Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive138

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <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)

Drinks all around, gentlemen...

...Equilibrium has been acheived. I'm dying to know, will he add any more words now that geometric perfection has been reached?--Woloct 02:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

He is one exclamation mark away from being officially insane. - π 02:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. I'll sleep easier tonight knowing that CP's perfect sphere of knowledge is in balance with, er, something. Do you think we should tell Andy that this amazing sequence of numbers will trigger a harmonic convergence and unleash 100 years of liberal rule? Nah. --Simple 02:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, someone should go and add a few words from the 1600s. That would keep the little fellow busy for a while. --Horace 03:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Immortality? ("Eternal life" was used before then in say, the book) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Whew! Thank Jebus that "separation of powers" is a Conservative Word^TM!!!1!111!! What a moron. Corry 04:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

9-18-36-72 is a true second happy birthday present to us. What a friggin' moron. ħuman 04:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If only poor Andy had access to the OED, poor mite'd fair break down and weep. 'quantify' dates from 1627 for a start.82.23.209.253 13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would Andy use a liberal dictionary? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 14:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

meanwhile,

Andy dares to venture where only Ken

normally goes. User then tells Andy to go screw. Andy tries to bend reality to his will. But first, don't rant, user! --Irrational Atheist 11:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Side-by-side diffs of that conference paragraph before and after Schlaflyization: [1] --Marty 07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A little old, but recently updated...

Conservative Parables! Ever get the feeling that some of these are just wet dreams for the CP crowd? And Andy believes there are no mental problems with the editors at CP. <laughtrack> --Irrational Atheist 14:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Drowning Man parable isn't bad -- at least it makes fun of both sides. I'm amazed its stayed up for so long.

A conservative and a liberal are walking along the beach when they see a man drowning a hundred feet off shore. The conservative throws him a 50 foot rope and shouts to the victim "You provide the other fifty feet." The liberal throws the man a 200 foot rope...and lets go of both ends.

MDB 18:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Oh FUCK YES, this was one of my favourite articles of all time. Especially the parabel about the missing child. I've even told it to several people in real life, it always gets a "..wait ..what? what was the point of this? ...just ...huh?" --GTac 18:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

An atheist and a believer Two random guys were having a discussion. "I don't believe in anything I can't understand!" cried the atheist first one. "Ah," said the believer other one gently. "You must be Aschlafly." --Just passing by 22:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that. Andy doesn't understand the things he believes in, either. --Kels 22:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Vice President WIGO

Whenever someone retires or vacates a Government seat, he or she is still referred to by the highest rank achieved. So a former Governor is still called Governor So-and-so. With Dick Cheney, now that he's a civilian, he is still referred to as Vice President Dick Cheney. Terry Koeckritz got it right in the WIGO. You should have called out the whole "based on facts" lie Terry Koeckritz pushed instead. --Irrational Atheist 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

He neglected to say former Vice President, as the manner is. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes...note that the original article from which TK copy/pasted refers to ol' Dick as "Former VP". And, not that it matters or is unexpected, CP's news items re former VP Al Gore never give him the courtesy of his (former) official title.--WJThomas 20:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think only a handful of govt titles are lifetime in the US P, VP, Senator, probably SCOTUS justice (?), governor I'm not so sure of, but I know after leaving the House, one isn't "representative so-and-so" anymore. "Former", yes. But the Bushes George 1 & 2 are still both "President Bush", although using "former" helps keep things clear in most contexts. ħuman 20:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

At least I don't see them referring Al Gore as "Vice President" or "former Vice President". [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lieberals all lose their titles upon being elected. ħuman 00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Former and current Representatives are given the title of "Congressman." --Irrational Atheist 02:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What about the Lady Representatives? "House Lady"? ħuman 03:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Lieberals all lose their titles upon good news. At least they occasionally refer Obama as "President Obama" (to put blames on him, perhaps), and Rarely, Biden as "Vice President Joe Biden". But then again, it may depend on who put the news up. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fetish?

Here (How long has Conservapedia been a ghost town?), GTac states:

If only we had some kind of user whose major fetish was to create endless streams of delicious statistics in varying formats...

I'm looking for this kind of user, too. Until she or he is found, I made a few pics on my own...

RationalWiki

Conservapedia

aStorehouseOfKnowledge

enjoy! --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ONOZ!!!!!! My name is on the list! (expects himself to get lynched soon) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What's even more disturbing is that I'm on the list. Only problem is, it's the CP list. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Now they might know who to hunt down. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That capturebot seems to be a pretty busy guy. Here's an internet beer for you, capturebot. Corry 23:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ಠ_ಠ --GTac 11:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I also make the CP list but not the RW. Give me another month and all that may be changed. Генгис^mutating 11:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ken's sick?

Ken, you're batshit crazy, it's true, and your ideas amount to a rejection of everything that's made the human race better over the past 500 years. But, still, I hope you don't die or anything. Get better.-Diadochus 00:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember him talking about staying awake for long periods and such, which sounds a bit like someone on heavy ADD meds. Maybe that's the sort of thing he means, although we won't count it as a mental problem for Andy's sake. I admire that he's trying to head in a positive direction, now if only he'd "Make it your ambition ... to mind your own business..." with respect to people who don't believe in his god, hate science the way he does, or have sex with the wrong people. --Kels 00:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

His post made me think of two things: Either he got slapped down by Andy (see the "no more silly pictures on the main page to celebrate Google Ranking victories" and "will be a lot less active" parts), or he got bored and set up camp on some other site (see the "will be a lot less active" part). Of course, it is possible that he's worried about being boned by the crisis and actually wants/needs to work more to be on the safe side... though I honestly have trouble imagining Ken to have a job somehow - it shouldn't be physically possible to make a bazillion edits to his articles and pimp said articles on the Internet like he did while having a job life. But if that's indeed the case, I of course wish him the best. --Sid 01:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's get this straight. "I have conquered that health issue". He has alluded to is many times over the recent years. He is now better and will be trying to work more. When sick he couldn't work - he whiled away his hours "improving" CP. That shoutout has an unusual tone for Ken - he only repeated himself once. And, yeah, it almost sounds like someone slapped him for the oles or something. ħuman 01:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems very out-of-character. I hope he's honest about this whole thing, it can only do him good. On the other hand that means we've been Poe-ed all this time. Flare^Talk 01:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm there is definiatly something a miss with that post. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 02:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he actually took his meds. --Kels 02:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I imagine he got slapped down by TK. TK knows we enjoy Ken's stupid main-page postings and hilarious choice of pictures to illustrate the decline of atheism on the internet, so it only makes sense TK would go out of his way to somehow ruin it for us. And they had a little spat recently; I'd say TK gained some leverage in that. 86.20.32.48 08:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if anyone ever doubts that a Poe could put so much effort in for the sake of parody, let me tell you I have seen things. The SA forums spent a good few months being trolled by a guy who managed to convince everyone he was a clinically insane, Ron Paul obsessed libertard. It would have been completely transparent if not for the fact that every post he made was practically an essay. 86.20.32.48 08:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That'd be believable if it weren't for the many years of exactly the same sort of thing in the past under his own name on WP and a number of forums before that. He's been at this too long, too consistently and too diligently to be written off as a Poe. --Kels 15:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

<--- unindent

Hi, Kenny. Despite what I think about your articles I do hope that your health (physical and mental) continues to improve. It would be good for you to stop obsessing about things on the internet for a while. As your blog link says "Practice being wise, usually the effect of wisdom is silence". Getting down to some real work and looking after yourself properly can ony be good for you. When there's a storm in my life I often say to myself "Hold your head up high and don't be afraid of the dark. At the end of a storm there's a golden sky and the sweet silver song of a lark. Walk on through the wind. Walk on through the rain, though your dreams be tossed and blown. Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart and you'll never walk alone." Although it helps if you've got 40,000 others with you.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Jpatt essay

I realize it's already on wigo, but I have to ask: does anybody understand what Jpatt is getting at with this latest essay? --Simple 02:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont really know eh. Its kinda all over the place. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 02:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought it was a bit of a dog's breakfast.--Simple 02:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I think he's attempting a point-by-point rebuking of a liberal essay that was doing a point by point rebuking of conservative thoughts and ideals, using the same thoughts the original essay was rebuking. It is all over the place, but a fun read. I love that he considers liberalism a "mental disorder" and repeatably uses the argument that "Christianity is the right religion because it's the most popular one". HollowPsycho _{Bother me here!}

Whoops, I found it! he was doing a breakdown of the article here (The original, before Benp got his knickers in a twist.--HollowPsycho 03:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OMG, I tried to read it, but my brains asploded. Jpatt is giving Gene Ray a run for his money with this one. ħuman 03:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

One reason I am proud of this site is that when we do refutations, side-by-sides, etc. we attribute what we are arguing with - and quote the source in full. Which of course jpatt didn't do. ħuman 03:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Are they pick-and-choosing from this? Of course Pick-and-choose is way easier to refute. Not that Jpatt's refutation has any valid logic to it. By the way, what is the list of point suppose to be? the liberal's viewpoint or the other side? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. After I read the source article, I think it's a parody Jpatt decided to take seriously. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My two favorite quotations: "Conservatives promote authentic liberty, not evil (abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research)." and "Liberalism is but a small minority and is truly a mental disorder.." Corry 05:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I note JPatt uses a Michael Savage book title in claiming that liberalism is a mental disorder. Well, congratulations, JPatt, on your use of the Soviet-style tactic of declaring that your political opponents must be mentally ill. I'm sure Ronald Reagan would have been just thrilled to see today's conservatives adopting the tactics of the "Evil Empire". MDB 10:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

When I first saw the idea behind this crap, I thought to myself "oh good, I can do a side by side." Then I started reading.... After returning from the restroom with a tissue to stop the nosebleed I recognized that I couldn't do it. The small bit of satisfaction I would get from posting it would not counter the permanent IQ drop. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 08:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My favorite:

9. favoring the idea of Christian creationism while ignoring creationism from other religions.

Again, coming from a Christian dominated society are we supposed to believe what Hindus stand for?

See, he knows he's right because he grew up in a Christian society. And those silly atheists say religion is merely a social phenomenon which has nothing to do with truth, what do THEY know? --GTac 11:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that JPratt favours the "neener, neener" style of rhetoric. Don't we have a JPratt quote generator yet? Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Kind of. 1. Find a six year old. 2. Let the six year old type on your keyboard. 3. Save page. Rinse, repeat. Corry 22:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Census?

I've obviously missed something, but what's fucking biting Andy's bum about the 1990 census? --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Another classic example of Andy schooling Dr. Jensen about knowing more about RJJensen's friend than RJJensen does? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I see your confusion, you are from a part of the world where you have a Bureau of Statistics, who is charged with collecting statistics for the government, independently, including the census every 5 year? See in America, along with judges and law enforcement offices in some counties, the census is another political football to be kicked around in some partisan way to ensure that it is of no benefit to anyone, least it be of benefit to people you perceive to be your political opponents. - π 13:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's every ten years, and it is a really big deal in some ways - congressional apportionment is adjusted when the results are in, and it's also used to determine things like federal aid to states/cities - hence the issue over undercounting certain groups, often in large cities... ħuman 19:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I love how Andy...... Yes, Andy... Mr. <ref>completely unreliable and unprovable personal dinner conversation I had with a dead guy who can't defend himself</ref> is complaining about RJJ using personal opinion as a basis to delete material. The man never ceases to amaze me. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 22:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse

(More on Andy and relativity) If this should be in the saloon bar instead of here, please move it, but I think it is relevant to discussions had over the past few weeks.

I found a blog post that I think goes a long way towards explaining at least part of Andy's obsession with relativity. How I found glaring errors in Einstein's calculations Most notably:

Features of crackpot science To get further, let me list some common aspects of the phenomenon:

...

2 Most physics crackpots are engineers. More than 95% of my sample boast engineering degrees, or combine an undergraduate maths/physics degree followed by an engineering PhD or equivalent. This is not too surprising, as this may be the only kind of cursus that provides one with enough math background to understand the equations and formulae in the textbooks without actually studying maths and physics - which would show the crackpot why he’s misguided.

...

7 The crackpot theory is based on textbooks. Most of my cranks cite virtually no recent publications in physics. Almost all of them rely, for their understanding of modern physics, on what is in the textbooks...

As much as our theories propose that Andy has a special hatred of Einstein (which is probably true- if Einstein were still around Andy would be going on about how Einstein wasn't a real professor), I think this also explains a great deal of it. In this case, Andy's engineering degree actually makes him more likely to be a crackpot, not less. Hactar 18:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

An interesting blog post but I don't think it covers Andy, despite him being "qualified" as an engineer. For a start he doesn't posit any alternative to relativity other than gODDIDIT. Basically he's just too stupid to be a crackpot and is just a run-of-the-mill nutter. Генгис^pillaging 20:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless I've missed something the only science-oriented arguments he's come up with are "Newton can do it better".

It's Andy we're talking about here, though. He could be misunderstanding it (he has misconceptions about classical mechanics after all) and not telling us, or he could hate the Albert guy, or he could be idolizing Newton, or something he's related to (the AASP, his mom) doesn't like it either, or the moral relativity thing or... If I've learned something from Andy, it's that any of these things turns him into bunny-ears lawyer mode and throws whatever bullshit argument he can think of and, unfortunately in this case many of these things are present. Flare^Talk 20:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Newton was a Christian and therefore knows more about physics than those who came after him. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Newton -> action at a distance -> the unseen -> y'know, kinda like God -> something liberals reject -> thus, it's an important conservative principle! --Sid 21:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate GK, 1. yes, very cool link, thanks, but 2., no, not Andy. Andy just denies, he has no "theory" of his own to replace whatever sci/maths he doesn't like. Oh, well, except for the undeniable logic that conservative principles prevent mental problems and constipation. ħuman 22:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

PS, I'll tell you who this does fit, it's that nakayama person on the forums who has been going on about c and the M-M experiment for months (years?) without making a whit of sense. ħuman 22:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Crackpot Index, by John Baez Coarb 23:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Say, Ungtss' favouring of "ID by aliens" is based on #23! --Kels 23:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really strong WIGO material, but...

Taj: "I know we usually do not revert talk page comments."

I honestly can't tell if it's just Taj's memory failing in the most epic way or if it's blatant lying. --Sid 20:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Taj could just been posting tongue in cheek. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he is away since April (School? Ouch.), and perhaps he is unaware of the frequency of what the other sysops are doing (As indicated in his talk, perhaps, that he has less clues about things than the other sysops). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As if we needed reminding, TrollKing

When the TrollKing uploads this, you kind of get the feeling that he's either getting ready for the endgame, or he's admitting that he is an intellectual midget, whose only response to debate is the banhammer and being the complete wanker he is, he's going to add a pretty picture when he does do it, so we all know just what an arsehole he is. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 08:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

CP claims to be an educational resource, even to be an "online encyclopedia". Glorifying banning through the use of pathetic images (see Kensqueals passim) brings it down to the level of a Murdoch tabloid - which given the level of anti-liberal drivel posted by Andy, DeanS, JPratti and Jinx it actually is.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Junggai 10:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Polite <> Conservative word

Wow! I was going to make a snarky comment about TK not thanking us (as usual) for doing his proof reading for him (after he deleted that entry about the diner). Then I thought, just how polite is CP - how often do they use the word in mainspace? The results of a search for "polite" were... illuminating. No article on "Polite" and only 34 mainspace pages actually mention the word 'Polite'. Of these, 5 are debate topics, 4 deal with Japanese and Asian culture, and 5 are from the world history lectures. That leaves 20 mentions - and not a single one related to conservadom in any way. Which just goes to show, methinks. Of course, I suppose those paragons of politeness, TK and Andy will say something pathetic like 'it's self evident for conservatives'. To act like boorish thugs maybe. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

They are the paragons of chivalry and courtesy ... --larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Politeness" is just a liberal word for forcing the righteous to suffer fools. "Chivalry" is a better conservative word that allows children and liberals to be sternly corrected. Coarb 14:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Range Blocks

Just for comparison:

en.wikipedia.org (9,713,629 users, 16,825,087 pages):

Number of Active Range Blocks at en.wikipedia.org on May 22nd, 2009

Range	/16	/17	/18	/19	/20	/21	/22	/23	/24	/25	/26	/27	/28	/29	/30	/31	/32
IPs in Range	65536	32768	16384	8192	4096	2048	1024	512	256	128	64	32	16	8	4	2	1
#Blocks	66	29	57	70	52	40	26	16	208	20	13	21	23	22	7	3	91077
# ∞Blocks	22	11	19	37	28	19	10	10	63	2	5	8	8	5	4	1	21426

conservapedia.com (29,430 users, 75,063 pages):

Number of Active Range Blocks at conservapedia.com on May 22nd, 2009

Range	/16	/17	/18	/19	/20	/21	/22	/23	/24	/25	/26	/27	/28	/29	/30	/31	/32
IPs in Range	65536	32768	16384	8192	4096	2048	1024	512	256	128	64	32	16	8	4	2	1
#Blocks	280	22	41	64	83	10	155	17	191	3	3	4	2	9	0	0	879
# ∞Blocks	73	0	22	0	0	0	22	2	88	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	491

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to know the price of keeping something as precious as CP to yourself is blocking more people than a wiki 300 times larger. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Are these permanent range blocks or temporary(if so, how long on minimum?)? And if you count in number of content pages only (no talk or other things) should be only about 100 times; in number of any pages gives you ~200 times. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

xkcd:map of the internet

blocks at CP mapped accordingly

blocks at WP mapped accordingly

• In the tables, I added a line for the infinite blocks
• Generally, a range block at wikipedia doesn't preclude you from editing, only from editing anonymously.
• wikipedia : 7,082,293 individual IPs blocked, ca 36% of the blocks at
• conservapedia: 19,763,767 individual IPs blocked - the site is growing rapidly

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Though Conservapedia is dwarfed by wikipedia by numbers of editors, site-views, number of pages, etc., cp outranks wp in one aspect: four times as many range \16 blocks exist at CP than at wp... - and therefore, there are 150% more IPs blocked at cp than at wp. Amusingly, there are more \16 blocks at cp than \24 blocks...

cp	File:Ipblock-range-contrib-Conservapedia-20090125.png contr. of ranges to blocked IPs at cp	abs. nr. of blocked ranges at cp	abs. nr. of blocked ranges at cp (log. scale)
wp	contr. of ranges to blocked IPs at wp	abs. nr. of blocked ranges at wp	abs. nr. of blocked ranges at wp (log. scale)
rw	contr. of ranges to blocked IPs at rw	abs. nr. of blocked ranges at rw	abs. nr. of blocked ranges at rw(log. scale)

BTW, the raggedness of the graphs for wp indicates a higher fluctuation, i.e., the range blocks are spanning only shorter periods... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And just another pic to illustrate TK's achievements: since February 2009, there are more IPs blocked at CP than at WP. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the RW graph is hilarious. Those 30 IP blocks are just people forcing themselves to log in. I wonder why the number was double that last December? ħuman 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what?

Apparently TK's been into the expired eggnog again. --Kels 04:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, TK thinks I am behind an endless number of new editors too. Yes, he is certifiable. ħuman 04:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm in Latvia. Wish I'd known, I would have picked up a souvenir. --Kels 04:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember when he extended my block to infinite, and said I was sockpuppeting from "places not in the NE US" or some such. WTF, all that is good is that he ain't here. I feel the same way about "some" people who shifted their focus to A Drawer Full of Sockpuppets. Funny there, glad they aren't here so much. ħuman 05:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Next time, can you bring me back some Riga Black Balsam? I'm feeling masochistic. Junggai 11:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I love it when I con TK, even if it's only with a temporary sock.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See Kels, if you embraced the Uniquely Conservative©®^TM concept of being chained to a stove and being forced to bake cookies for Andy's homskollars, none of this would have ever happened. The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I imagine he'd want a woman chained to the stove for...other purposes. Or knowing TK's habits, he'd want to be the one chained. On a related note, it seems Jpatt thinks I'm socking over there too. --Kels 22:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Animal rights and conservatives

Ah yes, good old animal rights rears its ugly head yet again. I've seen that debate countless times over there, and been involved in a few of the debates myself. It's just not possible to be an animal-rights conservative, it seems. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of Conservatives don't seem to believe that non-American humans should have rights, never mind non-human animals. --Gulik 08:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I would've expected Karafur to be more animal-friendly. Vulpius 10:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Because his name sounds like Farfour, the lovable Hamas cousin of mickey mouse who was killed by the jews? --GTac 11:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of his suspected connections to furry fandom. Vulpius 13:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of conservatives don't think that American Humans deserve rights --Opcn 05:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Motivations of the liberal TK

This ends any arguments about TK's motivations on Conservapedia. OncomingStorm 11:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it, Terry? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What is Terry Koeckritz/Not Jinx _{Hi NOT Jinx!} trying to do now? - π 12:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

TK blocks, literally, thousands of people a day. What does one more block prove one way or the other? DickTurpis 12:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Millions, some days. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

TK is preventing Conservapedia from reaching its potential. There are good users there who can move this thing forward; his liberal vandalism is crippling this process. OncomingStorm 12:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really, CP is already well over its potential given that it is a site run by a guy that is a terrible homeschool teacher. Any way TK you are not going to convince anybody you are not an asshole so give it up already. - π 12:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Besides - why are you telling us (although TopKunt is anything but liberal), we know what he's doing. It's Andy you should be telling, after all, you are in the SDG with him, aren't you? (PS When are you going to share those secrets with us again, you did such a good job last time?)

Hangs up the "Do not feed the OncomingStorm / IndependentObserver sign".--PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about Psy? It is you "Mr Patti" that should be opening up the discussion group for us. - π 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Shhh! Otherwise everybody will want one!--PsyGremlin_Whut? 13:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure anyone who has spent some 'Guerrilla Days' over on conservapedia has been contacted by TK via email and told in no uncertain terms what he was all about. I used to have an account over there called 'Graham' and the pair of us worked together for a while until I got bored and made a huge parthian shot. Internet warz are boring... MarcusCicero 13:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Worked together" - LOL. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a battle I'm going to win in this life. OncomingStorm 13:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you're back to being Jinx again, Not Jinx _{Hi NOT Jinx!} and we have concern troll as well, this is nice. - π 13:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Where have I trolled? OncomingStorm 13:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not the troll, Not Jinx _{Hi NOT Jinx!} (although you are borderline in that respect). - π 14:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for my borderline trolling, but I was monetarily disorientated by Marcus's huge parthian shot. OncomingStorm 14:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The saddest part is more than a year and a half later it is still true. - π 14:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Monetarily disorientated", TK? Confess! Who's paying you to bring CP down from the inside?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is his inability to spell that always gives Jinx _{hi Jinx!} away. We will stop calling you Not Jinx _{Hi NOT Jinx!} now Jinx _{hi Jinx!}. - π 14:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest you learn the difference between "your" and "you're" before you start moaning about my spelling. OncomingStorm 14:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am slightly confused, where did I use it wrong? - π 14:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay found it. - π 14:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Christ, the geeky humour gets old and irritating very fast, doesn't it? MarcusCicero 19:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet, you can't resist. Gotta go with what works. --Kels 20:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For those of you who don't follow up on Not Jinx _{Hi NOT Jinx!} OncomingStorm's user page... He already outed himself as Jinx in a number of ways... The most obvious was the vague reference about "liberals proving my law" or something after someone mocked his religion. So the whole, Jinx _{hi Jinx!}/Not Jinx _{Hi NOT Jinx!} debate is pretty much over. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 22:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(Block log); 01:47 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 129.49.104.196 (Talk) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) (Please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial) TK's straight up creepiness and dishonesty speaks for itself. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 13:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My favourite game is Random Page

Because sometimes you get considered, in-depth pieces like this, whose sole purpose is to link to a newspaper article which has since moved elsewhere. Totnesmartin 09:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, 10 clicks on "random page" and I get cp:Insomnia (not bad, no mention that it affects liberals only - wake up, JPatt!); cp:Jason's Deli (a stub on a Texas fastfood chain); then the jackpot - cp:Homosexuality & MRSA (the trick is to click 10 times and not hit one of Ken's masterpieces); cp:Buffalo Bill (now just a poor stub after HSMom removed the plagiarism); cp:Galatians (the Xian encyclopaedia has 9 lines covering this book of the bible); cp:Nobel laureate (this starts "Nobel laureates are overwhelmingly liberal in political views" and goes downhill for all of its 4 lines); cp:Garret Hobart (1 line and an infobox for the 24th US VP); cp:Belfast Agreement (4 tiny paragraphs on this important issue, no external links, no references); cp:Free fall (amazing 15 edits to a 23 word article); and cp:Abstract algebra (Schlafly, Tash and Foxtrot have worked on this 15 word stub).

So, 10 clicks - 8 stubs, one Ken outpouring and insomnia.--PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Smartass. CP is my go-to location for learning about all different kinds of bias. As well as my favorite source of information for everyday items like keyboard, pants and parking lot. I can spend hours just soaking up the wisdom. Imagine a world without this trustworthy source of information. Teabag 11:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My second RP was cp:Salvation in the Old Testament an obvious cut & paste job from March 2007. Of course, plagiarism is welcomed at Conservathievia with TK and JM being the two of the biggest culprits. Where exactly does "absolute morality" fit into the CP world view I wonder? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that CP has a "Belfast Agreement" article. I seem to recall that one of Andy's hobby-horses was that the term is anti-Christian, and that right-thinking folks everywhere call it the "Good Friday Agreement".--WJThomas 12:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

cp:Jason's Deli is gone (TKed). Found cp:Iona, 19 edits to a one-liner. Also, something interesting comes up: cp:Ketchup in the Culture Wars is longer than wp:Ketchup as a vegetable, and CP alleges that Reagan took more than 8 months (since he took office) to 10 months (since election) to appoint the this guy and this other guy (by using "holdovers"). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Iona was one of those early parody articles in which we established and embellished the myth of Horserider. Later Fox had to take them down to establish his credibility as a British vandal-basher and parody-eradicator. At least he managed to leave ample amounts of his own parody as replacement. One of the best tricks for inserting parody at CP is to write so much that no-one is ever going to go through it all. A single edit will likely be spotted very quickly but if you know where to look amongst the verbiage you can find some hidden gems. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.}

cp:Tom Hanks is five lines, and half of it is about his views on proposition 8. And Forrest Gump, one of the most popular American films ever, is a redlink. Time to cut and paste from Imdb, TK!Totnesmartin 13:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OMG, the Tom Hanks is great! In it, Conservapedia officially pronounces that Mormonism is a Christian religion. I would have guessed they'd have thought otherwise... - Poor Excuse 15:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

With one of the 5 (6?) admins, DeanS aka Crocoite, being a Moron, they've little choice. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 16:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I just open a random article and try to reach one of Ken

's pet articles in as few clicks as possible. Vulpius 18:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Two or three clicks maximum. First click on "main page", I think all his "main" pets are linked there, and all the sub pets are linked from the main pet articles. ħuman 20:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's borderline cheating. It's kinda like clicking through to Special:Allpages and then claiming that every article on the wiki is just ten or so clicks away from any other article. But using only the links within an article (which I think was meant here) shouldn't be TOO hard, either. At least if you allow clicking on category links. Using only inline links is harder, I think, depending on what article you start and how well you can predict the linking habits of some people. --Sid 20:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Borderline, perhaps, but my point is that he maintains his link farm to his pets on the main page. Ignoring that, it is a good question - apart from the main page links, the question arises as to whether he has built "islands" that really aren't linked to much from the "outside world". ħuman 20:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I found an article I like sure its a stub, but that is what you would expect isn't it?--Opcn 03:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is my new favorite game too! Among my first 10 (excluding a couple that I thought were parody, so I don't want to draw attention ...) were cp:Capital crime - stub. cp:Writer - stub, which includes the fascinating revelation 'A writer is someone who writes things', cp:Mandatory - stub. cp:Seven Wonders of Wales C&P from Wikipedia, cp:Church 3 sentences then some weird sort of essay which doesn't make a whole lot of sense cp:Ethenol - stub and red-link-tastic. There were also a couple of interesting ones - cp:Creation Ministries International - a PJR baby that actually manages to inform. cp:Reconstruction a stub until RJJensen got involved - I'm not enough of a Civil War scholar to judge the accuracy. and cp:Rodney King which is amazingly bland. Must try harder. Worm ^{(t | c)} 09:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia has a problem

Down for at least 15 minues.

Conservapedia has a problem

Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties. Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.

(Can't contact the database server: Lost connection to MySQL server at 'reading initial communication packet', system error: 104 (localhost))

Either TK hit the wrong button or Andy is getting ready to unveil Conservapedia 2.0. Newer, better, moar Hitler. Teabag 00:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hitler, Better, Faster, Stronger. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 02:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dirty liberal

So now John McCain is a liberal? Good thing I didn't vote for him. Czolgolz 02:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

McCain was like the first one on the list. He was just taken down in april when it became apparent that he might win the nomination. If they have not burned down and salted the earth on the McCain article you can probably go back and find where it talks about him being a liberal media whore. They probably will now if they haven't. Hi TK! --Opcn 03:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Originally added by Chip [2] removed in May by Darkknight [3] then reinstated [4] removed by TK [5] and then the most recent add [6] and remove [7] and JPratt voicemail on the red phone [8] --Shagie 05:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

He's back

Oh Ken... User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Such a pity he can't write in English, though. Isn't it? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 16:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an example of MarcusCicero being partly correct: watching Ken struggle to draft these weird posts is like watching a monkey try to open a coconut. I already feel bad for drawing attention to him. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is he still whining about Rabbi "Screamer" Boteach? He's a terrible debater, lock him in a soundproof room instead and do us all a favour. --Kels 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fifty edits within less than 2.5 hours. Impressive for someone who said he'd "be a lot less active". And who needs vandals when Ken works overtime to deface the Main Page? --Sid 17:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Darn, you beat me to it Sid. It looks like Ken's meds have worn off already. One wonders why the stupid git had to re-upload the bunny pic (after all it's not the first time he's used it), and despite noting its Creative Commons Attribution License he gives attribution neither on the image page nor on the front page. Ken Demyer you are an intellectual property thief just like your cronies Terry Koeckritz and Joaquín Martínez‎. Please do not accuse atheists of moral relativism when your own "moral absolutism" is profoundly lacking. Генгис^marauding 17:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just btw, is Dawkins the only adversary that Ken can see? If so, then surely he's won, with all the mighty minions of gOD on his side? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 18:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You wonder why he re-uploaded the pic? Everything Ken

does, he does for one reason: Desparate Attention. --GTac 18:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is about attention, at least I can't imagine sitting around for more than 3 4 nearly 6 hours making repeated minor tweaks to pointless posts directed to someone who will never read them. Even children get bored of destroying paper tigers after a while. No, I think this is a glimpse into the mind of a barely functioning obsessive compulsive. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And who's the parodist poking Ken

? Bravo, whichever one of you that is. Terry Koeckritz still hasn't caught on. --Irrational Atheist 18:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ken, you moron! What part of attribution don't you understand? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Even with the deletion of the entire Richard Dawkins article and his various Gentlemen pages, Ken clocks in at over a hundred edits on May 24. --Sid 21:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ken again: Is it genuine stupidity?

No CP editors have mental illness, Andy?

Ken just burned the Dawkins article to the ground and justifies it with "clearing the cache" (Links in WIGO). My question: Is he really that stupid? Two years being a sysop on a MediaWiki project, and he really doesn't know the purge command? --Sid 19:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer is yes. Why he bothers "clearing the cache" anyway is stupid as well, given that the article itself is the biggest embarrassment. Now if he'd burn it and not bring it back, that would be an improvement. --Kels 19:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fafuxake Ken. Can't you even get your shoutout right? And why do you need to put a redlink in your "sandbox" to create another Dear Gentlemen page? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, Ken seemed to have a moment of lucidity and managed his "nose to grindstone" piece in one go. Now he's taking dozens of edits to make one semi-intelligible post and deleting multiple pages in the interim. Is he bi-polar or something? I'm seriously concerned about his mental health. He doesn't appear to have got over his health problems at all.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It makes me think of all these stories where someone is being mindcontrolled: "Gentlemen! Be prepared for Operation Overpump, which will- NGHHHH... gahh... no... kill me... he controls my miiiii- Silence, vessel of flesh. Operation Overpump will soon commence, Gentlemen!" --Sid 20:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Being a vessel of some kind of alien bodysnatcher would certainly explain his shoddy grasp of English language. Vulpius 20:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Ken have some sort of celebration planned for when the Dawkins article reached a million views (aided, of course, by the ever-busy RW clickbots)? He'll never reach a million if he keeps doing that. EddyP 21:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, there's already a bot going 0_o. 5 views in as many seconds. EddyP 21:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A little bit like this vessel? Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 21:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So long as we're asking rhetorical questions, do you think this is mental illness or absurbdist humour? --Kels 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

it’s very easy to criticize; but no one on this site could possibly even attempt to create an article with the scope and insight that this man has. OncomingStorm 23:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *breathe* bahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 23:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nono, he's right. I doubt any of us have his mental problems, or Jinx's. Those give a powerful sense of crazed conviction, y'know. --Kels 23:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed that people want to live their lives with your kinds of attitudes. So closed; so typical; so empty. OncomingStorm 23:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha keep it coming! Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 23:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The mad can't imagine why people would want to be sane. This may explain religion, in fact. --Kels 23:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The mad dismiss the truth as 'religion'. OncomingStorm 23:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Spoken like a true madman. Well done! --Kels 23:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Only Jinx is this stupid, incoherant and funny. Hahahahahaha penis-bone stuffed bums. Classic. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 23:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We both know I'm not being stupid or incoberent. I am however hilarious. OncomingStorm 23:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The hilarious and "incoberent", I'll give you. But stupid? Oh, yes! (and thanks for confirming you're Jinx, that was nice of you). --Kels 23:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha stupid jinx! Why dont you go back to complaining about the Air Force One New York fly over on your blog? Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 23:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oncoming Storm, you suggest that no-one on this site has the capacity to produce an article with the scope or insight of Ken's. But that's not correct- we have many excellent articles here. Would you so quickly dismiss this well written entry containing broad scope and decent analysis? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Come one Not Jinx _{Hi NOT Jinx!} Politics aside, you have to admit that Ken's articles are pure crap... A strange combination of quote mines, personal opinion and outdated medical knowledge. You can't really think he's helping the conservative cause anymore than you are.... But the way, how you diggin that new Eminem album? Seeing as how the two of you share a common vocabulary, I figured you'd be first in line. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe you are comparing the two; Eminem owns a dictionary, unlike Jinx _{hi Jinx!}. - π 01:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, Eminem getting another album is powerful evidence against Intelligent Design. I have no trouble seeing his career happen by accident. --Kels 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"OncomingStorm" (I see you don't use the proper naming convention), you have merely four edits so far, none of which convey meaningful information. I looked at many of your edits before reverting them and you rely on hearsay, judges laugh at hearsay, so clearly you're here to do harm to family values. Open your mind and admit that abstinence reduces Hollywood values. Do yourself a favor and admit that just as liberals don't understand mentally disabled people, liberals don't understand soldiers either. In Christ.--aschlafly 02:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due: Thanks for fixing Ken's mess, TK. --Sid 22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are we not that prone to vandalism?

At CP, they ban anyone out of line, sysopship is treated as an ultimate reward for unquestioning loyalty to their moronic leader, they exist in the fringe of even conservatism. Are these the reasons they are more vandal prone than we are? Here, even I am a sysop! Does this attitude help us avoid the amount of vandalism seen by CP? What are your thoughts?--Buscombe 23:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, that was one of the reasons it was made that way here. Take a lot of the reward out of wandalism, wandals are less likely to do it. Aside from a few slow learners, of course. --Kels 23:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandals do it for the lulz. If you can't irk someone over your parody, or can't make people laugh at those who take themselves too seriously, then what's the point of doing it? --Irrational Atheist 23:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ask Fall Down, I dunno what he gets out of it. Maybe he's too dumb to figure it out? --Kels 00:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't change my indent. I was responding to the OP, not to you. Thanks. --Irrational Atheist 01:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

IA, whilst it is the style convention on most message boards, without the tree diagram and the clear sectioning of posts, the convention on wikis tends to be always indent one. However there is no hard and fast rules so what ever works for you. - π 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be confusing to thread it as Kels did. It appeared that I was responding to his post rather than Buscombe's. If it would be confusing, an extra space between the two replies could have been inserted. Instead Kels changed the threading to make it appear that I was responding to his statement. --Irrational Atheist 02:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually changed it because if two comments are on the same level, it appears at first glance they were made by the same person. I've inserted a space instead, I trust that meets with your approval. --Kels 02:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure does. Thanks. --Irrational Atheist 02:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

IA, Gentleman Kels is female. Just sayin'. Corry 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no females on the intrawebs. Thanks. --Irrational Atheist 17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the answer would be obvious (to Aschlafly, at least): the conservative mind doesn't tend to vandalism, while any liberal is a natural vandal. That's why there has to be a block reason liberal vandalism, but no block reason conservative vandalism at conservapedia.

(yes, I ignored the whole indenting-debate :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 02:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not like they can get enough of conservative vandalism. And Kels, as TK put it, parodists simply do not exist. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Who would want to vandalize a wiki where they argue about indentation on talk pages? There's your answer, it is, there, yup. ħuman 03:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't indent enough to designate an important point. Thanks. --Irrational Atheist 03:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• You think you can tell me what to do, but I claim my power of the 'sterisk, eh?! ħuman 03:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha TK, you have finally given yourself away but it was a brilliang disguise while it lasted. On the question of RW attracting much less vandalism: because CP has such a narrow world view (Andy's) it's difficult to keep everyone on message so it is inevitable that people deviate from the party line into heresy and turn to infighting. I think that CP's dogma almost invites "vandalism" (I use the term to define anyhing that does not meet with official approval - which is pretty much their own definition now). Here our "official line" is so woolly that there is room for almost everyone to find some common ground. It's our inclusiveness and ennui which discourages attacks. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Human and others have it exactly right. At Cp, they have a rigid Dogma, and anyone who steps outside it, even on one or two points gets hammered for it (see PJR). Any site acting in that manner is going to be blood in the water for vandals. Any extreme site gets vandal problems, and CP is about as extreme as you can get. Compare that to us, we let virtually anyone in, and we don't really hold any extreme views as a site (individual members may hold extreme views which show up in their posts, but not really as a site). Plus, as IA said: No lulz, No vandalism, and we don't give lulz. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 10:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To attract this kind of vandalism, it isn't sufficient to have a rigid dogma. You have to be batshit-crazy wrong on a few of your statements, too. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont' know that you have to be wrong - you just have to care. We get lots of vandals on our "pro choice" site, cause the mob at large goes insane when anyone calls them dykes, or hippies, or baby killers; instead of just deleting the comments and moving on, the mob at large has to have hissy fits. That breeds troll joy!.--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Andy's talk page

It is now almost three weeks since Andy's talk page got borked by a bad header and neither TalKcrap nor his Lord and Master have noticed. Reviewing the first entry on the page I see this comment:

Also, it is usual to post up the bottom of talk pages, not at the top.--CPalmer 07:51, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, but it made me snigger.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Andy fails at MW 1.0 - always has. And please don't snigger unless it's absolutely necessary. ;) ħuman 08:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fun: looking for more error pages

I was looking at the Noah's ark article and they used the yearing of "AM", so I tried a search of the term AM on CP and Bam (RW doesn't seem to have problems with AM at least)! It is fun to get new error pages every time. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is nothing related to AM but is just a glitch which is also reported below. I was getting the same message intermittently yesterday with Special Pages and Recent Changes. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we really have to log every database mishap?

YES!

“”A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "". MySQL returned error "145: Table './cpwiki_media/searchindex' is marked as crashed and should be repaired (localhost)".

^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 13:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Must just say: I hadn't seen The above entry when I made this one! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 13:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Was that our version of it or the one from CP? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry me no understand: which "it"? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 14:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This has to be a parody

I'm not WIGO'ing this, since it smells like a parody, but...

SEvonBrandenburg argues that we should make marijunana legal so Islamic radicals would have less African-Americans in prison to recruit.

I have no problem pot leglalization, but that argument.... is a stretch. MDB 20:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We do not expose any parody here... as much as possible, as the powers over at the other side are keen readers of our chit chat.--Buscombe 21:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no parody on Conservapedia. There is nothing to expose, just ask Terry Koeckritz SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The best parody is when they can't see the wood for the trees (see Exxon-Mobile (sic) for an historic example). It was eventually removed by TK but was it erroneous in any way? Was it a lie? No, and thereby disproves the touted theory that there is no parody on CP or only lies and false information. There is parody aplenty, but they can't see it. Like the Emperor's New Clothes their own vanity deflects their shame until they see that everone is laughing at them. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is a parody you have outed them. --Opcn 22:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fallen soldier The Tingling Krap gave him the stolen banhammer. --Opcn 22:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem was and always will be that even we cannot say for sure what is or is not parody. I mean, most articles read by an outsider would be considered instant parody, but we know they're not. The problem is that unless we know someone is a confirmed sock, we're just guessing. Hey, we were calling Bugler a parodist for months before he accidentally outed himself. Z3ro^talk 14:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the rule was don't out parodists on WIGO. My bad. MDB 22:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing to remember is that TK reads the talk page, as well. So it goes. No real harm done, so no worries. Corry 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would guess that they read this page more than the WIGO. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 05:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Will this show up in "Hollywood Values" at CP?

Mel Gibson and his girlfriend are having a baby together, only six weeks after he filed for divorce from his wife. I wonder if that will be added to CP's Hollywood Values section, since Mel is well-known for his conservative views. MDB 12:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah but you see this is how Hollywood values work, they can take a good conservative and by using Hollywood values pressure make him divorce his wife and impregnate young women. "They" obviously specifically targeted Mel Gibson because he made Passion of the Christ. - π 13:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No true scotsman conservative would do such a thing! EddyP 13:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I smell a Jew... Czolgolz 21:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they might chalk it up to the girlfriend being a succubus. After all, what good, nutty christian can attack the creator of Passion of the Christ?--Nate River 23:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Andy for Pope!

When I was attempting to grow up Catholic, even at a young age, I thought the doctrine of papal infallability was proposterous, and I said so to a priest. To his credit, he refrained from molesting me, and clarified that the doctrine applies only to church matters. This helped for awhile, although I outgrew that. Pope Assfly I, and his chosen ones, seems to think this applies to anything he says, so he better tell the current Pope to get off that throne! Zeus be praised! Jimaginator 17:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The WIGO about TK rushing to Andy's defence w.r.t. the pOPE would appear to suggest that the mighty forces of the blueshites are lining up against him. I wonder, do we have any toffees around here? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A little warm up exercise before Saturday (and I have a ticket!).Toffeeman 17:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought TK's deletion was weird. Can't Andy defend himself with words rather than (hired) swords? Can't Andy just say he disagrees with Catholic doctrine? ħuman 01:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably not as that would lump him in with the liberal cafeteria Catholics that support gay rights or women priest, so he just goes out of his way to either twist or ignore evidence that the church agrees with evolution and opposes the death penalty. - π 02:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Andy is absolutely correct about Catholic doctrine. It's the Pope who gets it wrong. Andy is right about everything, and the universe must arrange itself around him. --Kels 02:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's so logical, how could anyone deny that 2+2=4 other than liberal Popes? ħuman 04:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Bennie turned out to be a real liberal, all right. I hear the cardinals have been grumbling "No more Souters!" Corry 12:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

TK, you crafty bugger!

That Thornhiller guy you blocked had over 500 edits! Is no-one safe from your rampage? EddyP 20:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I still have almost 2k edits there (used to be more but a lot of talk pages got memory-holed, like mine...), and created a zillion useful, parody-free articles, but he had no compunction extending Andy's block to infinite... ħuman 21:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is just another multiple accounts block. And, no, no one is safe from the rampage when it comes to that. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 21:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't you dare try to compare your situation, Human. You know full well you had a silly pattern of edits. --Kels 22:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I have to wonder, did the titles of the articles I edited accidentally create one of those trick phrases in my log? ħuman 01:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That only really works well on the recent changes log. You were editing a number of baked bread products, that is always a touchy subject. What I like most is that from your last few edits you offered to do some stuff that 6 months later remains undone. Nice to see the keep they valuable contributors on at CP. - π 02:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, re: your last comment, that was sad - and my offers of help were accepted, as I recall, just as Andy said "bye bye". I always liked that thing, the writing on an empty encyclopedia thing. Once in a while I'd cross Andy or some other IDiot, but mostly I was having fun. No big deal, probably better that I am not adding credibility to that pile of tripe by adding decent articles... ħuman 04:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Classic Ed Poor

I have been going over some of the archives and on the CP mainpage talk,archive 47, is that awesome Hollywood Values/Heath Ledger Death debate. I found this Ed Poor Gem when he commented on sleeping pills -
"If I were wealthy, but I had insomnia, I'd pay for a full-time nurse. I love myself too much to want to take a chance on an accidental overdose. What's a mere $200,000 a year to a man who makes millions? --Ed Poor Talk 21:34, 2 February 2008 (EST)".
What the fuck is the nurse going to do? Read him stories? Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 22:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you miss the point- male nurse, Ed Poor. If only they made children nurses. The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Like this? --Kels 22:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What's that, a candy strip(p)er? CЯacke®

The nurse would probably measure his medication as we all know how good Ed is at math. Vulpius 23:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"How much is two meters in pills?" ħuman 00:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh. cp:Two Meters never gets old. --Marty 16:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC) pedo or...?

GITMO fetuses (sic)

The corollorary of the WIGO is that if you were to treat Guantanmo Bay detainees as fetuses then the Right should be insisting on their right to life and that they shoudn't be harmed in any way even if it means harming mother USA. Of course the suggestion is just plain wing-nuttery anyway. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that TK has gotten to the point of smacking down any sysop that would oppose him they cower before his private emails with Andy, TK is looking to see how many editors he can drive away preemptively with main page right. Oh, wait, we're not supposed to expose parody here. --Shagie 06:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well conservatives have no problem killing people who would gladly kill them, and you people- well I haven't really figured out how you decide who the law should protect from being killed. I don't think such a declaration would result in a flip. Everybody would be on the side of executing POWs we're holding, and everybody wins! --NoPetrol 08:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the due process we have afforded these guys has been far less than stellar, and unless we want to be a country that runs a gulag archipelago (not a perfect analogy, I know) we need to have a system in place where we can legally deal with enemy combatants. It has all been very ad hoc so far, and personally I think it's all been a bunch of stalling and bullshit on the part of the government. I have no doubt that there's a lot of bad guys in Guantanamo, but why can't we apply the rule of law to them? There are plenty of criminals behind bars in the US who are violent, dangerous to society, but have had fair trials. We didn't just take them out back put a bullet in their skull, regardless of what Republican chickenhawk Rambos might fantasize about. It's dangerous when we forget the principles we're supposed to be fighting to defend in the first place. Corry 12:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question about why "we" (well, "you", I'm British) can't apply the rule of law to them is that a lot of the evidence against these detainees would not be admissible in a civilian court. Well, you could apply the rule of law but they wouldn't be convicted. And this is the dilemma. Not the nicest thing for Obama to have inherited. Ajkgordon 14:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be too radical to suggest using the same standards applied to POW's in past wars? And if there's not enough admissable evidence, well, I'd say that's the fault of the guys who captured them, eh? --Kels 14:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this isn't "what *should* we do", but "ok now what". According to the papers in France, several of the people we hold illegally are directly responsible for the Madrid bombings. And not jsut the "I strapped a bomb to my back" types, these are the minds of the job. No one wants them released, though everyoen knows the evidence is illegal and the treatment worse. And it's not just a US problem, since maybe 3-10% of the people held (the really uber bad guys) are world players of terrorism, not just players against the US. --En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 14:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)And therein lies the rub. In many cases the method of capture (extra-ordinary rendition, etc.) and their interrogation techniques (waterboarding, etc.) make it extremely difficult for any evidence they have to be admissible. Sure, the Bush administration should have thought this one through much more carefully, given that the so-called War on Terror was not declared on another state or states making the Geneva Convention and other POW standards difficult if not impossible to apply. At least not without releasing everyone.

But this is where they are now. What would you do if you had a terrorist you knew for certain was both guilty and a future danger? Release him and risk him killing loads of innocents or whatever? Or stall and try desperately to build a case that will stand up in court? Ajkgordon 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What about doing the right thing. Put him on trial. If he is found not guilty in accordance with the law, then you release him. The reason anybody thinks they "know for certain" is the testimony of the same type of people who told us that Iraq certainly had weapons of mass destruction. If they are the guys who set up various bombings then I fail to see that they will prevent such an immediate danger of a magnitude that exlipses the danger in removing the rule of law and due process. If they are granted asylum in the US then we know who they are, were they are and have the agencies to monitor what they are doing. If they move elsewhere we know where they have moved to and, again, have the agencies to monitor them. An open conspiracy is not much of a conspiracy.Toffeeman 15:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"If they move elsewhere we know where they have moved to and, again, have the agencies to monitor them." PMSL! Ajkgordon 15:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also argue that our neglect of the rule of law endangers our troops because it gives people a symbol to rally against. Corry 16:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ajkgordon 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How Andy reads a talk page...

I often wondered how Andy could decide that he has won an argument on a talk-page and allow himself to wonder of to greener pastures... I think, he doesn't read the history of a page, but only the present state. And he has won when the last argument (not the newest one, the one at the bottom of the section) reflects his opinion.

So, to create a win at the discussion whether Canada was a dominion or a colony during WW1, it wasn't enough for TK to revert JosephMac's careful observation, Ed Poor had retroactively declare ClementB's questions for Aschlafly as a parting shot. Now, if Aschlafly ever revisits the page and scrolls down, he isn't confronted with awkward queries, but with Ed Poor's summation and he can move on...

Similarly, at Conservative:Addition to definition, TK erases the point at the bottom of the section- without stating a reason - but leaves an equally condemning edit in the middle of the discussion, knowing that Aschlafly won't be bothered by it, as the last entry of the section now is made by Aschafly and another discussion is won.

Aschafly isn't about last-wordism, he's about bottom-most-wordism.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hah. Andy has to make sure his words come out of the bottom. 194.6.79.200 11:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Andy is known for his short and selective memory span. Otherwise he would never have readmitted TK. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

TK is absolutely essential for Andy's peace of mind: I wonder how often Andy goes to bed, praying that all the nasty counterarguments may be gone the next morning - and, when he awakes, his wish is granted, again: He remembers vaguely that there was some discussion at some talk page, looks at the section, scrolls down, and voilà, win! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's like the cobbler and the elves, except in this case the cobbler is an intellectual coward. Corry 12:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Ed removing that post really highlights how much of a lie this sort of thing is. Incompetence can only explain so much, a lot of things he does have to be intentional. --Kels 12:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How did I miss this lulzfest? - π 13:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You were getting drunk with Ace? I dunno. --Kels 14:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Andy goes to bed at night and puts Conservapedia underneath his pillow. When he wakes up the next morning the truth is gone. Yup, TK is the "truth fairy" stealing it away in the night so Andy can smile at the world without embarassement. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Jpatt and fun

"Sysops have the power here, regardless if your page. Mentioning those rats is forbidden here" [9]

"Unspoken rule, no rats ever, no mentioning rats, no rat pages allowed. Don't take my word for it, go straight to the top. user:Aschlafly --Jpatt 23:13, 25 May 2009 (EDT)"

So much fun. ħuman 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This should make for light entertainment of a Monday evening. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jpatt's always good for a smile. Perhaps he's editing from a mobile phone: "We r something, they r nothing. no need 2 mess with pesky flys". --Simple 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, JewishConservative has followed Jpatt's excellent advice and taken it up with Andy here. This should be good unless Andy's already gone to bed.--Simple 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is his archive called "Subway Troll"? Also on the topic of stupid this amused me no end. I would fix the article to help him, but I was banned for that. Also Simple if you get edit conflicted don't save your text regardless, it means someone else has added a comment since you edited. - π 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

He's talking about user:Jareddr (scroll down to the bottom of the archive). Get it? Jared/Subway? I'm sure Jpatt thought it was hilarious. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 05:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarity from the Reno Reject: "Jpatt is correct. To give any associative credibility to a vandal site isn't in anyone's best interest. That is why we don't engage them, or give them any kind of publicity. They were declared a vandal site publicly by the media, and that in and of itself is significant. That several of their own members acknowledged at the time, to a reporter, that they were vandals, and engaged in thousands of such acts, and it was organized on their site, is also important. So why would anyone of sound mind want to engage in anything that calls attention to their site or members? That is as direct an answer as I can give you, and I hope you understand and will abide by our policy. --₮K/Admin/Talk 01:03, 26 May 2009 (EDT)" [10] (Emphasis added for effect) TK, I know your goal is to destroy CP, but your incessant lying about this site drags you down with them. ħuman 05:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I love how this is the one instance we must listen to the Liberal Media, when it is to cast aspersions on us, and the rest of the time they are a poor source unworthy of quoting. Consistency much TK? - π 05:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I un-typoed your comment to "aspersions". ħuman 05:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is cool, I rely on my spell checker too much. - π 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Stealing someone else welcome, does he get much lower when it come to rewriting history? - π 05:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

When did the pompous prick add _/Admin to his sig? Генгис^pillaging 06:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Way back when it use to say Sysop-TK. He loves his titles (hence the senior administrator to differentiate himself from the other), power (hence the title senior administrator to give himself standing over the other) and his banhammer. It is probably all he has got in life, the sad little man. - π 06:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

@ pi, nice catch, that should be wigoed. TK is such a fuckhead. ħuman 08:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To be precise: Jan 3rd, 2009 shows the first use of his new sig... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

He had _/Sysop in his sig before, but removed it when he was desysopped. Even more amusingly Ed signed with _{/Senior administrator} in his signature once --  Nx/talk  09:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have always been mystified by people's obsession with what are often quite lowly and mundane titles. It's obviously some sort of personality defect. For example those who insist on calling themselves Mister when giving their name over the telephone, or adding Esq. to their name. And don't get me started on the dynastical thing of giving your sprogs the same first name as yourself so they can call themselves Ed Poor III or whatever. Mr. Genghis Khant Esq. 09:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Without wishing to appear overly pedantic, the use of both "Mr." and "Esq." in your otherwise charming signature is contradictory as the two denote different social statuses. --Horace 02:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Aurochs

Did Karajou create an article that implies evilevolution occurred?

Two quotes:

• The aurochs (Bos primigenius) is an extinct species of wild cattle once found in Europe, Asia, and North Africa, and said to have been the ancestor of domesticated breeds.

• Excavations in archaeological sites in south-west Asia indicate that the domestication of the aurochs began about 6,000 B.C.

That seems dangerously close to endorsing evolution.... MDB 09:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. They could have been one of kinds in the Eden petting zoo. Corry 12:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

ONOZ! They move the creation date back to before 6000BC! Quick, cover the eyes of the Young Earth Creationists! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The YEC date is 4004 BC, about 6000 years ago. ENorman 18:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, 4004 is the Ussher date. YEC's "broadly" think creation was 6 to 10 ky ago, IIRC. ħuman 18:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

SotomayOR uses conservative terms

Wonder how long it will take them till they whine about the pronunciation of her name, and how it's Islamic, or uber Mexican or something...That said, what's up with claiming that the words in Andy's new "list" are only for conservatives? I guess once andy claims it, we have to go find new liberal words - since our use of things like "competition" is outlawed.--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 19:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've heard her name pronounced 5 different ways by three different people today... ħuman 21:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny that lawyers and law professors commenting, at least on NPR this week, aren't viewing her as inordinately liberal. Human - I heard several pronunciations of her surname from people she went to school with and grew up with in the Bronx! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

SodomyOR...nuff said.Phallus of Satan 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Andy calls that "linguistic analysis". When will he use his precious Merriam-Webster to look up what linguistics actually is? Because that's not it. It's like if Ken called doing his precious Google searches "computer science". Oh, wait, he did. Kallium^talk 00:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

She is not "liberal" as you or I know the term, at all. She would rightly be "moderate" under most circumstances. But given the make up of the current court, she would most definitely be left of 6 of the judges. Our court is, honest to god, more right than it probably ever has been in our "modern" history. (since the 40's, anyhow).--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 02:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I love watching this because it really reveals the main problem with Assfly and his "do or do not, there is not moderate." Way of looking at things. As hard as it is for him to understand, there IS a valid middle ground on every issue and most people fall somewhere in there. The world is not black and white, and I'm sure with some pushing, Andy could be forced into some middle ground opinion on something. Assuming of course that TK didn't ban the person on sight. Sotomayor is very much a moderate, which you would expect from Obama, who is a slightly left of center candidate. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 09:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It was Teh EmperOR who removed the funny from my WiGO about that. Pity, it was doing pretty well in votes before that. --Kels 11:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Most Conservatives can be pushed to the middle ground on at least the guns issue. You just have to scale the gun up until they admit Mark 45s shouldn't be legal. Some libertarians require further pushing, since they will insist that even grenades and C4 should be legal... you have to mention nuclear weapons before they back down (and even then, I have met one single libertarian who believes even privately-owned nuclear weapons shouldn't be regulated) 194.6.79.200 12:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ROTFL!!!

I just got teh Assfly himself to pat me on the back! ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Andy is as blind to parody today as he was yesterday and will be tomorrow. --Simple 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FA

Sweet. ħuman 21:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Toffeeman 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A long, long way to run, or so I've been told. --Kels 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. Naw, I just wanted to remark on it without making it easy for them to fix. It's still there. Well, or not there, really. ħuman 01:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well keep us informed when it is fixed. I do not think that means what I think it means. Yorick 04:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Joke

Never mind Andy for a moment, what the fuck is up with Ed Poor's "joke"? Its the online equivalent of that "detached thumb" gag. The good professor Jensen didn't seem impressed. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

More obviously, it's the exact sort of thing anyone else would get permabanned for. And probably insulted while they were at it. But it's Ed, so we end up with possibly the most idiotic abuse of power I've yet seen. --Kels 22:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It is sad to watch some on enjoying their ignorance the way Ed was. RJJensen, please, if you read this, give up on them. If push came to shove, Andy would keep that incredulous moron Ed Poor over you for his "good" contributions, completely ignoring your excellent contributions in the process. - π 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sighs... watches both of these last two sections fly over my head. --En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 02:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as mine. Go to CP. "Study" on what "FA" might mean. Read. Chuckle. Fall off chair. Enjoy. ħuman 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And understanding this section requires little more than looking at the page that this page is about. I mean REALLY. *sips chardonnay* 194.6.79.200 12:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A thought

This is just a thought, and it may be the result of large amounts of spirits consumed for my birthday celebration part one, but we have a sharp devide on CP Borken news WIGOs. I happen to like them, but many don't (and I can see why) so why don't we fix both issues and have a subpage for just those items... A kind of a What is going on at CP/Borken News type things.... Just a thought... Take it or leave it. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 10:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind them, sometimes they are very good. But often they get low votes so I'm just hoping people will be mindful of that before wigoing one. I'd rather they get normal-wigoed than subpage-wigoed though. It's not that big of a deal to create a new system for it. 194.6.79.200 12:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just resign yourself that the news WIGOs won't rank as highly as others. Personally I'm delighted if my wigo world stuff scores as high as 5. Totnesmartin 12:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as one who haz many negative value WIGO's I go for pithy, short set-ups and allow that ol' CP lulz to shine fer itself. (I don't do the borken newz items since we haz many fine editors to wallow though mainpage right.)

@SCB, if you're editing at 6am (EDT) you haz not consumed near enough spirits for your birfday unless you're in Guam. (If you are in Guam I hope it's not because of job hunting.) CЯacke® 13:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Pure, classic Andy WIGO

The recent conversation (already WIGOed) on the CP Conservative talk page is pure, classic Andy. Make a big, wrong statement, get called out, and refuse to reconsider while attacking the religious beliefs of whomever is proving him wrong. Great WIGO! Corry 03:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is pure win. ħuman 03:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And of course, Addison pwned Andy the idiot. ħuman 03:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

With any luck what he quoted will be a translation and Andy can challenge that. - π 03:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Come to that, isn't Andy officially a Catholic? Wonder how he feels about disagreeing with his own church. --Kels 03:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm curious as to how being corrected by an acolyte will work out. He'll probably just drop the thread- the assertions he is making are beyond ludicrous. The RCC opposition to the death penalty is no great secret, and the claim that opposing the death penalty requires a disbelief in hell is remarkable. I forgot to list another reason why this argument is so great- he's beating the logic horse again. Andy is at his best (?) when he tries to argue logic.

@Kels- I think he used to be a Catholic and converted to evangelicism. From what I've seen, though, he still respects the RCC and doesn't have any Chick-esque views (at least regarding the RCC). Corry 04:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweet Jebus, Andy pulls though famously! Corry 04:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because it is so much easier to confess your sins when you are dead. Well at least you get the last rite guaranteed that way. - π 04:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Gawd, we, knew this, but he's fucking insane. "There is a pacifist movement in the Catholic Church, partly designed to confuse the Church's opposition to abortion. This pacifist movement is inconsistent with thousand of years of tradition, and also inconsistent with basic concepts of justice and retribution."? ?? ??? Notice the use of the new meme "confuse", as in "confuse the children". Anyway, he posted this at midnight ("This pacifist movement is inconsistent with thousand [sic] of years of tradition,..."). He may not be as think as I drunk he is, but he sucks at copyediting his idiocy. "Catholics are not Quakers, and never have been. The Church endorsed the death penalty for heretics, and they were not threatening human lives." Now we know what part of Catholicism Andy "likes". Stop me before I quote every word in that post... ħuman 05:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just permabanned a little while ago, someone else at my school disagreed with Andy about wolves mating for life and we got the permaaxe from Taint Kobbler, but if not for that I'd dearly love to get on and point out to Andy that the catholic church doesn't work on beurocracy, and that tradition does not mean anything compared to the personal whims of the pope. --Opcn 05:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

@Human- This goes back to when he was defending the Inquisition as not being really serious torture, just, you know, waterboarding. Or something. Because they were concerned that Jews were converting under false pretenses, although I doubt he worried himself about why that might happened. Perhaps they wanted free wine and crackers. It is disgusting to see what steps he will go to to defend everything the church has ever done, regardless if the church itself still defends or advocates such actions.

@Opcn- I must disagree. The Catholic church values tradition, and even though a Pope could theoretically issue heterodox dogma ex cathedra, the College of Cardinals is not going to elect some "loose cannon" who's going to be unpredictable. I guess it's possible that the next Pope could be a Souter, but I'll believe it when I see it. The Catholic church has immense inertia, and is rarely surprising. For example, Vatican II took three years and there are people still upset, more than forty years later, about translating the liturgy into the vernacular. Corry 05:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Having been raised Catholic well after Vatican II I missed out on that. But the sluggishness of underlings has no effect on the theological stand. The Pope is the infallible antenna to God, any thing he says goes, the slowness of the church to respond is largely due to the selection of cardinals and popes. There aren't any Catholics alive (to my knowledge) Who were still alive when the RCC was warlike, its been peacenick for more than a hundred years now. --Opcn 06:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

When you have to rely on the neutral Swiss to provide your protection it is rather hard to get on a war footing. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"All evidence is that the death penalty increases the possibility of redemption. Retaining a person for the rest of his life in jail often leads to unexpected death or mental illness or dementia without the person fully confessing his sin and requesting redemption. Andy Schlafly 23:51, 24 May 2009 (EDT) " - Is any comment really necessary? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 16:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...One of the justifications for gruesome executions in times past was that pain and suffering in this world would spare you from the same in the next. Thus, burning a person at the stake would spare them from the flames of Hell; a sentance of death is for their own good. Andy's view seems to be damned close to that.--WJThomas 18:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think his views are exactly that. Corry 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not quite. Andy seems to be saying that a person must be (knowingly) facing imminent death in order to repent of one's sins, whereas the Old Timers asserted that the manner of death itself was the repentence. It's a difference of a few minutes, I suppose. I'm not sure which view is more bizarre, or more cruel, but Andy's takes the cake for stupidity.

Oop...I take that back. Andy sez here exactly what they thought back in the Dark Ages--Killing someone is good for their soul. He's a crazy evil bastard, he is.--WJThomas 00:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My favorite Andyism is when he says that hell must exist because it is logical. It really makes my day every time I see him try to do that. You can't even remotely prove the existence of a physical locality based on logic from first principles! I'd like to see him try the same thing for the San Andreas fault or the Malay Archipelago or, say, Titan. Kallium^talk 20:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he took most of the day off, but returned for another reply there... it is truly pure gold when Andy decides to redefine RCC dogma to fit his own "views". ħuman 01:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is just pure, unadulterated MONEY. He really, clearly states that he believes that you have to kill people to save them. That's just fucking brilliant, pure Dark Ages Gold. I recommend we see if Andy floats. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 01:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it odd that the more devout someone claims to be, the more likely they seem to be to make the first commandment conditional (i.e. The Bible clearly says "thou shalt not kill", however/except...) That self-righteous attitude is disturbing, not to mention ironic considering it comes from a guy (with many like-minded people) who believes in absolutes and spits on the slightest hint of relativism, especially in scripture. But at least I got another laugh from him throwing the word 'logic' around like a first-grader again. Kallium^talk 02:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As George Carlin once observed: The more religious someone is, the more they see murder as "negotiable." Do you believe in God? No. Blam. Do you believe in God? Yes. Do you believe in my God? No. Blam. My God has a bigger dick that your God. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The first Commandment isn't "don't kill", it's "I'm your God and don't you forget it". Not killing is about halfway down the list, and most Judeo-Christian religions make the distinction between "kill" and "murder", but the Catholics specifically translate it as "kill".--WJThomas 10:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right- I remember that now. (Shows what happens when you're too busy doing Science.) Andy must see it as an ordered checklist akin to a legal document, i.e. _{if as Christian soldier A thou encounters Unknown Individual B, and said individual B sufficiently accepts your interpretation of God (the determination of sufficiency being performed by Christian soldier A), does not use His name in vain, observes the Sabbath in accordance with Biblical decree, and honors his/her father and mother in a morally and societally appropriate yet not relativistic manner, then} Thou Shalt Not Kill _{Unknown Individual A}.

Edit Button

This continues to be incredible. We now get a treat we haven't had in a while- Andy being buffeted by a whirlwind of well-sourced facts while tenaciously clinging to his stupid, hideous argument. Multiple people are quoting the catechism and at least one former Pope, while Andy fantasizes about wearing a big hat and burning heretics. Corry 13:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (more) Regarding the use of violence discussed above, remember the recent pew poll that shows that evangelicals seem to be more down with torture than the average citizen. Corry 13:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but the summary to that poll doesn't mention it. Here's a 'progressive' evangelical minister's discussion about it though, with some interesting comments. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

When I saw the link "christians-lament-over-the-pew-torture-poll" I had visions of Sunday worshippers being tied down in their seats and suffering an insanely long sermon while being waterboarded. Oh well. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Andy vs the Pope

I love Andy's last reply. I will quote in full:

“”You cite a statement of political opinion, akin to citing statements by a Pope against a particular war or a proposal by a Pope for the future of the Middle East. Such statements are the result of ongoing discussion about issues and can reflect pressure exerted on the Church by liberals. In this case, the statement was probably not written by the Pope himself, it does not address 2000 years of the opposite view of the Church, and it marks the beginning of discussion rather than the end of it.

—Aschlafly

The site he was given was the Evangelium Vitae. It is an Encyclical, an official statement by the pope on the churches position, this particular one according to Wikipedia: "the encyclical written by Pope John Paul II which expresses the position of the Catholic Church regarding the value and inviolability of human life." - π 14:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we'll have a multi-day epic lulz on our hands here. New users are joining up to tell Andy he's a moron. And he's going to either argue back or block them. Grab the bags of popcorn, boys and girls. Let's watch the burning down of Andy's psyche! --Irrational Atheist 14:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but picture Andy leading this routine. Corry 14:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For most of us, the word cremation means the burning of a dead body, but Andy's dictionary has a more disturbing definition. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"There was no publicity in the Middle Ages" - oh, so that's why no one expected the Spanish Inquisition! 71.193.206.116 23:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Andypants just accused the past two popes (plus hangers-on) of heresy. Burn them!! --Kels 13:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(Hmm...I wonder if purposely misrepresenting the teachings of the Church and accusing popes of heresy is grounds for excommunication) Andy has taken to claiming that the Church's stand against capital punishment is very recent, and the result of liberal meddling over the last decade, but Official Opinion at the highest levels of the Church that capital punishment is A Bad Thing goes back at least 40 years.--WJThomas 13:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it was 40, 10 or just last year, Andy is not correct; the Catholic church currently, at this moment does not support the death penalty. He can make up all the reasons he wants it won't make him correct. - π 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

But he really wants to kill all the Liberals heretics! For the good of their souls! Can't they make an exception? --Kels 14:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, TK

You just had to steal that welcome template out from under me. I could really give you a piece of my mind right now, and I will... in 2014 when my account block expires.--Woloct 01:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That worked. Good job. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

For TK that was quite clever. Nice to see you are reading us again, how is protecting Andy from the truth about the Catholic Church going? - π 01:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I rescind everything. Tk wins.--Woloct 02:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have always felt that a 5 year block is an acknowledgement that the project is going to be dead in a few years. I can see a particularly troublesome going away for a year and may be coming back a changed person, but after 5 years who cares? Your life would have changed greatly and you are unlikely to have an sort of attachment to a website you have not gone to in 5 years. - π 03:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why (I think, other than simple spite) he changed my 6 month block to infinite - because I'm still around and would have returned, to write more liberal communist atheist (etc.) articles about sweet foods. I never did get to start uploading images of construction equipment & tools to augment my "building trades" articles... ħuman 04:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey TK, hope you manage to destroy CP soon so you can stop refreshing the RC page for prevaricators to block while you masturbate to your rangeblocks. You're going to go blind. Oh, and don't forget to add the banhammer to those users' pages, you! User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(by the by, not his line. I knew it sounded familiar, so I googled it and sure enough, it's from Sandman. I doubt he pulled it directly from the comic, tough...) 173.10.105.29 17:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, TK already bans people for not being in America and for not being conservative (or conservative enough, as solely judged by himself) without the offenders actually breaking any rules. Both of these tactics are blatant violations of CP's admin guidelines, yet he receives no condemnation. Given this, how long do you think it'll be before TK starts banning people for not having the same religious view as himself? HollowPsycho 03:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

TK also bans people for being in America. TK just bans anyone he feels like. There are no "rules", and certainly no "guidelines". He is Andy's enforcer, protecting Andy from the truth, or ever "losing" an argument. CP is in its death throes. ħuman 03:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tkunt! Can you tell friend from foe?

Dear Mr. Dickwad Q. Tkunt, can you tell friend from foe? After you have blocked all of Europe, then what? Do you know how many American's are stationed in Germany? I would tell you the figure, but you would say my maths (sic) are wrong even if I made 100 citations. You don't have the God Delusion, you have the Reality Delusion. I love you! Keep up the good work of alienating anyone that even slightly disagrees with you, you Jesuit hypocrite! BTW: People in Germany know people in America, and can have friends make entries on CP. Ciao Bella. Jimaginator 15:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What's next? Maybe Australia? Or South Africa? Maybe Asia? I don't know, but I can't wait to find out! Do it for our lulz, TK! Thanks!! ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No real American would ever leave their own country. What's the reason? God made it, it's the best country in the World, why would you ever want to leave? Only a liberal would want to see how others live. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

TK won't stop until no one can access CP. After all, reality has a liberal basis--Nate River 17:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Eventually, only one account will be allowed to edit. A bot coded directly from the Schlafly quote generator, defecating Assquotes ad infinitum in a loop. Taytopacket 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that I could suspend my disbelief for. Please to write such bot. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

TK has no friends or foes. There are only people he can manipulate for his own amusement, and those he can't and must simply abuse. --Kels 19:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that the entry wasn't just reverted. Now, Ed Poor's bizarre rant protects it somehow, as lesser sysops and normal editors won't dare to touch it. And TK is silent, perhaps just waiting that Andy archives the whole thing... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use

Someone ought to tell RJJ (who I thought had more sense) that Fair use applies to the object being used, not to the subject of the article being used. (Copyright © 2006 Creators.com. All Rights Reserved) ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed Paul Szep. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 16:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct spelling should also apply. Sotomeyer? Taytopacket 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Andy still reads these posts, he took it down. Czolgolz 19:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Assfly could bring himself...I think someone probably told him about it off the record. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 19:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There's always the possibility that Paul Szep or Creators.com moaned. The copyvio appeal procedure is directed to him. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Gay Bowel WIGO

Not sure how to add this to the WIGO (or if it should be added), but look who added that part in the first place: Ta-da! --Sid 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Noticed that too. It does seem a bit... unusual, does it not? Kallium^talk 16:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless self-promotion

To get an idea of CP's blocking policy, I wanted to compare it with the one of wikipedia. I looked up WP's (i.e., en.wikipedia.org) and CP's block-logs, having ~900,000 resp. ~25,000 entries:

	Editor			IP			Block-Id
	block	reblock	unblock	block	reblock	unblock	block	reblock	unblock
wikipedia	346,532	6268	24,609	487,563	2526	31,183	6003	225	19,748
conservapedia	20,231	49	1499	2261	8	195	16	0	556

Instantly, the question pops up: why is WP's blocking policy so much less disruptive than CP's, though CP's block-log has less than 3% entries?

The answer is obvious: It's all about block-length. I made this pic for the range blocks:

The numbers at the bottom indicate the percentage of blocks of infinite length. The shortest block period is 1 min, the longest non-infinite (some fun block, I presume) over 1000 years. To show all these periods, I used a logarithmic scale.

Most blocks at CP are longer than six months, and short blocks (less than one day) are virtually nonexistent. But these shorter periods are typical for blocks at WP.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In terms of average length of block, CP's average exceeds WP in every range, and in most of the categories CP's average above the top of the box on wp as well. Ouch. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, why do we think there is a "blocking policy" on CP (compared to arbitrarily blocking people) in the first place? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There really aren't any "policies" on CP, just "rules" that authoritarians can use however they want to wank on random visitors. ħuman 02:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. Warnings are appropriate, not for obscenity, vandalism or parody (Which are block-able offenses without warning.), but for silliness and other problems. In rare cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the Administrator Group to make changes on a manual basis based upon suggestions on the Talk page.

Well, that sounds like a policy. OTOH, I haven't read any warnings for a long time - obviously, only deviants, vandals and parodists (there still is parody, isn't there?) got blocked.

and, of course:

• Administrators are selected as needed from the best of the best contributors, there is no popularity contest to determine promotion.

Ever heard of the Führerprinzip? Hint: It doesn't work well...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of it, and read up on it. Thank you. Funny: I saw a new term, learned about it with no preconceptions, and now I know more than I did. Please tell CP how this works. Jimaginator 14:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Assfly wants to arm dangerous criminals?

Is that what this is about? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What are they going to do with a largly-defensive weapon of gun? Z3ro^talk 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

True, I suppose I should open my mind to the fact that the nature of the weapon of gun is largely defensive, even in the hands of people who have used them aggressively. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Only libruls use them aggressively so as long as we burn all libruls at stake we should be fine. Vulpius 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Late to the party JPatt

Oh noes! JPatt thinks he uncovered a scandal!. Too bad the same silliness was reported last year and stuck down as crazy then! God forbid someone should wear a ring on that finger and not be married, huh JP? HollowPsycho 20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that JPatt brings up an excellent question that calls for baseless conspiratorial speculation. If Obama was not married at the time, why the ring on the traditional wedding-ring finger? Some homosexual men wear a wedding ring as a "beard". Hmmm... Or, perhaps Obama is ignorant of American customs--in some foreign-type cultures, the right-hand ring finger is the wedding-band holder, so perhaps this is further evidence of Obama's foreignness. On the other hand (no pun intended), perhaps Obama was indeed married prior to Michelle, but where's that first wife? Did he divorce her, and if so, why hasn't she come forward? Was she paid off? Did Obama use his infamous mind control powers to erase her memories? Did he silence her "the Chicago way"? Or perhaps Obama is secretly a Mormon, with multiple wives. Enquiring minds want to know!--WJThomas 21:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My eyes hurt. I can't see how they can tell the difference between a joint(cannabis-ish) and a regular(Tobacco-ish) cigarette. What kind of equipment do they have that can tell the difference on one photo? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

but where's that first wife? He killed her, obviously. Practice for when he killed his grandmother last fall so that she wouldn't reveal that he's the secret son of Malcolm X. 76.93.187.219 01:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Billary had her killed, in order to try to get Hills elected Premier and First (oh, shit, what was Hitler?) of the United Soviet States of America. That scared him into "getting with the program" as they say. Michelle was a Stepford Wife drafted to reassemble his delightful nuclear family. ħuman 03:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest word salad from Jpatt

I just started reading, but this gem caught my eye: "steep in ignorance"...what a moran. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 04:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Word salad indeed. Well, he did make some edits to clean up the worst of the grammatical errors, from what I can see. ħuman 04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So Jpatt says libruls looked like fools attacking general Petraeus over the war on terror. Does that go for conservatives too? Because he follows it up by saying that closing Gitmo is "a theory that is steep in ignorance"...gee, Jpatt...who would want to do that? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 04:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it's scary the massive hard-on Jpatt has against Obama. Given how the conservative bash liberals for their so called "unfair attacking of Bush", can we now reverse that, with Jpatt as a star witness? HollowPsycho 04:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

@Neveruse: It is much more cuttting if our own spelling (moran/moron) and grammar are up to scratch when criticising others for their mistakes. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be funny if Neveruse was doing it as a joke, wouldn't it? --Kels 11:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It could but isn't. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

late to the salad bar: "Besides him be the staunchest pro-life president ever" (Line 2 on my screen) Bush be good, bush be. Fafuxake, Jp, READ WHAT YOU WRITE! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong

But the more I dig into this news post the confused I get. Chrysler, as part of sucking up for even more gub'ment cheese, agreed to cut 789 franchises. Now, from my understanding, that doesn't mean 789 dealerships are gonna close, just that they won't be able to sell Chrysler cars anymore. Granted, it's a very small fix to a fraction of the whole problem Chrysler has, but more to the point, how many dealerships would actually shut down as opposed to, say, simply finding a new brand of car to sell? HollowPsycho 04:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, many US car dealers sell several brands. EG, my local Audi (and Porsche) dealer is also my local Chevy dealer. They are also a Honda dealer. So in many cases, the "franchise" being taken away still leaves a car dealer, perhaps even one with a sellable line of product. Or at least a parking lot on which to display used cars? I think, of all people, car dealers are the most resilient snakes in the meadow... ħuman 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PS, Conservapedia is insane, or hadn't you noticed? ħuman 05:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Car dealerships are a topic near and dear to TK's heart, remember. I wonder if Koward revels a little in that. --Kels 11:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Half of Chrysler's dealers sell 90% of the cars, and 83% of the dealerships being given the boot sell more used cars than new cars. Chrysler is just getting rid of the dead-weight, CP's claims of partisanship aside.--WJThomas 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Republican doners"! Also if I remember rightly didn't have a good old American Subaru? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC) 12:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

UBS

What a pity! It was such a concise article...:

UBS (Formerly Peckham Polytechnic) is a modern university in the United Kingdom. It makes use of a modern, economical approach to teaching and much of the teaching is delivered by the latest computerised teaching-aids, graduate assistants, and other budget-conscious methods.

Why not just adding a link to the home-page of the former Peckham Polytechnic ? This kind of exposing satire may have worked earlier, for cp:User:Bugler and his peers! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Grabbed some pics of it. I wonder if Andy will pretend that it is intentional parody to make fun of liberal professor values, like his claim that the stupid octopus article was parodying environmentalists. - π 06:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not WIGO-worthy, but still ever-so-slightly amusing

I see that little Joaquin has posted a fresh "Historical Quote": "Literature is the orchestration of platitudes." (Thorton Wilder). No doubt he choose this because it sounds all arty and high-falutin', but I do not think it means what he thinks it means. While it's certainly in line with Andy's opinions about art, I doubt that was JM's intention. Plus, the article on Mr. Wilder fails to mention that he was one of those dreaded homosexual type persons (perhaps someone could amend the article appropriately).--WJThomas 11:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Best New Conservative Bull

I know looking for sense in Assfly's posts is a futile exercise but surely this is the biggest load of crap going? If not, can somebody show me a better example - I can always use a laugh. I mean, what possible justification is there for calling "decrypt" a "conservative" word? Or "local" or most of the terms on that list? The "proof" that conservatism has been covered before ("let's cherry-pick the data so it fits our private theory and then draw conclusions from the perfect fit"). And what the fork makes one "higher quality" than another?

Hmm. Thought. We could do our own lists. "Godspeed", "clueless" etc for his list, "Assfly", "Kendoll" etc on the RW list. Worth doing? Rpeh 12:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As terms Andy actually uses, godspeed and clueless are already extremely well covered on RW, and they're funny all on their own. Assfly and Kendoll are also well covered here, though may or may not always be funny. Obiously feel free to add to the Kenservative and Andy Schlafly/Andy Layton Schlafly articles FTW. There's also lots of coverage at least in WIGO talks of conservative terms. I think a real analysis all in one place, if it doesn't already exist, would be useful. It's impossible to tell from Andy's comments what his criteria are for a word being conservative or liberal other than his fiat. And these conservative terms are a major undercurrent in the meta language used at CP, so it's definitely worthy. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 13:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm sure we can come up with interesting conclusions as to what the inevitable triumph of RW terms over CP terms will imply... Rpeh 13:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident we can shoe-horn some data to show a geometric growth of RW terms about Conservapedia. Генгис^evolving 15:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Quantifying Being A Fucking Moron

Has anyone noticed that one of Andy's Quantifying Openmindedness questions is incorrectly phrased? Andy wants a 'No' answer out of you if you're on his side, but one of the questions is phrased the wrong way and his 'correct' answer is 'Yes'. I'll leave it to you to spot, it's not fucking hard, unlike the rock that occupies that man's head. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

“”Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?

I tried parsing the above like eight times. My brain now bleeds into itself. The sweet taste of Death (and hELL) are all that await me now. CЯacke® 22:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want some ice on that.-- -PalMD ^{--Does this sig line make me look fat?} 22:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like three copies of your birth certifi...no...the VAULT copy of your record of being bored...then prove to me you're not a Muslim trying to infiltrate our beloved wiki here and refute your own claim to being a doctor before I get any of this so-called "ice". CЯacke® 22:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That list is like a "greatest hits" of the last year or so. Someone disagrees, he gets stuck in a corner, so he defines their arguments as being close-minded, then accuses them of being close-minded for using those arguments because they're on his list (then accuses everyone else of circular reasoning). He really does think that his saying something makes it true, not to mention how childish he's acting. It's a bit like an elementary school student drunk with power over being the one assigned to take names of whomever misbehaves while the teacher is out of the room: "watch out, I'll put you on The List! You'll regret it! You will!" Kallium^talk 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[11] Sterile hadron 23:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Sterile, Doc and Cracker all on one thread, after all these years... Cool. That's three of the seven dwarves! ħuman 01:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Kallium^talk 23:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fucking fantastic!

The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Those in need of more Wednesday lulz need turn no farther than the rest of that essay. The triple-nested Follow-Up Questions are just epic.

1a. Do you haz a brain?

1aa. Haz you recently chekkt if you haz a brain?

1ab. If you haz a brain and hae recently chekkt if you haz brain, and you hazn't, then you lose a point.

Then of course there's the actual Open-Mindedness Formula, which is an all-time classic. I think this was all in an old WIGO but it's fantastic fun to revisit Teh Bestest Stupidz. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The video comments on YouTube are very interesting. All the people complaining about the video/science in general are using 'exactly' the same fallacies the video warns against. Most of them demonize science because they are so fixated on eugenics and involuntary human experimentation that they think those have a) have ever really represented science and b) apply to every scientist today despite the examples being so antiquated and completely irrelevant (ironically, one of these commentators claims to know more about the history of science that its defenders- sound familiar?). One actually uses phrenology to argue that science is unreliable! Why do they think we don't use it?! It boggles and severely depresses the mind just how incredibly misinformed and ignorant some people are about what science is. Not whether or not they trust in or agree with it, just in understanding what it actually is. Goes to show why a solid scientific education in primary and secondary school is so important. _{rant ends} Kallium^talk 00:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In fact two of them are the wrong way round: "Have you ever admitted that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?" as well as "Do you think that it is possible that evolution did not occur?". I thought the evolution one had the greater humour potential when I added the WIGO. BTW - sorry if that one has been done before. I did go back through several pages of previous entries but I'm still a n00b here so I might have missed it. Rpeh 04:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm mightily amused that despite the getting the Red Telephone message from us about the stupid fucking questions, Nitwit in Charge, Andy, STILL doesn't see that some of his questions are the phrased the wrong way, giving a non-yes answer. They sure teach those kids well at Harvard. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Openmindedness

That video above is awesome, gets me in the mood for some mind-opening Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 04:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, noes, not the 10th dimension again. My brain was blown the last time! Sterile hadron 11:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Man, that guy's Wikipedia page is horrible. It's basically just an advertisement, and the talk page is full of his fans opposing any changes because questioning it qualifies as picking on him somehow. --Kels 13:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Does he need a page as a woo-meister? I offer this review from Amazon. There's very little negative about teh book in the first 30 or so googles but someone thinks it's a Poe: So breath-taking are these assumptions, that it is almost impossible to spoof, but Rob Bryanton has managed it, which is a funnier version of my "borg" disproof. (That's worth a read btw, or am I late to the realisation?) ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 13:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

He's sort of like the Time Cube guy, except lucid. --Kels 14:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... the "new sciences of quantum physics and epigenetics" bit I encountered was cool. He's like those cranks I think we were discussing at the saloon the other day... lone monkeys with typewriters who have developed a "new" physics. Article? Yes we should haz I think. ħuman 22:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Grammar and stuff

I am so sick of TK's failure to use English correctly: "Thankfully Pontiff's have most always ignored termporal clamorings and taken a rather long view, historically speaking. Of course their are notable exceptions" (emphasis mine) [12] Of course, his comment also had no meaning relative tot he topic under discussion... ħuman 08:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

For a moment I thought I had just witnessed my first double apostrophe pluralisation/posession typo, but it turns out you just bollocked up the wikibolding. I cannot adequately describe how disappointed I am. 194.6.79.200 12:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks for the tip, I fixed it. Two things he does that piss me off the most are the whacky apostrophes, and that moderately common crime, separating the subject from the rest of the sentence with a comma. ħuman 22:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

He's parodying conservative spelling, duh.

Andy is a sick fuck

"I'm wondering myself, but I'm confident" of course you are, chump. "The Church even supported exhuming a heretic to burn his remains, and that certainly was not motivated by a desire to prevent future injury by him!" [13] What century is this idiot living in? This thread has been such a gold mine... and I'm not even caught up on it yet! ħuman 08:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the line that doing things to "persuade" others is a recent phenomena, due to publicity. Hello, draw and quartering folks? Public executions? Killing babies with the warning "I'll do it to all your children if you don't follow my orders"... Control of the public opinion has been going on since God told Moses to tell the Pharaoh that he would do all these bad things to the Egyptians, if he didn't just "let the people go".--En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the "not so" live blogging

Every fucking comment is precious. Just follow the diffs, and I'll shut up now. ħuman 08:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it great? He's pretty well arguing that the church should and would be burning heretics if it weren't for liberal influence. What he fails to understand is that he would be burned as a heretic for having left the Catholic church. Corry 15:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone's missing an opportunity here - with some careful sockery and phrasing, it should be possible to get him to say that they should be burning heretics today. I'd do it myself but I'm too busy picking my jaw up off the floor. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing some stuff, but doesn't Andy still claim to be Catholic? He's certainly never admitted to becoming an evangelical that I can see, even though he acts more like one. His mom's still claiming to be RC, though. --Kels 16:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's odd that after all this time we still don't know where he attends services (or what church basement spawned CP at a "homeschool" class). And, yeah, I suspect he is still some sort of Catholic, he doesn't seem hardcore YEC so much as several years ago he forsook the evil evolution lies. ħuman 22:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, I think both Schlaflys already started their own church. (maybe check RC for opinions on marital rape to see if Andy's mom is still a Roman Catholic...) Idea come from James P. Carse's book The Religious Case Against Belief that once you have a different belief system you are a different branch of the religion. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure--at some point one's own personal views might diverge enough that it makes no sense to identify oneself as a member of a particular denomination. But if you call yourself "X", and your whole identity and history and social ties and worldview and self-worth are tied up in your self-identification as "X", it's far far easier to complain that it's the others who are now "not-X" rather than to accept that you yourself are no longer "X". That's Andy. As I've said here before, I was born-and-raised-and-educated Catholic, and I've known a lot of crazy/extreme Catholics, but Andy is unlike any Catholic I've ever known; if I had to guess at Andy's denomination, "Catholic" would be just about last on the list. --WJThomas 13:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Examples of Liberal Style

The style of a liberal often includes these basic characteristics:

[...]

4. feign offense as a way to silence criticism, or censor prayer and conservative viewpoints

[...]

G.L.: [...] Is this the official policy of Conservapedia: there are probably no conservatives outside from the United States, so we are not interested in any input made by anyone living in a foreign country?[...]

Ed Poor: Andy, I'd advise you to keep this user blocked, if only due to his lack of courtesy. Remarks such as:

• Do you know the concept of traveling?
• [not] a good ambassador
• Your behaviour destroys ...

are out of place here. On the other hand, if G.L. wishes to study our policy page at cp:Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks and make a public apology, he could be given a second chance.[...]

ASchlafly: I agree, Ed. Thanks.

But, perhaps, they aren't liberals avoiding an inconvenient question. Perhaps, they have just such delicate little souls. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick, someone remove the conflicting words, so teh great leedur and His excellent assistants are not infringing the rules! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, deleting that phrase is to feign offense as a way to silence criticism. Or something like that. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a RW side-by-side to illustrate where CP engages in Liberal style"? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the server have the storage capacity to do that? Kallium^talk 16:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

True, we may need another fund-raising drive. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Their are probably a ton of examples of vandalism by the "conservative". ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can just imagine the look of pure joy that spread across Ed's shining face when he read Assfly's thanks. *shudder* Rpeh 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is something I wanted to mention before, it's on the main page of CP and I found it utterly bizarre: "Liberals in charge of public schools claim they are offended by the word God." Why on earth does ASchlafly think that liberals are never offended? Doesn't he think they find conservatives offensive and that's why they want to censor them? Does he just not believe that anyone could be offended by the word God? After all, it is the ultimate conservative word and has the highest insights-per-letter ratio! --JumWeatherman

Oh, that's another one of his Meta CP delusions. It comes from the same roots as "liberals pretend to be conservative", which means that people who said they were Conservative disagreed with his batshit insanity, but he's right dammit, therefore they're just Liberals lying about what they are. And he applies this to the Real World, despite it being his CP-based delusion. So for this, someone basically said "I'm offended by your racist/sexist/just plain stupid position", but since they disagree they're automatically Liberal, and since he's always right there's nothing to actually get offended about. Therefore, Liberals never get offended by anything, and are always faking it, Q.E.D. --Kels 03:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternately, given the way Andy talks about The Liberals, it's possible that he thinks that they, being not actual human beings but soulless golems made by Satan out of manure and wrapped in the skins of murdered infants, are PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of feeling any emotion beyond the seething hatred of all that is Good and Pure that powers them to further depravity. Fnord. --Gulik 08:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed Poor and rimming.

Ed just made a fairly weird change to the Gay Bowel Syndrome page adding a wiki-linked reference to rimming. Check out the last change on this diff. I guess it's an open invitation to create the much needed CP rimming article. JoeDuffy 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is as fascinated by the details of gay sex as Christian Conservatives. Not even gays. --Kels 20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the title of this thread and a shiver of disgust ran up my spine. Z3ro^talk 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed, you can fool others about who you are, but you can't fool yourself. Corry 21:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If anyone else did that, they'd be blocked. Why did Ed make a link to the page? They don't even cover normal sex; god knows what makes him think they'll allow a page on deviant (homo)sex techniques. EddyP 21:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee, how did Ed manage to make so many changes in that article with just one edit? That would have covered two pages of RC if Ken had done the same. Also I love the edit comment "rearrange into sentences". Sorry my bad it says "rearrange intro sentences" - dang that would have been funny. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In his own words, Ed is a "hetero phony". ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Does Ed even know what rimming is? It's not a method of HIV transmission as long as the mouth is healthy (intact). ħuman 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Human, but that doesn't stop them from mentioning any number of things they think are unsavory, including the unscientific title of the article. A rimjob, presumably only among gay men, is now functionally no different than a Godwin. How meta. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Ken would love to assist Ed in doing some rimming... article. Vulpius 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's nice! --AnonyMouse 13:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Test drive Capturebot2

It's currently running on my computer, which I'm going to shut down for the night soon, but it'll be up tomorrow all day. Just put wigo entries on User:Capturebot2/sandbox using the votecp tag instead of vote (don't forget to close with </votecp>!), and in a minute capturebot2 should upload the image. --  Nx/talk  22:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

With the new capture tag it is also possible to capture any external link to Conservapedia: <capture>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Computer&curid=12938&diff=668208&oldid=586193</capture> will generate the img link needed by Capturebot2: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Computer&curid=12938&diff=668208&oldid=586193^img. To actually capture the image, Capturebot2 has to be told to watch the page, by modifying the watch setting here (you have to be a sysop to do that). After the images are uploaded, the page can be removed from the watchlist. I've already added WIGO CP Talk, so once I save this edit, Capturebot2 will upload the image for this link. The capture tag can be nested with other tags, however it cannot be nested with itself (<capture>link<capture>link2</capture></capture> won't work properly), so you can surround a few sentences with a single capture tag to get all the links, but it's best not to surround a whole page. --  Nx/talk  14:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Butterflies

Butterflies fly by magic, appearently. How about that. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 23:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait what? Materialism doesn't allow for "abstract programming features"? Are our computers magic too? What does he even think materialism is anyways, since he thought it doesn't allow for radar either.. And isn't intelligent design kind of a materialistic theory too? It merely states that our material bodies were "somehow designed", but it doesn't say anything about being designed with "divine guidance mechanisms". Oh Aschafly, you delightful retard. --GTac 23:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Let's not focus on actual definitions, but rather on everyday usage of the term!" - Where have I heard that one before? It's on the tip of my tongue, you know what I mean? --Sid 00:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me some information on the meaning of "meaning" please. If you can tell the meaning of "information" that is. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The best part for me was that he completely ignored the subtle attempt to get him to actually correct the evolution question. ħuman 00:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he ignored it, I think he just didn't understand it. You know Andy has poor reading comprehension; gotta spell things out v-e-r-y c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y for him.--WJThomas 01:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Now what would really amuse me is if someone went ahead and fixed it, and got reverted. That would be worth a laugh, I think. --Kels 02:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)