Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive126

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. 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>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <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)

Pants

What is wrong with this? What makes this parody? Teabag 00:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

An inconvenient truth, as Al Gore would put it. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:35, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Proof of Poe's Law? Immediately above the CAhab's deleted paragraph is an equally parody-ish entry that stays. --Simple 00:45, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

It is because of the amount of taunting we do of Ed and his famous women in pants essay. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 00:52, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Holy shit. I did not know "Women in Pants" existed. I wonder how many times I'll need to read it to get all the subtleties and nuance. Teabag 01:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

That really got my intellectual juices rolling. However, I think the essay should mention that Hitler wore pants. Teabag 01:07, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I am sure Eva Braun did. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 01:09, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

You'd think after seeing mindfuck after mindfuck at CP that I wouldn't be surprised by anything any more, that I'd be so desensitized to inanity and insanity alike that I'd just go "Yeah, that figures." And yet, I can only respond with "Eh!?" 01:39, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

It may be because CP is getting more and more ridiculous. I think the "zero in mental problems" thing is the pinnacle of stupidity, but next week something even more ridiculous may come along. -- JArneal 02:44, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Next week? My money is still on some Sunday Insight. --Sid 07:44, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

That "Women In Pants" essay of Ed's really makes me laugh, not so much for its whole stupidity angle, but because his standard practice (even at WP) is to drop a turd cut/pasted piece of tripe in new article, and expect the peons to scurry around and turn it into something worthwhile, so he can bask in reflected glory (as with his constant bragging at WP and CP). But they're not allowed to do that here, since it's a bloody essay! I can just imagine him pooping that blockquote out, and sitting there puzzled, because nobody's come to turn it into a gem of reason for him. --Kels 11:36, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Ah, but this originally wasn't an essay. [1] It was originally a clear, concise encyclopedic article. Corry^{Then there's me. The joker. The goofball. The magician.} 12:44, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

So I had to check my memory and go look again at the CP video... yup, female students wearing... pants! ħuman 17:53, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

How long till Andy decides that chivalry decrees his female students wear skirts? His mom support school uniforms and Andy most likely does as well. --Nate River 19:44, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

What the %^^$$???

Ed has just stooped to new levels of what-the-fuckery. Sex with animals? Come on!! --PsyGremlin_Whut? 06:59, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Possible WIGO could be: Ed Ed ED, Please please pleeeeeeease get help. UPDATE CЯacke® 07:08, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Ed writes like I try to avoid - liveblogging whatever pops into his head while watching TV. I often have a handful of single words or short lines that are supposed to prod me into doing some basic work and starting/adding to RW articles. But he just takes the "note" and saves it with a title. ħuman 18:02, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Axiom of Choice about to be whitewashed and burned?

Uncle Ed moves "Axiom of Choice" to a draft space, then recreates a fresh summary-article loosely based on the draft, going by his "If I don't understand it, it doesn't belong here!" principle. It should be interesting to see if he will eventually move the original article back to its old place or if he will use Conservative Values and burn the entire history once he's done. --Sid 07:43, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

The Axiom of Choice (AC) states that "For every nonempty set there is a choice function." So few words, but such a wrong statement... Or, using Socrates's method: dear Ed, tell me something about this choice function on a single set... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:39, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, that bit had been in the article since the first version, actually (check the history of the moved article). Which is kinda sad already, but what's even more worrying is that Ed explicitly approved it by picking it for his Real Article. --Sid 09:09, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Indeed, it looked through the history: the statement In layman's terms, the Axiom of Choice is "For every nonempty set there is a choice function." appears in the first draft of the article, created by Aschlafly himself... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:49, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

In layman's terms? I'm supposed to know what that means? Bil08 11:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy, TK, Ed and RJJensen discuss Machiavelli

Hilarity ensues:

Machiavelli has had ZERO influence on conservatives, or the Founding Fathers, or anything else of great value. Zilch. The reference given is to "Pocock", but it should be to poppycock. This revisionism of someone felt for centuries to be inspired by the devil cannot last here. I wouldn't put it on Citizendium either! Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 23:04, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

It may be an entertaining weekend after all... --Sid 09:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

RJJ hasn't a leg to stand on alas - Andy has already decided that the Big M is the perfect foil for the new Great Evil (Obamarama), so nothing is going to sway his argument. Although, you'd have thoughht that Andy would be happy that Obama was going to bury his Musliminity and talk at a Catholic school. What does the man have to do to please Andy... die? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:56, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Christ in his second coming to earth as the great lord Reagan didn't say anything about Machiavelli and neither did his minions so anyone who does mention them is no true Scotman conservative --BoredCPer 10:05, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I love how Andy can't distinguish between influenced by and directly citing. Z3ro^talk 10:34, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

All Andy has done is do a search for the word Machiavelli and come up with "Not found". I would be very surprised if he has actually read any of M's works but just knows that being Machiavellian is a very bad thing and therefore cannot have influenced the FF or the GOP. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:52, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

It's funny; I never saw being Machiavellian as a bad thing. Sure, it's a bit underhanded and dirty for some people, but in the type of environment he was writing for, it was both necessary and elegant. I don't see the Machiavelli hate. Z3ro^talk 10:57, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

(EC) It amuses me that to be Machiavellian, you've got to actually use the name. _and marmite 10:59, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Funny how that doesn't apply to LIBERALS.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 11:10, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

(ui)I love this argument for several reasons. One, Ed makes two red links. Idiot. Second, it's basically the professor using facts versus Andy trying to assert a point with no real factual basis. Third, it's clear that there's only one person in that argument who has read M's works (apart from the red link liberal), and it's not Andy, Ed, or TK. Finally, it once again shows that Andy, although he "teaches" history, continues to cling to this idea that liberal in 2009 = liberal in any other period of history. Why is RJJ wasting his time and reputation at CP? It's clear that they like having somebody that actually knows something about history around, but Andy regularly plays the "I'm Andy and hence correct" card. Corry^{Then there's me. The joker. The goofball. The magician.} 13:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Great argument by Andy here. "Yeh you've shown me that my method doesn't work when you replace Machiavelli with Locke, but you see nobody doubts Lock and I personally doubt Machiavelli, so somehow I am right!". --GTac 13:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

No sane people left

PJR has finally had enough and decided to leave CP. How long until TK makes him an unperson like Tim? --BoredCPer 10:36, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Not long. But don't think the lulz will stop; PJR is creating his own wiki! But PJR, doesn't creationwiki already exist? Z3ro^talk 10:39, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

(EC)It'll probably just be a mirror of AiG anyhow, since that's where most of his cites come from now. But good on you, Philip, you've finally made a correct choice and stopped propping up Andy and his crazystupid propaganda blog. Send us the link when you get your new wiki up, I'm sure we'd all be interested. --Kels 10:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I fully expect TK to dance all over PJR's grave, even if he doesn't do it in public. Philip had oversight and I'm sure Terry will want to appropriate that for himself. How much longer can RJJensen last before he too is forced into the wilderness? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Pre-emptive: I've screengrabbed all his talk archiven. (>23Mb!) _and marmite 10:55, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I'd love to know what the camel-back-breaking straw was. Someone, please, email him and find out (but don't just trot the reply word for word out here, respect of privacy and all that) --Runderful 86.20.32.48

Doubt he'd tell anyone from here - he's not a fan. _and marmite 11:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I realize a lot of people dislike him. But, I really enjoyed reading PJR's posts and thought he was always fair. Even when debating the YEC stuff I thought he was fair to the other side and gave people a chance to talk. And, he was a very good administrator or sysop or whatever it is called. He never blocked without good reason from what I could tell. I'll never in my life agree with 75% of his worldview, but, I am sad to see he got forced out. But, I am glad he left before he was kicked again by andy and his ilk. Patrickr 11:02, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

NOTE: HSmom hasn't edited since 16th March. _and marmite 11:08, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Or more significantly Learn together since 9th January.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 11:13, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

RJJ and Denise are the only sane people left. Possibly JM, but he seems to be in his own little world like Ken. ENorman 11:12, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

JessicaT seems to be trying to keep up with the crazies, but she's just not as good at it yet. She needs to shed that "good girl" image from when she started, and take on a bit more of the "ideological hardass" if she wants to stick around. --Kels 11:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

PJR User rights: still checkuser? _and marmite 11:17, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

(EC) I wonder how quickly Andy will update user rights? PDQ Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:19, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, his update today was to remove Administrator rights, but PJR's still got Oversight and a bunch of others, so it doesn't mean that much. Mind you, if PJR really has retired for really real, he wouldn't much care if he lost all of them. --Kels 11:20, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Is there anything that Admin can do which Oversight can't? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

PJR, if you're reading any of this, I wish you luck with your wiki. You were one of the few decent people on Conservapedia and I hope you can manage your project without making the same mistakes as CP. FernoKlump ^{What the fuck Mr. Assfly??? That bastard DeanS deleted my petition!} 11:24, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

When do we start "WIGO at PJR's wiki"? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:28, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

The fun thing with CP isn't the conservative+YEC viewpoint itself, but all the bitterness, hate, and generally horrible management. PJR lack these "qualities", so his wiki might very well not become very funny at all but instead community-driven, informative, and family-friendly. Just what Andy tried to achieve but failed big time. Etc 11:41, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I dunno, if PJR does actually make an Answers in Genesis mirror site his own wiki, it'll probably be a lot more interesting, intellectually, to refute. CP is more about tossing rotten tomatoes at the clowns, while the theoretical PJR-wiki would be more about "you made a ridiculous claim, let's see what the facts are". --Kels 11:45, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

This site is growing rapidly!!! I actually have respek for PJR, and I'm curious to see what his wiki is, and how it won't be redundant with CreationWiki.-Diadochus 11:42, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

It'd be hilarious if the PJRpedia became a banned word like RW is at CP ENorman 11:46, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

There's a general opinion that PJR is OK. He's not! His very politeness and reasonableness is the great danger. He is a prime nutter with his Biblical innerancy. Anyone reading, or discussing with, him might be lulled in to a feeling that if he's so very nice, then he might be right. The man is very dangerous. I doubt that his wiki, if it surfaces, will be any different from the many creation webshites & blogs scattered about the web except that he'll keep it free of the US right wing bias. _and marmite 11:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Toast: He's dangerous because he discusses and presents his beliefs in a polite and reasonable way? If anyone equates nice with right, they deserve to be duped. I tend to view debating with a rational and reasonable person to be a good thing myself... tealish^??!!!1 05:22, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I tend to agree, he is something of a YEC nutter. However, in real life I bet he goes whole months on end without ever talking about the topic. The average denizen of CP makes PJR look smart, urbane and sophisticated. If Andy has an ounce of sense he'd be on bended knee begging him to stay. However, that said, PJR... Enquiring minds wish to know, will your new wiki have blackjack and hookers? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't buy into the PJR love either, but I don't think he is as bad as Andy. Sure he is batshit crazy, but he will engage in argument. When both sides are laid out, we all know who comes out on top. There will always be a portion of the population that is addicted to wish thinking, the rest will be swayed by argument. Andy is more dangerous because he has created an alternate universe, and used Orwellian tactics to alienate reasonable people. He is L. Ron Hubbard to PJR's Archbishop of Canterbury. -- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 12:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Why did we like Tim so much when he was also a YEC? Time wisest Phantom Hoover! 14:13, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

A better question is, why dislike someone simply because they are a YEC? This is rationalwiki, is it not? I'd like to think that entails being above the ideological hatred that CP is overrun with and that includes the other side of that coin. PJR debated through reason and yes, Biblical evidence. You may not agree with that belief, but PJR doesn't call you guys "batshit crazy" for disagreeing with his belief. tealish^??!!!1 03:08, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Since there's no sign of any recent spats on-wiki that would have inspired this move by PJR, I'm going to make a rash assumption that there's been something going on between PJR and TK via the email interpipes. I'm 95% certain that TK is responsible for this ball-taking-and-going-home and only a liberal would deny the obvious fact in regards to evolution on the internet. DogP 13:02, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

TK went on the attack against PJR for his foreignness almost immediately upon his return (and some notable others like Brianco). Philip also stood up for the likes of HelpJazz and Brianco when Addison was compiling his list of prominent CPers. I think Philip had isolated himself from the other sysops by insisting on some sort of evidence for Andy's prejudices against Obama (and arguing with Andy in public is the ultimate no-no in TK's public character). Contrast that with Karajou's cave-in when Andy reverted his rewrite of the Obama article. So the writing has been on the wall for PJR for quite a while. While being a strong proponent of the YEC viewpoint at least PJR had some standards for writing and maintaining a wiki. Where TK apparently just blindly followed Andy's whims over things like article capitalisation, categorisation and templates mainly because he is just as clueless abut management as Andy is, PJR saw the value in at least having a proper structure and doing maintenance. None of the other sysops got involved with the article renaming project and housekeeping over there is probably regarded as "woman's work". After all, real men block people. I think Philip has realised how much TK is effectively constipating CP with his banishment of productive editors and unnecessarily massive range blocks, and has just given it up as a lost cause. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:22, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Aw, man. It's a shame to see him go, even though I now look forward to TK's next moves to bring CP completely to its knees (Disclaimer: I don't endorse community-destroying actions, but in CP's case, I think it would be MUCH easier to just let TK finish the job, burn the entire thing down and start again from scratch.). And when I checked the Recent Changes, one edit struck me as hilariously appropriate:

(diff) (hist) . . New! Catharsis‎; 14:19 . . (+3,511) . . JessicaT (Talk | contribs) (New page: Catharsis (from the Greek kátharsis Κάθαρσις, meaning to purge, cleanse, or purify) refers to the purging or cleansing of one's emotions or relieving emotional tensions,...)

Seriously, the timing is brilliant. --Sid 15:24, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Teacake never could stand the way that PJR was superior to him in intellect and manners. He never could stand that PJR had an, albeit, unwritten seniority over him. When Teacake first slithered back to CP and I banhammered him, it was actually PJR, Tim, Bethany, Taj and DanH who were standing up, behind the scenes, against Geo and Ed Poor to keep Teacake out. Andy had absolutely nothing to say on the subject, incidentally. But I do know that PJR shouted down Uncle Ernie Ed over the whole thing. I screwed up in making the Liberal, Kansas etc articles because as soon as Andy fired me, Teacake pushed his fan base to have my banning of him overturned. I warned at the time that Teacake wouldn't forget who was fer him and who was agin him, and PJR was his first focus of bile. I've always felt bad about leaving a few people in that uncomfortable situation, but I knew that my days were numbered because Ed Moon and Teacake were obviously going to banhammer me eventually. PJR stuck up for me a lot behind the scenes, and regardless of how you feel about his YEC position, when you get into off wiki email conversations with him, he's a really nice guy, a genuine guy. The same goes for LT and a couple of others, even DeanS has an affable off wiki persona. Its a mash up of the original phrase I know, but, it's still true: CP corrupts, and power on CP corrupts absolutely. I really wish PJR the best with his wiki. I'm hoping he'll be aiming for a family-friendly, Judaeo-Christian friendly wiki-'pedia, without all the nazi extreme right wing, crazy, hateful bullshit that is CP. There is a niche for it, and as pointed out above, he's seen how not to go about it. Well done for sticking it to 'em, cobber, and good luck! Fox 17:32, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I agree with Fox. I think it's stupid that people are wishing he'd fail, without even seeing what his wiki will be. Just because somone is deeply religious doesn't mean that they are evil, or that they deserve to fail. I think it's shameful that people are doing this, that they are wishing him ill for little reason other than that he is a YEC. We shold wish him the best of luck, and objectively evalute whether or not his wiki will be a repository of batshit insanty, like CP will soon become, or a nice, rational objective look at the creationist/evolutionist controversy, albeit from the creationist side. PJR, if you are reading this, best of luck with your wiki! The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 17:42, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I haven't done much editing in over a year at CP, but I do remember trying to talk with PJR about the dinosaur page waaay back in the day. Yes, he's a bit of a YEC-nutter, but you can reason with him. He also doesn't block nearly as fast as the others. He's certainly better than TK, Karibou and Kenservative... Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 17:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

It seems to me that the fact he's a YECer is an excellent reason to wish that he fails. I think from past arguments that he's also some variety of Dominionist, which is another good reason. None of which changes the fact that he's a way better sysop than Andy or any of his other Acolytes, for what that's worth. --Gulik 06:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I'd like to add my name to those who are sorry to see him go. Poor Phil - he put considerable work into the project, so I hope he doesn't feel like too much of it was wasted. I'll be interested to see his new wiki - if anyone finds it, please link it.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 17:18, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

PJR is a decent guy, unfailingly polite, reasonable and civilised. If you allow for the fact that he starts with one hell of a false axiom, he's also logical and rational. He also restores old steam engines, which makes me biased in his favour. I know many creationists and they're by no means all raving right-wing nutters like the Schlaflys. That said, I don't wish Philip success with his new wiki; I really object to children being taught that the religious approach to scholarship (searching for evidence that your point of view is right) is a valid alternative to the scientific method (trying as hard as you can to find out if you're wrong). Philip, if you're reading this, I'd much rather you initiated a polite, reasonable, civilised debate here on RW and I for one will endeavour to be polite, reasonable and civilised in referring you to publications which show that your views are incorrect. The Real James Brown 18:47, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Kangaroos return to CP

They walked from the ark at least according to Creation ministries. (Those continents must have moved at an alarming rate.) _and marmite 11:29, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

That "Big Book of Creationist Answers" they use as a source would make an awesome coffeetable book and drinking game companion. Teabag 11:35, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Disregard that I suck cocks. ENorman 11:49, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Not sure what the cocks are all about, but surely "hopped" rather than walked :D --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:51, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I hadn't looked at the CP link and only the OM one. I had accidently exposed a Poe's law violator link You didn't see that. ^{— Unsigned, by: ENorman / talk / contribs}

That site is great. Check out their kidz page & shop. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:07, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I particularly like Hopsiah the Kanga-Jew. kangaroos of the Middle East were unknown to me till now. Also does anyone find some of that page just creepy ? 67.72.98.45 13:34, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

(undent) This is a parodist site, guys - one of the more brilliant ones because it captures the essence of Poe's Law better than anything except, well, except for Conservapedia I guess. If you visit their shop check out the Mr. Gruff items. --SpinyNorman 16:27, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy fails again...

The Schlafly Skim strikes again!

Dude, at least read the article before linking to it. It's making fun of you and your beliefs. TheoryOfPractice 13:05, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Isn't your header kinda redundant? Z3ro^talk 13:09, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Telegraph liberal!? _and marmite 13:12, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

That would beliberalin the CP universe only - the universe next door to the real one. Mick McT 13:16, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

In Andy's eyes even the Tories are liberal.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 13:19, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Ah yes, the Schlafly Skim! (I've been waiting to trot this thing out again). --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 17:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Enlightened Andy

Oh, at last, someone tried to fix the clusterfuck of an Enlightenment section in Lecture Eight, my absolute favourite set of insights.[2] Andy reverts[3], explaining that key insights were removed![4] However, he's free to fix "The Candide" again, except that Karajou's twice blocked him for using a proxy and troublemaking![5] [6] (One of you?) 13:22, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Ames (again)

Kajagoogoo unblocks/blocks Ames removing his Email ability. To remove any chance of him contacting PJR? _and marmite 13:41, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Any chance of "ANDY'S PLEASURE"?? Etc 17:17, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

HUBERT?

Who is this person? Linked here (That damned possessive, hee, hee. His command of English follows the family traits) _and marmite 13:46, 21 March 2009 (EDT) In passing:TelePrompTer inventor Hubert Schlafly was voted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame. His invention lets politicians and newscasters look smoother and more charming. Hub Schlafly's in the Hall of Fame right next to the inventors of dynamite and derivatives. Jewish(!) world review _and marmite 14:10, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I suspect he's Andy's paternal uncle, does anyone know? See here - he contributed to eagle Forum last year. _and marmite 14:24, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Ok A, whoever posted this comment: "UncleAndy // Mar 21, 2009 at 3:05 pm

Great article, Hubert! I’m very proud of you. But if you can sit through all of Forrest Gump’s liberal drivel, you’re much more patient than I am!" made me spit Pepsi all over my moniter, thanks. B, There's a lot of conservative critism over Obama doing March Madness picks and Leno, where were these conservatives when George Bush spent 25% of his term on vacation... Or how about when he appeared on Deal or No Deal? I didn't hear much from the right about worrying about the country then.... Fucking Hypocrites. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 18:09, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I read Uncle Hubert's blog and found at least eight spelling/grammatical errors. Was he homeschooled? Is Andy going to give him some remedial teaching. I think we should be told!  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 14:29, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Benchmarks

I'm absolutely floored that Andy is crowing about this, since it's quite obvious his blog is being made fun of. Yes Andy, people are comparing others to you. But they're comparing people they think are stupid to you, doesn't that give you pause? --Kels 13:55, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Someone pointed it out, and also said the Telegraph isn't liberal. Andy: Your two complaints are different and therefore cancel out.

See a couple of comments above (Andy fails again... - ) _and marmite 14:03, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Everything is liberal in Andy's eyes. The very rock is liberal for placing deceitful false evidence that it is more than 10,000 years old. The stars are liberal for being more than 6,000 light-years away. The air is liberal for having trace amounts of C-14 which have a uniform decay rate that wasn't several times faster in the past. So is God liberal according to Andy for making all this? ENorman 14:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

God wears a kaftan and sandals - of course She's liberal. and Andy shows what a complete swine he can be. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:38, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Comment referred to

Fine, but the headline is still accurate. Saying something is the most conservative newspaper in the UK is like saying someone is ... the smartest student in a remedial class. It's still a remedial class. Oh no, I didn't offend you, did I? Please accept my deepest apology.--Andy Schlafly 14:14, 21 March 2009 (EDT) The strange usage of the term "conservative" may render the headline accurate. It may still be considered, putting it politely "inappropriate". Conservapedia is used by the Telegraph as the "benchmark" for new media, in the same way that an IQ of 70 is used as a benchmark for "retarded".--Toffeeman 15:35, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Good heavens. That's too stupid even to mock. --Kels 14:45, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Seems like a declaration of war to me. Bring it on, baby. _and marmite 14:55, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Just now, I felt my moderate conservative Welsh friend's blood pressure rise. ENorman 14:59, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

In Andy's defense (I can't beleive I just typed that) you have to remember that A, he knows nothing about foreign politics, and B, he's viewing everything through his crazy conservative ltmus test. Your average Tory doesn't support the repeal of the gun control laws, he/she doesn't want mandatory prayers in school, they don't want abortion to become a class A felony (or whatever system they have in England) and they don't want the dealth penalty institued at the min. punishment for littering... Therefore, in Andy's world: Liberal. You have to remember that to Andy, most fundie Muslims are liberal because they let a women show her eyes. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 15:05, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

That first isn't much of a defense, given that since he started up CP he's had a shitload of Brits explaining just what the political climate is over there, and he's had lots of chance to find out for himself by doing even a few minutes of research, but he insists on his fantasy version anyway. Not only that, but he insists everyone else believe it, too. --Kels 15:21, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm actually quite shocked by that. Andy shows himself to be really deeply unpleasent person yet again. What a tosser. StarFish 15:30, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Just read Toffeeman's response to Andy. Beautiful. StarFish 15:53, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Toffeeman isn't long for this world, due to only Andy being allowed to make fun of other people. ENorman 16:17, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

As a practicing attorney, I still haven't ever been able to do what Andy (and a host of other second rate lawyers) do with all these ridiculous rhetorical devices. I've gotta hand it to him. He's either retarded or he's a genius. I cannot figure out which. What sane person could argue in good faith that the article supports the proposition that Conservapedia is anything but a benchmark for inanity? Anyway, hats off Andy. You're a fuckin' menace, whatever your aim is. CPNuisance 16:28, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I always imagined Andy to be one of the wimpy lawyers like Payne from the Phoenix Wright series. Either that or the corrupt type who would rig evidence like Von Karma. Except not as badass. ENorman 16:38, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

He thinks he's hard. Don't forget he's the hardest in his homeschool class - possibly. _and marmite 16:45, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Which probably makes him closer to Payne in personality ENorman 16:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

And the original poster comes back to call Andy a BNPer. Brilliant. StarFish 17:06, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Not sure if that's more of an insult to Andy for associating him with the racist nutjobs of the BNP, or the BNP for associating them with Andy. ENorman 17:37, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Agree -- kbinbot's comeback is great. Andy may not know about the BNP, unless he reads the article on his own website. I guess the BNP is roughly equivalent to the Schlafly wing of the GOP. --Simple 17:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Unsurprisingly, KBingbong has been anesthetized. DogP 21:04, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

""The BNP might get my vote for its position alone on education." Really? Even though your own article describes the BNP as a neo-nazi organization?" ... I dunno who kingdong is, but thanks =) Sitting here, listening to good stuff and watching chickens coming home to roost, is just... bliss. What you gonna do, Andy and Terry? Whitewash all my anti-nazi articles? Sanitise it, quick! The glorious, infallible leader cannot be tarnished with my liberal parody! Fox 21:33, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Nice try by JosephHKL... Cantabrigian 09:47, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Right

Has CP ever shunned anything for being too far right and acknowledged that? Time wisest Phantom Hoover! 14:43, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

They reject outright racism, but they wouldn't consider it right wing. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:46, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

That's what I mean. Have they ever acknowledged something as right wing, and then shunned it? Time wisest Phantom Hoover! 14:52, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Anything too far right they just label leftist for convenience. See Fred Phelps. Secret Squirrel 14:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

See also Fascism. ENorman 15:12, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

You mean that leftist ideology the obviously Liberal Nazis followed? --Kels 16:17, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

They publicly reject obvious racism and hate speech, but manage to accomodate it where possible within the law... It's difficult for them, because it is what they think, but they know they can't publish it. Fox 17:42, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

You forgot that they will simply turn things upside down: Of course, it doesn't sound okay to discriminate women, but arguing that feminism is part of the liberal agenda allows them to make various "Women belong in the kitchen because they are inferior different!" statements while telling themselves that they're not doing anything wrong at all. Same goes for things like the Affirmative Action President. --Sid 19:48, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

If it's Right, it can't be Wrong! --GTac 20:03, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Moar ACLU blasphemy!!!11!

I almost hesitate to point out CP's utter failure to pick up on an interesting story in this morning's NYT about an ACLU lawsuit challenging a Pennsylvania anti-blasphemy law that prevented an obvious liberal heretic from creating a company called "I Choose Hell Productions." See here [7]. The law is one of the last vestiges of what was once a much more robust menagerie of state anti-blasphemy laws, except that this one doesn't date from the 19th or even early 20th century (CE), but from the 70's. From a purely legal perspective, there is absolutely no constitutional justification for preventing someone from choosing a company name on the basis of preventing blasphemy, though there are other permissible ways to prevent certain kinds of names, yet I am certain lawsuits like this will get defended to the hilt by cities and states because of the political mileage wingnut politicians get out of resisting the vast liberal hoards. Makes me wander who they're really working for when they'll ultimately be responsible for paying 2 sets of attorneys to litigate a case that's a complete lose for the government. Just like in the Dover case, the government must pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs if it loses or wishes to settle the case.^{— Unsigned, by: CPNuisance / talk / contribs}

Ahem, "the '70's" (thirty-odd years ago?) was, indeed, towards the end of the 20th century...didst thou mean to say 18th or 19th centuries? CЯacke® 18:33, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Corrected. Thank you for your courteous restraint. CPNuisance 18:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Ignore him

please! _and marmite

Yes, I'm ignoring him. So should others. DogP 17:10, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

And who should we be ignoring? The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 17:13, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

If you don't know, don't ask. _and marmite 17:17, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

That's that then. DogP 17:18, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I assume that you are referring to Ken's just-deleted red telephone message; anyone got a copy? Time wisest Phantom Hoover! 17:20, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh Hell Hoover - strike breaking scab! Doesn't matter, it did the usual going-away-then-coming-back-multiple-times-thing. DogP 17:24, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I assumed that since he had deleted it, I could discuss it, but I shall shut up now. Time wisest Phantom Hoover! 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm sure that the "White Knight" image is actually from the gay pride section of the Mardi Gras. I saw the same character when I was there two years ago.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 18:14, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm sure you're right. That picture of the "White Knight" was taken in front of the former Kolb's Restaurant on St. Charles Avenue in the French Quarter. CPNuisance 18:59, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Why ignore him? If we comment he exposes himself as the retarded fool that he is. Personally I think its hilarious. Never stop Ken, destory evolution on the internet as you destroyed atheism on the internet when someone might comment on conservapedias article on evolution on the internet. Ace McWicked^Revolt 18:51, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Hey, I've got an idea. How about if he goes over to work at PJR's new wiki, given the great success he's had at making CP the jewel of the Creationist internets? --Kels 19:26, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

In my silly (and unlikely) fantasy, PJR used his last day as sysop to run Checkuser on several people and then compiled a Shit List of people who will NOT be welcome (or who will at least not be given any sort of power) on his wiki. And Ken will be on that list. And the moment he pops up with his trademark style, Philip will tell him to FOAD. Okay, he'll of course say it with more politeness, but the basic message would be "No, Ken, you will not insert Hitler into every article while mindlessly creating and deleting shout-outs." --Sid 19:38, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Didn't PJR come to Ken's

defence on the Hitler thing? Not that I think he has much use for him, but still... --YossieSpring in Fialta 01:00, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, that incident is the biggest argument against my silly fantasy. However, I think that PJR has shown that he will agree with arguments even when he doesn't agree with the person or the bigger point being made (and vice versa). See for example where he found himself partially defending JPatt's "Man not monkey" article-turned-essay. So I want to believe that, even though he and Ken likely agree on a lot in terms of ideology/belief, Philip is no fan of Ken himself and realized that the guy only cares about his own agenda (creating copy-paste mega-articles and then linkspamming like crazy in the misguided belief that high Google rankings mean that evolution/atheism/homosexuality are dying on the Internet) and not the bigger project. --Sid 07:55, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Uh oh...

Toffeeman is doomed I fear. 86.168.241.4 17:35, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

So as not to appear a complete moron it is advisable to read previous sections of Talk:WIGO before posting.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 17:46, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

D'oh... and meh... 86.168.241.4 17:53, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Hollywood values and death

So thanks to the link about A Rand, I was looking at the "Hollywood deaths' which are deaths attributed to "hollywood culture". Bruce lee died, this link says, from a brain aneurysm caused by over sensitivity to Aspirin. how is that a hollywood death????--En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 17:42, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Bruce Lee died. At the time of his death, Bruce Lee was in Hong Kong shooting a movie. Movie = Hollywood Hollywood=Hollywood Values death. Open your mind and understand that Hollywood is more that just the physical subsection of Los Angeles. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 18:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Aspirin is a drug. Therefore, Bruce Lee died due to a drug overdose, showing the inherent Liberal Depravity of Hollywood. --Gulik 07:02, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Brandon Lee died in much the same way as his father, showing that the biblical "holy vengeance on successive generations" is a literal fact. Deny this and lose credibility. The Foxhole Atheist 11:20, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

how about his mother , grandmother and great grandparents ? this hollywood death thing MAY have been responsible for three generations of deaths 67.72.98.58 19:05, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Is now the time

...for everyone to stop handling socks? With PJR's departure, the silence of a few other "content" editors recently, and the dwindling of any meaningful contributions to CP, perhaps now is the time to stop making those useful edits just to maintain your socks' deep cover. I know I was pilloried often for continuing to contribute even when I had made clear I disagreed vehemently with the direction CP had taken, and perhaps now is the time for the others here that are obviously maintaining goody-two-shoes socks to strategically withdraw. Let's see how CP goes with just the crazies contributing... Fox 17:48, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I sort of agree with this, from a kind of "magic if" point of view...but I don't know if anyone would do it. That said, I haven't touched my socks in months. One because I forgot the password and had used a fake email in the expectation that I would be blocked, and the other because I'm sick of making not-insane edits over there only to see the insanity grow exponentially. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 17:55, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I think that we should make it official policy that we allow the primitive Conservapedes evolve without exposure to our far more advanced culture. We could even make the page RationalWiki:Prime Directive. Time wisest Phantom Hoover! 18:37, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm in favour of this. At this point, there's no advantage to doing anything there. It's dying a slow death, as contributors and gentlemen alike are being hung at the scaffold, and activity is grinding down. Whereas only months ago the main talk page would see ample discussion/vivisection daily, virtually nothing occurs there any longer. 18:53, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Current occurrences:

1. Andy's weekly insight. We laugh our asses off about Conservative-Words/Zero-mental-problems/Christhumour/Linguistics. Some users dare to challenge (is this the only point of socks?), are purged, and we all laugh.
2. TK is an ass to a user/admin in the same manner as ever, but has no style. We cringe.
3. Ken makes another nonsensical, contentless announcement which could as easily be generated by Kenquote. Most of us ignore, others roll eyes.
4. Andy writes horrible lectures propounding his theories, students hand in largely terrible homework as a result, he gives said students glowing marks. We cry a tear for them.
5. Someone posts a news item defying all sense and logic, and no one cares.

Have I missed anything? Aside from guessing the topic of Andy's next tomfoolish escapade and/or debate with RJJ, everything that occurs falls into these categories. 19:01, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Definitely agree with the main page talk point. There used to be some interesting/lively arguments there; now, hardly anyone goes there, and the ones that do sock up in preparation for the block. The same goes for most of the other talk pages as well. EddyP 19:15, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Also in favor of this. CP has entered a "Fire at will, shoot to kill" phase, so I'd say there is precious little sense in setting up socks of any sort - other than hoping to sneak some hilarity past their filters, but that's really like shooting fish in a barrel by now. Let's just lean back, grab the popcorn and enjoy Ragnarök free of any sock distraction. --Sid 19:29, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Agree with Sid. Already came to this conculsion a few months ago as well. Refugee^{talk page} 19:45, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I joined RationalWiki a year ago and the entire time I have been here people have prophesied the death of Conservapedia, yet it seems to go on. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 19:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

This is due to RW users in various guises effectively being the life-support system that keeps them lurching from one day to the next. Fox 20:59, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

They're dying so fast. Besides, with TK's rules on editing, not much can be done over there--Nate River 19:52, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, Teacake's destruction of CP, how deliciously apt. He hasn't really thought it through though: having banned or driven away in disgust all real users, he'll be left with only Andy, Ed, Ken, Dean, Joaquin and the homeschoolers to bully and abuse. And as WIGOs passim demonstrate, he's already started eating the kids... Fox 20:59, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I've always gone barefoot, but socks don't really bother me. CP will never disappear completely. Andy will never admit defeat and walk away. He will always be able to draw on his homskullers for free labour (remember edit for credit?). The question is how long will it take TK to loose interest. Until he does CP will continue to get more and more boring.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 21:12, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I think it would be the best kind of "partial" CP boycott. We read, we run WIGO, we don't lose hits or stop providing one-stop stupid shopping. But whomever considers themselves a RapturenWhelkian, stop wasting time adding to CP. Let them fester in their own grey goo. And we shall report on the results. You decide. ħuman 22:56, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I agree 100%. No real edits. Just sit back, watch the True Lulz, and report per normal. At this point, that approach makes the most sense imotealish^??!!!1 05:36, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

PJR

Does anyone have an email address for this guy? I really wanted to ask him about his decision to leave failipedia. I would say he was the best of a bad bunch but he was so fair to everyone, he wasn't even part of the bad bunch. Hope all is well mah boi. At least we still have the great and almighty TK.DSFARGEG 18:25, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

And you expect him to actually tell you...why? --Kels 18:34, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

He will tell you. --CPAdmin1 18:47, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Email me via RW and I'll let you know in private. A lot of people here know it but he doesn't want to have it bandied about on web pages and we respect that. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:36, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

He also has an account over to WP, from which one could send him an email. Even though he hasn't edited WP in over a year unless he's changed the email addy he should oughta get it. 18:43, 21 March 2009 (EDT) CЯacke®

Most direct way: Just sign up on CP with your mail address, a plausible name and IP and send the mail (prepare it in advance, maybe?) before they think of a reason to banhammer you with the "Mail disabled" option. :P --Sid 19:20, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Tell you or not, is it really our business? Unless there was a public spat, I'd say it's just gossip for its own sake to dig into it now. Let him go off and start his new wiki, so we can make fun of that instead. --Kels 19:28, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I asked him to get some closure. PJR is basically Conservapedia Generation One, and after watching his trials and adventures for pretty much exactly two years, I'd like to know what happened in the last chapter. Not to gossip or discuss in public, just to know. --Sid 19:32, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I feel the same way as Sid. Refugee^{talk page} 19:42, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Mmm, I guess so. I'm not dead set against asking him, but if he doesn't want it made public, then don't. If he's okay with it, then sure, pass along the gist of it. --Kels 20:31, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Is anyone else curious what would happen if PJR's wiki got more traffic than Conservapedia? Schnooog 20:08, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

TK would move to it, and start to go nuts there. ENorman 20:14, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

And PJR would simply block him. End of story. He ain't that dumb, and he doesn't have our hanky-wringing "anyone can join" issues. ħuman 23:03, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

It's a sin to wring your Holy Hanky. --Kels 00:52, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

More traffic, or more "real" traffic? No way PJR can out-do the name recognition Schlafly brought to his disaster, which brought in relatively huge traffic, and still does. Real traffic? We probably outdo CP in visitors who come to enjoy and not laugh at us. ħuman 00:53, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Not to be mean, but the very idea that PJR, fed up with the restrictive and ideological power base at WP CP, is going off to start his own wiki is precious. Does any of this sound familar? What is his point? A comprehensive reference? That's a complete joke. This has all the marks of a civil and well-articulated hissy fit . . . ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 18:38, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

BNP Andy

Three words folks. Jesus Skullfucking Christ. It has been fully revealed now. Somebody add this comment to the "no jokes" Andy article, stat! ENorman 22:29, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

And get screenshots of the dif. I predict a whitewash. DickTurpis 22:32, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Way ahead of youENorman 22:41, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

EDIT: fucking wikicode

DOUBLE EDIT: AGAIN! AGH! I feel like fucking Ken ;_;

Oh we all feel like fucking Ken now and then. He's just so damn sexy. DickTurpis 22:44, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

"Of course, I expect knee-jerk liberals to claim there is something racist about that or about the BNP in general, but overuse of the racist label as a political tactic has gotten pretty tiresome for everyone on this side of the pond." I can't decide whether Andy is (a) trying to cover his arse with that statement, (b) defending his own racist beliefs, or (c) is, in fact, a complete and utter fuckwit XD Fox 22:45, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm not seeing that comment. Has he deep-burned it already? ENorman 22:48, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

EDIT: Again, I'm a retard.

The preview button is your friend...also I vote C User:Ttony21/sig2 22:58, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

I kept missing minor shit. And yeah, I vote C as well ENorman 23:02, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

C. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 00:48, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

It's been awhile since anyone took Andy to the woodshed as thoroughly as KBinbota, Toffeeman, and JosephHKL did in that exchange. A round of drinks for those three, and put it on my tab.--Simple 23:10, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Cheers! JosephHKL, aka TheoryOfPractice 23:37, 21 March 2009 (EDT) (Though Kbin should get the lion's share, I believe....)

Good work ToP. Is this gaffe worth mentioning in our BNP article? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:05, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

This is gold. I especially like that Andy admits he is pretty much OK with the idea that "reality has a liberal bias," but is unmoved by it (reality). That's the funniest part of all^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 09:57, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Incidentally, I wonder how this jibe about remedial classes by Andy would go down with the NJ DOE, considering the man's just applied to teach an, uhm, remedial class? Oh, and Kamasataka Binbota says hello. DogP 11:53, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=next&oldid=643149

I just imagined Andy doing a valley girl impression, and to be frank, I'm fucking terrified. ENorman 15:10, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

That's funny, cause I heard drunken frat boy/Philosophy major when I read [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=next&oldid=643185 this post} "Dude, I'm smashed." SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 15:21, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Now I get it!

There's a simple explanation to Andy's grade inflation it seems:

To student 10: "When an answer stumps me, then it deserves special praise! Congratulations"

I'm developing this odd...hysterical, fearful laugh whenever I read something from him like that...is anyone else getting that? --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 00:50, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm simply amazed at the way he does his grading. Check out his response to student 10 when the student links CP in the answer. I guess he expects them to use CP as the only source or something. As for a nervous laugh. I do have one, but its also accompanied by "Oh now I see, this man is insane." that way the fear goes away and everything makes sense. --ScottA 02:05, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I guess because he kissed Andy's ass so much by linking to his favorite articles he got away with NOT ANSWERING "OBAMA" TO QUESTION 7! --GTac 06:13, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Ellsworth Kelly

Contents relocated to Debate: Ellsworth Kelly

Bull's eye!

Student 11 knows what's expected:

I would describe Obama as Machiavellian today because he did whatever it took to get into office. He might have said something one day and another thing another day.

Superb, could use this as a model.

Oh, I do enjoy Sundays on CP.  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 09:48, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I also like the way he only answered six questions but still got 69/70. And the way he only answered a third of the first question but lost just 10% of the marks. EddyP 10:05, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I suppose it's hardly surprising, but neither Andy nor his student seem to realize that Constantinople fell to the Turks (not the Turk's) in the 15th century, not the 13th. So his mark of the Renaissance's start is perhaps late rather than early. DickTurpis 10:11, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

And the answers he did give... The Assfly is really phoning it in now. "Vietnam won its independence in 939. They have always been very fierce fighters. They also treated there with women with high respect." Terrific? This guy wants to be an SES provider, but can't even be bothered to educate the students he already has. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:12, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Concise answers FTW! EddyP 10:15, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Likewise, this is a 'superb' description of the history of English: "The English language went through three stages: Old English, Middle English, and Modern English. Today we speak Modern English. It began in the 1500’s." Cantabrigian 12:55, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

User 188

Ed asks for help again. "I think I heard something somewhere, but I've no idea where or when. Can anyone do my research for me please?" (I know it's not CP, but it's User:188)._and marmite 10:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

(Assuming bad faith here - but after all I've seen Ed do on CP, it's impossible for me not to.) It's worse than that: Googling for even just a few words from Ed's post gives you tons of sites/articles about... global warming. Surprise, surprise. Ed's just subtly agenda-pushing again and disguises it as "Could somebody else follow my specific clues and insert it so people don't accuse me of anti-global-warming edits again?". Meh. --Sid 11:07, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, that's ED. _and marmite 11:15, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Why User 118? Time wisest Phantom Hoover! 11:11, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

That is his number on WP (he bragged about being the 188th editor somewhere. _and marmite 11:14, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

This was where he referred to himself as "User #188" - at least the most recent example; I expect he's done it before. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:18, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

User #188 does that a lot at WP, he makes references to how many articles he's started, how long he's been with WP and so forth, to try to give more weight to his POV-pushing. He probably thinks other editors will be impressed, and meekly retreat from his presence, to bend their heads to their task of turning his crap into actual articles, humble in the knowledge that they're helping a great man. --Kels 11:37, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

And some twonk (Cosmic Latte) has suggested he re re re apply for adminship! _and marmite 12:02, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

To which he's replied:"I'm willing to run again, but I'd have to write out some detailed answers to last year's questions. ". _and marmite 13:59, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Just check this out as an example of U188's POV pushing and requesting others to find the sources. Fortunately it is not Conservapedia. I shudder at the thought of him becoming a sysop again. --Buscombe 09:16, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Actually, what amused me is his defense. "find sources BEFORE you take it out", rather than the more common "find sources before you ADD something". I mean, I should say Jon Bon Jovi is the father of my unborn, un concieved baby, and unless you can find sources stating otherwise, I should add it to his page. --En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 14:19, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

"Maybe you're right"

"Maybe you're right, RJJensen. I have an open-mind about it. If I'm right, then I learned a great deal by researching and debating this issue. And if you're right, then I learned even more! Thanks for your insights." This is just perfect Andy. He enters into a debate with no knowledge and no evidence, is repeatedly rebutted by a full-blown expert, and exits by proclaiming his open-mindedness, while still not acknowledging that he's been utterly bested and has nothing to back up his assertions. Of course, this canned response can only be used when he's dealing with a Professor of American History who is also a sysop, credentials which allow RJJ to approach Andy's level of infallibility. Does anyone actually buy that Andy did any "researching?" He probably just did a word-search for Machiavelli in the federalist papers. 14:50, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

It's just a symptom of his complete inability to back down from an assertion, no matter how far-fetched it is and how much counter (and usually correct) evidence is flung at him. Even now he ends the discussion by basically saying, 'I'm right." er... and by him saying he's ending the debate (in the edit summary) isn't that last-wordism? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:00, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Curator=Expert

The looming appointments of curators at CP does reek a bit of experts, doesn't it? And we know who doesn't like experts, don't we? DogP 15:08, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Ah but have you fallen into the liberal trap of not realising that an expert is only an expert when The Powers That Be at CP say you're an expert. So if TPTB@CP say that they're experts, then all is peace, harmony, fluffy bunnies and massive range blocks for anybody who disagrees. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:18, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy thinks it's a brilliant idea!. And of course, Wikipedia has no idea how to do things like this. DogP 15:21, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Can anyone explain to me what on earth they're talking about? How is this a change from the status quo, where no one but JM contributes to articles, RJJ to history, and no one to literature? 15:51, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

And, of course, all JM contributes is a bunch of pics he found on Google Images, with no explanation. --Kels 15:53, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I want him to explain that tin of shit to me. Fox 16:16, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

And TK and DeanS contribute nothing, yet should be in charge of politics and religion. This is like an admission that only a core group of sysops (+ sad Iduan) do anything at the site, and all exist in tiny bubbles. Ken will probably want the position Curator Of Homosexual, Atheist, Evolutionary, and Dawkinsian Items. 15:55, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Just curator of Hitler pics. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:03, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Isn't this exactly what they are accusing WP of? Etc 01:10, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Well I hope Joaquin learns something about copyright law before he becomes curator-in-chief. "JMR10 (Talk | contribs | block) uploaded "Image:Fire in building.jpg" (Fire_in a Pakistani building. Fair use Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/03/2009322153955382180.html)". Anybody want to drop Aljazeera a line - I'm sure Andy will be thrilled to get a message from dem Mooslems saying "oi!" --PsyGremlin_Whut? 01:21, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Venomfangx

Wow, they dared to block Venomfangx of all people? Well now we can know his actual name. Speaking of nutters on Youtube, is there any chance of a RationalWiki Youtube channel? User:Ttony21/sig2 17:09, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

His real name is Shaun something. Ace McWicked^Revolt 17:20, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

But all RW channel videos would just be CP's videos displayed in a context where irony is appreciated. Jammy 17:25, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Hah, pwned. Kendoll's testicles are shrinking rapidly! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:26, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't know about a RationalWiki Youtube channel, but enjoy this channel about Conservapedia. RW gets a few "For more information, visit..." plugs. -Redback^{not Redneck} 00:52, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Why has no one pointed this out earlier? - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 00:54, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Was that really Venomfangx or just someone's sock? Etc 01:12, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I checked out his account on youtube and the comment sections are filled with positive comments from a lot of fanboys. I always thought this kind of nutters are usually voted down (for e.g. as in digg.com).--Buscombe 09:17, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

That's because the little shit uploads a video, gives it one 5 star vote, then turns off ratings. He also personally moderates comments, so all you see are Shaun-approved fellations. You won't even find any neutral comments if you try to look. So much for christian honesty. The Foxhole Atheist 09:31, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

You see a lot of Andy-praise on CP as well. Mind you, there are socks and parodists at YouTube also. Etc 11:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

It doesn't matter if the comments are from legitimate Venomfagx fans or parodists, the point remains that he ONLY allows comments that he has personally approved. I am sure that if you combed hard enough, you could find a lulzworthy comment or two that has slipped through, but by and large his paranoia and persecution complex are so deep-rooted that he is meticulous about his screening. The Foxhole Atheist 11:37, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

mmm... I used to love to walk that line. I had comments on tons of his videos. All far-out, fallacious, fellatious, nonsense of course. Neveruse513 12:47, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I probably should have put this here: Andy admits to being a Liberal

Now, I didn't see this page before, and now I am not sure where I should have posted this comment, but here it is (I previously posted it on the Andrew Layton Schlaflytalk page. Pardon my double posting, will make sure I post things in the right place now.

[8] Andy, in this discussion, admits that he would Vote for the British National Party, which Wikipedia characterizes as "a far-right and whites-only political party in the United Kingdom.", however, Conservapedia's article is even more critical, describing it as "a British neo-Nazi political party". Since we all know that Nazi's were socialist, we can basically say that they were a liberal political party, since everyone also knows that Socialist and Liberals are the same. So, by claiming he would vote for a neo-Nazi party, Andy has just claimed that he himself, is against Conservapedia, and is just another part of the vast liberal conspiracy to brainwash our children, steal all of our money, and turn us all gay (that is what Liberals do, right? Of course, I just read Conservapedia, so I'm not sure). So, since it turns out that he has been a Liberal, what are we supposed to make fun of now? --Passerby25 17:27, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Passerby25 (what a moronic name), your ranting circular non-logic is a textbook example of liberal obfuscation and atheistic style. Only a liberal would twist logic as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4. I can tell by your stances that you don't support teacher-lead classroom prayer or use of the largely defensive weapon of gun as well. Agree that liberals worship status figures and then we can debate. Godspeed. ENorman 17:44, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy is in it to troll. Consistency is quite beside the point. I do find the whole thing funny though. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 18:39, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

ENorman, Teacher-lead? That spelling mistake undermines your entire argument and proves that you are a liberal full of deceit. Godspeed. Teabag 23:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

What IS going on...?!

I try to give up CP, I don't look at it for two days and what happens? Andy says he'd vote for the BNP, he says the Daily Telegraph is a liberal newspaper, he argues about Machiavelli with a bone fide historian... This is why CP is addictive! Quick, bring me a nicotine patch... The Real James Brown 19:08, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I have the same problem. Every time you think it can't get any nuttier, it does anyway. Andy always has another trick up his sleeve. Etc 01:17, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Sunday Insights?

Were there any "Insights" today amongst PJR, Andy showing his BNP colors, etc.? ENorman 19:56, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Going by Andy's timezone at least, PJR and Andy's BNP stuff are Saturday events, even though the BNP discussion continued today. The only noteworthy Andy-being-Andy moments I noticed were him insulting people like JoshuaZ and the Red Envelope/Letter thingy. Plus maybe something from the homework grading, but I don't really pay attention there. --Sid 20:14, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, I was disappointed some spectacular bullshit wasn't landed upon us today - I really felt he was building up to a good one after the Red Envelope day chest beating. DogP 01:58, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't understand the cp:Red Envelope Project - do they try to make it easier for the White House to throw out the letters of nutters? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 03:13, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Like most on-line petition drives and such, it does little more than make the participants Feel Good that they're Doing Something. MDB 05:47, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Petitions are like charity for the poor and the greedy. Etc 09:41, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

And lazy, don't'cha know. "Click here to send a letter to your congress person".--En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 09:55, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

PJR's departure

Anyone else at least slightly surprised by the deafening silence at the departure of PJR? You'd think someone would say something over there. DickTurpis 22:17, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

PJR was tolerated by the people there, not exactly loved. It'd probably be a bigger deal if somebody like Ed announced retirement (I almost said Ken, but the little fuck is in his own universe at this point) ENorman 22:31, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

There is no one left to say anything. The only people now are TK and his cronies, or a few meek individuals who won't stand up to them. Unless Andy steps in, which he won't because he is spineless, the website is going to stagnate under the administratorship of TK and what ever arbitrary rules he makes up. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:32, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

While fully aware of all that, I would expect some acknowledgment somewhere. Even if there weren't the usual, contrived "please don't go" talk page posts, I'd think there'd be something. He might as well have announced that he's switched his toilet paper brand for all the reaction it got over there. I'd say they might not have even noticed if we didn't know they read us so regularly. Then again, Andy doesn't. Maybe he hasn't noticed. Who wants to burn a sock by confronting him about it? DickTurpis 22:38, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

PJR had been quite for awhile so maybe it wasn't that unexpected. Andy changed his rights as per request, so he obviously knew. The only other members of the old guard that haven't already quit are those that wanted to see him go (TK, Ed, TerryH). - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:49, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

They do everything by mail nowadays. I think us at RW miss him more than Andy does anyway. Etc 01:20, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Of course Andy knows, he removed PJR's admin rights (but still left him with oversight & checkuser). Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 02:02, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

(undent)I'm with most people here: The remaining senior sysops are kissing TK's feet, the junior sysops and peons won't say anything because they are afraid that TK/Dean will go all "MYOB! ADMINISTRATOR DECISIONS ARE NOT TO BE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC! THIS USER HAS LEFT AND WAS A LIBERAL TROUBLEMAKER ANYWAY! GOOD RIDDANCE!" on them... again. It's basically what happened when Tim left. A few socks/peons wished him the best, and that was basically it, wasn't it? The one senior sysop who acknowledged that Tim had left was CPWebmaster, and only to argue that CP totally isn't as bad as Tim claimed. --Sid 06:58, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Just a thought re his user rights. Does what he has now make it any easier to copy from CP? If so he might have asked Andy for them so he could start his own wiki with a start. In return he might have agreed to leave without a fuss. (I note that Kara reverted a talk page edit which was slightly anti-PJR, which suggests to me some offsite collusion) _and marmite 07:11, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

The easiest way to copy from CP is with this, what he needs is to be able to import which last time I checked requires sysop rights on most wikis. Seeing as it is his wiki he can have what ever rights he wants. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 07:31, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

He can possibly copy some of the stuff outside the database too with oversight & siteadmin (settings & extensions etc.)? I can't see why Andy's left him these things otherwise. _and marmite 07:35, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

He actually added Upload, edit, Block and SkipCaptcha. _and marmite 07:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Actually now I think of it, it would probably could be even quicker done with a simple copy-and-paste bot. I don't know what siteadmin does, except turn on and off the database, ask Publius I think Rod had them for a while. I would be surprised if CPWebmaster had set it up so you could edit extensions, give that Andy hands siteadmin rights out readily. He will need those things to still be able to edit CP without his sysop rights the way he use to. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 07:44, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Goodness no. I had nothing of the sort. Siteadmin is hard to come by. 12:40, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Handy list of who can do what: cp:Special:ListGroupRights --Sid 14:31, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Interesting: PJRwiki a splinter of CP?

Though I'm a doubter and detractor of all things PJR, I saw this mentioned above and thought it merited calling out a bit. Here is how it might go: PJR copies all of CP and begins to excise Andy et al's brand of craziness and insert his own. After the initial rush he only has to cherry pick and bowdlerize new content created at CP. Meanwhile CP can do the same thing with respect to PJRwiki content.

I can imagine PJR writing Andy a five page densely footnoted and carefully phrased proposal to this end. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, with the ambiguous copyright status of the CP articles, is he even allowed to do that? Most of the articles are already plagiarized so the answer is, of course, no, but what will Andy think? Etc 11:25, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I don't know how likely this would be, but it does make more sense ( in PJR world) than going off and creating an entirely new wiki whole cloth. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 12:12, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

(Even a BON can use special:Export pages so there's no reason really unless he does have some other (non database) privileges) _and marmite 12:54, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Schlafly's bizarre copyright policy means that PJR can copy wholesale anything (and everything) from CP and put it on his own site. However, if Philip publishes it as GFDL then CP can't take any changes or additions back. So if anything was originally plagiarised from WP Phil can use it under his own GFDL. It's just the stuff that TK has plagiarised from non-GFDL sites that could be a problem, although I'm sure Philip as an upright and honest fellow would take down anything which was pointed out to be copyright material. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:36, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Copyright aside (It should be noted that CP's copyright policy actually means that anybody can copy anything unless Andy doesn't like it, and mirroring entire parts of the site is only allowed with explicit authorization. Oh, and a link back to CP is "appropriate".), I think it would be foolish of PJR to base his project on CP content. I still don't know what his plan is (No reply to my mail yet - I guess he's either busy or changed his address? Oh well.), but if he wants to create "CP, only better", then he should start by copying Wikipedia or even CreationWiki. Conservapedia is the result of two years of parodists, plagiarists and idiots going wild with almost no oversight (Thank you, sysops who are so busy pushing their own agendas and banning everybody else that even blatant parody stays in some articles for weeks or months!). On Wikipedia, you can at least be reasonably certain that things are well-researched (maybe less when it comes to obscure subjects), and I'd assume that CreationWiki's sign-up policy and highly specific focus also keeps the parody low. So Philip could copy from those sources and then just weed out whatever he doesn't like all the Liberal Bias. --Sid 14:28, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Ha. I get a vision of PJR thirty years from now, a bent shriveled cricket of a man, still winnowing through a March 2009 copy of WP trying to get all the science out and hoping to go live any day. "I've gotten through the B's!" he'll wheeze in triumph, "I've gotten through the B's." It's all sort of sweet in a what the fuck sort of way ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:53, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Do you think the guy is insane? --CPAdmin1 22:56, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I suspect that forking CW would make sense. CP, not - as said, too much dross in there to make it worth it. It also depends on what he wants his wiki to be - a general encyclopedia? A creationist-only effort? Who knows? Hopefully we will learn more at some point. ħuman 15:06, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

On a point of housekeeping are we going to treat PJR's website as splinter website of CP, with everything about it going into CP space? Also if it ever become suitably entertaining a WIGO PJRwiki? - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 19:00, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I would imagine a PJR WIGO would be less fun and amusing like the CP WIGO and more of a "things we can scientifically rebut" WIGO. If ya see what I mean. Ace McWicked^Revolt 19:05, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

It is all a matter of how much activity he actually manages. Wiki4Cam had a lot of potential for supply us some wiki style drama on a different subject but now it is one guy witting about alternative treatments for delayed ejaculation. 216.221.87.112 23:27, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

TK, science, eech WIGO

In all fairness, this morsel of science looks like a giant load of bullshit. It looks like there's some lumping of other parts of the brain into the hypothalmus (not that we can make clear behavioral demarcations to begin with) and a bunch of weird stories about the Russians. Asshole that he is, TK was right to delete this. Cite something, then make these remarkable claims. Corry^{Then there's me. The joker. The goofball. The magician.} 01:12, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, that certainly was a load of crap. On the other hand, you always have to assume bad faith when it is TK. On the third hand, the removed part still made more sense than most of the other gay stuff on CP. Etc 05:46, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Did a parodist get WIGO'd?

I'm pretty sure the (current) top WIGO item is from a parodist. Argument by Technobabble was created by a new user. MDB 09:53, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Not all new users are parodists, y'know. But I suppose the uncertainty in itself invalidates the WIGO.--ConservapediaRoolz 10:05, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

That's why I voted it down. It's not by an established editor and hasn't been OK'd by the thought police. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:09, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Unfortunately, reading the article it links to, and the argument therein, it's pure Andy. "Oh, you're using big words... do you think you're an expert? Well, I'll show you what happens to experts around here...". Add in Ed's phobia for jargon and I can see Andy linking to the article next time somebody out-debates him. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 10:19, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

A parodist got WIGOed? Whatever next! ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:24, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Poe's Law? D-Notice 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Quite aside from that particular item ("technobabble"), this guy seems to be either a parodist or a test of Poe's law. Look at his stuff about Mars and Saturn. Nice! Will Andy/TK/etc. see it as parody? Who knows? The whole site is a test of Poe's law.

I know we're not supposed to out parodists, but I'm just pointing out what utter bullshit this guy's edits are. Andy can do with it as he likes. Like "Excellent! Will use as model article. 100/100". Gauss 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Whether that's true or not, I'd like to voice my utter frustration over the fact that YEC pukes get bent out of shape when scientists use terminology applicable to their work. This emphasis on "layman's terms for everything" is ridiculous. Higher education is just that, not more specific textbooks written for the seventh grade level.

Would they go to a cardiologist who speaks to his patients like: "We're going to put a balloon in this vein thingy and that should make you all better."? What about a computer engineer who says something like: "There's these wires and stuff, and that guy over there types some words and that box makes things happen on this screen."?

Occupations have specific terminology to describe specific things in a concise way so there is a reduced chance of misunderstanding. I have a basic understanding of physiology from my A&P 1 course and while I was not familiar with all of the terms in their citation, I WAS able to understand the mechanisms being discussed and thereby increase my knowledge base. Is the general public truly this gnostiphobic (if that's even a word)? The Foxhole Atheist 10:29, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I personally wish we had all kept quiet about it. --Buscombe 10:30, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Agree. A quick click on D-Notice's page would have negated the need for this discussion. 10:32, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

(EC, UD) RE Gauss I think there is no consensus on what we are supposed to do about parodists. Look at our treatment of Bugler and TK. That said, I personally think it is usually more fun not to point them out directly, though at least in the two obvious parodists mentioned, it doesn't seem to matter much. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 10:32, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Dammit! Outed and blocked. On the plus side, I have taken an innocent editor with me. D-Notice 10:50, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, TK was listening. Blocked and deleted. The Foxhole Atheist 10:54, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

The system works! Etc 11:23, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Why "dammit"? You goaded TK into knocking out another chunk of the UK. Nice work! Gauss 12:44, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Hehe yeah - and Opal Telecom is TalkTalk (used to be my provider) so that's quite a hefty slice of pie. I just checked the log and noticed he didn't block my IP range, which surprised me, although it would have taken out a huge chunk of southern England, as I'm now with British Telecom. Fox 13:06, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Gauss - I was hoping to last a bit longer. *installs Tor for future "adventures"*

Fox - In that case I'm quite happy as I didn't reailse that I'd manage to get such a big chunk of the country banned! Yay! D-Notice 14:10, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Ed creeps me out, big time.

Nothing wrong with this video, sure, or this one, I guess... but look who's favorited them. That's way creepy for my liking. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:55, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

That is rather strange--the gal in the second video is clearly past the age of consent, and she's not the least bit slutty. I wonder why Unkie Ed likes it so much?--WJThomas 13:07, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Holy Shit, that really is quite disturbing. Those are not really.....er...normal films for a curmudgeonly old ugly fat bloke to be liking, are they? DogP 13:32, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

New words, Liberal v. Conservative

Wow, us liberals only coined 27 new terms in the *entire* 1900s. and three since the turn of the millennium. Hum, those three must be "LOL", "Moar" and "Meme". --En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 12:08, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Is "Assfly" a new liberal word? MDB 13:09, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh, and Jeebus and Ebildooer. That's 6 so far in the 2000s. I think Andy LIED.--En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 13:24, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I hereby dub paranoid a conservative word--Nate River 22:30, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

How cameI become a parodist?

TK has blocked my account on the account that I was aparodist/Liberal parodist. But he has not deleted the articles I have created there. Is this fair? He has blocked my emal. He has displayed my state and even the name of my ISP. Can anyone tell me where I went wrong? Here is my contributions.--EvilFlyingMonkey 12:17, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

You're expecting fairness? From TK? You must be new 'round here...--WJThomas 12:20, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Do they really report Ip addresses to the authorities.

They sometimes do, but the authorities tend to just roll their eyes and ignore them. You would to have be doing some really heavy hacking or posting kiddy-porn (which you couldn't do anyway as you wouldn't have rights) before the authorities even lifted an eyelid. If you edit from work or school and they snitch on you then you may get reprimanded for breaking local usage policies. So always be careful if you are not using your own or a public access computer. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:47, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

TK is a bastard who's hell-bent on destroying CP from the inside. Go read Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 for more insight into his mindset. You can also read Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince and Discourses for an ironic layout of his methods. Sorry you got capped, but you're even worse off now that you posted here. Consider posting here or at Wikipedia as an alternative if you truly enjoy Wiki-editing. Although... PJR is probably going to be taking applications soon, too. The Foxhole Atheist 12:25, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

TK has blocked my email. So I cannot contact any administraters. But my IP address keeps on changing. I will be around here but I will create a new Cp accpunt. I really liked parodying.--EvilFlyingMonkey 12:34, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

By all means, create another account. It's ironic that TK's behavior, ostensibly intended to stop sockpuppetry, has the exact opposite effect. By blocking respectable IP's he drives people to use proxies. Gauss 12:47, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

The mistake was editing science-, politics- and religion-related articles. What you should do instead, is just suck up to Andy and cheer him on. Parody has become redundant on CP. Etc 12:50, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Meh, just leave it; see Conservapedia_Talk:What is going on at CP?#Is now the time... Fox 13:13, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

@Etc: the mistake was editing period. _and marmite 13:15, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, but where does the camel fit into all this? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:20, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Premuse it's the original nick of the questioner - but I don't really see it either. _and marmite 13:31, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Its yoda speak: "How came I [to] be a parodist?" Fox 13:35, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Lost in space. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh, I see it now: "How come I became a parodist?" Fox 13:39, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

But is it art? Fox 13:40, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

As long as the come is tastefully arranged. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:49, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

He's back..

Ed Poor relents on ETrundel's block... damn, I thought the little homophobe was gone for good. Broccoli 14:55, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

0_o. Ok,I'm gonna sit on my hands at both sites and see if that account's still there tomorrow. ETrundel 14:56, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

BUT YOUR A MEMBUR OF A LIBRUL TERRERIST SITE!! Neveruse513 14:57, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Why not get back to reverting straight away? Broccoli 15:07, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Ed & Nanking

It's Ed's day to shine, clearly. can someone explain to me, this: "We in the West are still waiting for the official apologies from Japan for the Rape of Nanking; at least fix the textbooks." - Ed Poor. Maybe I'm wrong, but how was the WEST harmed by the abuses and horrors at Nanking, and why would WE be waiting for an apology? Isn't an apology usually issued to the one who was the victim?--En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 15:04, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Uhm, no. The radical, unhinged right insists that everybody apologize for everything before they will apologize for anything. Otherwise it is hypocrisy or something (I've misplaced by newspeak dictionary). For instance, have you apologized to me for my stubbing my toe that time when I was four? Of course not. You liberals are too busy trying to avoid responsibility for all the ills of the world. Apologize for every time a dog has barked at me or continue to lose credibility. Godspeed! ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 15:40, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Jessica hits back hard pointing out that Japan is still waiting for an apology from the States for the atomic bombings.... Don't hold your breath sweetheart, from a realist perspective and from a war tactics standpoint, we really didn't do anything wrong.... There is a difference between the two events. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 16:25, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Last time I checked, tactics was not a synonym for right. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is indefensible.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 17:04, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I disagree. The bombings were certainly better than plan B. And civillians die in wars, that's why we stop fighting. That whole "great good" thing. Z3ro^talk 18:15, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

"civilians die in wars". true - thus rendering any criticism of the Rape of Nanking invalid. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:25, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

The radical, unhinged right insists that everybody apologize for everything before they will apologize for anything. Otherwise it is hypocrisy or something. I see that particular bit of rhetoric a LOT in political arguments. Is there a name for it? --Gulik 16:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm sure Karajou will be in there with an apology on behalf of the US Navy in no time. StarFish 16:46, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

It sounds like the younger sibling argument. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:07, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

The idea that the Japenese were absolutely (no questions asked) willing to fight it out to the very last man is a bit of propoganda floated by the winners AKA us . . the U.S. Beyond that is a sea of speculation. Some say the blockade would have worked in a few months, some say the emperor was ready to surrender but the military was not, some the opposite. I can't tell from here but I do know this, in almost any circumstance but the most dire (or, of course, a video game), dropping a city killing bombs is indeed indefensible.

Anyone else think that Ed may have just misread the word Nanking and got his holy handkerchief out? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:32, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

add the fact that young Jess owes him one for his unblocking ETrundel and you get... things that make you go urgh!--PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:36, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I used to "joke" that Nagasaki justified Hiroshima (although the delay to wait for a surrender was unjustifiably short; the first bomb should have gone to an unpopulated island, etc., etc.). Anyway, one of the reasons I have on good authority for the nuclear option versus a blockade or invasion was the Soviets. With their Western front work cleared up, they were ready to move some serious gear Eastward to assist in the Pacific theater - a thing that Truman did not want. The result might have been a post-war Japan divided between the Soviets and US influence, much like what happened to Germany. By ending the war quickly, he removed the reason for a massive buildup of Soviet troops and equipment on the Pacific rim. I guess we still had to fight them in Korea, though, see how well that worked out... ħuman 19:01, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

As they say - "the past is another country". I find it difficult to judge what was done in the past because circumstances were different and we view the actions with the benefit of hindsight. The nuclear bombing of Japan taught the whole world a horrible lesson. If somewhere else had been bombed then the two superpowers may not have been so reluctant to actually pull the trigger later on and with bigger and more plentiful bombs. Maybe a small evil actually prevented a greater evil later on. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:16, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

This is to Psy, in response to the last comment, the two events are completely differnt. The bombings in Japan were the result of several months of armed conflict, which was started with a preemptive assault on Pearl Harbor (of course, it's only a preemptive strike when you do it I guess) whereas The rape of Nanking was essentially the Army having a good time while slaughtering civilains. On top of that, Both A-bombs were dropped in military or industrial cities.... I don't say that there are no moral qualms about the event, I simply assert that there is no need for an apology. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 22:32, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Just for fun, I challenge you to name any city in the world worthy of the name that is not "industrial" - and probably also "military". ħuman 23:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

The US apologized for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and paid reparations of 1.6 billion dollars to them and their heirs. But I doubt an apology is warranted or forthcoming for HIroshima. Refugee^{talk page} 02:07, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Trivia: Wells is a city that isn't industrial. That doesn't have much to do with the A-bombs though.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 05:11, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

There are many events from wars in the past that would by today's standards be considered as war crimes. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki come to mind from the allies as examples where due care was definitely not taken to avoid civillian casualties. The treatment of allied prisoners of war by the Japanese being another where the prisoners were treated inhumanely. But then, by "today's" standards, these things are still going on. Israel's invasion of Gaza, Guantanamo and Abu Gharaib... I despair of human nature. Bondurant 07:16, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Being both a pacifist and a cynic, I find the idea of a "war crime" to be somewhat redundant. --Gulik 13:56, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

More ridiculous Andy denialism

When Tim Shriver goes on BBC to say he accepts his apology, how can Andy say Obama never apologized? Is his Obama hatred that delusional? ENorman 16:18, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

You even have to ASK?

--Gulik 16:27, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy likely thinks that the Special Olympics are American, so I bet he is genuinely confused by Obama insulting an American organization and the apology being reported via the BBC.

Also, he probably doesn't think Late Night watchers are the same audience as BBC readers, so special people watching Late Night have no idea he apologized because Andy thinks only the BBC knows about it (since he can no longer research it, as any new information would undermine his original final position). Neveruse513 16:29, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Even if he had posted an apology on youtube like Andy wants, he would have called Obama an insincere deceitful liberal and said he didn't mean it. ENorman 16:33, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

He would. He would say 'How can you be sure he didn't have his fingers crossed? Could you see both his hands all the time?'. It would be like the thing about taking the oath of office on the koran all over again. He's Ace. He's Andy. StarFish 16:36, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

"We don't know what Obama really said on that reportedly private phone call"...I love this guy. Neveruse513 16:38, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, cause you know, he was talking with the head of the Special Olympics, so the two of them probably yuked it up about them damn re-tards. God Andy bugs me. it's not just the political vendetta, but the personal one with him and obama.--En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 16:54, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

We know how petty, pedantic, and pitiful Assfly is, it's no wonder he has such a personal vendetta. He watched this guy from a close distance, maybe even knew him. That means Andy personally knows how insidious, deceitful, conniving, etc Obama is. I would imagine that anyone from Harvard Law who happens to be more successful than Andy has a similar vendetta against them. Which makes me wonder...Did any of the Gardisil people go to Harvard??? Neveruse513 16:59, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

We're actually pretty sure they did know each other; Barack was head of the Harvard Law Review the same time Andy was on it. I doubt they were friends, but they at least knew each others names. How sad for Andy. Z3ro^talk 18:13, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Which comedian was it who said something like, "How do you tell if you're a retard? If you were offended by this joke, you're not one"? --Marty 17:34, 23 March 2009 (EDT) For an equal and opposite re-joke, remove the word "not" from the punch line.

It's a fairly stock joke these days. However, (whatsisface) has milked the whole topic pretty well. I haven't seen him in a while so I forget his name. It's the guy who does the "racism olympics" bit on his show. Oh, yeah, Carlos Mencia. You know, Mr. "dee dee dee". ħuman 19:05, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Fusion centers part of the Radical Left?

Ummm, not that I think its right for the Government to label everyone with an odd opinion as a member of a militia[9], but what the Fuck is Andy talking about when he says it is party of the "Radical Left"? Fox, of course, puts it under a section about Obama, but it really has nothing to do with the Current administration, it was just a report put out by a State Bureaucratic agency, which was "Created by the Department of Homeland Security" (Oh, that, is, of course, the post that Obama created, right?), and received "More than $254 million from fiscal years 2004-2007", which is Obama's administrations fault... how? And considering that the ACLU is opposed to it, I am surprised that Andy actually doesen't support it fully, let alone not claim that it is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to stop opposition to Abortion. I would point this out myself on the talk page, but for some all my accounts were banned, even though I did no vandalizing (and little editing. I seriously wasn't trying to parody them!) --Passerby25 17:17, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Although he hates the ACLU, part of the reason they are so wonderful is that they do support certain civil liberties for everyone. They've done many things in the past he would agree with, just more he would disagree with. Not sure where he got the whole lefty thing though.

It was awesome to find out that I might be a domestic terrorist or militia member though. dream^ing _{Hail Eris!} 18:07, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

NY Senator

Actually, the original versions of the article do not indicate that he is a Democrat. I'm not saying that the omission is of cosmic detail, as the slashing of his girlfriend's face is a bit more important. Kallium^talk 23:21, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Do you have a link to this original version? Cause everything I've seen, with a timestamp of 4:51 includes the indentification. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 23:24, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Here's one. It just shows "hours ago". Kallium^talk 23:36, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, it's pretty irrelevant whether it was mentioned or not originally, the funny thing is that if it was changed, Andy thinks he was responsible for it, what an ego. Jammy 23:34, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

My only question is if Andy actually believes he is important enough for the librul media to change its biased ways because he pointed something out on his blog or if it was tongue-in-cheek. My guess going by his responses is that in the back of his mind he really is entertaining it. Must be a case of this [[10]]Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 23:37, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy really is "soooo" vain. He obviously has no conception of how online news publishing works. I have noticed on multiple occasions for virtually all fast acting news services that when a story breaks the imperative is to be the first to get it up. Articles are often rewritten several times either as new information is obtained or for copy-editing reasons (rather like a wiki). To think that AP changed its copy purely because of CP is really dumb. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that he also believes that God answers prayers. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 03:28, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Timestamp WIGO

I get that it's about Andy's massive, swollen, erect, engorged, tumescent ego, but what are we supposed to be looking at in the links? ħuman 23:46, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I was pointing out that the timestamps on the articles show that it had the democrat indentifier, but I have been corrected on that... I was just about to remove the reference. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 23:47, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

In this case, perhaps a collage of images might have worked better? IE, one click, see them all. Otherwise, it's just too much math and digging around? Also, is there an issue where articles are "updated", but not for the reason assfly claims? ħuman 00:11, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Gauss, is there any way you can truncate your clarification into a chunk of screenshots or something? ħuman 01:48, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Suggestion for replacing the clarification with (I won't do it myself because I'm always uncomfortable with major changes to WIGOs by others):

• Someone points out that the AP only added the "Democrat" label later on - and Andy of course knows exactly who is responsible for the change!

Dunno, something along these lines maybe? Either way, I gotta go for a few hours, so I'll leave the details to you guys. --Sid 07:50, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I admit that I may not have written this in the most clear way. (And that I'm often too quick to embellish other people's WIGO's, especially if they're getting lots of positive votes :-) If people want to improve this, please do. But the facts that I wanted to get across are that there was a version here with the Democrat label, at 12:29, and Andy claimed, at 18:02, that it didn't say that, and that they must have changed it subsequently, in response to his statement. Clear megalomania. That's the important aspect—they could not possibly have added that in response to Andy. There may have been earlier versions without the label, but it was in by 12:29. I'm not sure about the best way to present this. Sorry to pull an Ed "do my research for me". Gauss 09:55, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I've rewritten that WIGO - it's really pretty spectacular that Andy thinks the AP are avidly reading his every word, and I think the WIGO was really hiding the lulz. Sorry, no offense intended, the intent is simply much more massive appreciation of the Ego of the Great Citizen Journalist. DogP 11:41, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Much better. "... Which was posted at least four hours before Andy's claim". Clear and concise, the way Andy likes. Thanks. Gauss 13:22, 24 March 2009 (EDT)