Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive127

This is an archive page, last updated 29 March 2009. 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>, <126>, <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)

Luke Corlando

Luke Corlando joined in October 2007, now he's quit. ==Removal== LukeCorlando: + Please remove my userpage/talk page, all my signatures, and any other traces. Thanks!" TK is happy to oblige, no questions asked. Refugee^{talk page} 02:04, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Germ theory: Andy is Incomprehensible

Observe:[1] an editor cites an 18th century source proving people of the era understood smallpox contagion, but Andy responds calling his summary a false conclusion, a piece of denial, and attacks the very source itself for some reason?! What can't this man deny? 02:08, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Aschlafly is, as we know, one stop shopping for idiocy. Is it fair, after all this time, to mock the man in his patheticness, all of us ganging up on him? Oh, yeah, I forgot that he wants to run the world according to his "insights". Fair game, fire away. Fucking idiot. ħuman 02:59, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy has always proved himself as ripe and fair game for mockery. No "ifs" no "buts". Ace McWicked^Revolt 06:19, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't get this. Andy seams to be dancing around the idea that germs causing infection is only a theory. He's not coming out and saying it outright (as per evolution) but the way he used the word 'theory' makes me think there is something more to this. So what causes smallpox? Demon posession presumably. StarFish 07:21, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh and I love his last response. What he (deliberately) fails to realise is that it's irrelevent if the quote is scientifically accurate or not. What maters is that it shows it was known, or at least strongly suspected, that blankets and the like could transmit smallpox. So the intent to willfully infect could have been there - even if the quote was a complete hoax at the time. StarFish 07:25, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

More interestingly, I think it reflects the Assfly's fundamental misunderstanding of how science, and intellectual discovery in general works. He seems to think that, before a theory is officially documented, humanity had no concept of it whatsoever. Clearly, that's ridiculous. I'm sure that, centuries before genetics was well understood, a cattle farmer had some concept "my biggest, healthiest cows have the biggest, healthiest calves". And I'm sure, before the idea of germs was understood, there was some concept that "if you sleep on a blanket that someone with smallpox used, you may get smallpox yourself." For Ghod's sake, the man has a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering. He should have some effin' concept of how scientific discovery works! (Sorry, I've got a BSEE myself. It nearly causes me physical pain to see someone else with that degree be so utterly scientifically ignorant.) MDB 08:43, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, it's not unlike his whole language theory, right? That a thing does not, and cannot exist until 1) there is a concept for it, and 2) *our* modern word exists. Seems to me, and the little I remember from College Sci 101, you watch the real world, you define patterns (If i am sick, and go see healthy people, they become sick. I must some how be a carrier - even though I don't know what all that means). Native Americans knew to quarantine sick people (though they used a different word, so it wasn't *really* quarantining), and they knew little about science, duh...--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 10:19, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Haven't looked it up but doesn't the word "quarantine" come from the practice of isolating for 40 days anyone (I think it was ships actually) that had disease? The word concept predates (I think) Columbus. _and marmite 11:02, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

(WP) The Bible mentions the separation of infected people in order to prevent the spread of disease as early as 1513 BC, as recorded in Leviticus chapter 13 of the Old Testament. _and marmite 11:04, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

(WP again) The word "quarantine" originates from the Venetian dialect form of the Italian quaranti giorni, meaning 'forty days'. This is due to the 40 day isolation of ships and people prior to entering the city of Dubrovnik in Dalmatia - Croatia (formerly known as Ragusa). This was practiced as a measure of disease prevention related to the plague (Black Death). Between 1348 and 1359 the Black Death wiped out an estimated 30% of Europe's population, as well as a significant percentage of Asia's population. The original document from 1377, which is kept in the Archives of Dubrovnik, states that before entering the city, newcomers had to spend 30 days (a trentine) in a restricted location (originally nearby islands) waiting to see whether the symptoms of plague would develop. Later on, isolation was prolonged to 40 days and was called quarantine. _and marmite 11:05, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, see then! They didn't know how to quarantine people until after it was 40 days long. Cause andy says so.--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 11:14, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I've seen a lot of anti-Christian myths in my time, but that WP article is the most blatant and deceitful of all. G-d only knows how many liberals must have collaborated to invent it. I needn't tell you how you've all lost your credibility.seventhrib 11:26, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Er, I don't suppose Ashlafly does believe all of this stuff. It's all to do with indoctrination. It's how far he can push what he teaches his homeschoolers. Don't forget who he's legal counsel for. Ajkgordon 12:22, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

This is (yet) another example of the superior learning that is done at the (soon to be accredited?) Schlafly School! 13:51, 24 March 2009 (EDT) CЯacke®

Gawd, I can't wait to get my hands on that application...I hope I'm not disappointed when it's identical to the one he already posted. But I guess that could be a rather blatant Schlafly untruth. Neveruse513 13:56, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy's always been a bit twitchy about smallpox because it's such a great vaccination success story. --Robledo 17:53, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

As far as I can work out, social conservatives such as Aschlafly are against vaccination for two reasons, and neither of them has anything to do with the science or efficacy of them. Firstly, compulsory vaccination is government interference (ignoring the hypocrisy of his wish for government interference in sexual practice, state-sponsored religion, etc.) Secondly, some vaccinations can be argued to encourage certain practices that are deemed morally wrong. It is therefore likely that Aschlafly and his client the AAPS object to vaccination primarily on ideological grounds. Ajkgordon 18:41, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

You're probably right. Though a JPANDS paper on precious bodily fluids wouldn't surprise me in the least. --Robledo 19:36, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

You're right about ideology, but there's room for a good deal of idiocy as well. Aschlafly constantly misrepresents the science of vaccination on CP; the article on hepatitis B vaccination existed for months as a list of side effects, some of them bogus, and horror stories, without even a mention that the vaccine actually had a use (i.e., preventing hepatitis.....) - Poor Excuse 00:50, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I snorted my coffee

CP is a encyclopedia project, not a political tract. Thanks for that TK. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:27, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

How come that be? I thought Conservapedia was competing with Metapedia. Anyway why would an encyclopedia have to fear parodists? I have heard of political satirists but never encyclopedic satirists. --EvilFlyingMonkey 08:11, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Come on now. One of the biggest problems with Wikipedia is Internet jokers inserting subtle misinformation for entirely apolitical reasons. Conservapedia has the same thing, though obviously a lot of the parody is political too.--ConservapediaRoolz 08:14, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

If anything, a lot of the parody is simply to ridicule the general anti-science position that CP takes. D-Notice 08:34, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

TK forgot to mention that its written by homeschoolers, not people pushing their own agenda--Nate River 21:29, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

TK vs. The Constitution

So, we've seen TK trying to take out the free press clause in the consititution. When pointed out to him that removing the clause would mean the government would run the press, he responds, saying of course not, the press just woudn't have "protections". I'm not sure what "protections" they have other than from the government. Not that I'm suprised that TK would want a ministry of truth. Z3ro^talk 09:46, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I think you're committing the 'no middle ground' fallacy by suggesting that removing the press's right to complete freedom would automatically result in a Ministry of Truth. It is certainly a dangerous path, historically speaking, but surely there are checks and balances that could be brought in to avoid this. Furthermore, because of the growth in online communication it would now be much harder for the government of a country like the US to gain a Pravda-like stranglehold on that country's media.--ConservapediaRoolz 10:42, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

You mean it couldn't happen, like China? Of course not. Z3ro^talk 10:56, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

It could, but it needn't.--ConservapediaRoolz 11:02, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I think we're trying to avoid a situation were it could happen at all. Z3ro^talk 11:04, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I think the real hilarity comes from the fact its a conservative arguing for increased government intervention. I thought one of the key principles of conservatism was "don't give the government more power; they will inevitably abuse it" MDB 10:53, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

The whole thing is patently absurd. Removing the clause could only cause more problems. TK is bored, not a complete moron. Neveruse513 10:56, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

That's exactly it. This insanity is just bait; it's just meant to draw the sane people out into the open, where they're easier to pick off. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 11:02, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

He should lead a revolution against himself in disguise, then execute all the revolutionaries. Standard Machiavelli there. Z3ro^talk 11:09, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Conservatives (or at least Conservapedians) want more government intervention all over the place - immigration control, homosexuality and state-endorsed religion are a few examples. So there's nothing inconsistent about advocating curbs on the press from that point of view.--ConservapediaRoolz 10:57, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

It's inconsistent if you say you want less government while advocating more. That's hipocrasy, and it's wrong. Z3ro^talk 10:58, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Even the suggestion is inconsistent. A consortium of individuals doesn't maintain individual rights? When do I stop being a citizen and start being in the big bad press? Neveruse513 11:01, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

(ec) If there is censorship in any way for slander/libel, bias, misrepresentation etc, then there have to be laws (and penalties) to enforce any judgements. These laws would be created by government. This is ultimately government control of the media. _and marmite 10:57, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure you could call preventing slander/libel censorship. It depends on your definition of censorship. Z3ro^talk 11:00, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

There are laws governing traffic, but that doesn't mean the government controls all cars. You are ignoring the possibility of a middle ground.--ConservapediaRoolz 11:02, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, like the middle ground of being a citizen AND in the press. Neveruse513 11:03, 24 March 2009 (EDT) P.S. ....and how exactly does the government not control cars?

This is an interesting angle on it. However the constitution already enshrines free speech for citizens and a free press separately, so presumably there is some way of making the distinction. As for cars, my point is that, as with most aspects of society, the existence of reasonable regulation doesn't automatically mean Big Brother.--ConservapediaRoolz 11:07, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Matt Drudge: Press or citizen? Rush Limbaugh: Press or citizen? Rupert Murdoch: Press or citizen? Anderson Cooper: Press or citizen? What if it's on AC's personal blog, or on an interview he gives as a private citizen? Or overheard by the press? Or linked to? Or twittered? What if...what if...what if... Really, it's just a silly thought. You've got good intentions, but you're so far off. Neveruse513 11:11, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Neveruse, your point is a good one. I can't read TK's mind, so I don't know how he'd respond to your insightful criticism of his argument. I just wanted to voice dissent with Zero's original post, which I thought was lazily argued, because I think people get away with cheap shots at Conservapedia too easily here.--ConservapediaRoolz 11:17, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

It was a cheap shot a CP, but meant to stimulate discussion here. Way to fall into my trap. Z3ro^talk 11:31, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

What trap? This has been a good discussion. Thanks to all concerned.--ConservapediaRoolz 11:36, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Sarcasm does not translate well on the internet. Z3ro^talk 11:44, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

ConservativeRoolz, stop trying to rationalize the irrational. All you seem to do here is turn obvious nonsense into disguised nonsense. Anybody can see that pretty much every other thing a sysop says over there is extravagantly dumb or offensive, and you trying to limit it as some sort of "hey I'm a reasonable kind of guy" thing is unfunny, annoying,and embarassing. If someone did 2+2 and got 5, would you think it reasonable to say "well they're not that stupid because they were only 1 off"? Try to make real contributions here, pointing out Conservative idiocy rather than accusing us of liberal "deceit" (which is an oxymoron). First accept that Andy Schlafly is leader of the BNP, then try to defend him. Also, you have an inappropriate username. Bil08 11:45, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

(p.s I'm actually half serious here - you really need to stop trying to defend people if they're saying stuff like freedom of press should be removed, it's completely unreasonable.)

I just want to see some fairness. There are legitimate criticisms to make of Conservapedia, but this site too often resembles a group of bullies sniggering at and picking holes in everything that is said over there, whether criticism is warranted or not. There is a strong case to be made for freedom of the press, but if you open your mind you will see that some form of stronger regulation might not have to precipitate a descent into totalitarianism.

Also, if you are going to criticise my username, please spell it correctly.--ConservapediaRoolz 12:10, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Then you have to explain exactly what this "stronger regulation" would be. Perhaps some sort of Alien and Sedition Acts would suffice, as history has proven that government does not use regulation of the press to stifle opposition and crush criticism? 12:14, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

No I don't, because I'm not arguing for it, I'm just saying it might be possible. You could ask TK what he means, if you hadn't been blocked for a career of silly and counter-productive parody.--ConservapediaRoolz 12:21, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

You think we're being unfair? Look, what the guy said was this: The government should be able to make laws prohibiting the free exercise of the press. You don't even hear that explicitly said on WND - it's outrageous. It clearly entails censorship, yet you're unwilling to admit that or say what exactly it entails instead because, well you know, you jumped at the opportunity to be Mr Reasonable&unbiased&fair without thinking that you might need to make an argument rather than just take a middling position. If someone is making statements like that then we have a right to ridicule them, and in many cases an obligation. Now, alright, it's not reasonable to say that once we get rid of outright press freedom we get totalitarianism (although given the views and activities of the people at conservapedia, if they were responsible we could expect it) but the guy in the first post was obviously joking and said so. Please, at this point you're just trolling. Is it hypocritical for us to say that? No, because when we troll at conservapedia we say what's obviously true and then get to laugh when some idiot denies it. What you're doing is the opposite. Rant over. Bil08 12:35, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm sorry to have made you rant. However, I don't agree that I have to express a view in order to object to someone else's. There are already laws putting some curbs on the press, eg libel, racism, incitement to violence, so the question is 'how much', not 'if'; suggesting that the answer to 'how much' is 'slightly more' does not give you an obligation to ridicule.

Yes, some people in this thread have been joking. But there has also been an element of unthinking defence of total press freedom, and I believe it's good to question any unthinking position. This is RationalWiki, after all.--ConservapediaRoolz 13:07, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Ahaha. You expect anyone to take this seriously, when you're suggesting that we should enter into a rational discourse with TK?! Here's a challenge. Find a single discourse at CP between TK and a non-admin where he is not utterly dismissive, abusive, or just plain nuts. He's not interested in rational discourse; he's interested in emulating Andy's insanity for the sake of trolling. I'd ask TK what he means, but I know from experience I'd get an Andy response: "Liberal, obviously bias regulation deceit atheism Fairness Doctrine Obama muslim bias liberal bias Democrats Christian Christian liberal DECEIT." 13:03, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I agree with that, mostly. But criticism of his statements, whether he means them or not, should be well-reasoned.--ConservapediaRoolz 13:12, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Only up to a point. When something is so ridiculous or someone so impervious to logic, ridicule is a viable option. For instance, I've pretty much given up on debating young earth creationists. They are not deserving of a well-reasoned argument, but they are deserving of ridicule if they don't keep their inanities to themselves. Although, I do enjoy YEC apologia as a sci-fi genre... Neveruse513 13:17, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

That's a fair point...for anyone but TK. Reasoned responses are fair for Andy, PJR, etc., who believe the stuff they write, but arguing with TK is functionally identical to arguing with Rod. He's not arguing a point; he's creating nonsense to troll a debate. I will not waste my time asking him questions, as I might as well write a letter to myself and respond in conservaspeak. 13:21, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

The more I think about it, the more I can see how this could be inline with conservative thought, inconsistent and incoherent as it may be. It's just like prostitution...yeah, you can fuck...just not for money. Neveruse513 11:07, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Alright, CpRoolz is making accusations of "unthinking defense" of "total press freedom," so perhaps we should clear things up. This is the gist of TK's argument: "Since the press no longer lives up to its implicit responsibilities to be accurate and fair, they no longer deserve the explicit rights granted by the people." No one is defending slanderous press, and no one is defending the publication of lies. We are responding to the argument encapsulated in that statement, that freedom of the press should be curtailed because wingnuts think the press is biased against their world view. Limits on freedom of speech and press in terms of libel, incitement to violence, etc. function upon the harm principle - you should not do damage to others with your speech. However, you're free to publish racism and patently biased information otherwise, and though I abhor it I will defend it (which is why I and others are wary of our potentially dangerous anti-hate-speech laws in Canada). The press is not an isolated, self-contained entity; it is an extension of the body politic, and freedom of the press is my freedom to print whatever the hell I want. I will not have my rights curtailed because organized media isn't presenting the world the way the right wing wants. If you don't like it, stop buying it. If they cause harm, sue their asses.

Edit1: Actually, I am defending the publication of lies. Unless we make government the arbiter of truth, we must rely on the marketplace of ideas and the body politic itself to hold outlets to account, with judicial action and laws when such lies cause harm.

Edit2: And I should note, I realize the price at which this freedom is retained. I abhor popular mass media. CNN has become a fear factory, Fox News a paranoia plant, talk-radio an enormous experiment in preaching to the converted, and all in all, an anti-intellectual clusterfuck which panders to the basest elements of our culture. Yet I will not for a second consider endangering my rights to say so because people think they can "fix" it through regulation and control. 13:41, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

That's exactly the point. Freedom is fine, but when people start regulations because they don't like a part personally, we run into a wall. Preventing harm is great, but should not be used as an excuse to silence voices you don't agree with. Z3ro^talk 13:55, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I agree (largely). CpRoolz is completely missing the point, trying to make it out that we're blindly defending an absolutely free press, when what's clearly happening is us making fun of unwarranted breaches of that freedom. Getting rid of the guarantee of press freedom as enshrined in the constitution is not answering "slightly more" to the question "how much". The change he wants crosses a moral boundary, from regulation based on preventing harm coming to innocent others, to censorship of news that he doesn't want to hear. "Slightly more" isn't even what TK wants. He wants the end of "lies and slander" in the Conservapedia sense - that is, reports that are critical about the Republican party, its ideology or fundamentalist Christians and their doctrines, or the media's failure to keep "Obama is an Islamic Terrorist" on loop 24/7. Anybody here would say that regulation of criticisms of the Democratic Party by the government would be illegitimate. Even if those criticisms (as they often are from the right-wing) are completely ridiculous and borderline slander. There is a moral obligation for us to lampoon those criticisms, and a moral obligation for newspaper owners to clamp down on reporters, but there is no state obligation for censorship in this area. Bil08 13:58, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

CpRoolz: "There are already laws putting some curbs on the press, eg libel, racism, incitement to violence". This is essentially false. Libel is about knowingly false and damaging written statements, whether written by "the press" (or even published at all) or not. There are no (enforced or enforceable) U.S. laws against racist speech or writing. Finally, "true threat" and "fighting words" restrictions apply to everyone, not just the press. Coarb 14:43, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

CpR: You say that government control of the media doesn't have to descend into what we see in China or saw in Soviet Russia (Conservapedia edits YOU!), but you could also argue that martial law doesn't necessarily have to descend into what we see in Burma. That aside, it is hypocrisy for people who claim to want less government intrusion, less government regulation, smaller government overall, etc., to want tight regulation of the media because they don't like what the media is saying. That is baldfaced, disgusting hypocrisy- a reversal of principals because of pure convenience. Fortunately for our civil liberties, I doubt that many conservatives would actually agree with TK. Even if they did, good luck passing legislation in that vein, regardless of the makeup of Congress. Corry^{You can always tell a Milford man.} 23:38, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

TK owes me one irony meter

TK arguing for the fairness doctrine...ahh...I can't take it! This guy is the king of trolls! Neveruse513 09:47, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks to whoever WIGO'd the best quote ever...

TK - "Conservatives intrinsically reject Ad hominem, so you aren't getting any points here for that. Conservatives understand that the basic moral character of a person is always relevant to an argument." dream^ing _{Hail Eris!} 11:46, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

It's beautiful. Especially right after he's called an editor a moron. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:51, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Welcome. I unfortunately exposed a parodist's addition a couple of days ago, which I thought was a regular user's entry. So I guess it makes up for the slip? Please? --Irrational Atheist 13:48, 24 March 2009 (EDT) (Don't ban me!)

You should have been here long enough to know that bans are incredibly rare. Bastard harmonic Hoover! 14:53, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

It was an attempt at humor. I didn't want to do the smiley thing. --Irrational Atheist 15:23, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

CPwebmaster

What is the story with CPWebmaster? Why does Andy trust him with "Bureaucrat" power? Andy can trust SharonS to behave, being one of his homeskollers. But why CPwebmaster? Is he the technical person behind the site?--Buscombe 12:03, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Historically, iirc, yes. Fox 12:16, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, for one thing he's got his greasy mitts on the database which makes user rights restrictions somewhat laughable. For another, I think he might have been one of Andy's homskollars back in the day. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:13, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I think he might have been one of Andy's homskollars back in the day.

So, he's Andy's protege... apprentice... sidekick, if you will. He's Robin to Andy's Batman! "To the Conserva-mobile!" "nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh..." MDB 12:28, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

He is posting (sparingly) as cp:User:PhilipB, too. He seems to be quite decent (have a look on his RW account. IMO, he is the only one who actually learns something on CP, i.e., who to administrate a wiki. Though for a future résumé, he perhaps shouldn't state I was the administrator of Conservapedia but something like I managed the blog-con-wiki of my local church-con-school. No one ever dared to complain. --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:44, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I do believe he is also prolific sysop DeborahB.'s brother. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:14, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I really doubt that he will mention CP by name in any resume. Rather, he might try something like "*Administrator of a large Internet Encyclopedia free of liberal bias" --Sid 15:26, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Do Conservapedia undo edits made by parodists?

I was blocked by TK for being a parodist but they have not deleted the articles that I created or reverted the edits I made. See my satire. When someone comes out as a parodists do conservapedia undo the edits they made?--EvilFlyingMonkey 12:38, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Now that you showed TK exactly where they are, yes, they will. That is, IF they can find out which parts are actually satire. You might want to limit talk about this kind of thing to user talk pages... The Foxhole Atheist 12:41, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

You have ruined the lulz now, Evil one. Why don't you remove this section before TK spots it?--Buscombe 12:52, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Typically, no, because they are usually incapable of telling what's parody and what's legit. I think of all Bugler's contributions, only a couple clearly parodic essays were removed. None of my parodic content was touched upon my blocking, nor has it been since, so far as I know. 12:54, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Meh, it doesn't matter... I just went through his list and they found almost all of it and reverted or removed on or before 23MAR09. The Foxhole Atheist 12:56, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I know of many other things on CP that haven't been reverted. When they ban someone, they can't always tell, and don't have the personpower (especially now that the blocking rate / number of sysops ratio is so high) to check everything. Remember also, they are ignoramuses. I keep quiet about the parodic things that I know about, and everyone else should too. Of course, the batshit-crazy insane things are another matter. Gauss 13:31, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Well the crazy stuff is all their own work so it would have to be pretty embarassing (like the great TK plagiarism episode) before they bury it. The problem is that some stuff, which people might describe as vandalism or parody, actually fits in with their own worldview and so is loved and cherished. TK's global blocking operation has actually succeeded in reducing new parody as there are so few edits for my socks to hide amongst. I'd say that I only manage to post two or three major pieces of disinformation a week now. Before, I was doing that a day - mostly on UK topics, but touching a non-US topic is almost a dead giveaway now. As Gauss says whenever you see parody you should keep quiet about it and never, ever boast about details of your own exploits. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:54, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Under the guise JJacob I created "Liberal Obsession" at CP and it remains to the day despite being pointed out as parody several times. Ace McWicked^Revolt 16:43, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

i lol'ed

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&curid=69968&diff=644034&oldid=641300

some good ol' fashioned 'moronic vandalism' Neveruse513 14:11, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh, that's the homosexual agenda? I'm glad someone posted it, National Headquarters still hasn't sent me my copy, and I was recruited over twelve years ago. I guess its in the same package as my toaster oven. MDB 14:16, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Man, that'd be a good parody...A militant homosexual telling CP exactly what his agenda really is. Facetiously confirming each one of their fears and planting some new ones.

RAAAAAWWWWWWRRRR I WUNT TO TEECH UR KIDZ BOUT BUTTSECKS Neveruse513 14:20, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I loved the "12:30- Break for lunch" --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:36, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Hilarious! That might have been funnier than our agenda article. In fact, it almost certainly was. ħuman 17:24, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA brilliant! Ace McWicked^Revolt 17:31, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Pot this is kettle...

From here: "one more blatant example of media collusion in branding anything/anyone they don't like as right-wing extremists." And CP branding everything they don't like baby-eating, librull atheists would be? More TK trolling. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:36, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

The most hilarious thing is that the 'newsbusters' article itself refers to the protesters as 'radical left-wing activists' whilst complaining about the media labelling their opponents as far-right...Oh, sweet irony. Jammy 14:43, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

It's not their fault reality has a well-known liberal bias. Z3ro^talk 14:43, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Ah, I WIGO'd it before checking here. Yeah, that posting broke two Irony Meters for me. --Sid 15:15, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Student 19

From World History Homework Seven:

Also the English language is very good at expressing certain words.

Andy's not marked it yet. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:47, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Even though we're not supposed to mark the children's efforts, this one will probably get marked down. See whether you can spot why: "H7. Dante's great work about Hell: something we should hear more about today? Your view, please. I think that Dante’s work on hell, the 'Inferno' is a very important piece, because I do not think that many people acknowledge hell as a real issue in their lives, and they do not think about the consequences of their actions. Because of this I think that people are more likely to commit crimes and do wrong things. So I think that we should hear more about Dante’s 'Inferno'." --Irrational Atheist 15:29, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Summarize the history of the English language. The English language originated in A.D. 450 when Germanic tribes settled in England. But the language developed there is known as “Old English” and is not spoken today. Old English was spoken up until the Norman invasion in 1066, and then a new brand of English known as Middle English was spoken. Modern English began after the middle ages. -- cute. It sounds as if these are distinct languages and some dude comes along and says "ok, stop with the old, here is a new language". But it's not the kid I'm bashing, but the teacher. I have no doubt that the kid is doing what he understood Andy to be saying. Andy so sucks as a teacher, which is half the reason he has to grade high. makes him look like a Guhhrratte teacher. --En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 15:35, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Too much...

head, exploding from the irony. Z3ro^talk 15:45, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeh I saw that too and went ಠ_ಠ . Every fibre of me tells me that it's a goddamn obvious troll. The only thing that doesn't fit is that he's for real, that gets me every time. --GTac 15:58, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

And this from the man who gave us

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.--Andy Schlafly 23:34, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:00, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

The delusion of grandeur is magnificent and should be encouraged barring no costs. Yes, Andy, the AP reads Conservapedia and updates accordingly. Yes, you were correct about the timestamps proving that the AP had originally tried to censor readily available information. Yes, you have proved beyond doubt that the media is biased. Thank you for doing your part to keep those bastards honest. Neveruse513 16:01, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Just a thought...

Commenting on an education related issue, that nice Prof. PZ MYers at Phyrangula [2] said:

...There's a deeper problem here than the simple superficial fact that we've got influential people trying to push nonsense into science classrooms. It's that somehow, we have a system that gives flaming incompetents this kind of power — that we willingly hand over important decisions about the education of our children to people who aren't qualified, who have no understanding of science, and who want prioritize a page and a half of vague, poetic metaphor from a ragged old hodge-podge of a book of mythology over the concrete, well-tested, and well-documented body of modern scientific information. (My emphasis)

But guess what...he wasn't actually talking about that nice Mr Aschlafly.

Things must be getting pretty bad in America. Mick McT 16:31, 24 March 2009 (EDT) .

"Pretty bad"? Like you wouldn't believe. It is widely believed that creationism/evolution is a legitimate debate. I'd say easily more than half the people in my office are creationists. Neveruse513 16:36, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't know how I'd like to work with people on day leave from mental institutions. _and marmite 20:59, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

It's touching Europe too. There have been flyers here in the Netherlands about teaching intelligent design in schools, and yes, they were filled with lies. And I saw this big debate on TV about it too, on how evolution vs creationism explained the origins of life and supported different morals. I raged hard. --GTac 05:21, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

TK Wigos

We seem to be in possession of a heck of a lot of TK wigos. Personally I dont find them funny because we know TK's style - he is not unintentionally funny, stupid or contradictory. He parrots Andy and his MO his plain for all to see. He is a power mad egotist and I dont see why we have him plastered all over the page as he is really full of shit. Catch my drift? Ace McWicked^Revolt 16:58, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Doesn't it fuel his destruction dilapidation of CP? Neveruse513 17:00, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

So don't WIGO TK in the same way that we don't WIGO parodists? EddyP 17:09, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

As someone who enjoys trolling, I'm still a TK fan. I know, I know... Neveruse513 17:15, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

@EddyP - yeah kinda, TK is a parodist, as far as I am concerned anyways. Also,to all, sorry about the lack of snark in the most recent WIGO I posted. I am incredibly hungover and uninspired. Ace McWicked^Revolt 17:22, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, honestly it's about time for someone else to have the spotlight. A few months ago WIGO was pretty much All Creepy Uncle Ed All the Time. Now it's the TK Hates You All Extravaganza. HumanisticJones 17:35, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

It's pretty much just TK abusing powers right now, with Andy occasionally making up new conservative words. Z3ro^talk 17:38, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Agreed. TK is functionally equivalent to a parodist, and there's no reason to WIGO anything he does, except so far as Andy is involved. He lacks style and substance, and we can really predict everything he says. 17:49, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

That was my point really. As to Uncle Ed, he is unintentionally stoopid. TK is just a cunt. Ace McWicked^Revolt 17:52, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

@all: What did you expect? Several ISPs have been banhammered, most/all parodists either outed themselves or got caught, and we sorta agreed to let things run their own course without creating new socks. This is the natural result: Andy has random brain farts insights, TK goes wild (with no senior sysop left to oppose him), Ed asserts that Global Warming most definitely wasn't caused by us, Ken masturbates about his YouTube vids and Hitler, and that's pretty much it. There is nothing else left! --Sid 20:50, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

when TK is WIGOed, he reads it & his ego is inflamed. This leads him on to bigger & better wazzockings. Keep it up, say I. _and marmite 20:58, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

(EC)The thing to remember about TK is he reads us meretriciously. Like Ken

and the phone messages, they sit around waiting for a mention from us here. It is how they validate themselves, they feel they aren't wasting there time playing stupid power games on Andy's blogopedia if we are noticing them; they are internet celebrities or at least notables. - User $\pi$ 21:00, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Premuse you mean meticulously? _and marmite 21:04, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I did, but then I looked up what meretriciously meant and felt it was more appropriate for TK. - User $\pi$ 21:09, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, I thought that after I'd commented. _and marmite 21:13, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I might write a book like that, placing the wrong word in to convey a second meaning. I don't think it would sell well, but it would be impressive. - User $\pi$ 21:18, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I recall reading a SF book years ago wherein there was a campaign slogan ending something like: " ...a meretricious vote for labour!". The point being made that people didn't know what it meant, but it sounded good. I've always remembered the word since. (Eric Frank Russell?) _and marmite 21:34, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

This always makes me laugh. - User $\pi$ 21:41, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Bangs head

"Over time, culture and politics must inexorably follow the lead of language. " Bangs head on my desk. bangs head on my desk. cries quietly that "the stupid, it hurts". --En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 17:48, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I know, it really is a total cluster fuck. I am surprised the guy remembers to breathe. Also, the statement is at odds with what he previously stated about genocide. He said there cant have been genocide previously because there was no word for it. Now he is stating that culture follows the imposition of the language. Freaking moronAce McWicked^Revolt 17:53, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

We really should have an article that wraps up the entirety of the Schlafly Grand Linguistic Thesis.

1. Language necessarily improves over time
2. This improvement is divinely directed, as it precedes cultural change (for a concrete example, see Jesus introducing absolute truth)
3. This improvement (new terms) causes cultural change
4. The penultimate result of the linguistic progress is Modern American English
5. Conservative words are being generated at an accelerating rate (implanted by God?)
6. Pursuant to point 3, the exponential generation of conservative words proves that conservative Christianity will inevitably triumph over evil atheist liberalism.
7. Attempts to use non-American English are not merely bias, but evil attempts to subvert the will and providence of God.

(Note: The ancients were also smarter than us, which does not make any sense in this system) 17:55, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

(Also, greek and latin are the bestest languages in the whole world ever, cause they are ... well, i don't know why. He never said why.) The scary thing is that I really think he belives his own argument. He doesn't even "cherry pick" it's less than that. he chooses 30 words out of the roughly 1.5 hundred thousand new words since King James, most of which aren't even correctly "words" but are memes (a liberal word, by the way), and says "see see, look how smart I am". I could pick 100 random words, too. All liberal. including the English word "liberal". and evolution. and solar power. and "nukaler". and Light Bulb. and University. and Humanity degree. and Socialism. and computer. (and --En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 18:03, 24 March 2009 (EDT)brb)

My favorite is how he cites the article he wrote as proof. Gee, I wonder why conservative is winning when you wrote the article. I'm going to write an article proclaiming myself as ruler of the world; and you can't disagree, it's right their in the article. Z3ro^talk 18:05, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Okay, I've begun assembling Conservapedia:Conservapedian_linguistics. 18:09, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Sometimes you just produce delicious little gems, Publius. --GTac 05:27, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Uncle Ed- Global warming denialist

Discussion moved to Debate:Yet another global warming debate.

Just Curious

Can anyone tell me, or hazard a guess at least, as to why Ken always deletes and recreates certain pages? It always been a mystery to me. Ace McWicked^Revolt 21:44, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

There are many reasons, they range from hiding vandalism, purging his talkpage of comments he doesn't like (he almost never archives it), to my personal favourite, hiding his spelling mistakes in the history when we link to them. - User $\pi$ 21:49, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

And just putting them on Recent changes so they'll be noticed. _and marmite 21:50, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeh, it's mostly attention whoring, it's about all he seems to have got. Especially since all his posts are the same, seemingly being created by Fun:Ken_Quote_Generator and TK seems to be stealing his trolling spotlight too. --GTac 05:30, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Lecture nine

Link
"To this day Cromwell is loved by many in England, but hated by others." Izzatso? I hadn't noticed. _and marmite 21:45, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

"The (Protestant) United Kingdom formed in response to the movement towards independence by (Catholic) Ireland." ! _and marmite 21:46, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

(the Kingdom of Ireland, already under English control by 1691, merged with the Kingdom of Great Britain to form the United Kingdom with the passing of the Act of Union 1800.) [WP]

You shouldn't let facts and dates get in the way of your "Triumph of Conservative Ideology" view of history. Remember conservatism is based on logic and so is right. People don't repeat the mistakes from the past (a Marxian view of history but I digress from my Andy rant) so hence we are becoming conservative. If the facts get in the way of this view we must simply ignore them. - User $\pi$ 22:02, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

My favourite bit is the racist statement that the most popular name for newborns in the UK is Mohammed - sorry, no, whilst Mohammed is increasingly popular it's still doesn't make the top ten. Jack still retains the number one spot. Silver Sloth 12:06, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

So, Andy doesn't know Jack? I suspected as much. --Gulik 19:10, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

New Wiki started by Philip J. Rayment

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?.

Compared to whom?

You're a genius, Joaquin! Heh! _and marmite 22:10, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

For grabbing a frigging map somewhere on the innertubes? Sheesh... ħuman 22:56, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

(interleaved) Yes? ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 10:26, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

101/100, may use as a model answer! Z3ro^talk 23:04, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

World History Lecture 9

It's done, except for proofreading. Here ya go!

And, holy shit, it does very little discussion of American Literature, at the time when American Literature became globally recognized, and American authors were considered some of the best in the world. How can America-centric Andy pass up this opportunity to talk about Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ben Franklin, James Fenimore Cooper, Edgar Allan Poe, Ben Franklin and Washington Irving, among so many others? And the Founding Fathers and their political and philosophical works! This is all Andy talks about with regards to literature for this time period:

“”In the early 1800s, art (including music) and literature underwent "revolutions" similar to the political ones. Romanticism was the major artistic movement, reflecting an emphasis on thoughts, feelings and nature. Lord Byron was a leading romanticist who fought for the independence of Greece. This emphasis on feelings mirrored a political romanticism that promoted democracy and the needs of the "common man" or everyday person. . . . Realism was the new form of literature that told the dark side of the industrial revolution: the overcrowded, filthy conditions in which many workers struggled.

I guess culture isn't as important as the political affiliation of words. --Irrational Atheist 22:26, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

(see two entries above) It's truly awe inspiring ... NOT _and marmite 22:30, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Be quiet; Andy knows all that he needs to about literature: that USA is number 1, has been since the early 19th century, and the Nobel Prize for Literature is biased and anti-American. I wonder if the man has ever read a classic of any description. 22:33, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

The Bible? Though that's probably giving him too much credit. If he actually read the whole thing (KJV obviously) front to back, I'd be surprised. User:Ttony21/sig2 23:11, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I wouldn't bet money Mr. Andy's read the Bible. Here's his start on the greatest conservative novels of all time. Doesn't say if he read the Cliff's Notes version or the Classic Comic.--Simple 23:23, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

He'll have skimmed it. _and marmite 23:44, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh wow. If he doesn't have the patience to read anything more than 5 sentences on a wiki, I'd love to see him try and grind his way through Lord of the Rings. ENorman 23:52, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

There's an awful lot of furriners on that list... ħuman 00:20, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a conservative novel? Andy, have you read it? --Kels 00:25, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is libertarian, not conservative. Most libertarians would agree with the American conservative movement's (theoretical) support of small government, but would recoil in horror at much of Andy's conservativism. If RAH were alive now, he'd be desperately trying to get out of his coffin probably laugh his ass off at Conservapedia. MDB 08:11, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

He's got Animal Farm on the list, too. :) I'm willing to give him The Man Who Was Thursday, although I certainly would dispute that Chesterton had anything like Schlafly Conservatism in mind when he wrote it ever. State of Fear, though, is clearly Schlafly territory. --Marty 01:21, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I haven't ever read this, although it's on my list... but Crime and Punishment is conservative? Aren't the two main characters a murderer and a prostitute with Christian values? Someone who knows more fill me in, but I mean, is he just reading the titles and going "yeah, that sounds good" in his best Patrick Warburton voice? SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 02:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I added the Dostoevskys to the list, and while he was a conservative individual, in no way do C&P or the Brothers Karamazov fit Andy's conservatism. 04:16, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Why does that article begin with "Conservative novels exist, and some are immensely influential."? Is he's expecting that everyone would deny the possibility of a conservative writing a novel? --GTac 05:53, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I suspect Schlaughably added this in order to overcome his own doubts. Novelist -> Artist -> Hollywood Values -> Death by librulizm. Taytopacket 09:09, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Frankly, I imagine very few Schafly-defined conservatives have ever written a novel, then again an influential novel, given his standards of just what a conservative is. Seriously, Andy's original list is just 4 anti-soviet/anti-totalitarian works, with essentially nothing to do with his brand of conservatism (excepting perhaps some of Advise and Consent's politics. I haven't read it.) What would the plot of a truly conservative novel be in his head? 16:59, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Besides the fact that Heinlein was clearly an-cap leaning libertarian with an interest in alternative government structures (despite not loving Harsh Mistress, I do enjoy the idea of having a special body to repeal laws, needing only a strong minority), how on earth does Schlafly get past the "liberal" familial relationships such as line-marriages and other forms of polygamy, which are clearly represented as working well.dream^ing _{Hail Eris!} 14:46, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

So...

...has anyone asked PJR what finally pushed him over the edge at CP? I don't want to be yet another person bothering him about this, so if you have already, by all means let's hear it. 01:43, 25 March 2009 (EDT)tealish^??!!!1

http://web.aanet.com.au/P_Rayment/Conservapedia/Index.htmDiadochus 01:48, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Someone needs to Parthian Shot this. --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 11:33, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, kind sir. It sure is long...but that's understandable... tealish^??!!!1 01:51, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Haha, yep! I don't think he actually ever says what the last straw was... but that'll have it, if he's written it anywhere.-Diadochus 01:58, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

But please ... gentlemen, don't vandalize this new wiki until it clearly deserves it. PJR isn't the same kind of asshole Andy is. Etc 03:20, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

"The more you know someone, the more that you come to love them. Unless you hate them." LOL. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 03:21, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Reading through it, although he doesn't specify an overriding reason it seems to be a combination of Andy, TK and Bugler. The Obama article might have been the tipping point. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 03:37, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

The Muslim mess was hilarious, and PJR is right that it showed how illogical CP admins can be, but a lot of his page on the subject is just that Mormons aren't Christian: "Ultimately, I think that this shows Andy Schlafly's theology to be lacking, if he can accept Mormons as fellow Christians, which is clearly what he thought." This makes PJRwiki look a little bit like one of those silly doctrinal disputes that tend to pop up in Christianity all the time. Coarb 03:56, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Also, this is gold: "If you don't know about God's mercy, which is sure and everlasting, then I pity you (not with contempt like Mr. T. but with tenderness and empathy like a brother)." I wonder who that was? Coarb 03:59, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

And Brother TK is already trying to thwart plans for editors (and sysops) to leave en masse and take their work with them. Any bets we start see TK making 1 small edit to Addison's work? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 04:08, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, I'm sure by CP's standards it'd all be fair use anyway... Pseudomonas 06:24, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm not analysing it too much at the moment, just enjoying it for the sheer lulz of seeing a few sacred cows being shafted and TK lambasted. Fox 04:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

To prevent the "copying" they'd have to kill the history of an article - I was thinking of porting "my" version (ie, the original) of a number of things I wrote at CP over to ASK - all I'd have to do is use the history to get to the version that was only me. I wonder if the "first" edit to a page can be oversighted? Or if they'd have to delete and re-create? (That, of course, would be deceitful... and violation of editors' copyrights, and their policy...) ħuman 16:29, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

And no doubt the troll is busy working up his defence - "the conversations were forged", "Philip's leaving means his lies cannot be contradicted" "I'm the injured party here" (which was also Bugler's favourite line)- his usual tripe. I'm sure the wires will be humming on his side. Andy will go "la-la-la can't hear you." of course. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 05:17, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I'd forgotten "Two meters" lol. Also, seeing now the duplicity of Teacake revealed (which I already knew from my own experience, but have until now never seen so much evidence of), I can't help but wonder just what he was emailing to Bugler. Did that ever surface? Fox 05:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

There is a bit of a discussion here. - User $\pi$ 05:46, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Re "Two meters", I didn't think anyone here could forget that. However, at least PJR got a screencap, I don't think we managed that before the page was nuked. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:33, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

A hearty Awoogar do Diadochus for posting the link (and to Phil if you're reading).-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 07:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

The inclusion of "2 meters" is interesting - that must have been quite a few months ago. Means he's keeping a list of grievances for a while. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:17, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Lets be honest, only Ed thought it was a good article. PJR was saving it for prosperity. - User $\pi$ 07:30, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

He started writing the "report" last summer. I like that he chose to use my "pastry" article to compare to Ed's Two Metres. I also got a shout-out for noting proof that E.Wig was TK... ah, the good old days... ħuman 19:51, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Has anybody openly mentioned Storehouse of Knowledge at Conservapedia yet? It would be interesting to see the reaction - will Andy & co be happy to discuss it, or will it become verboten to mention it like RationalWiki? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:41, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

My guess is that it will be axed by their "NO ADVERTISING except for blogs Ken made special deals with!" rule. Even when the opening will be phrased as "Hey, have you seen...?" --Sid 07:51, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

"Verboten" will be the operative word. Although I see sysops Addison and Geo.Plrd are there (although the latter skunklet is probably only there to report back to his top boss, TK, on what's going on.) How long until other CP editors wake up and see what a (hopefully) decently run wiki looks like. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:56, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I wonder, how long before words like "storehouse", "knowledge" and "ask" are added to the spam filter just like "rationalwiki"? Etc 08:08, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

More NB- how long until we have WIGO aSK? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:12, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

When something more interesting than stub creation starts going on, I think. Z3ro^talk 09:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

The creation of the actual wiki is interesting enough. I'll WIGO it right now. Etc 10:59, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Done. Although this isn't technically "going on at CP" it's clearly CP-related enough, IMHO. Etc 11:03, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

(UI) I think we should start some sort of WIGO ASK, perhaps in the RW namespace like the other WIGOs. It will at least give us a talk page for it besides the one at the article on the site. If it dies out, then it dies out. Discussing here at WIGO CP is not really apropos, IMHO. Considering it is a young earth-based encyclopedia, it's bound to get funny at some point. And we can already give out a "biggest idiot" award based on past experience - Uncle Smeg joined up... ħuman 17:04, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Kendoll is fast

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?.

EdWiki

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?.

WIGO quality lately

Is it just me, or have the last week or so WIGOs been kinda lacking in quality? I can't figure out whether its me, simply poor writing, or a function of lack of lulz at the declining TK-ruled CP. Any thoughts? Z3ro^talk 09:47, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh, I don't know... I thought TK's "lets edit the 1st Amendment" suggestion was pretty good (that's why I WIGO'd it.) MDB 09:51, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

That was probably the best, but the others have just made me go "meh" lately. Z3ro^talk 10:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I see the problem as too much repetition and too few real editors. Who's left? TK, Andy, Ed, Ken

, Jessica? And only Andy and TK are producing the stupidity lately. How many times can we really show off the same things in funny ways? A tired joke is a tired joke. --Irrational Atheist 10:21, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I completely agree ... I've found myself voting a lot of them down. Some because they aren't funny and some because they're so poorly written. I didn't think the 1st Amendment one was very good, mostly because it's what I expect some of those clowns to say. Jrssr5 10:58, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

First read that as "found myself vomiting a lot" -- funny thing is, I found that quite understandable. --This user is Crowing Rabidly! 11:40, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Often that's not an unreasonable response to CP ingenuity. Jrssr5 11:41, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I think that the lack of good WIGOs reflects CP's decline. I've been following CP for about a year and it has almost ground to a halt. Recently 500 edits spans over 24 hours of activity. With the new PJR wiki I think that CP will decline further. I usually judge a new editor by whether or not they follow the First name+intial rule when they sign up. If they do then they are most likely socks. If my theory is correct then CP is attracting almost no new non-sock editors. Most of the entertainment springs from well meaning new editors getting battered by TK the first time they try to argue a point. We're just not seeing this happen much anymore. JoeDuffy 11:57, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

*calls*LArron! We need you to do a graph of edits per day at CP and here, preferably superimposed.*/call* Bastard harmonic Hoover! 12:28, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

WesleyS and Addison are already at aSK. All it's going to take is for Jessica and RJJensen to go and CP really has nobody contributing anything, except Andy with his homeschool curriculum. Jessica is more Christian than Conservative, so she might well make the jump. Jensen is perhaps the opposite, and quite US-centric, so I think he'll stay and make it RJJJensenapedia.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:00, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

The world is going to hell in a handbasket. First, most of the Ramones are dead. Spandau Ballet are touring again (Chant No.1 notwithstanding). Don Van Vliet stopped making music a long time ago. Pop stars' weight and hotness is more important than ability. Hollywod since the mid-Seventies has been shite. Star Wars ruined modern cinema. The ice caps are melting. The Sun is heading towards a heat death. And now, to cap it all, CP WIGOs are getting crappier. I tells ya, I'm headed for the hills. DogP 15:23, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Finally, someone understands my pain! Z3ro^talk 15:47, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh, come on. Buckaroo Banzai and Big Trouble were great 80's films! --Irrational Atheist 16:08, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

How long will this last?

PJR's new wiki, A Storehouse of Knowledge, has been given its own page on Conservapedia.

We'll see if TK, Andy and the lot will tolerate mention of "the competition". MDB 09:49, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

"PhilR" has already been blocked for having too similar of a name to a "previous admin." The page is still there as of writing. --Irrational Atheist 10:13, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

How much do you think it burns Andy's ass that he now has an "encyclopædia" redlink on his blog? The Foxhole Atheist 11:24, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

(undent)

Regarding the PJR WIGO - was "fiendship" deliberate or a typo? --SpinyNorman 12:07, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

It's one of my favorite made-up words! Etc 12:48, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Addison adds on to the article. I think this one will stick around on CP for a while. --Irrational Atheist 15:28, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Is it wrong...?

Is it wrong that I'm purposely backing up people whom TK reverts their edits, hoping he believes the person to be a sock and bans them? I'm trying to see how much it would take before TK believes those people are my socks and kills their accounts for associating with RW, even though they're innocent? Subversion through paranoia, always full of lulz. --Irrational Atheist 10:03, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

You have my complete support. Neveruse513 10:25, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm still of the opinion that doing anything at CP merely extends its life. All a bit last week, tbh.Fox 10:31, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

If you could snap your fingers and make CP disappear, would you? Neveruse513 10:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I wanted to do something similar the other day, but couldn't find any user in the last 250 recent changes who wasn't one of CP's core or someone whom I suspected to be from RW.. --GTac 10:33, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I mean, Jackson123 hasn't been caught yet... --Irrational Atheist 11:01, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

WIGO aSK

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?.

I'm bored with CP...

I'm bored with CP. I'm going to start my own Wiki. Only better! And shinier! And fewer goats! --Irrational Atheist 12:37, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Constipedia - Dedicated to blocking the inevitable forward movement of progress since 2009... --SpinyNorman 13:12, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Coffee + nose + out = not a good combination. Good laugh was had once I'd stopped choking though. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:21, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Totally unrelated: HSmom's not been on for 9 days now. _and marmite 14:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Blocked, or given up in disgust? Totnesmartin 15:03, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I checked her logs...she's gone on sabbaticals of up to a month in the past, so I wouldn't count her out just yet. If she pops up on aSK and not CP, I think it's a good indication that she might be done. Neveruse513 15:06, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

aSK is going to take a fair portion of CP editors, methinks. For me the only question is, will he let Andy and TK in? EddyP 15:40, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

he was mad to let Ed in. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:46, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, but it's going to be tremendously entertaining to watch Ed split himself between CP and ASK - he can't keep as active on CP as a result. I'm expecting rampant copying of his stubby bits and more general lunacy. It'll keep him occupied and off the streets, and hopefully away from YouTube videos of young girls. It's weird watching the rapid article creation going on over the there - and all the stupidity involved in creating yet another version of the 'truth' on the interweb. See the new article on football for example. Right, as if CP or ASK are places where anyone's going to go to get footie info. DogP 15:51, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Copying of his stubby bits? In relation to Uncle Ed, that idea just seems worse.HumanisticJones 16:59, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I think Ed might be on a short leash. Here, I think PJR calls his church a cult. Coarb 16:01, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Undent I noticed that cult bit, and was frankly surprised. It seems totally uncharacteristic from a man who defended Obama against claims of being a Muslin and a Gay. CPNuisance 16:10, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm gonna go build my own Wiki! With blackjack and hookers! In fact, forget the Wiki! --GTac 16:08, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I can't see Ed progressing very far after the way Philip savaged him in his epic Parthian shot. He gets almost as much rubbishing as Andy and TK. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:21, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

This is going to be a fun page to watch. Empty for now. How long before the inserting of gibberish or nonsense sets in and it starts filling up? DogP 16:25, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

File under Mildly Amusing -the first blockee is ASchlafly. DogP 22:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Wait...

Wait, did I just get duped? Is Benjamin just archiving Tim/CPAdmin1's Parthian shot, or is he leaving himself and just using Tim's parthian shot as his own? I are confused... --Irrational Atheist 17:11, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm watching this too. Could be nothing.....but let's watch on. Taytopacket 17:16, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Doesn't look like he's leaving. In fact he's just arrives at Sir. PJR's wiki: [3] with basically the same "I'm biased, screw you librulz" userpage that he has on CP. Taytopacket 17:40, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Yep. Pulled the trigger early on that one. Librulz er dumm. --Irrational Atheist 17:42, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Tim/CPAdmin1 resigns

At least it's more exciting than watching them throw shit all over the place. The ship is sinking. [4] CPNuisance 17:14, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

That was back in December though, according to the timestamp. Now it's just being reposted. Dreaded Walrus 17:20, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Note that this WIGO refers to the same thing. It's not a new resignation. Dreaded Walrus 17:23, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Then I are teh stupid. Where's my CP sysopship? --Irrational Atheist 17:31, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

It's easy to not notice, to be honest. The only real indication that it's old is right at the very bottom of the page. Dreaded Walrus 17:34, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Yep. I saw that he posted it, then edited it, and read through the start that it was Benjamin/Tim... Thinking maybe he used an alternate name. After I did the WIGO, I kept reading, then realized that it really sounded familiar... And at the bottom, I saw the CPAdmin1 signoff... and felt really stupid. --Irrational Atheist 17:36, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Guns save America

Hey TK, tell Andy he forgot to add this to the news! --GTac 17:19, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

That story makes me sick. Instead of letting the robber take a few dollars, a man almost sacrafices his life. And the comments on the story; calling the guy a hero. He was an idiot. I hope his loved ones realize what a stupid thing he did and chastise him accordingly. This is what happens if everyone has guns; innocent people get hurt. Z3ro^talk 17:24, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Worse, he endangered the life of every person in the joint with his mad behaviour. There's a damned good reason cops avoid use of firearms until it is absolutely necessary. 17:43, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

There was an excellent quote in comments... Something along the lines of "got himself injured to save the BK corporation a few bucks..." A great point. I've been in several situation where I could have intervened with a weapon (switchblade, not a gun) and decided not to. I wouldn;t want to put so many people in danger just so I could play action hero. The true sad thing is, as Zero pointed out, all these people think he's a hero and I'm sure we'll get copycat behaviors now. Ban handguns now and be done with it. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 21:23, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

It must've been a faulty gun, it didn't deter the criminal at all. They're not supposed to start shooting, they're supposed to go "OH BLIMEY YOU HAVE A GUN. AND I AS A CRIMINAL THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASY TO PICK ON THE WEAK. I WILL NOW BETTER MY WAYS!". I suspect liberal sabotage on that gun... --GTac 05:49, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Failapedia

Someone mentioned "constipedia" above and that reminded me of not long ago when someone pointed out that "failapedia" redirected to conservapedia, much to all our lulz. I tried it again but it didn't work, so I googled it, and look what turned up: the Assfly complained about it to failapedia's host. lulz. I wonder who snitched. --Runderful, signed out

Hilarious. Thanks. Neveruse513 17:30, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Someone pointed it out to Aschlafly on his talk page weeks ago. Interesting from the linked page: "Andrew Schlafly (owner of the exclusive copyright to the material on http://www.conservapedia.com"

Are the Conservapeons (whatever is left of them) aware of the fact that AS considers himself as the copyright owner of their work? --This user is Crowing Rabidly! 19:57, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

A proposal regarding ASK versus CP...

There are folks her who respect and like PJR as a person even as they disagree with his views, and there are people here who just can't stand him because of his views, period. One thing that's hard to argue against, IMHO, is that he's consistently respectful if treated respectfully, and has nothing against RWikians who vehemently disagree but don't vandalize.

With this in mind, the guy deserves a chance to get his wiki off the ground without wasting time on mischievous socks, parody and vandalism. There may be some folks here who see ASK as a big blank canvas to have fun with, but personally, I'd like to give Philip a chance to execute his idea without people messing with it. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't engage him there and challenge or debate differing views, but it should be open and civil.

My point is that RW exists in part because of the hypocrisy and intolerance for non-conservative views on CP, so we make many of our points here instead. If PJR is willing to allow unlocked, uncensored editing and debate on his wiki provided that it's civil and family-friendly, we should encourage that by discouraging wandalism there. It would also send a message to Andy that there are folks here who would have played nice if he wasn't such a tool.

So I'm asking folks here to add their signatures to the following declaration of goodwill where ASK is related:

"We the undersigned may find ourselves opposed to some or most of the content that will be developed on ASK, but we cherish free speech and open debate. We ask to be given a voice in the project without ideological censorship or blocking, and in return, we pledge that we are publicly refraining and discouraging others from doing the following on the ASK Wiki:

• Vandalizing content
• Posing as other RW or CP users to conduct mischief in their name
• Inserting parody
• Manipulating pageviews

We may wind up provoking each other over time, but with this start we look forward to building mutual respect over time as well."

Signed:

--SpinyNorman 18:54, 25 March 2009 (EDT) (aka DinsdaleP)

--DogP 19:02, 25 March 2009 (EDT) (aka see my user page for socks).

Silver Sloth 19:01, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--MDB 19:02, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

ħuman - not that I ever did any of those at CP, either... 19:16, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--Passerby25 19:44, 25 March 2009 (EDT) Although i never really tried to vandalize CP, and it has been a while since I actually tried to make a new account, I am willing to give this a try.

--ENorman 19:49, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--_and marmite (Theresa Wilson) 19:51, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--Refugee^{talk page} 19:59, 25 March 2009 (EDT) free speech! no vandalism. :-)

--₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:03, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--User:Ttony21/sig2 20:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:18, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--Robledo 20:19, 25 March 2009 (EDT) Hell aye.

--Nate River 20:22, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

EddyP 20:26, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

-- 20:38, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 21:03, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--$\pi$ 21:11, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--Sterile^{walkie-talkie} 21:20, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--Barraki 21:39, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--tealish^??!!!1 21:46, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--Kallium^talk 22:16, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--Photovoltaic Array 23:35, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--Simple 23:54, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

--Stile4aly 00:05, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

--Gauss 01:03, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

--OneForLogic 01:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

--Etc 03:11, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

--Ajkgordon 05:03, 26 March 2009 (EDT) Not just vandalism, parody, etc. but also purposeful inclusion of facetious content, e.g. loads of articles that contradict a Biblical world view.

--GTac 05:53, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

--dream^ing _{Hail Eris!} 14:50, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

--Judge King 20:15 26 March 2009 (ChDT

Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:37, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

--DSFARGEG 20:47, 26 March 2009 (EDT) A conservative encyclopedia run by PJR will not have the same humour value as one run by a madman, but I hope all goes well. nonetheless.

--Barikada 23:45, 26 March 2009 (EDT) No beef with PJR. Good luck, dude.

SIGNING - can those who want to sign do so over there? It's impossible to keep the two in sync. DogP 21:15, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Can those who signed here but not over there do so? The two lists don't match. DogP 22:41, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Note: this is on the wrong talk page. ħuman 19:19, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Not really - this is the obvious page to pull in the declarations, as this is where those, ahem, 'active' on CP spend most of their every waking hour. We can move it over to the ASK page in due course. DogP 19:37, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Good point, although within days WIGO ASK will have completely eliminated all traces of WIGO CP from the internet. ħuman 20:57, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Note: this is on the wrong wiki. Since this is a message for aSK, where none of us are banned, why is it being laid out here on RW? Sorry, I didn't notice Dog's comment about moving it over later. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:01, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

That was funny :) ħuman 20:57, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

OK, so let's duplicate this declaration on aSK:Talk:RationWiki Silver Sloth 20:05, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Which I've now done. Silver Sloth 20:08, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, but you shouldn't have copied over all the signatories. For one thing, it's a mess of red-linked sig templates. For another, some people there are using different usernames than here. ħuman 21:52, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I'd sign it, but they don't have to promise me anything in return. PJR has already paid in spades with the best Partian shot ever, or at least the longest. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 20:22, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

PLEASE DO NOT WIGO ASK PARODISTS

Here, these WIGOs just got a whole lot worse. What the fuck are we doing WIGO'ing blatant parodists at ASK? Total nonsense, I recommend that those WIGO's be pulled. DogP 23:37, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Seconded. This is still CP WIGO, and the don't-WIGO-parody guideline speaks for itself. --SpinyNorman 23:46, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

The WIGO I added about Ken's bad 5th was legitimately CP and stupid. And the prick goes and burns the page! --Irrational Atheist 23:50, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

I feel pretty certain that it's actually him. Corry^{You can always tell a Milford man.} 00:00, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I wonder why he chose a Spanish chess player for a name? --Irrational Atheist 00:05, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

CP ≠ ASK. Case closed. Please stop yakking about ASk here, and Ass WIGOs make no fucking sense here. The wiki has its own places to keep track. ħuman 00:10, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

That being the case I hereby move that we comment out the Aschlafly/aSK WIGO as it's probably not Aschlafly hisself and even if it was it's on another wiki. 00:38, 26 March 2009 (EDT) CЯacke®

Now that I agree with. And the Ruylopez addition to the Ken WIGO is also pointless... --Irrational Atheist 00:47, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

WIGO 1592 commented out...The Ruylopez thing I left since the wigo is in the + column. 00:56, 26 March 2009 (EDT) CЯacke®

Classic Andy vs Someone on the same side making a friendly suggestion

Seemed too long to WIGO, but nevertheless this classic Andy discussion amused me. Sometimes, it doesn't matter whether you are agreeing with Andy or not, sometimes he will just fight you and it doesn't matter what you say! Recap:

• KBinbota: The frontpage says something about conservatives giving to charity. How about we add a link to a charity? For instance self help Africa?
• Andy: Conservatives give a lot to charities, but not all charities are good, see Conservative parables. Your link is good.
• KBinbota: So how about adding that link then? It would be a nice statement to support a good cause.
• Andy: Your logic sucks. More food is produced than we can consumed, so the food problem isn't as important as education in America or how Obama wants to tax charities.
• KBinbota: What? I never said anything about that. There is a food problem in Africa though, and it would be nice to add a link to a charity?
• Andy: You don't understand that charity is important, and conservatives are more charitable than liberals. There's hardship in some areas of Detroit that are just as tragic as Africa. It's because liberals want to keep the population illiterate!
• KBinbota: I never said anything about that! I just suggested a link to a charity, Detroit-area charities are fine too.
• Andy: You still won't admit how liberal policies cause the hardships!
• KBinbota: *banned*
• KBinbota: Okay, here's a link to a Detroit charity which people can donate to.
• Andy: KBinbota, our truthful education cures mental ilness and poverty and your contributions to this blog suck. You are part of the liberal conspiracy keeping the population illiterate so as to maintain power.
• KBinbota: Fine. I just don't understand why you keep bringing up liberalism. All I wanted was to suggest putting a link to a charity on the front page to go along with the article. Did you mean that fighting liberals should take priority to charity?
• Andy: KBinota, you insisted on last wordism with your illogical rant. I give criticism of liberal policies a higher priority than charity because liberal policies are the biggest cause illiteracy, poverty, mental illness, lack of faith, and other tragic hardships. We prioritize to be most effective.
• KBinbota: *BANNED!* (for realsies this time)

--GTac 12:08, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Somehow that conversation manages to be incredibly sad and incredibly scary at the same time. Andy's tunnel vision view of the world must make it a terrible place for him to live in. He manages to go from having an editor with a good suggestion to a banned editor in nothing-flat. He's clearly not a well man. make that "1 for mental problems" I think. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:29, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

More and more, I suspect Andy himself is the ultimate parodist or just absolutely insane. The sane response would have been "nice idea, but there are too many worthwhile charities and too many issues of concern to favor one, or even a handful, at CP." Andy, though, views it as an opportunity to fight the liberals. MDB 09:32, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

He is a parodist. I have doubts that he is really Andrew Schlafly. Which one of us is he? How can we expose him? --<choose>

<option>^Input The Resistor^Output</option> <option>Coyote^{Over 450 pages watched NOT including talk pages}</option> <option>The Trickster</option> <option>Acionyx</option> 12:15, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

How many more times must I tell you CUR, I'm Andy, Jessica is my wife and Karajou and TK are the bastard twin children that resulted from a drunken fling with my pet Shitzu. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:23, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Good God, yes, I didn't expect that bannination to happen so fast. Utterly bizarre. Seemed like an entirely reasonable request. DogP 11:21, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy doesn't want to give money, or help others in choosing good charities. he just wants to bash liberals. It's back-assward policies like this that amuse me when the right "gives to charity".--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 11:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Is KBinbota actually banned due to this? The link goes to show a ban which pre-dates the discussion! D-Notice 11:49, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

You're right, that was his last ban, for the BNP thing. DogP 12:52, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh damn you're right. Totally sorry, I unintentionally pulled some librul deceit :-/. I was looking through the block log and saw his block on the 20-something and since I didn't know today's date much exacter than 20-something I assumed it had to be after the discussion. Didn't occur to me that he was already unblocked. Andy is still a completely unreasonable prick in that discussion though. --GTac 13:37, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

And he just keeps going and going:

• KBinbota: okay, here's a link to a Detroit charity which people can donate to.
• Aschlafly: You are part of the liberal conspiracy keeping the population illiterate so as to maintain power. Contribute more.

I'm at breaking point with this man. He is the most profoundly idiotic human being I have ever, ever encountered. Bil08 18:18, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Banned again. DogP 10:45, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Ha! So I was right after all! Also, I can see the future! --GTac 11:57, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Updated the recap (and stole your points, Bil08). Dunno if anyone cares, but it amuses me to summarize it. It is really some of the worst of Andy though, he truly is deranged. WHY IS HE FIGHTING THIS USER?! I'm gonna see how I can fit it in a WIGO. More people must see this. --GTac 12:11, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Did a little rewrite on that GTac, hope you don't mind. I thought the most important point was that he basically thinks fighting LIBRULS is more important than charities. So I guess he doesn't support many charities then, eh (unlike the claim made on the front page of his blog)? DogP 14:02, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy's lack of self-awareness never gets old: "Final reply to the last-wordism of the guy I just banhammered". Godspeed 15:01, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeh that's fine, DogP. It's better this way, so thanks :) --GTac 16:41, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

World History Homework Nine

It's been up for a day now and man is it written lazily. My favorite has to be the first question:

Now that you've taken the midterm exam, how might you have prepared better? (5 words or less)

5 words or less. Brevity sure is taking insane forms.. --GTac 09:26, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Gone to a decent teacher." --PsyGremlin_Whut? 09:29, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Been born a boy."--WJThomas 10:47, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Kissed more ass" Runderful 10:51, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Cast off liberal deceit, Godspeed" HumanisticJones 10:58, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Rejected closed-minded atheistic liberal denials.-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 11:01, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Hitler."-Diadochus 11:26, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Oh, maybe it's set up for a Haiku?

To get better score

equate Obama with Prince

Oh, *the* Prince? No wonder.--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 11:29, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

(EC) He's not a million miles away from insisting they answer that question in Haiku.

Kept an open mind / Read the lecture, nothing else / Ignored actual facts

--seventhrib 11:30, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Excellent, Seventhrib. Encapsulates Andy exactly. _and marmite 14:09, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Gone to a public school." or: "Read PJR's wiki." TheoryOfPractice 11:31, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Obama is a deceitful muslim." Vulpius 11:33, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Admitted Hollywood Values causes cancer."seventhrib 11:34, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Included more Obama insults" --SpinyNorman 11:36, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Link anything evil to liberals" Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 11:37, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Reflected on beautiful autumn foliage." Sorry, it's just quite fun doing these.seventhrib 11:43, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"State that evolutions a lie" This is better than making our own CP slogans--Nate River 12:12, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Prayed. Read Bible. Stopped abortions." MDB 12:15, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Should have made more cookies" StarFish 12:41, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Sent Mister Schlafly blank check" MDB 12:44, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Brought a (largely defensive weapon of) gun to class." TheoryOfPractice 12:45, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Not opened a book". DogP 12:50, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Used only New Conservative Terms." 13:06, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Sought an intelligent, credentialed educator." SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 13:27, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Circled answers more concisely" EddyP 13:45, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Included even more Truth^TM "Taytopacket 14:05, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"Not." --This user is Crowing Rabidly! 15:12, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Should have canceled the check. Corry^{You can always tell a Milford man.} 16:10, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

"$i+i=$Gun Control". Bandwagon went by, wheeeeeee!--stunteddwarf 20:51, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Revolutions

"Why do you think it took the world so long before revolutions started occurring?" Revolutions have been noted way back to the 14th Century BCE in lower Egypt during Akhenaten's reign. Likely there were others, but without a thorough written history, such changes would not survive time. It could also be that revolutions require central governments and large enough populations where a dramatic shift of control would be desired, something that would be difficult without civilizations. Andy fails history yet again. --Irrational Atheist 12:57, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Another reason might be because they are only called revolutions when the people instigating the revolution win. When the establishment wins, revolutions tend to get called other things...Like uprisings, rebellion, and treason. --ScottA 13:34, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Because first there had to be a word for it before anyone would think to do it! EddyP 13:44, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

For that matter didn't the Titans have a revolution so Zeus could get into power (or something vaguely along those lines?) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 14:13, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy might find it more palatable to think that Satan and his funky crew tried to revolt against that doddering old Yahweh, although they didn't succeed. But then, maybe he wouldn't. --Kels 14:36, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Man, I read that first line and thought you were implying that CP believed Earth didn't rotate at first. Jrssr5 14:53, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

(EC) As a related point, some people think that the 1992 riots in Los Angeles should be called a "rebellion" instead. ListenerX^TalkerX 14:57, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

PJRs "I was a CP Administrator"

I hope that whoever has the skills will capture PJRs novella for posterity here. You never know, it might disappear without warning. Thanks Jimaginator 15:23, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I grabbed a copy before posting the WIGO. Here is a .ZIP for those too lazy for wget Fedhaji 16:26, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Or those of us with OSs that don't have wget. Bastard harmonic Hoover! 15:46, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

All those crazy OSs that GNU hasn't been ported to? :P Neveruse513 16:33, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, like... um... Babbage's Difference Engine. Bastard harmonic Hoover! 17:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

i just got "access denied". Off to take screenshots. Totnesmartin 15:51, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Thank you! Jimaginator 16:03, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

We have started an article for it: Conservapedia:I_was_a_Conservapedia_Administrator ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 16:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Great stuff to read for a lazy afternoon. Hats off to Philip! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:32, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

It's really interesting and well written too. StarFish 16:35, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

• FINALLY, we get an explanation of what was going on with the "will he/won't he give night editing rights to HelpJazz" issue! It turns out it was all to do with Andy suspecting HandJob of being a vandal, and not being able to get GuardDog to work as intended.
• Another real highlight is the Obama article issue and Andy's Muslim assertion. Andy's private reply to the complaints of five other sysops? "We respect the views of a minority amongst us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Jesus H. Christ. Even amongst his peers he still makes "I'm an Expert" claims of the "Ways Of The Towelhead". Talk about Tiny Dick Syndrome. What a total fucking egomaniacal scumbucket.
• Also excellent - these numbnutz couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery. Since the inception of CP, there's been SIX email groups established to communicate between the sysops, because i) Andy trusts no-one, and ii) no-one had a clue. DogP 17:01, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Andy's obvious mental illness is highlighted here. of course, all psychologists are liberal and delight in deceit, so he will never realize this. Shitheads like him make the sane Christians look bad (nb4 no sane Christians, etc.) ENorman 17:13, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I loved the bit about Karajou deleting discussion groups ad hoc *just in case* someone else might be reading them. He's so sweet. If I was still a CPer I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry though. Totnesmartin 17:51, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Shame though, he really refuses to see that Rationalwiki has grown so much from the early days.... Nobody denies that early RW did some pretty juvenile stuff to CP, but for the most part I would argue that we've moved past that. Oh well, good luck on ASK Phil. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 19:42, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Am I the only one who managed to be shocked and amused at same time with regards to Conservative of all people being concerned with CP's credibiltiy? Obviously the Obama-is-a-Muslim connection was one of the site's most famous blunders, but I didn't think nearly all the (non-parodist) sysops themselves were so opposed to that move. Photovoltaic Array 20:16, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

If memory serves he actually took it up with Andy onsite. He changed his opinion when he found someone quoting a good source (The good source was Conservapedia) _and marmite 20:52, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I find it interesting that his select example of Andy's contradictions uses the same two quotes, from ~4.5 months apart, that I've had on my user page here since December. Kallium^talk 00:04, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

How long does it take to delete a Parthian Shot?

Apparently, three minutes, even if the user was a self described minor contributor.

Not just deleted, oversighted as well.... That's saying something. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 19:42, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

What do you mean by "oversighted"? MDB 19:45, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Deceitfully deleted from the database, so you can't pick it up in the editing history. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 19:54, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Who was ArthurA? When a high profile or prolific editor walks out that is one thing, but when it is some guy I have to go look up it makes me think that it was just some would be parodist who decided to throw a sock away as they were getting sick of maintaining it. - User $\pi$ 20:18, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

You know what, I bet you're right. For a minor contributor, he seemed to know a lot about CP's shenanigans, including allusions to Bugler and TK. But someone contributing to the site legitimately in a small way would not necessarily pay attention to that. As a WIGO reader, it's easy to miss (just like fish stop noticing the water after a while). That combined with the bland name ArthurA... I feel like only wandals and parodists who read WIGO would know to follow the first name- last initial format on the first try. Bluefish 00:03, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Conservative WIGO

What's with the Conservative WIGO about him blocking himself, it's about 2 years old?? And does anyone know what that one referring to Andy's midterm exam is meant to be about? Jammy 19:49, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

See above re. 'Poor state of WIGO's these days'. I've yanked it. DogP 20:05, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I put the mid-term one in. Assfly challenges the public at large to see if they can do better than his homskollars. I say "Probably." This is based on the fact that even though he's the "teacher", he doesn't know exactly how many students he has ("around 45", failure of accountability) and he doesn't know where he's at in his own lesson plan ("about 1776", lack of organization). I have very little comedic talent, so I guess I screwed up what I was trying to convey. Ah, well... The numbers are in the tank anyway, so it'll get commented out soon. I just read Human's post below. I agree with him. Let it fester for all to see. Or give it a kick in the ass. I don't mind either way. The Foxhole Atheist 01:46, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Paranoia

Dean doesn't like Paranoia. Serve The Computer Dean! The Computer is your friend! Broccoli 20:55, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

You should WIGO that so I can vote it down. - User $\pi$ 21:13, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Why bother? WIGO is dying. Unfortunately for Dean, the content of the article was not inappropriate, at least as far as I can tell, and it was also true. Broccoli 07:07, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Anyone else notice the supreme irony of the fact that "Aschlafly" was the first (infinite, even) block on aSK? I lol'd.--NTemple 21:30, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I was just thinking that. Doesn't matter that it wasn't him. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 22:22, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Noted above. And yes. DogP 22:39, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Slap a Vandal label on him, TK!

(Deletion log); 20:47 . . TK (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:BenjaminS/Tim's Farewell" (User/talkpage of infinitely blocked user/vandal)

TK deleted BenjaminS page where he reposted TimS farewell - calling Tim an infinity blocked vandal. First off, it is Benjamin's Page - what gives TK the right to delete it? Second, TimS is a Vandal? Hardly. TimS is still listed as a CP admin:

• TimS (edit, Siteadmin, Upload)

hmm... looks like ASchlafly does not consider TimS a "vandal". And neither does at least one other sysyop:

1 March 2009 DuncanB (Talk | contribs) restored "User:TimS" (2 revisions restored: He was a helpful user for almost two years. He does not deserve to go down the Memory Hole.)

2 March 2009 TK (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:TimS" (User/talkpage of infinitely blocked user/vandal: Duncan, I will ask that you be removed as an sysop if you once again restore pages deleted by an Administrator)

Where does TK get off calling TimS a "Vandal"? Where did he vandalize CP? I don't see it - point it out to us, TK! Not to mention (but I will) that TimS was never blocked for being a "Vandal" - he was blocked by TK for "last-wordism" - WTF?

9 February 2009 TK (Talk | contribs) blocked TimS (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Insistence on last-wordism: Previsous communtation revoked, it now appears obvious you plan to disrupt and argue for attention, as all liberals do.)

It is pitiful that ASchlafly allows TK to block people and slap a vandal label on whomever he chooses. FJF

Shall we start the countdown to TK blocking all the editors who have appeared on PJR's blog, for "fraternising with the enemy" --PsyGremlin_Whut? 23:02, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Haha, "I will ask that you be removed as an sysop if you once again restore pages deleted by an Administrator" Sysop fucking equals Admin. TK, you're too funny. Can you at least give ASK a few weeks to get established before you destroy it? ħuman 23:37, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Want to know what's going at CP?

I'll tell you what's going on at CP - NOTHING! It's amazing how even in one or two days, the ASK traffic is huge and CP seems completely a closed shop. This gives me a satisfied smile. Morons. DogP

Me too. It just goes to show how much of CP traffic is, well, us. And we have found a new toy. ħuman 23:42, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I think that the aSK episode is going to emerge as the "middle of the end" for CP. Bluefish 00:06, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

A new toy indeed. It's rather interesting to see PJR try to make a Creationist 'pedia try to survive in the wilds of the internet with open registration. Even without wandalism, it's already clear what a hothouse flower Biblical literalism is, LowKey and Tim are already reaching for the banhammer to protect it from reality. --Kels 00:14, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

PJR's biggest problem is that he hasn't found a user base that reflects the view he wants yet, all he has is us and a few people form CP that were fond of him. While I am happy to write "the bible says ..." as the entirety of an article, people wanting to add other information is where the conflict is coming from. This is having the unfortunate side affect that the sysops are already beginning to change "the bible says ..." to "... is true" in reaction. What he needs to do is try to get his church and people like that involved so he isn't spending all his time trying to force a homogeneity but let it form naturally. Why are we discussing aSK on WIGO CP talk again? - User $\pi$ 00:26, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Because nothing's "GO" at CP. Anyway, yeah, PJR has a tough row to hoe - no honeymoon for his new wiki while he gets it built, meaning hundreds of articles will be written by people not really "in tune" with his mission. Lots of cleanup to be done after that. ħuman 01:30, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

This is getting sad. If you go back 500 edits, you get a span of three days. And many of those were minor edits, recats, thing of that nature. I'm wondering how Andy will respond, or if he'll even notice. Z3ro^talk 10:41, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Commenting out WIGOs

I hope people only comment them out because they are redundant or potentially slanderous. To me, the "mercy killing" of one that is dropping in votes smacks of censorship - and also deprives us of the potential "worst of WIGO" - the lowest scoring entries.

Also, on another tangent, what's with the "ownership" thing on these entries? This is a wiki, we collaborate. If someone writes one badly, shouldn't we improve it? Or is there an unofficial ego-tripping competition here to see who can (often prematurely) add a WIGO that will score +50, rather than waiting to report the full story? Lately, instead of full, interesting stories that take a day or two to unfold, we get "Andy's an ass!" that only links one diff out of many that later ensue. Can't we view this as a community project rather than a pointzes scoring wangfest? </whinging> ħuman 01:37, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Are there any specifics on that last part Human? I know I've edit quite a few WIGO's and nobody has ever huffed about it... In fact, I fixed up one from Ace just the other day and he thanked me.... SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 01:54, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

It's not so much people getting "territorial" as in reversions, so much as people treating each WIGO as if it "belongs" to the original writer. Which is so bizarre on a wiki... hell, I edit them at will, and I hope everyone feels free to. Thus a crappy WIGO might become a polished gem and score +75 pointzes! ħuman 02:09, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

(ec)I think that commenting out should be saved for specific cases (e.g., recently there was a WIGO about a parthian shot that was factually incorrect, so I commented it out), and I always hope someone can uplulz any WIGOs I write. Honestly, I thought those both were essentially our policy. Also, I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought it was best to write the WIGO when the first part of the story hits, update it as it develops, and, if necessary, rewrite at the end (incorporating the updates, etc.). Then again, I don't think I'm very funny, and I know there are a lot of people on the site who are much more capable at writing good humor than I am, so I tend to not rewrite WIGOs. Maybe it's not just egomania that's causing the problem, but also rampant insecurity? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 02:17, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

You should be a tad respectful with editing other people's WIGO's of course. I'd say improving is fine, but be careful with changing it. If someone changed my entire carefully made WIGO to replace it with a joke he thinks is funnier, I'd be fucking pissed. --GTac 05:06, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Yeah that's true. I don't touch other people's wigos unless it's purely an addition, but the latest one was pretty poor (i have no idea whose it was, btw, and have no intention of finding out) and after reading this section I thought I'd have a go at changing it. If it gets changed back I don't mind, and won't touch it again. Runderful 08:18, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Chuck, see GTac's post for your specific example. GTac, it's a wiki, we all work together to make things better. Of course, if someone makes something worse, odds are that will be undone pretty quickly. But that, and "other people's WIGOs" @ Runderful is the mindset I am referring to. ħuman 15:45, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, that's the mindset I was talking about too. Don't gimme "its bizarre that people can be territorial about stuff they created". Like I said, improving and adding to WIGOS is always great, but there are some people that will rewrite a good WIGO you made merely to push their own worse joke, and that's annoying. If you're gonna completely rewrite a WIGO, be sure that it's needed and it improves the WIGO. --GTac 16:48, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

That's the point of a wiki - collaboration, not "attitude". What if everyone else thought "their" joke was better? Or their links? I actually don't read WIGO CP for the "jokes" - I read it for the links. I'd prefer me a clear, dry story with good diffs to some lame attempt at being brilliangly funny. As far as "its bizarre that people can be territorial about stuff they created" - this is a fucking WIKI - we work together, not apart. If you want to be territorial, write a blog or make a website. If you want to collaborate, work/play on a wiki. If one has territoriality issues - which I am not assuming you do, I expect you are just making a point, an argument, expressing a view others may have - a wiki is not the place for that person. ħuman 01:07, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

World History Lecture Eight

Though the lecture is done (poor kiddies), there is still some amusing discussion going on. BTW, what does Clement's sig mean? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 03:15, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

♗ = U+2657 WHITE CHESS BISHOP in case that helps at all figuring out its significance. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 04:06, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

He is also Catholic, and his last name begins with B. Bastard harmonic Hoover! 05:34, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Pope Benedict? MDB 07:53, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

He stated that he is protestant - but as usual, TK knows more :-) But Clement B. is history now:

Of your last 16 edits here, I couldn't find a single substantive one of value. Instead, your edits included an insult of my efforts posted on RJJensen's page, a denial of the obvious fact that Luther and other Protestants in the 1500s were the leaders in criticizing the Copernican theory, a few trivial (and, frankly, unhelpful) edits to the lectures (such as adding a French spelling), and statement that contradicts the dictionary about the meaning of "Prussia". That's 0 out of 16 in terms of value, and a lot of wasting of my time. Improve or go elsewhere. Please.--Andy Schlafly 08:14, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Have a look at the insult on RJ Jensen's page... Or some of the other trivial, unhelpful edits. But the best is the statement that contradicts the dictionary about the meaning of "Prussia". Aschlafly elaborates in this discussion:

To call Prussia the former name of Germany is like calling Maryland the former name of the USA... ClementB 09:20, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Look up "Prussia" in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster, 10th Ed., second meaning: "former kingdom and state of Germany." Now complain to it if you still insist on your incorrect view.--Andy Schlafly 08:10, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

The sheer idiocy of this man. Prussia was a state of Germany, not the state of Germany.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:33, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Not to mention: if you have to look up PRUSSIA in a dictionary, should you really be ... er, teaching a class on the subject? Bluefish 11:17, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

But the infallibility of the English language proves you wrong, l'Arron. It says "state of Germany", meaning "condition" as in "a state of confusion"(much like CP). Therefore, Prussia was the condition of Germany. Open your mind to the truth or continue to lose credibility. God's peed. The Foxhole Atheist 13:48, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

If it is in the Merriam-Webster it is FACT in Andy's eyes. Ace McWicked^Revolt 14:33, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I think if an editor there edits in a way that seems to "follow" from things mentioned here, TK points it out to Andy. Doing that is what Andy considers a "silly pattern of editing", and it cost me six months of not writing my series for diabetics (including the magnum opus cp:pastry). ħuman 15:59, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

A thought on aSK replacing CP

hhhmmm.... if aSK is going to become what CP was intended to be, and actually becomes the web's "Conservative Christian encyclopedia"... its ironic, I think, that CP will have brought down not by the vandals, parodists, and outside critics that they fear so greatly, but by an insider who genuinely believed, at one time, in its mission, bur eventually deciding the system had become fundamentally flawed.

Its not unlike how Eastern European communism collapsed not because of the "decadent capitalist imperialist western dogs", but because an insider in the form of Mikhail Gorbachev said "hey, this isn't working, things need to change".

(Yes, I know, I'm vastly oversimplifying both the fall of communism and the disintegration of CP.) MDB 08:25, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Liberal scum! It was Reagan I tells you! REAGAN! StarFish 08:40, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

In all seriousness, American foreign policy did hasten the inevitable. I'd argue that Reagan provided the final push of a long series of shoves. MDB 08:43, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Don't forget the contribution of the <praise be> Blesséd Margaret. _and marmite 10:49, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

The who... oh, wait, Margaret Thatcher, right? Yeah, she helped too. :-) (Forgive my Americanized worldview). MDB 11:05, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Still crazy, after all these years months

Still gunning for the Birth Certificate. What's the difference between a "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Birth Certificate" anyhow? _and marmite 10:32, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Honest to FSM, the same thing that differs between one state's Marriage Certificate, and another state's Certificate of Marriage. the blow hards trying to make this an issue would bring up terminology as if that were relevant. They also have this invented word "the Vault Copy" which I've never heard of in working with documents as other than slang/archival terms for "paper original" if and when a copy was made. But it's not a technical term, and many if not most states do not keep originals due to lack of space. One of the Senators from "that party" ;-) tried to pass a bill saying that all presidential candidates must produce an original birth certificate. rolls eyes. --En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 10:42, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Meh, that's nothing. WorldNetDaily is now wholly (at least 90%) devoted to the birth certificate conspiracy. Neveruse513 11:14, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Y'know, you'd think a rational person would realize that maybe there's a reason that the only thing vaguely resembling a legitimate source pursuing this "story" is WorldNetDaily. I mean, I don't think even any of the right wing talking heads (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Coulter, and the rest of that ilk) are pursuing it. Heck, Michelle Malkin has denounced the "birthers". And when you look into the background of some of the individuals pushing it... one attorney is also a 9/11 "truther", another has been ruled by the courts to be a "vexatious litigant", which basically means "repeatedly files stupid lawsuits", another is Alan Keyes, best known now as a "perennial candidate"... this, even by CP standards, is well out of the mainstream of American politics. Give it up, guys -- Obama won, fair and square. You'll do yourself a lot better fighting him on the issues. MDB 11:32, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Wow, Malkin and I actually agree on something. This is beautiful ENorman 12:24, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

You'll do yourself a lot better fighting him on the issues. Uh, no they won't. That's the reason why they're doing all this Obama-is-from-Kenya thing. Bil08 18:14, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, he did run very quickly... --Kels 18:25, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

It was explained somewhere that a Birth Certificate was issued at the time of Birth by the doctor delivering the baby, and that a Certificate of Live Birth was issued after the event upon application of the parents in a situation where no Doctor was in attendance. The implication is that having no Birth Certificate opens the door to an infant Obama being brought into Hawaii and claimed to have been born there for reasons of [insert conspiracy theory of choice here] 67.72.98.57 12:36, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, that's what some people like to say. But it's simply not true. The people making that claim are from one state, where one term is used, and Hawaii uses another. Hawaii has come out and said there is only one type of certificate, period. I have a Certification of Live Birth from Colorado, and it's issued by the doctor and hospital. again, it's all semantics of people who don't really bother to ask qualified questions of themselves or of the topic.--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 12:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Has the comparison to Palin flying bacl to AK during labor so her baby could be "born an Alaskan" occurred to anyone? Isn't that a copy of the way the Obamas rigged Barry's BC? ħuman 16:06, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

My absolute favorite thing about WND is the ads.

• "New Survival Seed Bank Lets You Plant A Full Acre Crisis Garden!"
• "THIS AMAZING PATCH REMOVES SMOG, CIGARETTE SMOKE, TOXINS AND CHEMICALS FROM YOUR BODY OVERNIGHT! CLICK HERE TO DETOX NOW!"

I cannot believe that anybody takes WND seriously other than the morons and crackpots whom the ads target. Corry^{You can always tell a Milford man.} 21:42, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

In the case of DeanS that's mormons. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:15, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

NARY A DIFFERENCE! (cf. Bloom County) --Kels 14:13, 28 March 2009 (EDT)