mind to my concerns. Do it for Christmas . . . Xmas . . . the goat recipes. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 18:32, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Yeah, the whole block of text (before one gets to the meat) is significant as history but otherwise just clutters up the page. Maybe a link to a subpage with WRANINGS and such to not edit the WIGO unless and until one has read the significant and ugly wallo'words place upon it. CЯacke® 18:48, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I be'd bold. ħuman 19:32, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I miss it all now. - User $\pi$ 19:57, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I was a little bold . . . er . . . anonymously ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 20:28, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Somebody pretty up the header. Make the various terse parts stand out from each other. Emphasize the "how to" link. I like the tag line "the web page of record for the "trusworthy" encyclopedia" ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 20:38, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I'm gonna play some more... ħuman 21:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Far, FAR better - a HUGE improvement. Thanks muchly. Yes, it were me that were a whinin' on Main:Talk Mr.Sheesh. DogP 23:17, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Cool. Yah, sometimes our shit gets ossified just like the dinosaurs' did, but luckily, we can improov it! ħuman 01:06, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Excrements turning into bones? Remarkable. --Just passing by 03:37, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Stop the presses...

...Ken

has a friend. 

An anti-evolutionists emailed me out of the blue and said he is going to attempt to spread awareness of Conservapedia's evolution and atheism articles far and wide across the internet. He has over 1,000 YouTube subscribers to boot! Ole!Ole!Ole!

From you know where. - User $\pi$ 21:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

That would be hilarious if it was VenomfangX. --Kels 21:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Please explain (why do I suspect Poe is involved). - User $\pi$ 21:34, 4 March 2009 (EST)

VenomfangX is one of the most prolifically ignorant creationist on youtube, his videos have been constantly refuted but he keeps on making them, he doe3s indeed have over 1000 subscribers, but few people otherwise take him seriously ^{He is the} Painkiller 22:08, 4 March 2009 (EST)

VFX is way outta Ken

's league. It's the biggest Christian channel on youtube. He's got 23,000 subscribers and there's no way he'd be associated with drivel like CP. My guess is that it's none other than teh Hovind spawn. Neveruse513 09:04, 5 March 2009 (EST)

"An anti-evolutionists"? Is that one, or is that more than one...? What? --Barikada.

VenomfangX is also hilarious because he was forced to humiliate himself by forcing him to make a youtube admitting his deceitful tactics and apologizing for his lies. Watch it here if you haven't seen it yet, it's truly delicious. --GTac 07:25, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Thunderf00t rulz! Science and education FTW! (And a cute bunny.) The Foxhole Atheist 09:06, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Boycott

RationalWiki Pwns!

Be hold all yea doubters the boycott results. - User $\pi$ 05:39, 5 March 2009 (EST)

0_0 wow, and half of us weren't even observing it. EddyP 05:53, 5 March 2009 (EST)

But those who weren't are a small part of the CP traffic "we" generate. By temporarily killing WIGO CP, we take away the easy route for casual observers who come here for a simple way to go laugh at CP. ħuman 16:50, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Hang on... so basically, as much as we want to see CP shrivel up an die, it's actually us that's keeping the page count ticking? So they need us as much as we need them? (btw - any idea what caused the spike immediately before the boycott?) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 06:03, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I like how there was apparently more activity at CP when the server was down than during our boycott. seventhrib 06:20, 5 March 2009 (EST)

The spike was before the server crash, maybe it was getting more traffic than it could handle. - User $\pi$ 06:26, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Must've been one of Ken

's secret plans! Evolution is dying rapidly! Also, boycott results are delicious, thanks. --GTac 07:30, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Inauguration?Uitstekend 18:58, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

With TK around blocking everyone CP is about as dead as it's going to get. Andy will keep it up in perpetuity as a "resource" for whatever "course" he is teaching (remember when his students were editing for credit?). But without the lulz the traffic will more or less vanish.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 08:22, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Remember that threat the Anonymous group made against CP? Maybe that spike was them >_>. I don't see how it could have caused the crash, Obama winning the presidency did a good job of shooting the traffic up to about the same... Javasca₧ is out of his mind 10:15, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Problem: Alexa uses some silly toolbar to measure CP traffic. RWians can muck up the results by all installing the Alexa toolbar, which would then make RW look like an impressively large proportion of CP traffic; the temptation is certainly there to inflate our apparent influence. We need a less biased measure; I propose editing activity as one possible measure. -128.46.100.232 10:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Play up Pompey!

According to this, the tenth most popular page on CP is currently cp:Portsmouth F.C.! What the HELL!!?

We need to visit this page more - it's only 90 or so views behind Sarah Palin.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 08:30, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I see they still lack an exhaustive list of articles on teams in the Premier League. Better hurry, there must be ranks of people out there clamouring to know what conservatives think about Fulham FC. And what about the Championship? Where is cp:Hull? seventhrib 09:01, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I realise no-one gives a shit, but how did I manage to write the above and get basically everything wrong? I shouldn't hurry writing these things. I take it all back, except the generally dismissive sentiment, which I stick by. seventhrib 12:07, 5 March 2009 (EST)

OK, who's the pompey fan with the clickbot? And since we know pretty much all those hits are scam, just what percentage of the hits the Arsefly has boasted about recently have actually been genuine? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:10, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I don't know about you, but I check cp:Portsmouth_F.C. a couple thousand times a day. Neveruse513 09:26, 5 March 2009 (EST)

It's now up to 8th! Gentlemen, I predict the likely triumph of Portsmouth FC in regards to the internet!-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:45, 5 March 2009 (EST)

If someone was going to do this, I'd suggest homosex articles only....well, perhaps after Portsmouth FC overtakes "Examples of Bias in WP". Neveruse513 09:48, 5 March 2009 (EST)

My favourite on that list is cp:Law Terms D, which has been accessed 274,278 times despite containing no information whatsoever. This site is growing rapidly!-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:52, 5 March 2009 (EST)

(Undent) Current scores are

Team	Page Views
Arsenal	32194
Aston Villa	344
Blackburn	287
Bolton	158
Chelsea	33251
Everton	243
Fulham	320
Hull	70
Liverpool	113
Manchester City	284
Manchester United	94
Middlesborough	211
Newcastle	104
Portsmouth	523357
Stoke	55
Sunderland	197
Tottenham Hotspur	316
West Brom	82
West Ham	230
Wigan	96

Which shows a certain unevenness Silver Sloth 10:25, 5 March 2009 (EST)

#7! Yay Portsmouth FC!!!1 Neveruse513 10:33, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Do we now declare the CP football season open. Obviously certain south coast teams start with a slight advantage but I'm sure that, with a certain amount of effort, league placings can change. Silver Sloth

It is now at number seven. Let us skewer the sacred Goat of Conservapedia's John McCain article!!! Ole! Ole! Ole! Javasca₧ is out of his mind 10:40, 5 March 2009 (EST)

(EC)That sounds like it could be fun. I want to work on some of the weirder homosexuality articles. There's 36 of them on the top 500 page. I think that could be quite a competition. Neveruse513 10:43, 5 March 2009 (EST)

It's something to do with user:Fox, who's a Pompey fan and lives in the town. Also the title of this section reminds me of Frankie Howerd. Totnesmartin 10:46, 5 March 2009 (EST)

The homosexuality idea has been done before - see here (I believe that list was the result of click-bots). Go cp:Law Terms D!1-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:47, 5 March 2009 (EST)

529000 views, up from 523357 in... less then 2.5 hours. O_O Javasca₧ is out of his mind 10:49, 5 March 2009 (EST)

So this is where CP's 80 million+ pageviews come from. EddyP 10:58, 5 March 2009 (EST)

81,504,000+ HTTP GET requests!!! Neveruse513 11:01, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Why not push up Ken's userpage? EddyP 11:02, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure Ken

'd get it. He'd probably think it was one of his cockamamie schemes bursting through. After Pomey tops McCain we should decide on something that we would like to see some other people do. Neveruse513 11:07, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Is it possible to have a real-time counter for the number of hits for each of these pages?-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 11:04, 5 March 2009 (EST)

EC EC It was Fox Who was the mad Pompey fan see Fox _and marmite 11:05, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Why not target JessicaT's little empire of the Rising Sun and turn Conservapedia's stats into Japinopedia? *whistles innocently* --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:15, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Nay. Her articles are of too high quality. The best targets would be things like Homosexual Obsession, Molybdenum, and Comedy. 11:36, 5 March 2009 (EST)

As an Arsenal fan, may I say how delighted I am that at least there's one league in which we're in third place this season. Although the gap looks unclosable now by the end of the season, as long as Walcott, Adebeyour, Fabregas and Eduardo aren't injured, we should be ok.

"Hmmmm....what's that you say? Ah. Right" DogP 11:48, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I second homosexual obsession. It would be delicious. Neveruse513 11:49, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Now I have a strong desire to go and redirect "Obsession for men" to homosexual obsession on CP. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:56, 5 March 2009 (EST)

There is no reason why that should not have already been done. Neveruse513 12:10, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I know little about football, but I do know that the CP Fulham page is retarded. "The club's main rivals are Liverpool" is wrong both factually and grammatically. Why would the main rival be a club at the other end of the table and the country? (If anything maybe Chelsea.) And unless the only former players CP has cares about are American ones, what about Edwin van der Sar as a significant alumnus, or Louis Saha? Or maybe Johnny Haynes, you know, the one Fulham named an entire stand after? seventhrib 12:20, 5 March 2009 (EST)

This is worse than the pub: typical men FOOTBALL FOOTBALL FOOTBALL. When does the conversation start on CARS? _and marmite 12:24, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Hey, this actually looks quite impressive. seventhrib 12:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Bravo RatWikians - currently (18:17GMT) we've pushed Portsmaouth to just behind John McCain - can we reach 6th place - there's only ~4000 page views to go. Silver Sloth 13:19, 5 March 2009 (EST)

YAY POMPEY!!! #6 most truthful!!! Neveruse513 13:26, 5 March 2009 (EST)

You could push all of "Law Terms [A-Z]" in alphabetical order. As far as I can see, they are all empty. --Just passing by 13:40, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Does this pose any dilemma for teh Assfly? If he deletes the pages does he lose the hits? In one of L'Arron's graphs it showed a sharp, sudden decrease in Assfly's claimed pageview. Is that how this happens? Neveruse513 13:46, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Gentlemen,

It appears that Operation Flying Portsmouth was likely a smashing success. Waves of page views to the Conservapedia Portsmouth F.C. article have improved the article's standing in regards to the toplist on Conservapedia. Regarding the Adolf Hitler article, Operation Flying Adolf has begun. Expect to see significantly more short term web traffic to the Adolf Hitler article. Gentleman 14:54, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Gentlemen,

It appears that our operations on the internet have been interrupted. In regards to the Pompey article, it has been wormholed, to reappear. DogP 20:05, 5 March 2009 (EST)

HI ANDY!!!1 Neveruse513 20:12, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Ouch. To recap: An article gets ridiculous page view count, demonstrating why no one should use the MediaWiki built in view counters to do any serious analysis whatsoever. Andy deletes the bloody article to reset the viewcount, and muddles it up further by not restoring the article history. (Oh, and and Andy's deletion reason - "delete to restore" - is priceless.) There's got to be a better way to do this. Coming Soon to MediaWiki Extensions Directory Near You: extensions/ConservativeDeceit/SpecialResetEditCount.php... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:16, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Dang, meant SpecialResetViewCount.php, obviously. Anyway, I wonder if it ever occurs to the CP sysops that deletions are logged and, thus, this method of resetting the article view counts is very very public. So, everyone in the world can see that either the articles get deleted for no damn good reason (and all credit the previous authors may have might get expunged at the same time - so, sysops get to ask every day: who got bumped over 90/10 limit today when sysops fiddled with the view counts today with ye olde singing sledgehammers? let's get your banhammers a-swinging...), or they get deleted for a really petty reason that is, let's face it, meant to alter historical record that they're harping as a testament of the site's popularity. This isn't exactly good publicity for them. Andy, if you don't want to look stupid,

$wgDisableCounters = true;

is a perfectly valid thing to do and no one's blaming ya. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:50, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Operation Homosexual Obsession Declared

The irony of a top spot for cp:Homosexual Obsession is too delicious to ignore, so I declare the Operation begun (though it clearly began some time ago). Rank 256 is much too low. 16:36, 5 March 2009 (EST)

The cp:Homosexual agenda has been overcome by cp:Homosexual obsession!!!1 Neveruse513 16:41, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I'm not good with these things, so this question will sound like something your 3 year old asks you... but, can i sit at a page and "refresh" (i'm reallllllyyyy fricking unmotivated this week, to do 'real' work) and get it to count as a hit?--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 16:44, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Yes, you can....but for Godot's sake that's not the way to go about it. Neveruse513 16:46, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Are you sure? A past experience showed that refreshing did not increment pagecount. 16:47, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Yes, when you hit 'refresh' you're basically just sending another HTTP request (GET in this case). The pageview count is driven by those requests. Neveruse513 16:49, 5 March 2009 (EST)

hrm...might have to be a 'hard' refresh. Neveruse513 16:52, 5 March 2009 (EST)

If you have a better suggestion, that doesn't involve learning even the most basic of code (I'm trying to learn to greet my mother in law in Vietnamese, and just saying "hi", has me banging my head... it's total apathy here) I'd be happy to be of use. something about getting "homosexual obsession" on Google search makes me giggle. I think i might see where i can add links to it, around the world wide intertubes.--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 16:55, 5 March 2009 (EST) (ec)

Yes, it has to be a hard refresh. When you do a soft refresh, I believe it first checks the LAST_MODIFIED attribute (and reloads the cached page) before any page count script can run. Neveruse513 16:56, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I just came to the cache conclusion after switching to a proxy and succeeding. 16:58, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Sorry, Godot...I can't think of any non-trivial way for you to do something like what someone is apparently doing. Neveruse513 17:01, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Doesn't "control R" do it? ħuman 17:31, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Yes, ctrl-r will do a hard refresh. I was talking about a way to get significant pageviews. The batch below seems like it would work just fine. Can't believe I didn't think of it...Neveruse513 17:38, 5 March 2009 (EST)

(EC again)::::::::You know, I've been on teh "intertubes" since before we had pretty pictures, when we had to "finger" people, and when my BBS still used caps, *forbold* and _for underline_. and i have no idea what a hard or soft refresh is. I feel... well... either very old or very young or very stupid. ;D--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 17:05, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Gentlemen,

I present to you the following batch file in regards to automating page-view bumping operations.

:BEGIN
"C:\Program Files\GnuWin32\bin\wget.exe" "http://www.conservapedia.com/Adolf_Hitler"
del Adolf_Hitler
GOTO BEGIN

regards Gentleman 17:10, 5 March 2009 (EST)

link: http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/wget.htm Neveruse513 17:21, 5 March 2009 (EST)

That Hitler article mentions evolution 20 times, the Jews 14 times and Poland 11 times. Ken was here... Totnesmartin 17:23, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Obsession much?

I think you should add ?action=purge to the url, make sure it's counted by the server. Pseudomonas 04:51, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Not sure about this

Um, I know I started this section by noticing the Pompey ranking, but I don't really agree with artificially bumping up Homosexual Obsession - it's a form of vandalism. Isn't it funny enough that they have the article at all, combined with the number of pages in cp:Category:Homosexuality? In fact it's much funnier, because they did that themselves.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 04:53, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Nothing is being damaged or even defaced. This hardly qualifies as vandalism, with theoretical exception under the loosest possible of interpretations. The irony makes this venture well worth the while. Neveruse513 12:34, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Come to think of it, I'm going to say this is not vandalism in any shape or form. The hit counter is not being tampered with or damaged...it is still displaying an accurate number of times the page has been accessed. Neveruse513 12:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Of course it's vandalism. While the hit counter isn't being tampered with, its results are. Claiming it isn't vandalism because technically blah blah blah is weak. Ajkgordon 13:21, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Your definition of vandalism is shit if you consider this vandalism. How are the results being tampered with? Are they not an accurate reflection of the number of times the page was requested? If someone had simply changed the hit count, that would be vandalism. This is categorically not. Bitch bitch bitch... Neveruse513 13:36, 6 March 2009 (EST)

This is only "vandalism" in the same way adding facts to a CP page is. (Unless it causes so much traffic to qualify as a DOS attack, which I sincerely doubt it will.) Given Conservative's fixation on page-views, he'll be ecstatic one of his articles is so popular. Andy, maybe a bit less... --Gulik 14:08, 6 March 2009 (EST)

You're being a dick. Consider what the results are intended to portray. Now consider what the results do portray when they are artificially bumped up. It should only take a millisecond for you to get the right answer. If you're still not convinced then I suggest you beat yourself over the head with a large hammer. And film it. And post in on YouTube. Please? Ajkgordon 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)

(EC) And you're being a douche bag. The results are intended to portray the number of times the page was accessed. Period. I know that's being "technical", but what are you doing? Is this "kinda" vandalism? "sorta" vandalism? "abstract" vandalism? What? Actually, never mind, how about you just fuck off. Neveruse513 14:21, 6 March 2009 (EST)

We can't help being obsessed with homosexuals. Have pity on us, kind sir. EddyP 14:19, 6 March 2009 (EST)

No it's not legally vandalism, duh, but it has the same effect from our point of view. When Conservative adds a Hitler pic to the top of the Evolution article, that's a lot funnier than if some sock-puppet does it, because of the difference in intent. Similarly, it's pretty funny that they have a Homosexual obsession page, but if we maliciously inflate its page count then that doesn't really prove a great deal. Ajkgordon makes the point very well. Also, I dispute that this operation constitutes 'irony'.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:30, 6 March 2009 (EST)

I don't dispute that this may not constitute 'irony', but I don't think Ajk has argued anything particularly well. In fact, he reminds me of assfly himself. He think the access count should actually be genuine access count, a la genuine humor. Also, it's technically not malicious, but I guess that doesn't matter either. Neveruse513 14:33, 6 March 2009 (EST)

(EC)The page itself constitutes irony. The purpose of this operation is to bring it to as many peoples attention as possible. EddyP 14:35, 6 March 2009 (EST)

But how do you sleep knowing this quasi-malicious pseudo-vandalism is going on!!!??? Neveruse513 14:49, 6 March 2009 (EST)

You're an aggressive little fuck, aren't you? Glad to see rational argument on here. Twat. Ajkgordon 15:02, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Okay.... Ajkgordon, I know this advice won't have the desired effect, but I feel obliged to give it anyway. STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD. Take a walk, eat some food, pet the dog, do SOMETHING to get the ol' adrenaline levels down before posting any more. Seriously, you're taking this about ten (thousand) times as seriously as it needs to be. --Gulik 15:06, 6 March 2009 (EST)

LOL, other way round, my dear chap! Just joshing. Still my point stands. While Neveruse513 states quite correctly that it isn't technically vandalism, it is practically vandalism. That is, in all practical reality, this excercise changes the results of something to make CP look worse than it already does - hence vandalism. The fact that CP doesn't actually need any help seems to be lost by some posters here. Ajkgordon 17:10, 6 March 2009 (EST)

I'm glad to hear that you're not actually that worked up. Neveruse513 17:17, 6 March 2009 (EST)

It's the interwebs. I never get worked up. Even when I'm completely right. Ajkgordon 17:20, 6 March 2009 (EST)http://www.novelr.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/duty_calls_1.png

(unindent) Disregarding the drama here, I don't mind this. I absolutely loathe 99% of the vandalism, but I don't see a big problem with pumping some of their articles. It doesn't so much vandalize their silly blog, in fact it's helping their precious pageviews. And it shows how much their numbers actually depend on silly "liberals" like us. It's even more ironic cause they'd be able to disrupt the WIGO if they themselves had more than 5 core people. --GTac 17:21, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Also, use a bloody chatroom if you're gonna post every 20 secs, ffs --GTac 17:21, 6 March 2009 (EST)

But it doesn't matter whether you like it or not. Look, think about it. People from here create a method (manual or automatic it matters not) to artificially bump page views which results in a counter saying that they love the homos. Other people then criticise - some seriously, some in jest - CP for being even more obsessed by homosexuality than they already are. That's vandalism. But more than that, it actually gives CP a defence, i.e. we haz been vandalled, which is counter-productive to RW's cause. Apart from the lulz score, it's just a bit pants. Ajkgordon 17:30, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Here we go with the 'technical' stuff again, but it's technically not an artificial bump in page requests...the requests are quite real. Also, it says nothing about CP in and of itself, merely the users who frequent it. If anal beads was the number one article at WP, they probably wouldn't do anything about it because it's not really a reflection on the WP community of editors or their encyclopedia. Come to think of it...I really would like to know what their policy on something like this would be. I think they, like me, would view the statistics as irrelevant to the overall content and quality of the encyclopedia. Neveruse513 18:08, 6 March 2009 (EST)

This would worry me more if Ken

hadn't already bumped one of his articles to try and improve... I have no idea what he was trying to improve. - User $\pi$ 18:47, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Exactly, it's not an artificial bump it's a real one. If you mind that we raise the pagecount of certain pages.. then shouldn't you not be using the WIGO? If you saw the boycott results, you'd know that we constitute most of their traffic anyways. --GTac 02:27, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Scandalous deceitery

I just want to make clear that I and all other law abiding fans of the Association Football club colloquially known as "Pompey" are OUTRAGED by the lieberal deceit carried out by self-proclaimed legal eagle Schlafly in his deplorable and deliberate ploy to massage the viewing figures of the club's interweb encyclopaedia entry by deleting and restoring it. The man has no shame. Reknowned local entrepreneur Badger at the Shepherd's Crook pointed out that the sudden spike in views may well have been the result of global financiers, interested in purchasing the club, seeking information on a troothy website, and that Mr. Schlafly should be pleased that his virtual tome of knowledgeness is held in such high regard by the movers'n'shakers of the 21st C. Mosh at The Newcombe Arms was less charitable and more bemused by the whole thing, and said: "Teacake is a useless twat." Fox 19:31, 6 March 2009 (EST)

"Stop quoting laws at us, we carry weapons!" Oh, you mean the other Pompey The Great...

Addendum - Also, it was not me what done it, gov. I don't know how to make a clickbot, and have never artificially inflated a page count anywhere. It is the work of some other cunning chap or chapess, and not the first time: in May 2008, as noted within this esteemed organ, the page reached #3 in the CP (s)Hit Parade, until it was deleted and restored. Fox 09:00, 7 March 2009 (EST)

I want an unclickbot

to make pageviews go down. That would be even funnier. --Just passing by 09:41, 7 March 2009 (EST)

How to make a clickbot

I've experimented a bit with the page counts, and I've come to the following conclusion: If you just refresh the page (with F5 or wget or whatever), the page count does not go up, probably because you're visiting from the same IP or something.

However, if you add "?action=purge" to the URL, you get the prompt "Do you want to clear the cache?", and then you have to press "OK", and the button's name is "submit". This, in HTTP terms, means you have to send a POST request with the value "submit=OK", with a GET query with the value "action=purge".

To the non-technical user, this all might seem like mumbojumbo, but the point is that the script that Gentleman posted above does not work as far as I can tell. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I suggest the following batch file instead:

@echo off
:begin
curl -o nul -data="submit=OK" http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_obsession?action=purge
goto begin

This example uses CURL, which can be obtained from http://curl.haxx.se/. Etc 23:09, 7 March 2009 (EST)

It only doesn't work probably because you forgot to change the "C:\Program Files\GnuWin32\bin\wget.exe" in the example above to wherever wget.exe is located on your computer. I tried it out now, changing that line, and it works. Dreaded Walrus 08:55, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

The real question is which is faster? - User $\pi$ 08:57, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Firefox:ReloadEvery 3.0.0 "Reloads web pages every so many seconds or minutes. The function is accessible via the context menu (menu you get when you right click on a web page) or via a drop down menu on the reload button ..." _and marmite 09:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I know where wget is installed, that is not the problem. The question is, does a simple GET request actually increase the counter? I've refreshed the page in Firefox several times, both manually and using scripts, and the counter doesn't change. Only when I purge the cache, does the count actually increase. And to purge the cache, apparently you need to do a POST request, not just a GET request. Etc 12:04, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

good ol Jinx

Jinx _{hi Jinx!} is Sucking off Ray comfort over at Amazon.com. Its pathetic in an amusing way. EternalCritic 14:25, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Which user review is he? My investigative skills are sub-par. The Foxhole Atheist 14:31, 5 March 2009 (EST)

He's making comments on all the 1 star reviews as Jinx. EternalCritic 14:33, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Thanks much... I was trying to see his review, wasn't looking for review comments. The Foxhole Atheist 14:34, 5 March 2009 (EST)

My favorite review so far is "I'm a Christian and I DON'T want Atheists to read this book" because of THIS gem in it:

I can only hope that few atheists will actually read this book, since Comfort seems to be trying to promote and encourage atheism by making Christians look like a bunch of arrogant imbeciles. I sometimes wonder whether Comfort is not in fact an atheist doing this intentionally to make Christianity look bad... The Foxhole Atheist 14:44, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Ah Jinx _{hi Jinx!} You bring us such joy.... But really? trolling the Amazon review forums? Why don't you come back to us and troll somewhere exciting... Come on back Jason, we miss you. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 14:51, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Oh, Jinx. "A lot of these phony reviewers are coming from professor PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula. I won't link to the blog, though, because it's incredibly vulgar. Vulgar atheists? Gosh, imagine that..." Who knew that Jinx "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" McHue was a secret prude? I guess growing a second face is just one of the many miracles that jeezuz can do for you. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:19, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I can't see any Jinx comments on there. Has he deleted them all again in response to this thread? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:13, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Mmm, I can't find 'em now either. _and marmite 12:21, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

They're still there, just harder to find since Amazon restored all the deleted reviews. EternalCritic 09:58, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy's deception crusade

Okay, so I noticed this while monitoring the uncanny rise of the cp:Homosexual obsession article and I'm almost positive this is blatant deception on Andy's part highlights librul deceit.

Assfly writes in cp:Mystery:Who Ghostwrote Obama's Books?

“”Barack Obama is not an accomplished writer. In fact, he's not much of a writer at all, having never published a single article under his name despite serving as president of a law journal...

And I guess he never wrote any of the briefs he signed as an associate at Davis Miner Barnhill in Chicago, where he was described by his former employers as having written "lots of substantial memos" and where he himself says "I was one of the better writers. I ended up doing the more cerebral writing, less trial work." http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article Shitfly's attitude is magical, like it's incumbent on unhappy lawyers to make themselves feel better by shitting on people are truly competent and productive. But then again, we all know Andy's not talking about Obama the lawyer, but Obama the liberal evolutionist sinner. I'm going to make a program of exposing him for what he is, starting with cataloging his public output in his career through court court filings and publications and moving on to interviewing any of his former workmates at Wachtel Lipton who will talk. CPNuisance 09:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Which is funny, considering the Harvard Law Review's position stating

“”All student writing is unsigned. This policy reflects the fact that many members of the Review, besides the author, make a contribution to each published piece.

Obviously, a new policy was created to cover up Obama's lazy, inept nature. Neveruse513 14:50, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Wow, a b-day gift from Teh Assfly! Maybe Obama never let Andy publish some articles back at Harvard and this is his pitiful revenge--Nate River 20:17, 5 March 2009 (EST)

WHO Rank

Moved to: Debate:Socialized healthcare

Here it comes...

A new Schlafly insight is on the way. Ace McWicked^Revolt 19:23, 5 March 2009 (EST)

"| Jesus was devine | 30 BC? | AD 2009? | 2039? |" What do I win?-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 19:38, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Sigh. He's not even trying anymore. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 21:43, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Though, on another note, his latest "mysteries" are, for Assfly, astonishingly reasonable. DickTurpis 23:00, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Anyone fancy creating Conservapedia:Longest conservative hoaxes? Or Fun:Longest liberal hoaxes? I'm sure if you separated the Flying Spaghetti Monster out into each of His individual noodles, and stretched them from end to end, it would be pretty long. Dreaded Walrus 04:10, 6 March 2009 (EST) ^{not saying He's a hoax, but they sure don't believe in Him...}

How about Longest Conservapedia Hoaxes? I mean, obviously TK wins hands down, but then there's Bugler, MexMax.... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia V. RationalWiki

Moved to RationalWiki:Saloon bar#Conservapedia vs. RationalWiki

Andy's hamster wheel

Wtf is this all about? "Andy's not transparent enough!" "Yes he actually is." "YOU LIE."-Diadochus 10:20, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Daniel1212

I've mentioned this guy before, but I really think he needs his own page. He is the most prolific homophobe on the intertubes (I think...his articles are so epically tl;dr and lofty I can't really figure it out). Any thoughts? Neveruse513 12:37, 6 March 2009 (EST)

On the plus side, he's a far more intellectual homophobe than either Kendoll or Ed is. He can actually write in complete sentences, and string them together in ways that make sense. On the minus side, he's never going to grace us with such classics as Homosexuality and Scotland. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:55, 6 March 2009 (EST)

He's Daniel Hamilton, not stalking: see here. Apparently the designer [sic] of this glorious webshite. Look around you and despair. _and marmite 10:33, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Now I'm stalking: found this: "Should I Home SchooL?, by Elizabeth and Daniel Hamilton" here. I wonder? _and marmite 10:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)

(EC)

You have to love a crackpot who uses comic sans ms as font for his website. Designer? Urrgh! Have a look at 40 Sins that WILL send you to Hell. There, between

• CHILD SACRIFICE TO IDOLS, FALSE GODS,
• REBELLION AGAINST PARENTS — Cursing, disrespect, or constant rebellion against parents (except where obedience is required which conflicts with God's laws)
• DISOBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY — Disobedience to just judgments by God-ordained authority. (like President Obama, I suppose)

Nope. Only Gee Dub and the Blues Brothers were on a mission from god. Obama's an athetist, remember? CPNuisance 09:55, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

you find

• HOMOSEX - sexual activity between persons of the same gender; seeking to join same genders in marriage (cf. here and here)

Whom does he link to? Yes, of course, peacebyjesus and conservapedia! Congrats! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:56, 7 March 2009 (EST)

I have to say I got a disappointingly low score. Lets see.

• Idolatry - Hell yeah. For example, I love punnany bad, and I do in fact put in front of me dollars and me god.
• Blasphemy - Jesus H. Christ, yes.
• False Prophecy - Eh. Probably not. I guess you actually have to believe in prophecy first.
• False prophets - Apparently I qualify under the encouraging apostasy clause. Score!
• Witchcraft - Er, sadly no.
• Child sacrifice to false gods - Apparently it's fine to the real god, but in any case I haven't done it.
• Rebellion against parents - Yep, that's right, anyone who has ever been a teenager is going to hell. Check.
• Disobedience to authority - Well, in my younger day I twatted a copper once. Probably a fair bet I qualify.
• Murder - ain't done that.
• Manslaughter - Nope, not that either.
• HOMOSEX — Do impure thoughts count? God seems big on the thought crime, so I'm going to err on the side of going to hell.
• Effeminacy - Heh, probably. Score.
• Bestiality - Nope not that. Not incest, either, though god seems to be OK with that.
• Adultery - Ain't done that, I don't think anyway.
• Fornication - I'll cough to that one.
• Sexual impurity - I guess that depends on just how tolerant god is. Wait, what am I saying? I know he's a prick. Check.
• Lying - Nope, ain't done that. Wait, shit, I'm even lying in this answer.
• Misdirecting people - See above.
• False pretence in marriage - Wait, how is this not just an instance of lying? Anyway, ain't done it.
• Lasciviousness - Yep, only about five times a day.
• Covetousness - I saw a pocket projector I totally want this morning. So, yeah.
• Theft - Apparently god is an RIAA member, since he thinks intellectual property violations are theft not breach of contract. So, definitely.
• Perverting justice - I can't think of how this applies to me, so I guess not.
• Hatred - Does it count if all the people you hate also amuse you? I guess I'll give myself a point.
• Variance - I'm MR. Contentious. Check.
• Emulations - I've got a BBC micro emulator, a spectrum emulator and any number of phone emulators installed right now. Oh yeah, and I've done what you said too.
• Wrath - Yep.
• Strife - Does trying to get a whole team full of morons fired count? Check.
• Sedition - Well, not in the traditional sense, but by this bullshit definition yeah.
• Heresies - Is atheism a heresy? Probably.
• Envy - Yep. I like to combine this with covetousness for a double dose of hellfire.
• Drunkenness - Very much so, and I usually don't even get a hangover. Take that god, you beardy twat.
• Revels - Yep, I very much like to combine that with the drunkenness.
• Pride - Well, I'm making this list aren't I?
• Foolishness - You can go to hell for making a tit of yourself? Jesus, we're all fucked. Sadly, I have not conquered the will to be stupid.
• Extortion - Hrm, probably not.
• Wickedness - I like to think I'm pretty wicked.
• Evil thoughts - All the time. Sometimes even about HOMOSEX! Way to go on the thought crime there, god.
• THE ULTIMATE SIN OF DAMNATION - YES. Fuck you and your non-existent angelic choir, Yahweh.

So, I only scored 30 of 40 hell-worthy sins. How will I ever face JEZUZ on judgement day with that pathetic collection? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:51, 7 March 2009 (EST)

22 here. I'm just not trying hard enough. Totnesmartin 18:09, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Well, well, look at what's going on here. Exhibit A, from the giant big list:

HERESIES — unholy divisions; false doctrine opposed to established fundamental truth.

And at the end of the page, Exhibit B:

Acme™ Counter has been suspended. Please do not alter code before adding to page. Please copy and paste a new instance.

If one can't get this small, trivial, simple copy-paste job done right... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 05:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Name

Daniel 12:12
Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

What a strange passage. Also why don't we have a help page on this extension? - User $\pi$ 08:08, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Poe's Law in Action

This is an old one, but looking at Andy's old essay, Concepts to Teach Teenagers, I thought some parodist must have added "a bad idea will never come from both your parents." Nope, it's real! Andy's brilliance displayed! I still haven't learned, I guess. 18:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)

TK WIGO- Xenophobia

TK's xenophobic, anti-immigrant CP post is significant regardless of whether or not he is an agent provocateur. In times of economic hardship overtures of xenophobia, racism, and anti-immigration can provide easy answers to difficult problems, and accordingly hate groups are currently on the rise[1]. I hope that Andy has the foresight (and historical remembrance) to disallow xenophobia on his site. Corry^{Hey, who wants to take me to the hospital?} 19:22, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Luckily Andy has plenty of both foresight and historical rememberance. These are in fact his most prominent qualities as a person. *Phew* Etc 21:36, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Dodged a bullet there! --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 21:41, 6 March 2009 (EST)

Lulz from afar

Andy's legacy

I see the main page and I see a big picture of some guy being disemboweled (educational!) and something about moar baby genocide. Can't believe they got more crazier and nuttier beyond the realm of possibility, but they pulled it off. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 20:21, 6 March 2009 (EST)

And Conservapedia posting a demotivational poster saying "Epic Fail" (no matter who or what the subject of the picture is) is the final nail in the coffin for those who have been saying "Conservapedia as a whole has to be one great big troll, but the thing is, no one can spend this much time and effort on trolling". More final nails to follow, no doubt. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:04, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Assfly contradicts himself

This is funny, he pastes in a sentence from the document he links as a citation, then realizes it cantradicts what he's trying to push, so he censors it. [2] ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.85 / talk / contribs}

I don't see it. Did you paste the right link? --GTac 10:36, 7 March 2009 (EST)

*Dr. James Hansen, NASA climatologist and major figure in the debate on global climate change: changes to:

*Dr. James Hansen, a NASA climatologist and key global warming advocate:. Is what I think is meant. 'Tis the weasel word syndrome. _and marmite 11:13, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Coward?

07:44, 7 March 2009 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 200.65.0.0/20 (Talk) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation disabled) ‎ (Using anonymous proxy: Psygremlin coward, using Mexico proxy server, Uninet S.A. de C.V.) (my emphasis) Strange wording: anyone explain? _and marmite 10:06, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Behold this edit comment. All part of his pattern of blaming wandalism on random RW users with whom he is currently pissed off. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Also note the ability of CP sysops to know who used an anonymous proxy. --Sid 14:34, 7 March 2009 (EST)

So this was in relation to TK's request to have his name removed from RW, which was made clandestinely by email & not the wiki, despite the fact that he has a RW account which isn't blocked. Who is actually the coward here? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:59, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Which also just goes to show how delusional TK is - I've never had a PsyGremlin account on CP and I've never used a proxy. Seriously, the man is dangerously unstable if you ask me. And a coward. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:44, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Ed knows about everything

Quoting studies is negative, sez ed. He continues to blame "cp:defensive detachment" which is: Parental emotional unavailability or neglect creates a great deal of distress for children who will initially engage in behaviors to reestablish attachment with the parent. If the neglect persists, however, the child is thought to defend against feelings of abandonment and fear by becoming detached and disinterested in the attachment figure. Translation requested! _and marmite 10:17, 7 March 2009 (EST)

People are gay because their parents don't love them, therefore they reject God. --Kels 10:23, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Unlike WP, on CP Ed can pluck a fact out of the air, admit he's no idea where it came from, and ask others to find out. _and marmite 11:32, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Editor 188

Ed shows how to create a perfect Encyclopædia article:

---

Light in the Closet critiques the "gay gene" mystique and describes the strategy of gay activists to desensitize Western society to behaviors long forbidden by our society's moral tradition. [3]

---

Permalink

Note:

1. It's about a book, did you guess
   1. The author is?
2. 2 internal red links
3. hanging external ref at the end - not "reffed" or even given explanatory text.

Am I picking on the helpless & hapless? Sometimes I feel guilty. _and marmite 13:16, 7 March 2009 (EST)

You're not being nearly critical enough: you left out the fact that the whole article is a copy vio (from the cited source....)

Ed Poor: "Light in the Closet critiques the "gay gene" mystique and describes the strategy of gay activists to desensitize Western society to behaviors long forbidden by our society's moral tradition."

Linda A. Nicolosi: "Light in the Closet"..."critiques the "gay gene" mystique and describes the strategy of gay activists to desensitize Western society to behaviors long forbidden by our society's moral tradition."

Another gem from Ed "everything I know about homosexuality I learned from NARTH" Poor.

- Poor Excuse 20:32, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Moar concise

What is this? Conservapedia for cellphone browsers? It has roughly the same amount of syllables as a HAIKU. This rant has almost five times as many words as the article it is about! --Sid 14:31, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Just a comment: over 12 hours later, neither of the above have been expanded, so he can't claim that we jumped in before he'd finished. _and marmite 00:09, 8 March 2009 (EST)

Oh, God

Not sure if this is worthy of a place on the talk page, but I thought some of you would like it. From Daniel212's talk page:

'I linked to your bible interpretation and homosexuality article from the main conservapedia homosexuality article. When I have more time, I can link to the article more prominently in the article. conservative 18:48, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I looked at the article and found another place to link to your article and it is in a very prominent place. conservative 18:54, 27 February 2009 (EST)'

Never have I read a less flowing piece of prose. And they let this man write their most prominent pages? EddyP 13:19, 7 March 2009 (EST)

By Ken's standards that's high literature. _and marmite 13:20, 7 March 2009 (EST)

John Freeman who was Gordon Freeman's brother. . . User:Mei 18:39, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Zombie goasts leave this place! 19:18, 7 March 2009 (EST)

That amusing comment is a very amusing comment. The reader of the amusing comment read the amusing comment and was amused by the amusing comment. NightFlare 23:02, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Stating the obvious...

1. TK doesn't like BrianCo
2. TK doesn't like to be reminded of BrianCo
3. TK feels strong enough to accuse fellow junior sysops of posting junk.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:52, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Someone doesn't agree. Wasn't Duncan a homeschooler? Watch it TK, there are still limits, even to your power. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 18:19, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Wow. ħuman 18:32, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Fuck... Andy breaks ranks? This is momentous. User:Mei 18:37, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Hooray! Well, that's the last time we'll ever see that happen. -- JArneal 18:44, 7 March 2009 (EST)

I'm waiting for the day TK snaps and attempts to ban Andy. User:Ttony21/sig2 18:46, 7 March 2009 (EST)

As the line Private email is neither required nor encouraged. is an obvious lie, I suppose it is written for the parents of his homeschoolers, those, who aren't involved in CP themselves.... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:09, 7 March 2009 (EST)

LArron, you've hit the nail on the head. That line was definitely meant for Duncan's parents and parents of other homeschoolers. Message to TK: Be sure to hold onto the private email Andy sent you explaining this act and reassuring you of his appreciation for your zany antics, when you finally do decide to come out as the parodist that you are! It's good lulz tealish^??!!!1 21:56, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Mandatory "Atheist Paradox" discussion section

Apparently, Andy couldn't wait until tomorrow, so we get this insight a bit early. And it features Andy's favorite "Critical Thinking in Mathematics" bit, namely the "You can't prove that mathematics are free of errors!" statement.

But what's worse is that there is now an even bigger "insult" than "atheist" (or "liberal") Andy can throw around now: Anybody who disagrees with him on classroom prayer is now not merely a liberal atheist, but... Anti-Christian! --Sid 20:06, 7 March 2009 (EST)

I just think it is amazing that he admits that not every atheist hates God and Christians or would rather jam screwdrivers in children's ears then let them hear a prayer in school. He disagrees with his little rottweiler TK and now this, mid life crisis perhaps? Maybe with one of his classmates as president he has finally realized that everything he has done with his life is a steaming pile of elephant crap. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 20:34, 7 March 2009 (EST)

It continues to amaze me that Andy still fails to understand (okay, not the 'still' part, since he never retracts) the fundamental difference between allowing students to pray in school on their own and allowing public school teachers to impose their particular interpretation of religion on their students, who may be diverse in their beliefs and denominations, not to mention that there are plenty of other places they can go outside of school if they want preaching and prayer. They are totally different things: the first isn't a real issue as far as I know, or at least shouldn't be, and the second clearly violates religious freedom rights. But in the binary world of CP, opposing the unconstitutional (and possibly unethical) form is the same as persecuting legitimate private prayer by individual students. Opposition to any religious expression is de facto opposition to all religious expression. Kallium^talk 22:21, 7 March 2009 (EST)

This really isn't anything new from Andy.... I mean, look at his second edit He says that there are only two types of Atheists: Anti Christians who want to censor and destroy Christianity (and only Christianity) and The tolerant who could find God, but they're just too lazy and gave up looking..... He's still a massive tool SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 22:31, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Tsk, Andy Schlafly (what a liberal name), it is as obvious as the fact that 2+2=4 that atheists only exist to hate conservative and Christian values and force socialism and state-funded mandatory abortions. I suppose you also have Evolution Syndrome as well and insist on denying the fundamental truth that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Agree that liberals worship Obama and then we can debate. Godspeed. ENorman 22:40, 7 March 2009 (EST)

An awful lot of Fundamentalists (both religious and political) seem to be under the delusion that everyone really believes the same things they do, but they're either afraid to admit it, or evil, and profiting from denying the Obviously True Faith. One benefit of my lunatic belief structure is that I very rarely make that mistake. --Gulik 23:19, 7 March 2009 (EST)

there's always this belief among fundamentalists that non-Christians simply haven't read the Bible yet, and that if they did they'd convert instantly. Bad news, suckers - I went to a Christian primary school and we virtually learned Genesis by heart. Totnesmartin 16:25, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Insideoutedly, see Achristian, wherein I started to describe the sort of atheists St. Andrew would prefer to skewer (others improoved). ħuman 00:15, 8 March 2009 (EST)

Oh sweet irony. What's cuter? That some atheists might not be Anti-Christian godhaters after all, or that there might be a homosexual gene?CPNuisance 10:03, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

A good idea from CP?

See this Should we have something similar? - extracted from the WIGOs, or does the "Best of ..." cover it? _and marmite 00:31, 8 March 2009 (EST)

Eh. I think the concept is cute, but (1) it's a lot of maintenance work (I think Jpatt does it only to pad his contrib list) and (2) WIGO'd stuff usually only falls into three or four major categories (user abuse, stupidity, Andy Insights, wheel wars) and about as many major players (Andy, Ken, TK, Ed), so no matter how you'd sort it, it would simply split up WIGO into a few huge blocks. Not even to mention that quite a few items would cover more than one category/person.

I'm not saying that there is no good way to do it - just that I currently don't see any. So from here, it looks like lots of work with little gain. --Sid 07:53, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Seems to me it's the kind of system that's readily automated. It'd be kind of nice to be able to tag wigos for later reference. I wish Trent would release the code for all the various RW things he's hacked up so we could modify them. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:56, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I have figured it out!

So remember when Andy suddenly hit this stupid chivalry kick (although he mostly dropped it after the two tests debacle) and we all wondered where it came from? I finally figured it. As I was reading "Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter" by Joe Maguire, I came upon this quote from a New York Times book review complete with these quotes from mommy dearest herself[4]:

“”She opposed the E.R.A. on the grounds that it would take away the "special protection" the "Christian tradition of chivalry" offered women - in other words, the "right" to be "supported and protected" by men. "Those women lawyers, women legislators, and women executives promoting E.R.A. have plenty of education and talent to get whatever they want in the business, political and academic world," is how one anti-E.R.A. letter distributed to Ohio state legislators put it. "We, the wives and working women, need you, dear Senators and Representatives, to protect us."

Now we know where little Andy gets it from. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 03:23, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, I guess no one really doubted at this point that he has serious mummy issues, but another data point is always welcome. I wonder how many of his other ideas come from her? Perhaps we have his Sunday sermons all wrong. Perhaps they aren't inspired by the week's pulpit preachings, but by brunch with mummy dearest afterwards. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:42, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Personally, I don't think you can really pinpoint a source to Andy's lunatic ravings except Andy's depraved mind itself. I don't really have proof of that, but to me he just seems to be one of those people who think something up and are so delusionally self-centered and arrogant that they will take whatever they just thought up as unconditionally true and won't listen to ANYONE saying ANYTHING against it. --GTac 08:06, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

IMHO, Andy is one of those guys who sits around and thinks deep thoughts, then tries to argue and counter-argue them with imaginary detractors in his head. Once he feels he has an ironclad defense, he opens up and spits it out. When people point out the flaws (which he had no idea that they existed, because his imaginary brain opponents didn't either) he becomes hyper-defensive and inflexible because of course EVERYONE reasons things out the way he does and if cracks are appearing now, how long will it be before they see that he truly thinks of himself as a fraud and a sham and all he wanted was a hug and an OK to pump gas at the corner station and read Cracked magazine and still be let back into the family homestead for Christmas dinner... MOMMY! WHY WON'T YOU LOVE ME LIKE YOU LOVE JOHN?!?!

Or he's just a ridiculous man. The Foxhole Atheist 09:06, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

(OK, but by "deep thoughts", you mean "quote unquote, deep thoughts - wink wink, nudge nudge" right? Also in relation to his mum's idea about things like chivalry, Andy is one of people who, after hearing a sports show talk about the weaknesses of player X, will go into the office and repeat the same thing everyone else said, thinking they are his *original* ideas?--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 11:13, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Good call, WfG. I did forget the quotes on "deep thoughts"... My point stands though, but can be modified by your comment, because I have a brother-in-law who is almost exactly like Andy . He thinks of himself as an intellectual, and tries very hard to be, but all of his argumentation takes place against people in his head (where he is only contested by cretins and inferiors). So when he tries to converse about a given subject, he comes across as a parrot with anger management issues. Someone will bring up an innocuous counter that he hadn't thought of, and instead of saying something like "That's interesting, I hadn't thought of it like that...", he will launch into yellow-belt Schlafly argumentation (the Schlafly slip, Schlafly reversal, and Schlafly statistics are his signature moves), followed immediately by name-calling and hostilities because NOW he THINKS everyone can see what a fake he is... The problem with it is everyone knew before he even showed up. The Foxhole Atheist 19:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Very minor pet peeve

Andy states, regarding atheism "This begs the question, has the atheist given up too early"...How come a lawyer doesn't know what "begging the question" means?--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 11:08, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Because he's a lawyer who started as an electrician and became a teacher? My god, he must be one shit lawyer to have to take up teaching to pay the bills. Totnesmartin 11:48, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Now now lets give him more credit for his moral values. Clearly despite training to be a lawyer, his true passion in life is making sure that today's children get the right information so they can grow up to be as successful as himself or George Bush. That's right, by teaching these kids the truth, they could grow up to be president one day too, and clean up the horrible mess Obama is bound to make despite all the liberal economists who will praise his work. User:Ttony21/sig2 12:25, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy on language. Again!

We cannot even understand Old English today, and it was somewhat primitive even when it was spoken. Fucking Hell! No further comment - sorry. _and marmite 11:18, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I didn't even get past things like

There would have been no concept of "tyranny" under feudalism before that time.

or

That places the date of first use of simple numbers as before Middle English, and originating with Old English.

Andy seems to think that until a word is introduced into English, the entire concept doesn't exist. Or something. I don't quite get it, but it's more than enough to trigger all my bullshit sensors. --Sid 11:56, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

"the path of world history is in some ways the triumph of superior languages over inferior ones". Oh dear oh dear. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:58, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

How does this fit in, exactly, with Latin being superior to English in every way? --Kels 12:27, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

(EC)Slightly unrelated note: what is his big hard on for Merriam-Webster? I know we all have our favourite dictionaries, but it seems like he treats that as his paragon of English. Is it just because it's American? Or am I at the point where I'm so jaded by his usual stupidity that I'm forced to bitch about really innocuous things about him? </petty rant> On topic: that whole section on the origins of English gave me chills. Let's go through this point by point, shall we? I'm bored and this infuriates me more than usual.

• More of his obsession with the first use of a word, yet failing to mention--or even failing to understand--that this is merely the first recorded use of the word. Which naturally progresses to this gem: "For example, by looking up the word "tyranny" in the dictionary we see that it was developed in the 14th century (1300s), which was about the time that feudalism was being replaced by nation-states in England and France. There would have been no concept of "tyranny" under feudalism before that time." In Schlafy Duck's mind, a concept does not exist unless one can put a word to it.

See, and of course it couldn't be that there was a different term, replaced by the "modern" term. That is to say, "thee" instead of you.--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 13:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

• Suggesting that Latin somehow "improved" upon Old English, and that it was "upgraded" to Middle English. We'll ignore the idea that one language is superior to another, since it doesn't bear comment. Not only does Andy simplify the introduction of Latin into English--as if there had not been any influence before the Norman conquest--but completely fails to mention Norman French. He gives no history of WHY Latin and French were so influential on the evolution (Ken

take note!) of English. He doesn't even stop to think about mentioning it. Facts are not qualitative in the mind of Assfly. They are merely quantitative, and that's all that matters.

Nor does he explain, or likely even understand when you consider his comments about buyer beware, that the french/latin did not have *more* words, but when you bring the generic french word for "kitchen" into a language that already has kitchen, the french becomes the term for cooking. Chair - english, chaise (just "chair") suddenly means "nice upper class chair". English gains more precision - but it doesn't mean the french or the latin had that precision --in fact they did not. He doesn't know crap about linguistics.

• "The oldest dates or origin are for numbers. The number "six", for example, is listed as having an origin of "bef. 12c," which means before A.D. 1100. That places the date of first use of simple numbers as before Middle English, and originating with Old English." What does this even mean? Is he saying English literally had no concept of simple numbers like 6 before someone decided it would be called "six"? If so, is he therefore implying that there were no names for numbers in the Germanic dialects English came from? That English developed its names for numbers in a vacuum? Is he an idiot? (Rhetorical question, that last one).
• "More generally, the study of the origin of a word is known as "etymology". Some even specialize in the field of "linguistics", which includes all aspects of languages." Nothing wrong per se, but don't you get that patronising "I'm talking down to four year olds" vibe from that?
• "Every language has advantages or disadvantages, and the path of world history is in some ways the triumph of superior languages over inferior ones." Oi vei. You wanna take the social out of that Darwinism, Assfly? What is an "inferior" language? Was Old English inferior? Why? How? It would still be a criminally stupid and untenable position to hold, but could you at least argue the point? I suppose Andy thinks "More words = better".

Actually, the point made by someone earlier is truth, here. "if I think it, no matter that i've never read anything about it, but if it came into my head - it must be true. I do not understand old english, and it's a non-agglutinative language (ie., all short words) that i think it must be "simple' and "inferior".--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 13:30, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

• "We cannot even understand Old English today," Tell that to me three years ago as I was studying Beowulf, you vapid evolutionary throwback. I'm sure I would've been deeply enlightened and stopped wasting my time on that Modern English translation I wasn't understanding. The translators, too. And I'll be charitable and not mention that modern Icelandic speakers can make a pretty good stab at the meaning of Old English texts.
• "and it was somewhat primitive even when it was spoke." How do you sleep at night? Again, what does that even mean? What is primitive to Andy? What is the Schalfly stratification of "advanced" and "primitive" languages?

Again, I would argue that he thinks "smaller words means primitive" "Lack of the precision that came uniquely to english with the addition of spanish, french, and latin (due to England thinking a french king would be nifty, the spanish trades, and other "minor" incidentals, oi vey) I truly suspect, Toast, he does not understand that the word "unique" comes from the agglutination of two *simple* words, uni (one or sole) and (que - thing? -- i'm guessing here). It makes a "big word" to us in english, but hell, look at German for really big words. ;-) I really suspect "primitive" means "small words" and "no word for X" in his mind (again, not admitting that concepts generally are built upon other concepts. there was no word for television in 1200's either. but you didn't need the word first, you needed radio.)--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 13:36, 8 March 2009 (EDT) (edit conflict)

• Now he rambles on about the Bible, naturally without providing any context as to why this is relevant to his lesson. It COULD be relevant to his lesson. It's actually very relevant. But he really just throws it in there because he can and because he wants to pontificate about martyrs.
• <need good quote here> Always putting off tomorrow what could be done today. Tsk tsk. I assume you mean the famous "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him..." speech. You know, Andy IS right that the English language has changed a great deal since Shakespeare. One of the few things he's right about here. Yet for his example, he's picked (and this is just my opinion) one of the most concise and clear passages in Shakespeare. Aside from having to think about some of those dang ole metaphors, Anthony's speech is actually pretty much standard Modern English, aside from a handful of thous and haths. It's a little archaic, but there's nothing in there especially difficult to parse. (Lupercal, maybe, but that's not even English).

I know, I know. It's Andrew Schlafly. But MY GOD. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 13:09, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

"...after the Norman conquest of 1066, when Latin began to cause improvements in Old English and it upgraded to medieval Middle English." Oh dear. It was Norman French and ecclesiastical Latin. Apart from that it wasn't upgraded, language is not an operating system. Norman French as a language of polite discourse and literature fundamentally altered the nature of Old English, the result is now known as Middle English.

Dictionaries cite the oldest known citation for a word not its date of origin. The Old English for tyranny is nýdgeweald.

No simple numbers before Old English? The man is a complete jerk.

Auld Nick 13:27, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Wait fucking wait fucking wait.... languages are not actors. they are passive. Latin cannot CAUSE improvements. it merely exists. the bilingal, drudge type speakers who were now speaking french AND english, so they could yap to the royal uppity upps were the ones who changed english. English did not "desire" to conform, it did what all languages do. became a creole of the french/english interactions. and one does not "upgrade" like you go in and by a software kit. it takes years and years, generations and generations to "upgrade" in the context he sees. oh, wait, he doesn't buy into evolution, so he has no concept of small changes that, during the time, were not even seen as changes.--En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 13:43, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Does anyone else think this might warrant a new side by side refutation article? I'd love to take all this and put one together, even just on his stupid Origins of English section (that is, when I'm not about to nap. :) --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 13:36, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I think that every "lecture" could be side-by- sided. But specially this tripe. _and marmite 13:41, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

His language comments make me sooooo fucking mad. --En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 13:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Aye. Rarely do I bother with his homeschool crap, but this, THIS, offends me. Not only as a writer or a linguist, but simply as a speaker (and lover) of the English language. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 13:59, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

(unindent)I think I figured out what he presumably means with the simple numbers bit. He probably means that the CURRENT words for the simple numbers have the oldest origination date, so they have remained unchanged the longest. But seriously, the way he put it it really seems like he's saying that simple numbers started to exist with Old English. --GTac 16:15, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I think you may be overestimating him: He thinks the concept of simple numbers existed before Old English, but not among the English. He believes they couldn't count. Rather an extreme view, but this is the moron who doesn't think the Romans had a concept for truth... --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 04:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

discuss

The date of origin of a word can even resolve historical debates. Some (including your instructor) feel that "genocide", which is the mass killing by government of a particularly ethnic group, arose only after the development of the evolutionary theory of "survival of the fittest," and the use of gun control first to remove the ability of citizens to defend themselves. Because the "survival of the fittest" theory was not taught until the late 1800s, genocide did not occur prior to the 20th century. Others, particularly promoters of the evolutionary theory, claim that genocide occurred earlier also. But look in the dictionary at the date of origin of the word "genocide": 1944. If it had occurred in prior centuries, then a word would have developed to describe it. _and marmite 13:24, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

"A particularly ethnic group" -- That's one of his best in a while. Sigh...so those 100 million North American natives who died after Columbus arrived...not genocide? Or does it have to happen all at once in your definition? --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 13:31, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

You must have missed the Trail of Tears article. Smyth 16:49, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, because English is the only language in the world. Sorry, AMERICAN is the only language in the world. Czolgolz 13:49, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Huh. Combine the above with this snippet:

More modern words, such as "homeschool", have more recent dates of first use, such as 1980 the case of "homeschool".

and you could suddenly make the case that homeschooling didn't exist before 1980. Whoops! --Sid 13:50, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, gosh, think of all teh WORDS we did not have yet, in the 1850s, necessary for such a concept. clearly it was not genocide cause we did not yet have the words for "ethnicity" or "paradigm/paradigm shift". how could we kill the Native Americans, when we still called them "injuns" or "redskins". Besides, we had no terms yet for "Domestic Dependent Sovereign Nation" so they could not have been DDSN. Which by the way, is all leading to the fact that since we have no name for "gay marriage" (like, you know, "gay marriage") such a thing CANNOT exist. --En attendant Godot_{""We are all born mad. Some remain so."} 13:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)(edit conflict)

We have no word for inferior homeschool teacher; Oh!Sorry we do:- Schlafly. See? He now exists! _and marmite 14:03, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

1 Samuel 15

Auld Nick 14:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Hmm. The underlying argument seems to be that something cannot possibly have existed until a word to describe it in English had been invented. Merriam Webster reckons the word 'creation' was invented ~1400 years after Jesus needed something to stand on when he was doing all his magic tricks. However, according to the logic of the Great Schlafly, who cannot possibly be at all wrong, the Earth couldn't have existed then, as nobody could have created it until the word 'creation' had been invented in English. Of course, that also means until the world was created, there couldn't be anybody on it to invent the word 'creation', which, in turn, allows Creation to take place. This means that, not only do we all not exist, as nobody has created us, or the world that is needed to give us somewhere to stand, but anybody ever actually creating us or the world is logically impossible (which kinda raises the question as to who wrote this, and also who is reading it). Zmidponk 15:51, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Of course, if we evolved, that answers the problem of nobody being able to create us - but then, by the same logic, nothing, including the human race, could have evolved until somebody invented the wordf 'evolution'. Zmidponk 15:54, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Does this whole "If there is not a word for it, it cannot exist" thing remind anyone else of the theory behind New Speak? Pinto's5150 ^Talk 16:08, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Yep. NewSpeak on one side, magical thinking on the other. --Gulik 19:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

My old text on genocide lists the Knights Templar, Japanese Christianity, Native Americans, Melos and others as genocide.--Nate River 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Reaction

There's no correct place to place this in the above discussion, so here goes. HOLY SHIT. I've been pissed at / staggered by / reduced to tears laughing at / been driven to drink myself into a stupor by Andy's historical and linguistic stupidity before, but this all takes the cake. We can't understand Old English? We had no word for Tyrant, which couldn't possibly be ancient Greek? Merriam Webster's little origins things can be used to resolve historical debate?! I want this man to go present his theories to an actual linguist or historian, preferably a burly one with a short temper. My god, his little scholars are no longer just getting distorted idealogically bent history; they're now getting certifiably insane crackpot theories. He poorly disguises them with "Some people (your instructor included) think...", but god knows he'd be hard-pressed to find a single person to agree. 15:03, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I agree with gentleman Publius. This "lecture" is completely and utterly wothless. Ace McWicked^Revolt 16:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

A-ha! Resident linguist Denise steps into the fray wit some sanity. How long until she's slapped down again? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Alas, she's a Brit, so not long. _and marmite 07:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Ah yes, it's another Andy "because I said so" reply. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I've turned many of the opinions expressed here into a side-by-side article on the linguistic lunacy of Herr Doktor Schlafly. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 11:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Let's rewrite history.

RJJ get's off to a good start:

== UK joined America? == "World War II was a global conflict fought between the Allied powers (led by the United States, but eventually including the Soviet Union, the British Commonwealth, the Republic of China, and many other nations)" I think you'll find the UK was at war for 2 years before the USA joined the Allies. [[User:RichardJ|RichardJ]] 15:50, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

yes indeed, that's how it started but not how it was fought and not how it ended. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:55, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

F... U ... C... K...(permalink to article)_and marmite 16:06, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm still trying to figure out how this is encyclopedic:

“”In 1937 Japan moved south from Manchuria and began a full scale war against China. The Japanese army was much more powerful, and quickly drove the Chinese, under Chiang Kai-shek to remote mountain areas. Japan controlled the major cities and seacoast, andmost [sic] of China's population, and setg [sic] up a puppet regime. The United States strongly objected to Japan's moves, and began large-scale support for China.

That's all that is described. Never mind the grammar and spelling problems, but how about a little more details into a major east-Asian war? The article linked only contains about four times this information on a war that had significant battles and strategies, and led to Japan winning plenty of land during the war, and losing quite a bit of land at the end of the war. --Irrational Atheist 16:39, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Wow! Just wow even from Andy saying that the US led WW2 to save a weak Britain is just bad. --BoredCPer 16:38, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Yea this is really out of order. It now reads: "World War II was a global conflict fought between the Allies (led by the United States to save the weak British Commonwealth from aggression by Germany, and ultimately included the Soviet Union, the Republic of China, and many other nations), and the Axis Powers (mainly Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan)." Much better, Andy! _and marmite 16:46, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Americans always try to prop up their war efforts,even when they weren't apart of it. Ever see "Flyboys"?--Nate River 19:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy, again.

Andy striketh again: "The view that the horse was created by God is logical, and there is no deception whatsoever in presenting it. Neither can be said about the claim that the horse somehow evolved. Perhaps logic doesn't matter much to some, and perhaps deception doesn't bother them. But on this site logic and truthfulness carry the day." [5]. He obviously has a totally different meaning of "logical" from the one I'm accustomed to. _and marmite 16:24, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I's simple: Some people confuse logic with common sense and some people confuse common sense with gut feeling, Andy does both and that's why autumn leaves being pretty is as ojectively true as 2+2=4. NightFlare 16:30, 8 March 2009 (EDT)