Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive142

This is an archive page, last updated 1 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <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)

That bloody youtube video.

This one. Why is there a Masuimi Max video under related videos? That's quite wierd. That means he's basically two degrees of YouTube separation away from a hairy bare chested bloke playing with a violet wand on himself. Maybe Andy does have a point with the pr0n thing... ^pathetic 11:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry fails at Life, or rather Time

Amazing how time flies for Terry Koeckritz. First, give a user a 3 day block, for not sucking your dick, then a few hours later, delete user page of the now suddenly infinitely blocked said user. 3 days is a long time in Terry's world... PS Thanks to Jpratt for the illuminating "fails at life" way to describe the CP sysops. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 12:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a special hint. TK wants to signal to us that he will finally launch the last stage of his plan to destroy CP before Wednesday. *nods sagely* "Infinite means until this wiki is dead. So three days it is!" --Sid 15:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahahahaha!

So at Conservapedia they're all just sidestepping the issue of what Andy was doing googling the word "gay". Brilliant. This is easily the funniest thing to have happened over there in a long time. BOMBSHELL! THE GAYS ARE COMING FOR ME! Fucking idiot. SJ ^Debaser 14:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

BUT IT MUST TRUE!!! If I go to Google, it shows a picture of a liberal digging a grave for the little girl he's about to abuse and murder... oh no... wait... conservative hysteria passed... it's just a father's day picture and they're playing on the beach. Hey Andy! You forgot to mention that in your borken news. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing: he's bloody observant. I wouldn't have noticed it (the line) if he hadn't told us. Talk about looking for it. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 15:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I read his damn post and stil couldn't find the line for a good 15 minutes. Maybe he was after the sponsored links ? --Opcn 15:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of this bash.org quote. --Sid 15:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, Sid. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 15:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

HSmom

It's now three weeks since she edited. Looks like they've lost the one decent homeschool teacher they had. I know she's missed before but this is a bit of a long hiatus. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 15:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed she lasted as long as she did, without Terry blocking her on some trumped up charge. then again, given her lack of rights (edit only?) it's clear Andy didn't think much of her either.

Just an aside on Terry blocking on a whim - notice how he linked all the senior editors (Tim, Brian, Jinx, Jess, etc) to people here. It's probably his way of winding up Andy's paranoia - and undermining his authority - by insinuating, "look Andy, you slipped up, you let rats into Quagga Prime. Now if I were a bureaucrat, I could easily find you the right people to promote, because I'm a stalker security consultant." Oh, and Jallen isn't a bureaucrat btw. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

She's not? *checks* Huh, you're right! How weird, I must've confused her with SharonS... --Sid 15:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Idiot Savant

I'm surprised Andy didn't simply overwrite the original article with his own, but I do love the Schlafly statistic (supplied by a peon) in the article. And not a citation in sight. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Poe alert? The peon did get blocked in 2007. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

koyaanisqatsi

So, Andy has added "red tape" to his list of "conservative words" (see WIGO), giving him an unbalanced century chart count of 11/23/44/88. To keep everything geometrically kosher, he'll need to shoot for 12/24/48/96, which means he needs one 1600s word, one more 1700s word, four 1800s word, and 8 1900s word. Also, according to Andy's theory, the current century should have produced at least 16 new conservative words so far, and he only has four listed. Considering how much he's had to stretch thus far to find words that are "conservative", there are serious chuckles ahead.--WJThomas 13:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(Or, he could just take the lazy way out and remove one of his 1700s words, but he still needs a bunch of 2000s words)--WJThomas 13:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is "Conservapedia" already on the list? I assume stuff like wiki, web 2.0 and blog are "liberal", as they're things that are used to push the liberal agenda on the masses. ^pathetic 13:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

He's been lazy several times already: "it's amazing how removal of clear mistakes like this one restores the perfect geometric fit" 18:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WIGO'd 24.13.203.96 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the WIGO that just was added from the 15th was already done once, or at least discussed.--PitchBlackMind 21:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure was. People really shouldn't WIGO things that happened a week ago, unless they are part of a current one. So I done voted it down one pip. ħuman 00:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dying of the light

I don't know if you like Twilight or not. But let's see what Conservapedia thinks.

First: Twilight redirects to Twilight (book). Hope they will speak about the end of the day someday.

Even though some of the many characters are vampires, the book and series are about the importance of true love and waiting until marriage.

ORLY? Some of the many characters are vampires? Come on, every novel has many characters. But this novel has two main characters, and one of them is a vampire.

the importance of true love; well, I guess it's the author idea. I think this book should have a warning don't believe this book! love won't be as perfect as this is the real life.

waiting until mariage: hum, waiting for what? Can you be more explicit?

So, I think it's sooo predictable. But I wonder how they'll do when it will come to Breaking Dawn. Will they hinder the pedophilia controversy (Jacob and Renesmee...)? Barraki 20:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

They can't get past Breaking Wind...oh and GWB really read Albert Camus, yeah, right. Warren Terra 20:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to tell you, Barraki, but I wrote that bit. Never read Twilight, never will, but I wrote it. 00:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Outed Parody

I was sitting on this, cause it was one of my favorites, but it got fixed a few months ago.... Whoever slipped in this Moar Hitler congratulations, it lasted four months. That was my personal favorite obvious parody on CP. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 21:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Classic. I think Hitler could last for a while just about anywhere on CP. I've always wanted someone to plaster it on the vegetarian page. --PitchBlackMind 21:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, so they basically didn't look at their gun article for four months. I find that more staggering than the Hitlerium. ^pathetic 22:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I know of a real doozy from 2008, and a few others from earlier this year. Really good parody is hard to write nowadays, since everything gets inspected very carefully. Contemporary vandalism / parody has a half-life of about 1 day, unless it's done very cleverly. A recent bit of parody was successfully slipped in, I think. Just a second; let me check; Yup, still there. Congratulations. Gauss 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say I recognized the style, but it's not the same guy. I thought perhaps this was him deciding he'd been too low-key up to now. I'd point you to some of his "contributions", but they're pretty subtle, and a couple have been there for over a year. I wouldn't want to end their run prematurely.Cyclical 23:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Armond: That's the essence of Social Conservatives. What they like (guns, liberty, Jesus) is less important than what they don't want you liking (gays, peace, science). --Kels 23:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Something like that, yeah. There are a number of articles that should be...mmm...important to the cause, but which contain obvious parody. I'm thinking of one article in particular (and I'm going to be purposely obtuse here in order not to expose it) that deserves special attention from conservatives, and which is indeed quite lengthy, but is substandard due to the work of a vandal/parodist. And the damage is obvious to anyone who reads the article past the first couple of paragraphs. And it's been that way for over two years. And in those two years, darn near every sysop has made changes of some sort without apparently detecting the larger issues, including multiple edits by every single member of the current power structure. And the article has received special attention due to persistent vandalism. And yet they've still managed to completely miss the problems with the article. --WJThomas 00:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, WJThomas, I've intrigued now.... Please send me a very important email so I know which article you're talking about. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 03:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also interested in knowing of this parody of which you speak. The problem is being able to share the good stuff without giving the game away to possible moles. I was saddened to see the recent demise of Llap Doch which Ed had for some reason changed to Llap Goch I think someone had pointed out was something from the The Brand New Monty Python Bok. The main joke was that a llap doch was medieval archery field, and all adult male welshmen were required to visit the llap doch at least once a month. Генгис^evolving 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Whats the story on Rjjensin?

His entry here reads like he wrote it. Is he really in intellectual? Did he really write those books? He certainly doesn't have the foggiest notion of a clue when it comes to fair use, but outside of that is he worth anything on a mental level? --Opcn 21:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has proven that he doesn't have the slightest clue about architectural styles. In my book, that's pretty weak for a professor of history. --Just passing by 21:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose within the realm of CP, if RJJ is called "Dr. Jensen", it's good enough. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Another of CP's great failures, is all. A failed historian fits in nicely with the failed engineer/lawyer/teacher, failed car salesman, and failed swabbie. --Kels 23:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

He's really a Professor Emeritus of American History, and his motives for going along with CP are enigmatic, to say the least. Mostly he sits by himself, putting up articles he's already added to citizendium, but other times he's been a downright asshole, and clearly has no interest in so much as touching the content of Andy's "history" lectures or other sysops' treatment of users. Intuition tells me that he is a bit mercenary and opportunist; he must find his company at CP disgusting, but is more interested in the medium. He's occasionally argued with Andy, naturally having actual facts and scholarship on his side (Hitler and Evo., Gulf of Tonkin, Machiavelli, etc...), but to no avail. 00:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WIGO with same difflink

What's with the entries with the same difflinks like Ed Poor on Hell (wigo2104 and wigo2105); Andy on paradigm shift (wigo2118 and wigo2120)? should they be merged? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure about the Ed Poor diffs, but I made the first mention of the Andy diff as part of a series of diffs demonstrating Andy's last-wordism, and the second to address specific content of the last diff. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, I just combined the two Andy WIGOs, preserving, as best I could, the two points being made. Both points are good, but I think it overlaps WIGOs too much to have two of them use the identical difflink. Then there's the matter of votes---they both have votes, but not yet very many, so it probably doesn't matter in the long run. The votes will pick up. Gauss 02:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Some people just get excited and wigo whatever their short attention span allows for. Tis' the ugly of the WIGO - idiots contribute as much as geniuses do. ħuman 07:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Freudian Slip

Did anyone else notice this from Andy: "And, alas, the percentage of people who self-identify as conservative is constantly increasing." found here Does he understand what he really just said? SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 03:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Already WIGO'd. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see why he is upset. If he has a constant increase then the result would be that the number of conservatives grows linearly, not geometric. - π 04:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps it will go beyond 100% at some point (geometric increases can converge to a certain value)? Guess it didn't start increasing till Andy says it is increasing was born. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Geometric series are only convergent if the common ratio is less than 1. Mr. Schlafly is using a common ratio of 2 in his Best New Conservative Words list. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the words and the percentage of people increases in different ratios. Oh well, guess Andy is more stupid than I thought. (Not to mention geometric sequence and z-transform are pretty much fundamentals if he is really has electrical engineering background) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A short and thoroughly wrong calculation (Andy should be pleased): According to this, the English language has 1,000,000 words - and adds 14 words each day, i.e., 511,000 each century. The number of conservative words roughly perfectly doubles each century , and at the moment, we have ca. 200 conservative words in Andyland. And so, in the 37th century, there will be more conservative words in the English language than there are English words. Then total conservativeness will be reached, and the Lord may return. Brave yourself! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, Larron. I will be braved! ħuman 08:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Two Freudians in one short message: thanks for changing the link, and spotting the typo - I'm afraid, with this typo I lost all be credibility larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

At least Andy is trying to make toward the goal (more conservative words in the English language than there are English words). If he has to make it before 2061 (when he hit 100 years old) the geometric pattern has to have the following factors:

• words in the 16th century has to be more than 50
• words increases in rate of at least 13 times per century (the first 2 rules can be in other combinations like 11 to start(current number), 19 times per century)
• all words for the 21st century have to be discovered before 2061

Let's sit back and see him work his arse off. (also it goes all the way to the 54th century for the current rate of increases if the increase of english words is also geometric (51.1% each century?)) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a worthy project. Even under Andy's own inexplicable analysis he's doing 8x as much work coming up with 20th century "conservative" words - I've got all kinds of suggestions for 17th century words with which to multiply his efforts. You can search by year here - not sure this is a tremendously reliable resource, but it's a good starting point for diving into the OED at your library. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bull fighting pictures on Mainpageleft

Is it just me or did the evolution article become so bullish that it got itself skewered? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the creationist seagulls. ħuman 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was sort of weirded out by that. Are those creationist carrion birds eating Atheism's corpse? There's gotta be a commandment against that. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Ken thinks too hard about his metaphors, or indeed anything at all. In any case, I think seagulls are a pretty good metaphor for creationists. They're vermin living on the trash of human society. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I failed to actually read his caption: "Conservapedia is certainly in favor creation science birds of prey feasting on the carcass of evolution!" Creation science birds indeed. Who even refers to creationism as a science anyway. I thought even AIG was promoting intelligent design as independent of faith or biblical sources. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I presume the pun in the first post was a misspelling of skua-ed? LQ 82.23.209.253 01:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the bull fighting pictures associated with the evolution article (first link) and Atheism article (2nd link). I would assume the Bull in the first one is the evolution article, which is dead in the later version. But oh well. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

seagulls are a pretty good metaphor for creationists - that reminds me, I must start on the ring species article I've got some stuff about... Totnesmartin 09:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The best bird of prey Ken could come up with was the seagull?! Worst metaphor ever! He makes it sound as if creation science is just an annoying nuisance that survives on discarded scraps... Actually, on second thought, that kind of works. Great job Ken! Best metaphor ever! Kallium^talk 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How about a membership drive?

No not for us silly, for conservapedia. We all probably belong to other online communities, we could put out a shout out and get some attention. It would be fun to try and get more traffic. --Opcn 17:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

........... Well that idea was popular. SJ ^Debaser 15:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Animated PNG of range blocks

London centric map - click to view!

New York centric map - click to view!

Range Blocks at Conservapedia - TOP 10 blocked countries (Jun 21, 2009)
	\16	\17	\18	\19	\20	\21	\22	\23	\24	\25	\26	\27	\28	\29	\30	\31	\32	Σ
United States	81	10	18	29	65	6	118	15	119	3	5	2	2	10	1	0	491	6607455
United Kingdom	83	9	7	18	17	2	19	0	15	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	85	6093653
Germany	23	2	4	3	2	1	5	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	55	1679159
Canada	22	0	4	1	6	2	24	3	21	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	44	1575788
China	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	7	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	15	788239
Italy	10	1	0	0	1	0	2	0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	12	695052
New Zealand	10	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9	688393
Sweden	10	0	1	0	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	677894
Australia	8	0	0	2	4	0	6	1	11	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	20	566548
Ireland	7	1	2	3	0	0	3	0	6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	12	553484

I made this little animated png to show the range blocks in - and around - London, the city with the most blocked IPs at Conservapedia. The file works fine with firefox and opera, I don't know how it reacts with IE and suchlike. So the question: Can you view it? As an animation? Or just the first frame?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

With IE 8, I only have a still frame. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 09:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(Firefox) I can see it if I click on the pic, but the thumbnail just gives the first frame. Looks good - like I'm doing a parachute jump.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What he said (Firefox Portable) + You need to get out more dude :) Worm ^{(t | c)} 09:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I right in reading that as 10% of British people blocked? EddyP 09:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Doubt it. Most of that figure comes from massive range blocks, and within those ranges it's unlikely that each single IP would be assigned to a different individual. It's still a whole lotta blocking though.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

NUMBER 1 BABY, YEAH!!! ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 14:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it again, are you sure that's a map of CP blocks and not Kim Jong Il's plan for the next 12 months?--ConservapediaRoolz 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure it is not "plan", because 1) Kim is old, perhaps retiring soon, 2) their missiles can't reach that far yet, and 3) plans to involve chooting at the hand that feed him (China) usually ends ugly. "Fantasy" perhaps is a better word. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Too bad we don't know much many percent of the local address pool these respectively represent. It's not just that Australia has had 8 /16s dropped on it, it's that pretty much the whole of New South Wales is banzored. The address I burned when I signed up at CP last Saturday might easily have been the last conserva-capable IP in all of Sydney. Same with parts of New Zealand. Mountain Blue 05:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a script for one of my abortive wiki projects that tells me this, apparently "AUSTRALIA has 82417983 IPs assigned to it." So, 8 /16 represents some 0.6% of the total address space in aus. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not despair

I know that in the TK-dominated CP, comedic events are fewer (as are users) and more repetitive. But do not despair; there are over 80 main page talk archives, so if you're ever bored, pick one. For example, I found a post from March '08 informing all that 'liberals' at CP was in the top page at google. And it was so. But, of course, the article has been changed since then, so when anyone searching for liberals comes across the CP link, the abstract is "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards;". Classic. EddyP 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the cp:Liberals page for the first time in a couple of months, and Jeeeeeee-sus! It has got so petty and pathetic-sounding that it is just incredible. Fair enough if you're viewpoint is different, but this article reads like a hate speech. SJ ^Debaser 15:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, you want to see what CP used to be like, go back and read the first few Main Page Talk archives over there. Ken hasn't changed, of course, what with ranting about "The Evolutionary Position" and trying to get JoshuaZ banned for posting a mildly critical statement on his WP userpage, but Andy was a lot more tolerant. This was when Human, and Sid, and Cracker, and others were still active and tolerated, lots of good and illuminating conversations. Sort of what I was hoping aSK would end up like, only with a somewhat less insane/crankish site owner. Pity. --Kels 15:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to see the top rated WIGO's of all time?

Yes, go to the WIGO page and click on the link to "Best of Conservapedia". ħuman 21:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I really wish I'd found CP earlier back in it's heyday, it would've been a lot more fun to actually engage in debate and conversation rather than just troll like people do nowadays. But I didn't discover it until about September/October last year, and even after that I joined Liberapedia first in November. I only came here about 3 months ago. (My life wiki story, ladies and gents) SJ ^Debaser 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How many blocked users?

We talk a lot about range blocks ande IP blocks and how very many there are, but there is seldom mention of how many user names are blocked. I'd really like to know how many active users there are on CP after all of the blocks are taken into account. --Opcn 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know if there is a strong correspondence between what we perceive to be "lightning rod" pages and the reality of whether there really is a higher likelihood of getting blocked if you edit pages like TalkObama, TalkMain, anything in the Debate space, etc. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1. cp:Special/Statistics has the current number of registered editors 30,060
2. At the begin of this month, there were 15,904 out of 29,740 editors blocked - or 53.3% (see here)
3. For the number of active editors, take a look here.

And here a table of the articles to which the most editors contributed. cp:Talk:Main doesn't show as it was recently deleted by TK (ooops). Aschlafly's talk page does show, as the data is of June 6, 2009, prior to TK's last archiving,i.e., deleting of the page...

article	# edits	# editors	# blocked editors	quota
Barack Hussein Obama	2529	623	362	58.1%
Talk:Barack Hussein Obama	2573	513	259	50.5%
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia	2243	300	114	38%
John McCain	1009	276	170	61.6%
Talk:Homosexuality	1104	269	133	49.4%
User talk:Philip J. Rayment	1871	261	143	54.8%
Christianity	587	242	144	59.5%
User talk:DanH	729	222	131	59%
Global warming	990	218	101	46.3%
Dinosaur	719	218	124	56.9%
Bill Clinton	473	215	96	44.7%
Ronald Reagan	556	205	100	48.8%
Democratic Party	634	205	109	53.2%
Conservapedia:Debate Topics	635	193	96	49.7%
Atheism	2177	189	93	49.2%
Islam	352	187	90	48.1%
Richard Dawkins	960	184	91	49.5%
Talk:Liberal	885	181	84	46.4%
Jesus Christ	526	176	107	60.8%
User talk:Ed Poor	726	174	102	58.6%
User talk:RobSmith	1324	172	105	61%
Communism	496	169	88	52.1%
George W. Bush	423	162	76	46.9%
talk:Aschlafly (pre-delete)	752	157	95	60.5%
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia	868	155	70	45.2%

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

By "blocked usernames" are you meaning something like Conservapedia:Unusable names? ^pathetic 14:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

CP and CMI, feeding off each other?

Is this what little Kenny was talking about? Look at that tl;dr page. --Irrational Atheist 18:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone mind explaining what "tl;dr" refers to (perhaps add to the list as well)? Thank you for your time. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the part where they try to equate atheism with paganism. I also like the fact that if you took out all the quotes from that article, you would barely have two words to rub together. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

@K61824: "too long; didn't read", usually used when a post or article has overkill length while a much shorter one would have been a lot better. Prime examples: Ken's pet articles. See also the top entries in "Quantifying Obsession" --Sid 19:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Added the term onto the list. Thank you for the heads up. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Strikingly, these two articles aren't similar enough (and it isn't in the reference in the main article by Ken). Quick, someone encourage Ken to add that to his articles and wait for the great merge. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That article is terrible. The tortured logic when they try and turn all the atheist's arguments back on them, it burns. You'd think they might be able to come up with some arguments of their own. Even Kendoll's MOAR HITLER is better than this. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And look who the article is written by: our old friend Mariano, the only guy ever to give Ken the time of day. Hardly surprising. DickTurpis 20:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, was Mariano the guy with all the blogs that kendoll wrote suck up articles on CP for? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See Ruylopez's talk page on ASK. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 21:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link. A challenge has been laid by a colleague(or peon, I ain't familiar with aSK to tell). Shall it be moved to WIGO:ASK? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding theTodo list

Is it mostly mainspace only? The idea is since CP is teaching Economics in the fall, perhaps some of us can collaborate on Conservapedian Economics (which I have no idea if it is different than Reaganomics) before then? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's whatever you want - I'm taking the economics class if I can maintain an account there long enough to finish. My parents want me to get some extra homeschooling in a Christian friendly environment with a chivalrous and powerful instructor, natch. Little Susie Jaansensensen

Feel free to add a "Conservapedia space articles" section. As, um, "little Susie" says, it's whatever we want. ħuman 20:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Added. Thank you. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wtf just happened? The page just disappeared! ^{— Unsigned, by: 173.55.145.178 / talk / contribs}

System went DOWN back up thanks to Trent. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 01:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ALL HAIL TRENT! Etc 02:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy tidies up

1. 23:38, 22 June 2009 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed User:Philip J. Rayment's user rights from Block, Check users, edit, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, Oversighters, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha and Upload to nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO and nsTeam2_talkRW. ‎ (policy for inactive Admins; can be reinstated if renew editing)
2. 23:37, 22 June 2009 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed User:BenjaminS's user rights from Check users and Administrators to Administrators. ‎ (policy for inactive Admins; can be reinstated if renew editing)
3. 23:37, 22 June 2009 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed User:DanH's user rights from Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, Siteadmin and Administrators to nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO and nsTeam1_talkRW. ‎ (policy for inactive Admins; can be reinstated if renew editing)
4. 23:36, 22 June 2009 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed User:Learn together's user rights from Block, Check users, edit, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, Siteadmin, Administrators and Upload to nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO and nsTeam1_talkRW. ‎ (policy for inactive Admins; can be reinstated if renew editing)
5. 23:35, 22 June 2009 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) changed User:HenryS's user rights from Administrators to (none). ‎ (policy for inactive Admins; can be reinstated if renew editing)

( Emphasis shows removed rights) ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 03:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicely formatted for clarity! So was this tonight's cocoa/scotch edit? ħuman 04:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What utter bollocks. What about the other inactive admins like College Republican, DeborahB., ChrisS., DavidR, Freedom777, Will N., Ymmotrojam? I imagine most are still homeskollars and he doesn't want to upset them even though they don't do anything on site any more. Also why doesn't he get rid of all those stupid competition namespaces? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Answer to last question: he doesn't know how. Also, keep in mind these are just checkboxes when he adjusts user rights, so unchecking the competition boxes would actually be extra work. ħuman 05:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Seventeen administrators edited in June, 2009: AddisonDM, Aschlafly, BethanyS, Conservative, DeanS, Ed Poor, Geo.plrd, Jallen, Joaquín Martínez, Jpatt, Karajou, RJJensen, RSchlafly, RobSmith, TK and TerryH.

administrator month of last edit Admin Mar 2009 BenjaminS Mar 2009 CPWebmaster May 2009 CPanel Jun 2007 ChrisS April 2008 CollegeRepublican never DavidR Apr 2008 DeborahB. Apr 2009 DuncanB May 2009 Ed Bot Dec 2008 Freedom777 Jul 2008 PhilipB Feb 2009 SharonS May 2009 Will N. Nov 2007 Ymmotrojam Jul 2008

former administrator month of last edit Philip J. Rayment Mar 2009 BenjaminS Mar 2009 DanH Jun 2008 Learn together Jan 2009 HenryS Dec 2008

So,five administrators ChrisS, DavidR, Freedom777, Will N., and Ymmotrojam didn't edit for over one year - and the famous CollegeRepublican has no edit left in his list of contributions. All of these ceased to edit before DanH did so - and he is the former administrator with the longest period of inactivity. Of course, these editors are - most probably - personally known to Aschlafly and there is only little danger that they will turn bad. But instead of giving a valid, though biased reason, Aschlafly prefers to state something sounding objective larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This supposed inconsistency isn't a valid criticism. In all probability he emailed all the inactive admins and then demoted the ones he didn't hear back from, or something like that. Not every action has to have its exact rationale relayed here for ratification you know.--ConservapediaRoolz 09:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if you're going to give Andy benefit of the doubt, undeserved though it is in this instance, why not go over to aSoK and ask PJR if that was the case. I think you'll find it isn't. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to go bothering Phil about who said what to who and then did what that they told so and so that they weren't going to do, because I'm not interested in silly, liberal gossip. You would have more credibility if you restricted yourself to valid, verifiable criticism and maintained more of an open mind about the rest instead of imagining sinister motives underlying every administrative procedure.--ConservapediaRoolz 09:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Having been privy to all three iterations of the CP administrator's mailing lists, I don't need to imagine their sinister motives, I know. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but to a newcomer to this site it just looks like possibly baseless insinuation.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 11:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry that you were mistaken newcomer --Opcn 13:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This supposed inconsistency isn't a valid criticism. I beg to differ: A. Schlafly stated in 2007: As I've repeatedly said, Conservapedia is a meritocracy.--Aschlafly 18:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT), and according to CP, a cp:meritocracy is a a system in which promotions are based on merit rather than friendship, seniority, or quotas. I have to suppose that this is true for a demotion (or the lack of it), too. But merits are gained in the past - or present, and can't be promises for the future, as any email from an administrator to Andy would be. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy fils the trojan horse

Firstly, if Andy is conservative then the trojan horse was liberal, lets look at the symbology₢ Troy with its high thick walls represented establishment, and Odysseus utilizing his intellect to defeat it represents liberals tearing holes in Andy's faulty ass logic. If I were a liberal I'd totally want to take credit for the horse (sorry I'm a libertarian). Irregardless of that I do love the fact that Andy thinks that the trojan horse was deciet from within (also known as infighting) rather than the more traditional deffinition, which is a gift with hidden drawbacks. ^{— Unsigned, by: Opcn / talk / contribs}

He is tarring any "subversion from within" as liberal. I suppose that means Operation Valkyrie was liberal deceit as well. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the horse was pretty successful. How many Trojans have you met? Corry 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless the Trojans were the liberals and the Greek horse represents crazy liberal ideas that the Trojans (liberals) were gullible enough to let in, like atheism, evolution and several hundred warriors in full battledress lead by Brad Pitt... Conclusion, symbolism is arbitrary nonsense! ^pathetic 16:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, You guys also know that Trojan is also a popular brand of sinful antenna attenuation covering, right? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

CPUSA

LOL, the neocons have my political party as their Featured Article. Its actually funny how they describe it. *chuckles* *then cries* --Beishanlong ^grandis 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh! Communist! SJ ^Debaser 17:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, they got this much time to write about the party which have no seats in the federal congress, and the article is even longer than Sarah Palin! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What part of the front-page description of the CPUSA is incorrect? ListenerX^TalkerX 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

One sentence: With the collapse of the Soviet Union it became a hollow shell and has urged voters to support the Democratic Party. ROFL, hollow shell, that's funny. Everything on that side is funny. Scary funny, knowing that people actually believe the shit they pretend to write about. --Beishanlong ^grandis 18:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the PWW was wetting its pants with excitement when Jeffords crossed the floor in 2001. This document promotes support for the Democrats as part of a "broad-tent" strategy, since some left-wingers have been able to get representation through the party. And what else but a hollow shell do you call a party that, having lost its primary financial backer, does not actually run any candidates even for state office? ListenerX^TalkerX 18:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A party that still has supporters, conventions, meetings, and still want justice in the world. Don't tell me you agree with Conservapedia on this? --Beishanlong ^grandis 19:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Loonies, feel-good grandstanding exercises, and whine-fests, more like. Justice? Give me a break. Reds would not know justice if it bit most of their south ends off. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would you characterize all such people in that way? True, there are idiots out there who claim to be communist, and have no idea what that entails. Justice? I'm sorry, I didn't know that you were opposed to justice and liberty, civil rights for all people and the end of discrimination, be it Classism, Racism, Sexism, or Agism. But I pride myself on my moral values and want for justice. Maybe you don't know what Communism is, but I have a fairly good idea. And so what. If loving people, wanting to end all this evil in the world, and fighting against prejudices is so wrong, then I don't care. I still do it because it is what I believe is right. I gladly fight for communism, not because of oppressive imperialism, but because I believe in the better side of people. So fine, retain what you believe Communism is, I can't stop you. You can continue to be ignorant. In the immortal words of John Lennon, "Maybe I am a dreamer, but I'm not the only one". --Beishanlong ^grandis 19:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me; I was unaware that any communist state had at all delivered justice or liberty, extended any sort of civil rights, or brought about the end of any of those sorts of discrimination. Anybody can jabber on ad nauseam about "justice," but practicing it is a slightly different matter. Reds are full of hot air on the topic, but that does not help them here outside of the World According to Marx^TM, and when this is made quite clear, instead of owning up and admitting that they were wrong through and through, they just trumpet the party line all over again. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There has never been a communist state. True there have been those which have called themselves communist, but see the various " Democratic Republics" around the world. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 02:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Before anyone associated with the CPUSA pulls the No True Scotsman to disassociate themselves from those inconvenient truths, they should remember that: (1) they are a Marxist-Leninist party whose platform bemoans the collapse of the Soviet Union and cheers, among other countries, North Korea; (2) since their party is run along democratic-centralist lines, every member of the party is expected to back the platform to the letter. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Darn, you beat me to it. From my own limited analysis, I'd say pure Communism is like pure Libertarianism: Nice in theory, might work on some other planet if tried by some other species, absolutely disastrous here on Earth. --Gulik 03:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I put that no unworkable theory is "nice" at all, as such theories do nothing but cause great strife as people fruitlessly attempt to implement them. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(UI)Just a little late to the discussion, but these theories are just that; theories. They are abstract concepts meant to apply to abstract ideals. When applied, pure communism works no better than pure capitalism. This is because unlike in theoretical exercizes, you have too many factors to account for and will be unable to predict all outcomes. The best system is a combination of systems, that utilizes that strengths of one while eliminating the weaknesses of others. Z3ro^talk 16:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is probably why capitalism works so well, because it saw its beginnings as practice rather than theory. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What I love with that article is it shows just how ineffectual their "Featured Article Commitee" is. 4 votes - 2 pro from the mindless twins and 2 against, with valid comments, but Joaquin still puts it up on the main page. Beautiful! --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly Statistics: Episode II:

"A New Hope" "The Phantom Encyclopedia"

Tl;dr: They're boned.

Fig. 1: All edits

Fig. 2: Welcome edits

Two weeks ago we discussed how many edits Conservapedia gets every month and how this number changes over time. Fig. 1 is a refined version of the chart we talked about back then. The height of each bar represents the number of edits made over the course of the corresponding month. The height of the red portion of each bar indicates the number of edits to actual articles, where the set of "actual articles" is the main namespace minus redirects, debates, essays, lectures, and homework pages. Note that both numbers have been in freefall for more than half a year. Also note that less than two out of three edits are made to actual articles; Andy remembers his 90/10 rule when he needs a hammering pretext but must have largely given up on it otherwise.

Fig. 3: All users

Fig. 4: Welcome users

Gauss suggested it might be interesting to know how many edits Conservapedia gets that Conservapedia actually wants. In Fig. 2, the green portion of each bar indicates the number of welcome edits, where a welcome edit is an edit that (a) does not get reverted right away and (b) is not made by a user who goes on to get the banhammer within one week of making this edit. The percentage of welcome edits is higher than I expected. I suspect part of the reason for this is that many unwelcome edits are edits that create new pages, along with which they subsequently disappear from recorded history. Remember how, in the SPastel incident, the team killers burned about fourty perfectly good encyclopedic articles because Karajerk felt vaguely threatened by the presence of a scientist.

Note, however, that the number of welcome edits is in freefall in direct proportion to the number of edits total. Andy's freak show doesn't just attract less and less incredulous disaster tourism; it attracts fewer and fewer bona fide contributions as well.

Gauss also suggested it might be interesting to know how many editors there are. In Figs. 3 and 4, the height of each bar indicates the number of users who made at least one edit over the course of the corresponding month. Red indicates the number of users who made at least one edit to an actual article; green indicates the number of users who made at least one edit that neither got reverted nor got them banned. Observe that none of these numbers decreases, all three of them are stable. Together with the precipitous drop in the number of welcome edits, a stable number of welcome editors suggests Conservapedia doesn't have an advertising problem; they have a retention problem. There are still enough people who learn of the existence of Conservapedia and decide to give it a try; there are just not enough crazies who can tolerate them for any length of time. Mountain Blue 04:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re the 90/10. As most edits are made by sysops the 90/10 doesn't apply to them anyway. Генгис^marauding 05:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My biggest surprise in this great report is that it wasn't signed by lArron. --GTac 06:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently they block users within seconds for lies and vandalism which strangely are deleted instantly from said user's (blank) editing history. That's probably why they don't get a lot of edits they don't want. Tarantallegra 06:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting analysis! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Now, what portion of those "welcome edits" are contributions of a) sysops and b) 3-4 regulars (FOIA, Daniel1212... JDWPianist?) 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by regulars

The current sysops and the three regulars you mentioned contribute between 20% (Jul 08) and 60% (May 09) of welcome edits. Their share has been rising more or less steadily since last July and is in excess of 50% for the fourth consecutive month now. This statistic seems to neither corroborate nor contradict my hypothesis from yesterday. Note that RJJensen is a sysop. Mountain Blue 22:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Blue (if that is your real name)- Please send all your data points to us in a plain brown wrapper. Open your mind and youse will see that a downward trend is an upward trend when you flip the charts. I know for a fact that every non-mentally ill editor is making nearly 50,000 edits per day, all of a substantive nature, with no trivia, and no Hollywood values. We am doing great! You're speling is uhtrohshis! Lern! Jimaginator 13:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a little bit of plagiarism

In Feb 2009, TK writes knowledgeable about the math markups^img. It should come as no surprise that the whole section is an unattributed copy and paste job. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be more wigo worthy is TK wrote something that wasn't in whole or in part copied from elsewhere. Evidence suggests TK is an android exquisitely programmed to block and harass, but sadly lacking in original thought. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice shout-out^img, Terry Koeckritz: "I take it our friends noticed that the math symbols I posted in answer to your question, months ago, came from Media Wiki, right? Oh, wait, they didn't....just another example of how wrong liberals typically are! :p"

No, I didn't say that you stole them from Media Wiki. I said (see the link above) that you stole them from CFD: an online center for Computational Fluid Dynamics. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like another example of how wrong TK typically is. Hey TK. StarFish 10:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey TK. It's not really attacking just pointing and laughing at you. Because you are very, very funny. Especially when you're angry. As you're obviously reading this I want you to know, sincerely, every day the first thing I do is look at CP to see what you have done for my amusement. Dance monkey, dance. StarFish 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"typical of cowards, they attack, yet give no way to be responded to. Typical of liberals!" Right...I'll just sign up and respond on CP...oh wait...they blocked over 100,000 IPs to make sure I couldn't. Hmm... ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 12:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's kinda cool that anybody from CP would actually peruse RW. It's always possible, though implausible, that they could learn something about logic, or how talk pages really work or something. Lern! Jimaginator 15:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I love the smell of oversighting in the morning

I signed up as "ATypical" (eg A Typical Liberal) to let TK know that if he wants to shout out to RW it would be easier if he just started doing "Gentlemen" screeds like Ken rather than putting it in his edit summaries as he did on the L'Hopital's Rule page. TK obliged by popping my oversighting cherry. I feel so dirty. Stile4aly 21:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of the mouths of atheists

"Anything out of the mouth of an atheist is a lie, surely you know that?". All together now - Terry Koeckritz is a decent and honest guy! Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I do realise that TK is just engaging in hyperbole.

"Christianity is the best religion, ever!" --Irrational Atheist 16:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The lack of solid lulz over there has us liveblogging even mundane TK trolling. What has the world come to? I sincerely wish people would at least wait until he does something truly evil rather than the merely par for the course griefing of an internet creep who thrives on negative attention, even if he has to stand in your front yard calling you an asshole and waving his arms (the equivalent of calling atheists liars, or something like that). User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we do need to do a membership drive for them? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 17:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If everything any atheist says is a lie, and the atheist says he is lying, does the universe explode? Z3ro^talk 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Went for genghis's link above: Service Temporarily Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Twice! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 17:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I regret that. It's hard to fine tune the difference between viewing and overviewing. I've been very interested in Andy's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act article and reloading it 8-10 times a second just to make sure he hasn't added the substantive analysis bit. Law Terms D is also a thrilling entry - I've got to make sure I don't miss any entries in that category. But, all in all sorry for the inconvenience, dear. 76.73.47.42 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

May I be the first to add that Ken DeMeyer is completely heterosexual. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And I that Andy has stopped beating his wife.Toffeeman 19:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're clueless, Toffeeman. Andy Schlafly's wife hasn't come forward to state Andy no longer beats her. I don't know if he does. Do you? Errr... Aschlafly

"Either Terry Koeckritz exists or he doesn't." Now prove it false! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good one. What about: Andy is thinking of promoting someone to sysop. This person is either an atheist or a Christian. What question can he ask which will determine the matter? Can he ask a question where the answer will always be "yes"?

Raymond Smullyan could do a few "On this wiki there are Christians, who always tell the truth; Atheists, who always lie; Trolls; who are dangerous and Rats, who are safe....... Toffeeman 22:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia is a joke

Someone else must have seen this, the autocomplete on google has for "Conservapedia " 1. Conservapedia Obama 2. Conservapedia is a joke ... 6. Conservapedia Lenski 7. Conservapedia Hitlist

The I'm lucky for the joke one goes to this ^{— Unsigned, by: User:Teabag / talk / contribs}

Reminder: link no long function properly due to the question being deleted.

Hint: do a screencap of it. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When I do it from .co.uk, "Conservapedia Bugler" pops up as a suggestion! ^pathetic 20:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Link not work because formatted wrong I, I fixed. Space for els, not pipe... ħuman 01:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's their greatest hits collection here--Nate River 02:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I get (UK, FF3) "Conservapedia hitlist" and "Consevapedia down" as well. I'm sure a certain editor on Conservapdia who places great emphasis on the importance of Google in regards to his articles will find this thread very interesting reading. Totnesmartin 18:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

More made up statistics

It seems to be a favourite pastime of CP, but at least they let someone else make them up this time it seems. Their news story links to this article which claims that by 54-41 people want smaller government, except that this statistic is nowhere to be found in their quoted source article from the Washington Post. Jammy 19:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Except, of course, if you click the link near the top of the article to the Washington Post-ABC News Poll Data, and actually find those exact numbers in the raw data... Hydrogen 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a cherry pick they did there. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

More useless statistics more like. If you ask the average voter if they want smaller government, they say yes. If you then ask them if they want government to provide more services and regulation, they answer yes. See California, in which voters pass laws requiring services and then pass laws so they don't have to pay for said services. Frankly, I'm surprised the split is so low. 20:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The question asked seems to incorporate both.

7. Generally speaking, would you say you favor (smaller government with fewer services), or (larger government with more services)? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"The problem" as the cartoon at my local tax collector office used to say, "is that the taxpayers and the voters are the same people". ħuman 02:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Prostitutes

Creepy Ed cites Reagan Christ: "[I]s anyone naive enough to believe that prostitution just depends on willing employees coming in and saying that’s the occupation they want to practice?"

Ed's pretty fucking stupid, but I suppose personal incredulity passes for cold, hard logic over there...especially if RR says so. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it might be mildly entertaining for someone to put their socks on and cite a quote from a willing, happy prostitute (which would technically falsify the claim) and see how and why that does not falsify the claim...then I would like to know what would falsify the claim (which is nothing, of course). Then the inevitable: "She's a prostitute, so it's no stretch of the imagination that she's lying." I wonder if we can't find a quote from a Christian prostitute... but I guess no true Christian would be a prostitute, right? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 19:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how St. Reagan and Andrea Dworkin would agree so closely on the subject of prostitution. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, that shit's great! ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is difficult to generalise about prostitution. When people condemn prostitution I think it is mostly concerning forced prostitution where women are doing it against their will, often as part of organised crime. Sex is such a powerful component of living that there is money to be made from it and therefore will probably be with us pretty much for ever. The problem is who is engaged in it and are they doing it voluntarily? Poor women may choose to be prostitutes because it is the only means of earning money and would forgo it if other paid work was available. Of course, you could say the same about a lot of jobs; do people aspire to be toilet cleaners for example? Many people do a job which they may dislike or find demeaning, it's just that in our society we have a taboo against purchased sex. Of course there are some jobs which people actually do enjoy (which others find repugnant), and there may be women who actually enjoy their job as a prostitute because of the satisfaction they give. The difficulty is when the relationship becomes abusive in some way. There are also women who actually choose prostitution over other jobs because they can actually earn a lot of money from it, however we tend to euphemise it by referring to them as call-girls. And like it or not there is often a degree of "prostitution" within marriage where a spouse may use sex as a bargaining chip in order to obtain some sort of advantage. It could even be argued that some women object to prostitution because it undermines their own bargaining position. I'm not condoning any of these viewpoints just trying to put an economic slant onto the question rather than the usual moral arguments. Генгис^{Gum disease} 21:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good lord, please...the vast vast vast majority of women who work as prostitutes do so because they are (literally) forced to do so, or because they are so goddamn desperate that they don't have other options. Hiring a prostitute is, in effect, rape. (And the "she does it because she enjoys it" defense is the exact same rationalization that pedophiles and other abusers fall back on--"She wanted me to! She came on to me!")--WJThomas 23:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Does that also apply to prostitutes in the Netherlands, where they have, i.a., prostitutes' labor unions? ListenerX^TalkerX 23:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly relative like everything else. The crackhead down the street who's selling it for 10 bucks a pop is in a much different situation than the $10,000 a night hooker for the high-rollers in Las Vegas. I'd agree that most are forced, but there's many exceptions to the rule across the globe.--PitchBlackMind 23:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about legalised prostitution. If the shit was legal, shit would be different. I'm sure we have some German members who can vouch for the laufhaus, or some dutch members who can vouch for the red light district? Yes, most of us live where prostitution is illegal (e.g. US, UK, NZ, Oz, etc) and I believe for many reasons there is a correlation with a lifestyle lending itself toward susceptibility to a strong pimp hand. It's borderline an association fallacy. If you make something illegal, some nefarious characters are sure to fill the niche. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 02:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The question of voluntary vs. involuntary prostitution should only be considered where prostitution is legal, as it is obvious that a disproportionate number of people in illegal trades have been shanghaied into them. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Prostitution is a combination of sex and free enterprise. Which of those two are you opposed to? (I keed, I keed, don't get mad) Hactar 02:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Erotic moves" (Blow jobs and hand jobs), not exactly sex, as indicated in most of Japan. Thought experiment of Prostitution without the free enterprise... Mandatory matchmaking + Mandatory erotic services? It won't be as bad as involuntary abstinence (I am unqualified to comment from other POVs). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, K. ħuman 03:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick message, dont have much time. I’m from the netherlands and have talked to these people, and in no way they are being forced or anything and they could easily get another job if they wanted. Not saying they’re in it cause they like it so much, they just chose it cause this is easier money for them. For these people, it’s just a job, and it’s pretty rude to insult them like that. --GTac 07:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So let's see...

Tamar wasn't actually a prostitute, she just dressed up like one to get her father-in-law to fuck her. Rahab was a legit prostitute (who according to the Talmud could make men ejaculate with the mere mention of her name). Ruth fucked her employer Boaz to redeem herself of her widowhood. Bathsheba makes a cuckold of her husband Uriah with David (who David then sends to his death). All of this in Jesus' lineage. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 16:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Ed Poor missing something?

If it isn't a blatant attack on everything Ken stands for, I don't know what is. Perhaps all Ken's articles are all marked "tl;dr" by Ed to result in this discrepancy. Another episode of "Do as I say, not as I do" brought to you by [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Ed Poor is mising something - a brain. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You forgot integrity, honesty, and common decency. All missing in Ed, sadly. --Kels 05:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I should be bursting in to song... o/` We're off to see the wizard.... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though all of those things you guys suggests are missing I don't think Ed would go attack his fellow colleague Ken unless there is some good reason for it. Really missing the brain → mindlessly controlled by Andy or TK (Ok, maybe TK do want to get rid of Ken at some point.) and no [integrity, honesty, and common decency] means he probably will co-operate with Ken in other articles (What, you think Ken as any of that?) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Did RobSmith made his own graph?

News bite in question The exact replica isn't found within the article he referenced (perhaps he edited a bit or rip it from somewhere else). But if he says the Y-axis denotes growth, shouldn't he hide the portion of the previous 2 Presidents (delimited by gray vertical bands) since Clinton got massive growth and Bush Jr. never got any positive growth? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That graph makes Clinton look really good and Bush really bad, doesn't it? In the Bush era, the economy barely scrapes to achieve growth levels that were in place as Clinton healed the Reagan/Bush I disaster... ħuman 02:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a fun graph, too, for all those conservatives who love to gripe about fiscally irresponsible liberals.--WJThomas 11:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for them to label Eisenhower as a conservative in 3... 2... 1... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 13:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a flag?

Looks like Kenny has officially laid claim to the Richard Dawkins article.--WJThomas 13:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly dash cunning of him. --Tygrehart

Prediction his next edit marathon will last at least 35 hours. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ken: Because even the kids in special class need someone to make fun of. --Kels 15:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic. Ken, the power to add MOAR HITWIN is now all yours. Please to follow up with locking of Alger Hiss, that needs MOAR HITWIN too, I'm sure. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh...Phyllis Schlalfy on Radio 4

She got a mention this afternoon on a radio programme about the Moral Majority, part of a series called America: Empire of Liberty. I only caught a bit of it in the car but it seemed very interesting. Ajkgordon 15:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to hear more of the old crone in action tune in on Sunday's to http://www.bottradionetwork.com. 12pm EST. Dial in show too: 1-800-736-3202. Have fun everybody. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Grrr...

Someone went and got my branch public library blocked. Now I can't poke Andy for conservative insights. Thanks. 18:20, 13 January 2009, DeanS (Talk | contribs) blocked 64.107.0.0/22 (Talk) (expires 18:20, 13 January 2014, account creation blocked) (IP of vandal(s): Mihunjong, Laura54, Pauljohnson, Victorfernandes, Marcopeterson) 64.107.0.78 18:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And congrats - by posting here as a BON, TightKnickers is going to block that IP address until the entropy death of the universe. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

4000 years is a long time to wait to troll Conservapedia again. Teabag 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please to re-reading. My IP is blocked until 2014. As far as I can tell from a few visits to different branches, the enter wifi network for the Chicago Public Library is on a few IPs in the range DeanS blocked. Way to go DeanS, don't want those homeless people to take a break from jerking off to hawt teens to pop onto CP for some churchin' up. BTW, CP won't be around in 2014, so I might as well be sitting around a landfill waiting for the former server to give me a gumball. 64.107.0.78 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

TK can go fuck himself. 76.124.12.32

Public School WIGO

Did Andy just advocated the idea that the homeschooling parents to claim fees (for his courses/private school) due to the kids being (mentally) disabled? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Likeunto the guy who shot his parents, then asked the judge to show mercy to an orphan? --Gulik 04:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

One wonders if there is a wheelchair ramp for the church basement where Schlafly's "classes" take place. Warren Terra 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no ramp. There's only one entrance/exit (excluding all windows). Candlewick 07:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it me...

...or does this list read like an adolescent boy's vocabulary (for the most part)? Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Great link! What have they got against Aardman Animations?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How many of the young Christian homskollarz get a snicker when if they find this page? Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 13:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

None! Because they have chivalry and Christian values, and they know that Jesus invented humour and he certainly didn't invent anal sex or wallace and grommit, dammit! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice find; it's like the user graveyard, where evidence they existed goes when they die are blocked. EddyP 14:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Kind of like using the dicktionary to look up rude words. ^pathetic 14:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait- Is this the stuff I SHOULD look at, or the stuff I SHOULDN'T look at. Confused. Gotta go, Mommy's calling me...Jimaginator 14:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the antithesis of the Best New Conservative Words? Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 15:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we have an article about it? I am putting it on the todo list. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if it shows geometric regression. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can get the timestamp from here (The list has both functional titles and potential titles, I am not competent enough to know how to separate them) and see if there are any worthwhile patterns? Thanks. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahaha: Debate: Does Andy have a brain? ‎(fully protected) Crundy 08:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bible retranslation project: the first half year

The Great cp:Bible Retranslation Project was started half a year ago, time for a first celebration. There was some small minded critique in the beginning, claims that this project wouldn't be in the reach of Andy's gang of homeschoolers. But after six month, Andy has proofed his critics - right. It's true that there are some great achievements made by teenagers. But teenagers are better known for being easily inspired and then lacking the stamina to carry a project through. Certainly Andy will give an outline for the next six months: maybe a second verse will be translated... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

He needs DeniseM back from wherever she's gone. Totnesmartin 18:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The irony of that being, that Andy in his infinite wisdom let his humongous ego get the better of him for a change and drive away the one person that could have contributed to the project. But then again, expertise is a liberal trait after all. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: excluding reverts, The last edit was in February. Maybe put this to the list of evidence that Andy may have ADHD. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Time for a test to see if this becomes another FBI incident - go to the Andy's Talk page and ask how the Bible Retranslation project is going, and see how fast you get banhammered for trolling... --SpinyNorman 21:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no. The "Greatest Conservative Words" is clearly the basis of the translation project. To properly recreate God's conservative insights, Andy must first compile all conservative language, and then begin. "But the Lord said, there are too many fellow-travelling bureaucrats among the Midionite mobocracy; I shall smite them with phonics." "And this is how you shall pray: Lord, give us this day our radar and supply-side-economics. For yours is the meritocratic kingdom, forever and ever, Godspeed." 00:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Baseline traffic data for Conservapedia?

Does anyone have (or know where to look for) a figure for a "non-clickbotted" Conservatisms average pageview rate? I would measure this directly, but someone appears to be clobbering the site with a clickbot right now. In related news, thanks to whoever is currently pounding their server, the 100 million pageviews on July 4 project is on track. In case you care, whoever you are, you have about 5 days at the current rate before you overshoot the July 4th mark. Fedhaji 10:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just look back at the frequent andy edits to mainpage left

You mean separate out "legitimate" traffic from the click bots? There is nothing that we have access to, the server logs should contain the info needed to sort it out but we don't have access to those. tmtoulouse 18:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the idea. I know a precise number isn't possible, but an upper bound based on the slowest-observed CP activity would be good enough for my purposes. Fedhaji 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Saving Christianity from Libb-burr-ulls

Okay, Andy's latest blog postessay is How Conservatism is Essential to the Future of Christianity.

I note two points he makes:

• "The decline of the Southern Baptist Convention". Excuse me? The entire past 20-30 years of SBC history has been a steady march to the (far far) right, spearheaded with pretty much a complete takeover of the denomination by fundamentalists and a purge of anyone who disagrees with them.
• "Liberals use politics to exploit a literal interpretation of a phrase in the New Testament that God chooses the political leaders." You mean like the numerous Christian conservatives who argued that God supports the Republican Party, not just on moral issues like abortion, but even on things like taxation? Or even the ones that argued George Bush's election was divinely ordained, or that God actually intervened during the 2000 Florida recount?

MDB 14:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Making the two points from your two points:

• The first point: I can't tell whether they are doing it on CP.
• The Second point: They probably do. Please thank them for putting words in God's mouth.

[[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it smells like the Andy of old, throwing around ridiculous assertions with no evidence, laying claim to saving the world from liberalism. A rich vein of teh stupid, me thinks. Z3ro^talk 14:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My favourite bit: Andy: "conservatism, like Christianity, focuses on the future" . Hilarious. 194.6.79.200 14:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia is a joke Jimaginator 15:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@BoN: It does, in a way. They are still waiting for the Rapture, that's why they don't care for the conditions on Earth/material world (or shaping it like hELL for the non-believers). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see why Andy has to save the Southern Baptists from godless libb-burr-ull-izz-umm. The article he cites as evidence says the SBC is considering a resolution that acknowledges the historical importance of Obama's election. That's it. That's his idea of liberalism. MDB 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"several big threats to faith postdate the King James Bible, such as pornography and gambling" - I don't know how he can maintain such consistency, but Andrew Schlafly has made me do more double- and triple-takes while reading than all the rest of the universe combined.71.193.206.116 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Addison continues to commit slow wiki-suicide: "Christianity does not need conservatism to survive. It needs only its own traditional teachings..." Way to go. Count down to liberal, last wordism rant from Andypants in 3... 2... 1... --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a focus on traditional teachings... you know... conservative? 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Andy moved the goalpost, it seems. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexual impropriety which runs rampant throughout the bible along with the casting of lots are all liberal interpolations. That's why we need the Bible mistranslated retranslated. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs}

I have posted a side-by-side for the entire essay. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I big bravo to you, sir. Very well done. MDB 17:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe kendoll could upload some hot ancient Greek porno for the perusal of the Arsefly. Maybe he'd deny it existed and claim that Jesus invented porn. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this seems to be relegating Christianity as an "also ran" to Conservatism^TM. No other gods before me and all that....18:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"You cannot serve God and money" (Matthew 6:24)- it's scary how we know the Bible better than they do. Totnesmartin 19:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's contend that you can't know all of Bible in order to be a religious Christian; because once you know all the inconsistencies, either you'll stop believing or your brain will blow up. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If I need my non-Christianity confirmed, a read of the Bible does it every time. Totnesmartin 21:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Gambling" originated in 1755, according to the dictionary. --AS

At first I thought he meant he thought the behaviour was invented in the mid-eighteenth century, but now I think he meant that scriveners didn't see fit to write about it, using that word, until then. I think he means to make a distinction between gambling and drawing straws or casting lots or something, using a concise modern vocabulary unavailable to the KJV translators. Does this have to do with reaching an audience of today's twelve-year-olds with his newly spun translation of scripture, or is there a more nefarious agenda here? I'm all confused. Sprocket J Cogswell 00:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

He perhaps believes the (presumably english) word for the activity have to exist when the activity is there, not noticing foreign people have been doing for 1000+ years before the word is invented. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That is how it seemed at first, but I cannot believe he has such a limited understanding of history, and the relation between activity and vocabulary. I suspect that he wants to give the kids reading below 5th or 6th grade level (10 or 11 years old) something they can understand better than "casting lots." "Drawing straws" is too innocent-sounding. I think he wants to invoke the eevil monster Gamblor, to scare the kiddies in words they can understand. Sprocket J Cogswell 04:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"I cannot believe he has such a limited understanding of history, and the relation between activity and vocabulary" - and yet, we have voluminous evidence that this is actually the case. ħuman 05:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"If you want to learn history read a dictionary". Andy's use of Merriam Webster as a definitive historical source is actually one of the genuinely funny things about him. The Romans were great gamblers and many rules against the use of dice were instigated in Jesus's time. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also it's nice to see those religious folks [showing us the way once more. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you need any further proof that Andy is developing a pornography and gambling problem, this snot-nosed screed of drivel is it. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 08:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Spot the difference

I cant tell TK from Andy anymore. This could have come straight from the quote gen. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I eagerly await the day that TK does start using the quote generator. Fedhaji 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Knowing TK he probably did. --Kels 20:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's much more strongly worded than teh Arse likes to put it. Andy likes to think he's still being all intullecktual while he evades, insults. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 20:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, wait a minute....is Fretful Porpentine ALSO TK?!!! I mean, this post is just pure moving in on Andy territory, and now TK suddenly feels like Bugler. Strange. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 23:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he'll get his own, considering his personal hatred against editors from other countries. --Crazyswordsman 02:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite amazed that TwatKunt didn't just revert, oversight and block that comment and actually replied to it. Is he losing his touch? Crundy 13:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That is definitely generator material. Wow. The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm 95% sure that TK wrote that just so we'd go and mess ourselves over it. And we did. Nonetheless, it is hilariously like our generator. SJ ^Debaser 16:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably 95% of what TK writes/does at CP is designed to incite us. I don't know whether he is deliberately trying to destroy CP or that he just gets his kicks pulling wings off flies, but I would guarantee he uses the scorn that we pour on him to enhance his status with Andy and the other sysops. Генгис^unbelieving 05:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. ħuman 05:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bushism WIGO

Okay, not that anyone here can understand what people at CP are thinking, but what was with the Bushism headline? What was the supposed Bushism? Or are they simply calling something they don't agree with a Bushism? The referenced article doesn't even mention Bush. *confused* Z3ro^talk 21:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement appears perfectly coherent to me, and I was able to follow it completely. I was looking for the confused word salad that punctuated most of Bush's ramblings over the years. My best guess is the complex sentence structure was too difficult for Rob to follow and so it "made no sense" to him. tmtoulouse 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been around long enough to really experience him, but is Rob that stupid? There was nothing in the sentence that was jumbled or difficult to understand!--PitchBlackMind 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a perfectly coherent piece of English as far as I can tell. It says a lot more about the ability of the guy over at CP to read rather than Obama's ability to speak coherently. Jammy 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone add this to Fun:Sudden Moron Syndrome? I suppose it is not exactly like Assfly the chronic case. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is perfectly coherent. RobS really mucked up on that one. Did it get any talk page flutters? ħuman 22:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Very simple, the "they" in "they say the government can't run anything" obviously is a reference to "insurers." Now, the President and apologists would be hard pressed to find evidence that "insurers" ever said "anything," for example General Motors or the Post Office. It appears here Obama has confused opposition critics and free market advocates with "insurers." Is he really that paranoid already? RobS 23:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if that were true, it ain't a Bushism, or malapropism, or anything of the sort. A Bushism is a humorous verbal gaffe, often bordering on incoherence or stupidity, characterized by the (mis)use of grammar and other linguistic errors (or something to that effect). A few examples:

• "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
• "Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die."
• "The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants."^{— Unsigned, by: WJThomas / talk / contribs}

If you really believe commies have people's best interests at heart, as you state above, I advise you to be aware that such ideas are not welcome here, as they condone democide. Have you really learned nothing from the fall of your hero, Alger Hiss? DickTurpis 23:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The irony being that the use of the phrase "bushism" and "malapropism" in reference to that statement is more of a malapropism than the actual statement. Anyway, beyond that, your being silly, and at best pedantic. The health insurance lobby, which is funded by insurers have made those exact claims. We don't even have to go that one step removed, here is a press release from Blue Cross Blue Shield stating the exact things that Obama was arguing against [1]. Care to remove it from the main page of CP now? tmtoulouse 00:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work tmtoulouse. This episode of Pwnage brought to you by the Do Your Fucking Research Foundation. --PitchBlackMind 00:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, at least RobS had the cojones to come here and defend himself, unlike so many others. ħuman 01:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

SO, TK'll ban him (being a member of a vandal site)? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 01:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

tmtoulouse, you make the case. The link you provide in fact applauds Obama, and criticizes the House version. Further, it does not say, the government "can't run anything", as Obama's Bushism goes. It cites the specific consequences of what may happen if indeed the gubmint, in this case the House version, runs a free health care program.

Remember, "A Bushism is a verbal gaffe, often bordering on incoherence or stupidity, characterized by the (mis)use of grammar and other linguistic errors." Case closed. RobS 19:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, just..wow. The link outlines criticism of the proposed plan, Obama is responding to criticism of his plan. The criticism in the link coincides with the criticism that Obama is responding to. Regardless of who is right or wrong it is accurate at a meta level of content as well as being completely accurate in its use of grammar, words, and basic coherence. Even if your criticism of the statement was true, it would still not be a Bushism. Bushisms have to do with structural and linguistic errors, with coherence, exactly as you posted. Your criticism is one of content, the structure and linguistic coherence are solid. Your continued use of Bushism is a definitive case of "malapropoism." Quad erat demonstratum tmtoulouse 19:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia sysops are infallible. Case closed. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 19:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I had forgotten how utterly thickheaded Robbie is. That boy's got molasses 'twixt his ears. Still, nice to have him back just for variety's sake.--WJThomas 23:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Mark Sanford

Just popping down to Argentina for a second, dear. No, I'm not having an affair! Notice how Conservapedia is still sticking with the hiking story. Czolgolz 22:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Awwww, you just made TK fixing it. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How long before he gets labeled a RINO? Czolgolz 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Or even a liberal or a Democrat? Oh wait, Fox Noise beat them to it. --Crazyswordsman 02:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's is odd that TK isn't putting him for a liberal bashing spin. Perhaps it has something to do with TK not classifying Sanford as a RINO. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd classify him as a RINO. What other sort of Republican would actually resign a high-ranking position due to impropriety? --Kels 04:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nixon, for starters. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How about Mark Foley? I would also like to add that you gotta love trying to classify the guy who fought his state legislature tooth and nail over Stimulus money, and finally was forced to accept it by the state supreme court as a RINO. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 04:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

At least he was screwing around with someone of the OPPOSITE sex. To your average Republican, that's better than a lot of the recent scandals have been. Maybe they should give him a medal! --Gulik 18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I support you, TK!

(for once) Terry, if you're reading this, I want to say - I fully support your support of Rob Smith writing more about the strategy of manufactured crisis and the fascinating conspiracy thereof. Godspeed!

Incidentally, on a completely unrelated note, my lazy browsing of the web took me to Monstropedia, where by instinct I looked up "Succubus" (forwarned is forearmed, after all). I found a reference to a 1937 novel by Charles Williams called "Descent Into Hell", and the sponsored review opened with the following: In Charles Williams's novel Descent into Hell, Hell turns out to be nothing other than a refusal to see things as they really are. Arguably his finest novel, the "descent" in the title happens to an ordinary (if extraordinarily selfish) historian named Wentworth, whose daily choices to cheat on the truth slowly but surely lead him into a terrifying state of isolation and egotism. Sounds eerily familiar.71.193.206.116 23:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy's Essay about the decline of religion

He mentions that we think liberal leaders are appointed by God? What kind of crap is that? First of all, I believe Dubya said "I think God wants me to be president," and I read the term "Godly president" applied to Bush on the right wing website Concerned Women for America. And I believe I saw bumper stickers that said "God save George W." The last one to me is directly unpatriotic because that's what the Tories said during the Revolutionary War. --Crazyswordsman 02:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The irony I saw is that he is fine with interpreting Genesis literally, but not this disagreeable verse in the New Testament. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we all saw that a long time ago (around the time he started his "retranslation" project). He accuses us of doing the things he does, not the things that we do. --Crazyswordsman 11:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy follows faithfully the parts of the Bible that come from God, and ignores the parts that are the product of liberal vandalism inserted to deceive all good Christians. Andy can tell the difference between the true and the deceit, because the latter is everything in the Bible he disagrees with.--WJThomas 12:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"interpreting Genesis literally, but not this disagreeable verse in the New Testament."... Is he practicing some form of Judaism? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

TK locks the door

"The database is currently locked to new entries and other modifications, probably for routine database maintenance, after which it will be back to normal. The administrator who locked it offered this explanation: Page calls slowing site to a crawl, evidently. Giving them a 3 min break ;-)(by TK at 11:00, 25 June 2009)" ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 12:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Red Telephone Message for Kenservative

Hi Ken, hoping you're well.

I was just wondering if you could let us RWians know who this British Creationist is that's expanding your evolution article across Britain, or what medium he's using to spread this, (i.e. TV, radio, YouTube, etc) just so we can see what he's doing, or we will find out soon?

Thanks, keep it real homedawg, SJ ^Debaser 12:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a homeless guy holding up a cardboard sign that says, "www.conservapedia.com/Evolution"--WJThomas 12:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WJThomas FTW! --SpinyNorman 12:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha! SJ ^Debaser 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So it's not a Big Issue? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a guy in my town centre that sells a mag and looks homeless, and I didn't actually realise until just now that it's probably big issue. I'm gonna start buying it off him now. SJ ^Debaser 13:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Help me out here...

I got the first step down: "Andy is right", now I just need to fill in the gaps.

According to a recent study, "women from private religious high schools appear more likely to report obtaining an abortion than women from public schools."

Now I can't tell if this is liberal deceit made whole cloth or if it is evidence for the "pernicious effect of politics on religion" or even something else that proves Andy right about something.

Does anyone have any insights? Godspeed. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 13:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The deceit is that the public school students lie about not having had abortions while the private schoolgirls are more honest and own up when asked. Генгис^{Gum disease} 13:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that the girls had an abortion in the first place means they are definitely liberals and are pretending to be from good wholesome homeschools. Crundy 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Or that liberals are all evil teenage girl molesters, targeting the pure, religious, conservative girls to drag them into sin. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Or virgin birth experiment running wild and people no longer wanting the gift/punishment by God. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Question...

Imagine that Richard Dawkins actually sees Conservapedia's message on the Main Page that says they're pushing (or trying to) their shitty cp:Evolution article in the UK. I think his reaction would be something along the lines of "why do I care what a two-bit wiki with a retarded homeschool teacher as a leader, power-hungry administrators and homophobic sysops tries to do?" <sarcasm>Well done Kendoll, I'm sure Dawkins is shitting himself with fear.</sarcasm> SJ ^Debaser 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(partly serious, partly to just encourage Ken) I wouldn't be surprised if Dawkins has seen it and had a quick laugh followed by the fear of having someone who is obviously unstable being obsessed with you. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That, or simply says "This is why Religions are harmful to society. It make you spit out nonsense." [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

nit-picking

I know it could somehow be seen as semantically correct, but does anyone else think it's humorous that Andy refers to the late, great, critically acclaimed, 40+ year show business veteran Farrah Fawcett as "an aspiring actress"? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 17:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The man does not even have the dignity to refrain from taking an open shot at her while announcing her death. I can only imagine he relished typing every word of that post. Can you imagine being the wife or child of a guy who, more than being constitutionally incapable of empathy, passive aggressively berates and insults everyone around him for failing to me his incomprehensible expections? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The activity of acting is liberal deceit on its own, before you even start counting Hollywood values. Hence, there is nothing that can take the description of "critically acclaimed" other than his mom the political activist. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Andy is doing the right thing, one could say. FF was part of Hollywood and should thus be reviled and as Terry so helpfully reminded us "One cannot say the most inhumane and vile things about a person hundreds of times, and publicly, then turn around and state they have sympathy for that person, or extend condolences. If you made policy criticism personal, you cannot go back. Trying to do so smacks as the worst kind of deceit.”

Thus Andy is just being a cunt, in true conservative style. God forbid a Xian should actually, you know, show compassion for the dead. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 17:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What an utter jpratt that man is. Maybe we should only refer to Andy as an aspiring lawyer or an aspiring homeschool teacher from now on. Генгис^{Gum disease} 17:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Aspiring? No way! Failed. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 17:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes understatement is actually funnier, as in damning with faint praise. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I vote for "wannabe" teacher, role model, Conservative pin up boy. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to OP, yeah, I copied it to paste here if it wasn't already. Um, she's no longer an actress of any kind, she's an "ex" actress. She was successful in terms of money and glamour, that's for sure, just from Angels and the Poster. Hey, she was in some good movies, too, right? There was that rather edgy (for the mainstream) one where she played an abuse victim, right? ħuman 19:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So how long before they blame her death on Hollywood values? Czolgolz 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

- She scored 6 Golden Globe nominations for her work, which isnt bad. Hamster 01:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Roaring Silence

So I noticed that Andy has been rather active this morning, but he has been rather silent on the strip search ruling. Come come Andy, tell us how the Supreme Court screwed up, as they are full of nothing but liberals. Just because 8 justices voted in favor, that means nothing. On a side note, why is it that only the dissention was from Clarence Thomas? We need to revoke his black card. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to ask why Clarence Thomas would be pro-strip searches? tmtoulouse 17:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we traded Justin Timberlake for Clarence Thomas? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't ask in terms of "why," more "why him?" And the Timberlake trade fell through, He was dating Janet Jackson..... That was an instant loss of blackness. Black men can't date black women. SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy is remaining silent to provide a moment of quiet reflection for Creepy Uncle Ed, as he is nigh inconsolable at this time. The Foxhole Atheist 19:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Good one...--WJThomas 23:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Try to stop yourself paying for more "under God" copy being splattered across the halls of Government

California raving rightwing evangelist nutjob Dolph Dan Lungren has a proposal on the books:

Before the August recess, a resolution will be voted on by the House of Representatives that will require the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the words "In God We Trust" and the post-1954 Pledge of Allegiance onto the walls of the Capitol Visitor Center. References to religion and faith are already included in several of the permanent exhibits, and the words "In God We Trust" are even present in one such exhibit. But that's not enough for Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) who is pushing for a larger, bolder display. Let your Representative know that you oppose his efforts.

Dolph has already got 160 timewaster's votes in the bag (might be worth checking out those bozos are so we know who'd vote for such pork), so it looks like it'll pass, but at least let the God-botherers know how much you disapprove. Click here to make your filthy amoral atheistic voice heard. And then send the SCA a buck. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive

What happened to the auto-archiving of this page? ^{— Unsigned, by: Genghis Khant / talk / contribs}

Pi's on a short break & I think it runs from his machine. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 07:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is still going, I just haven't run it today yet. The big problem is some threads have been going on for 4 or 5 days now. - π 08:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Display

Template mainpageright has the box displaced right & its contents even more so; weird. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 12:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy broke it a few days ago, nobody has fixed it since. 202.136.110.245 12:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, so he did. Wot a wazzock. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 12:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical CP. Since they have no community, no one cares if Kendoll vandalises the mainpage with his dribblings, or if the Arsefly breaks the formatting or that they've had raw HTML dumped in their permalinks for months now. It's a (barely) living lesson in the tragedy of the commons over there. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What does 'raw HTML dumped in their permalinks' mean? BTB, you could add the Bible ref tagger being broken to that list - I miss that feature.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 13:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is that anyone with more braincells than a slug has been driven away. No bloody wonder it's falling to bits. ^{(no offence to slugs intended) This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 13:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

CPRoolz, take a look at the big red box at the top of a permalink like this one. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. There's no arguing with that.--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 13:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can see it just dismoves the Welcome to Conservapedia box and nothing further....if anything it's moar honest since they really mean "Welcome soon to be banninated user!" Warren Terra 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see TK reads here (as if we didn't know it). ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Addison chafing

Taking on TK over the Sanford affair, challenging Andy to provide cites about radioactive decay, questioning whether Christianity requires conservatism... Addison, once the homeschooling wunderkind, seems to be questioning his programmers. How long before TK starts whispering sweet nothings to Andy about Addison being corrupted by teh librul deceits? Stile4aly 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I find this interesting because it is in the nature of students, children, or in fact anybody, to question what has gone before. "Why is the sky blue Daddy?" Maybe Lord Kelvin has a reason, and maybe, just maybe, that reason is wrong, or at the very least, not fully accurate. We wouldn't be conversing on the internet if it wasn't for thousands and thousands of scientists questioning things. If you say continental drift "must" have slowed over time, fine. What are your reasons? BUT: if you just KNOW it has to be so because you think it's that way, well then you are not reasoning. Go ADDISON! Jimaginator 16:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Good for Addison for actually opening his mind a fraction and daring to question Andy (hopefully the same happens in class, especially following the chivalry disaster and the cluster fuck that was world history.) I'm sure old Wormtongue is busy licking Andy's arse ear and whispering about how he's disruptive, and always fighting with the Beloved Site Owner and has been exposed to Liberal Multiculturism... --PsyGremlin_Whut? 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, these pesky tectonic plates. I suppose, God pushed them once and they are slowing down ever since, because of friction larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Damn, that's some stupid. "There are many manifestations of the basic phenomenon." Go ahead, Andy. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 17:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I thought Addison was a girl? ListenerX^TalkerX 17:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So did I, yet I still have no idea. 17:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a dude. There once was a picture of him floating around here, but the mob wasn't having it. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 17:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my physics ignorance, but doesn't a change in the rate of radioactive decay in any object require a change in the internal energy state of that object? And doesn't solar fusion require that the materials involved each have to have a fairly exacting internal energy state, so if that energy state did change over time solar fusion would have failed? Or is that even more bolloxy than AndyPandy's reasoning?--199.20.64.195 18:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The aim is to show that radioactive decay sped up to insane levels during the Great Flood, which, as they cleverly fail to note, falls flat on its face because that much radiation would have vaporized the Earth. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Lexfundamen", if you happen to see this, DO NOT play burden of proof with a fundie, it is never productive and never ends. Anyways, technically, both parties are making a positive claim: One being that the rate is constant, another that the rate is variable. As much as I'd like to see Assfly try to evidence his theeree, it ain't gonna happen. You need to provide your own evidence so we can see him ignore it. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 18:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just poking around trying to find support for the constancy of radiometric decay and this appears to be one of those arguments that Andy will win simply because all data on radiometric decay was derived observationally and he's perfectly comfortable arguing absolute truth from the absence of evidence to the contrary. If there's someone here good at physics, riddle me this - can you mathematically derive decay constants for radiometric elements from first principles? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably not without resorting to virtual particles, quantum notions, and relativistic concepts, which are unlikely to be well-accepted by the target audience. I like to think I have a firm intuitive (and quantitative) grasp of Newtonian mechanics, but that doesn't really help here, does it? Sprocket J Cogswell 19:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The decay rate is a function of quantum mechanical processes, you can derive wave equations that accurately predict decay rates from Schroedigner's equation (I believe but don't hold me to the Schroedigner part, I will look it up). You can't deductively prove a physical phenomenon, of course, but the equations that predict that phenomenon accurately can be derived from basic principles of quantum mechanics. The thing is that this "question" was interesting around the turn of the last century, so any papers are going to be hard to dig up electronically. I could hope over to the library though if we decide we really want one. 130.113.218.226 19:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this specific YEC complaint addressed in an interesting way here - there's more ways to empirically prove the value of a constant than counting it down all by itself. As for the quantum answer, isn't this kind of thing going to be in coursebooks if it's possible at all? I'd be very interested in putting something up here that AddisonDM and Lexfundamen can use to provide the proof Andy's insisting on - watching his ensuing contortions FTW. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably, but like I said it was stuff that was derived, literally, a hundred years ago. The derivations I am not sure would make it into a modern text book, just the governing equations. I will go dig around in the stacks and see if I can pull up a paper that does an actual derivation. tmtoulouse 19:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to address derived values and compare them to observed values for a variety of isotopes, but I'm a lawyer cretin so I need you to read it for me and tell me what it actually says.User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 19:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It is actually not a derivation of governing equations per say. It is a modeling approach, where they took a mathematical model of how they thing nuclei behave, and then modeled them inside a computer and "observed" the decay rates of the modeled nuclei and compared to observations of the actual decay rates. This is certainly an excellent approach, and all of this convergent evidence (empirical observations, model prediction comparison, governing equations from quantum mechanics) rely on properties that keep the decay rates constant. Again, this is how science is done, through multiple lines of converging evidence. All of which is different from the initial question of whether or not governing equations for decay rates can be derived from first principles, but all of which is important to show what an idiot Andy is. tmtoulouse 20:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent for the following side note) In a previous life, I hung around briefly in a lab in Palo Alto where the ongoing academic quest was to measure the exponent in the inverse-square law of gravitational attraction, making sure it was two, no more, no less, to as fine a resolution as humanly achievable at the time. Lots of fancy expensive milling and grinding to make the apparatus, and detectors teetering on a razor edge of frozen silence, that kind of thing. Of course none of it would have proven that the number in question hadn't suddenly changed the Thursday before they started the definitive run. Sprocket J Cogswell 19:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a huge lurker who's been coming here for a while (The Lenski debate was where I started). I love that the actual debate for this article is happening here. Its refreshing to see and read. In a way this is the most instructive I've ever seen Conservapedia. I've always taken radioactive halflife constancy as a given (you know, what with decades of empirical evidence to back it up) but to actually try and prove this (or that the sky is blue, or that 2 + 2 = 4) is an interesting exercise. Keep up the good work all.

(undent) Someone else please WIGO this - I shot iced tea out my nose onto my keyboard and now apparently need to dry my system off. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 18:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

this is good

"Given that perpetual motion machines are impossible, the claim [that the decay rate of uranium is constant] is implausible." - Andy Schlafly ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 18:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am always amused by all their tired old twaddle about the Second Law of Thermodynamics; the break-dance act they have had to go through to avoid acknowledging the fact that the earth is not a closed system is highly amusing. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, Neveruse beat me to it. I was about to ask someone to add it to his quote generator. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I love it. Andy takes on science armed with a bundle of non sequiturs and "Because I said so." I hope Addison doesn't back down, even when confronted with such stupidity. Actually, I hope he's (she?) is starting to see through Andy's mask - it's about time somebody did over there. --PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see: "B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton University (1981)" when there may still have been remnants of electrical laws in the curriculum, instead of mostly data structures and object-oriented malarkey. Just after Ohm's and Kirchoff's Laws comes the basic RC time constant: one resistor, one capacitor, forever, amen; one exponentially decaying curve, or its additive inverse. Get a grip, Andy, it's physically motivated statistics, not thermodynamics. Sprocket J Cogswell 18:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. lest someone be tempted to pick a nit here, I'm talking about the shape of the curve, which shows up lotsa places, with various underlying particulars. Sprocket J Cogswell 18:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What a twat. He makes me splutter with his utter lack of understanding what he talks about. Entropy means that decay rates must have slowed down? Why does he compare the decay "rate" with several kinds of "moving objects"? Doesn't he understand that nuclear decay is a form of entropy in action (heavy nuclei slammed together in supernovas slowly falling apart into lower energy nuclei)? The decay rate slowing would actually slow the rate of entropy increase... ħuman 19:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(UI) For the record, is it Quote generator-worthy? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight. That's the best example of faulty-reasoning-from-analogy that I've ever seen. By that logic, E=MC^2 is false, as are all laws of conservation of energy, mass, momentum. 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy on E=mc^2 - "E=mc^2 is completely false". DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Entropy is why pi is not a constant and has changed over time. ;) - Cuckoo 20:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Andy's knowledge of science is increasing at a geometric rate: PiDecayWatch: 3.131577822... (brought to you by CP) 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh I am fading. - π 14:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Too bad I am not good enough linguistically to add these myself. Anyone else want to work on that? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly - freaking moron

Hahahahahahaha Uranium constants could not have been the same, even at the time of the big bang? Because of course Andy, The big bang created ALL elements in their current states. Moron. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 05:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Moron, seconded. The idiot knows nothing of the science he seeks to destroy. ħuman 05:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I love how he disagrees with superfluids having zero viscosity. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 05:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...physics nerds seem to be gasming on about how the conditions for superfluidity could not be perpetual. Eventually, due to entropy or an imperfectly closed system, energy will have to be used to keep the superfluid a superfluid. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 05:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"The idiot knows nothing of the science he seeks to destroy" nor much of the religion he seeks to promote. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

or even the website he seeks to maintain. Totnesmartin 08:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

hahahahahahaha Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 08:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Schlafly supposed to be a young earth creationist? He seems to switch effortlessly back and forth between biblical bullshit and science-based bullshit without even making up his mind which he thinks is true. Maybe he thinks the big bang happened 6000 years ago. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That typre will say anything as long as it supports the Bible, even if it contradicts what another creationist says, or even what they themselves said before. Remember this isn't about establishing the truth, but winning the battle to get their bronze age fairy tales into science classes where they belong. "who controls the past controls the future," as Orwell said. Totnesmartin 09:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I particularly liked "Your statement does not withstand scrutiny. Continental drift must have slowed down over time". So the counterargument is wrong because his argument is right... Good debating skills there. And what on god's green-but-mostly-blue Earth does "Today the San Francisco peninsula is moving at a slow rate, presumably much slower than in the past." actually mean? It's moving slowly now so it must have been faster before? I love it how Andy inevitably makes testable empirical claims for his every soapbox topic, just conveniently ignoring a century+ of evidence that has already disproved it- with his only evidence being "it's obvious". Regarding the U-238, um, "discussion", it's great proof that he's trying to shoehorn everything into YEC: a true "Conservative" who rejects relativity in favor of Newton's clockwork universe should love the idea of constant rate of decay over some Librul isotope with no discipline that randomly decays and provides a bad example for the other young atoms. Why not take the easier road and just argue that decay is constant but such isotopes are still being formed in the crust, or something like that? Kallium^talk 13:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that would be easier for anyone with any real science education under their belt. But for someone who clearly is not even aware of stellar nucleogenesis? This is a guy who thinks that science holds that the uranium in the crust was created in the Big Bang, after all. With sufficient ignorance, many hard conceptual leaps are easier. Kaalis 13:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't he just labeling everything as liberal deceit by now? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course he's aware of stellar nucleogenesis- the awesome creation of atomic nuclei in Genesis! Actually, it just occurred to me that it's a bit odd for him not to be arguing against the big bang too, considering it contradicts the static universe picture and especially since it is to closely tied to *gasp!* cosmic evolution, *gasp!* quantum mechanics and *choking!* relativity! But that gets back to the whole science education thing, and my attempts to explain his habits rationally. Silly me! Kallium^talk 18:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A. Schlafly on continental drift: A rate of one thousand miles a year is only one-tenth of a mile per hour. Compared to creation itself, that rate of speed would seem like a nothing. In fact, I'm not sure one would even notice such slow movement.--Andy Schlafly 17:23, 26 June 2009 (EDT) ... Not the movement per se, but has he ever heard of the concept of an earthquake? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Translation: "It's not fast unless I think it would feel fast! Agree with my feeling or lose all credibility!" Kaalis 21:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Back of the napkin physics time: lets take the collision between the Indo-Australian plate and the Eurasian plate that is forming the Himalayas. Assuming each continent is moving at one-tenth of a mile per hour, how much energy would be released at the onset of collision. Ready set go! tmtoulouse 21:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The San Andreas fault is slipping at about an inch a year. "No-one ... even notice ..."?!"2$3!/ ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 21:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama did it!

Perhaps we might take the views of the so called 'right' seriously if they didn't attempt to link everything they don't like with Obama. The WND drivel 'article' they link to starts by claiming the cancellation of a protest was linked to Obama and his supporters but then goes on to reveal it was a mall owner without providing any evidence of a link between them. Jammy 11:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this lends a certain elegant symmetry to the whole conservative Goddidit argument. Something in nature we can't explain? Goddidit! Any of the worlds' ills? Obamadidit! Add one more new conservative term to the 21st century, and the geometric progression continues! Junggai 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You forgot the more general term Librulsdidit! [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how I love their charts!

I just came across this: TechMology. Apparently Adam had better technology than they had in the Dark Ages. Cool! The vertical scale represents level of technology in units of, and the horizontal scale represents time in units of. Jimaginator 15:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on...I thought Andy's position was that the "Dark Ages" were a time of scientific advance? --Kels 16:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeh. But during the Dark Ages, the techMology "level" was lower, even though the time was one of advance. This was because the church advanced the cause of science, by doing more science during this time, but that is not to say that the Dark Ages weren't a time of advance. Also, from the chart you can see the techMology actually advanced because it went up, although depending on interpretation, once could make the claim that the chart shows it going down. However, this is not cited. Clear? Lern! 64.19.148.242 16:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Very insightful! ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. People just need things explained to them, especially on the site that must not be mentioned, even on the site that must not be mentioned. Jimaginator 16:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently secrets to make people to live for 900+ years are very advanced technologies, that even we can't yet produce today. as for why Rome has higher tech level than the Dark ages is mostly because all the blueprint and engineers were secured in Rome when the Great fire took place. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course Adam had better technology, he had the very first Apple! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Noah and the Renaissance, at the same level. Age of Reason be damned! Sterile stripagram 20:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So, where would the modern day be on this chart? About three miles straight up? --Gulik 21:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that would imply exponential growth. We've had a hard enough time explaining geometric growth to AssFly McDouche! Jimaginator 21:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The tower of Babel was supposedly so tall it threatened to "reach the heavens". Wouldn't that imply a higher level of technology than, say, the Romans (who were not known for immensely tall towers)?--X Stickman 23:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Signs of TK actually working

Did someone make TK to block the rest another chunk of McMaster, or is it his random block rage? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted from my work IP, which I guess hadn't been blocked yet, even though I have posted from it a thousand times. tmtoulouse 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah! The vandal site member OWNER Trent Tmtoulouse has been foiled again, along with his accomplices Huw Human and Ames AmesG! TK

He expects you to stay there as he blocked it for five years - instead of his usual blocking period of one year or six months... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Compared Featured Articles

Any one noticed the featured articles on the front pages of Wikipedia and Conservapedia today?

• Wikipedia - The Ten Commandments.
• Conservapedia - The Communist Party of the United States.

Strange!

Wikipedia is trying to deceive you into thinking that it does not have an anti-Christian bias. This is undeniable proof. Conservapedia knows that it's readers are already intimately familiar with the commandments, so they focus on groups like the Communist Party who try to spread deceit. Deceit! ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 17:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope all those good Christians know the last commandment- "Don't boil a young goat in the milk of its mother" Exodus 34:26 1) [Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.] And yes, this is actually in the bible...Jimaginator 19:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That is why meat and milk are restricted in a kosher diet. --Shagie 05:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mommy and her boy chat on the radio

There's a few new podcasts from 6/20/09 on the Eagle Forum with Phyllis Schlafly interviewing Andy about homeskuling and Teh Conservativepedia. I'd liveblog it if I could stand more than 3 minutes, but maybe it's interesting to someone. Knock yourselves out. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll suck it up and listen to it. I made it to the 6:26 mark, and I just couldn't handle any more of it. Andy did mention that his students "understand American History better than just about anyone right now" and "I have students who've acheived perfect scores on these very difficult exams!"--PitchBlackMind 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, the "oh bollocks, our guest cancelled" episode. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Crock o' Shite calls in talking about his excellent copy and pasting of news items and how great his contributions are. Oh, Lordy... Then the Arsefly talks about the empowering feeling of banhammering people, and how homskollars need to get the feel for the righteous banhammer. *facepalm* --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Google is biased against Christian values. He's delusional. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For those with the stomach.... Does Andy mention his triumphant victory over the horrible liberal liar Professor Lenski? SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 23:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Mommy's voice is more masculine than Andy's. Not that there's anything wrong with that.--WJThomas 23:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, he doesn't mention either Lenski or the evil liberals at RW. The funniest moment is when a homskollar alumnus of the Arsefly programme calls in and talks about how he go his wonderful full scholarship to Liberty U., Phy tells him how wonderful his future is going to be. No it isn't kid. You're getting a brainwashing, not an education. Your future involves employers looking at your CV and laughing before tossing it in the general direction of the round file. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"If liberals want to homeschool their kids, they have to follow my rules."--WJThomas 00:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been skimming part one. Andy goes into the big classes are better thing; at around 15:00 (should be 8:30 I think) there's another male voice... "one of the administrators on your site..." ħuman 00:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It was DeanS. Next up: the empowering mental exercise of "escorting people out and kicking them off the site" - to his mother's response of laughter... We really need to get a transcript of this... ħuman 00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"The liberals are infiltrating the homeschool movement." - Andrew Schlafly. ħuman 00:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Homskollar sighting at I forget when due to EC :( ħuman 00:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Assfly currently on the Harvard review board? I'm taking a drink for every lie or factual inaccuracy and need to know if I need to take a drink for that.Teabag 00:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Joe from St Louis: "Did you homeschool your son? Did that make him gay or was he already gay before that?" Vulpius 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"He has started this thing on the internet, I don't know what you call it." Endorsement from mom! tmtoulouse 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I just reached that. Big lulz. SJ ^Debaser 13:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, CP is a cure for depression! This is great. tmtoulouse 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@Vulpius- what time? I listened to the first and don't want to listen to the second. I need to wash my ears out with a Hitchens debate. By the way, I think I know why Andy calls phonics conservative- his mom is selling some learn to read materials. Corry 00:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Turbo reader! I am stopping the drinking game for medical reasons. Schlafy believes ever word, simply amazing. Teabag 00:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Part two at 16:00. Vulpius 01:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Best to listen while you're doing something else to not go crazy. I made it all the way through part 2 by only half-listening. One highlight: Andy and his mommie discussing SEO. So, anyway. These are just two mp3s, about 50 minutes total, including ads and promos. It would be fairly easy to chop them up into "segments" of about 6 minutes each and embed them, which I might do if a few of you promise to help transcribe them. If we only listen to every other word, the worms won't eat out our brains, at least. These are a friggin goldmine, I wonder if this is why CP has been so overloaded the last week or so? ħuman 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am genuinely afraid to listen to this...but I will. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you catch it? 2:22: "We've had over 76 million page views..."

Some possibilities:

• This is old and Phy had a guest cancel or some other hopefully humorous event(s)
• He's using the number calculated by LArron or Mountain Blue (I forget) so he doesn't get embarrassed if he updates the software? ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard that, it made me wonder. But these shows are "live" and people can call in... so maybe choice two is correct? PS, I changed the header. It's not that hard to listen to, as Trent said, it's actually very funny. ħuman 03:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Listening to Aschlafly makes me think of him as Kermit the conservative. Warren Terra 03:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

8:35 makes me think it's old. He mentions that the Obama article has "over 900,000 page views". This is Andy Schlafly, folks. He love nothing more than to update you on exactly how many page views his blog has. Nothing (nothing) would have please Andy more than telling you that his Barack Obama essay has over 1,000,000 page views (it has 1,115,900ish). Unless someone has targeted that article (which I don't think would happen because it's way too big and wouldn't be that funny), I think it must have taken quite some time to get ~200,000 page views (maybe like when they had around 76,000,000 pageviews - which would be when?). So there. Old. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs}

I admit to pushing the Obama veiws. Not because I thought it was funny but just to keep Ken's Evo article dwon and I knew teh Assflea wouldn't delete it. Silly twit 06:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the show wasn't live on 6/20, but sometime earlier, just "blogged" by the harpy, or something, on 6/20? ħuman 04:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Christ man, Phylis sounds fucking terrible, like a godamn scratched record. Shit, I bet kids are scared of their frisbees landing in her yard. Ace McWickedⁱ⁹ 04:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

When Dean calls in he mentions several news-items that he put up on that day. He has not posted those items recently. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So do you folks want me to slice up the mp3s and load up a set of pages we can transcribe so we can get to the truth? ħuman 04:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Found it. Dean is talking about articles he posted on January 10th. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

76,000,000 page views - that would be January.... Mommy said: Every Saturday I have a forum called Eagle Forum Live - she didn't say that it is live! And the callers may be preselected... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 05:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least one got hung up on... to have live callers, you have to have a live show!!! PS, tried to fix image link. ħuman 05:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) This sounds like pure comedy gold. I've downloaded the mp3s to my iPod later for later listening. I rather hoped the PDF newsletter might have contained transcripts but it's just a single sheet flier. If Dean and a homeskollar phoned in then your could pretty much bet that the whole thing is set up beforehand and Dean has probably got better things to do at the moment because of his wife. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

“”a live call-in program featuring one of the most admired women in the world

Celebrity culture or what? Генгис^{Gum disease} 07:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this is a repeat of the January 03 broadcast. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That is hillarious. Man that's a slice of steaming hot red-neckary right there. It explains a lot. StarFish 07:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

mp3s downloaded, for later remixing. Totnesmartin 09:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm about 5 minutes into the first file. It's pure gold. I'm currently editing it in garageband to see if I can make some sort of autotune remix of it. Nearly everything that they say is just setting up strawmen. -Lardashe

I'm now about 17:40 in, and my opinion of Andy has somehow managed to plummet. He's not just an ignorant guy who thinks he knows it all - he's got a sense of malice that makes him a dangerous person. Like most of the nutbars out there who claim that God/Jesus wants them to do things, he has reinterpreted the Bible to reinforce the way he already is. -Lardashe

Andy alludes to bias in the Bible a few times. It seems to make his mom uncomfortable. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 13:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I always thought she was a little embarrased of him. Didn't she take down a link from her site to CP? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I snap. Autotune is built into Garageband. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 17:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I love it at the start when it is clearly identified that Andy is doing it over the phone. "I need to pay no respect to my mom by getting over to the secret broadcast location." [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, nobody does "in studio" interviews on talk radio these days. Well, it's rare, anyway. ħuman 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it wouldn't hurt him to pop in and see his dear old mom once in a while. Even Terry Koeckritz does better by his mom than Andy. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And then did his mom calls him and engineer? There is a licensing issue. I am contending that he does not have a P.E. license. Can someone look into it further? (It's illegal to be called an engineer in many states if you don't have a license). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"No name and address required." Yeah, you just have to shut off the thing in your brain called logic. This is such typical Schlafly. 13.33 "Learn what was wrong about what you learned in school." Argh. This is giving me a bloody tumour. SJ ^Debaser 13:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"We're not trying to be the most popular movement out there."

Thank fuck for that. SJ ^Debaser 13:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Inconvenient edit button

I starting to build a structure where we might actually take the trouble to transcribe the best parts at Conservapedia:Andy Schlafly on Eagle Forum Live. I have broken it up into 19 segments. The first two are Andy and Phyllis babbling about CP, and I think so is the third. The rest are all broken up by caller. "Joe" is sure to be an instant classic, of course (segment 14). All I have to do now is get the mp3s onto the server so I can flash them in and format the backbone of this thing. ħuman 00:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe relocate it to "best of", because I am trying to work on a complete transcript (if you already have it, maybe put it up for a side by side perhaps?)? It may take days to do this since I am not a professional at this though (No, I don't have Voice recognition stuff yet.) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

K, relax and wait, it will be so much easier to do it section by section. Of course, if you've already transcribed stuff, that makes life easier. You can just paste it in... What do you mean by "relocate it to best of"? ħuman 01:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the time total is less than the whole audio so it is not the entire audio clip. Guess you took those ads out during the process. (The First reading test thingy should be fun, distinguishing whether the child can read or just guessing.) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No pants at Conservapedia

Because someone just nuked the article on them - see http://www.conservapedia.com/Pants MikeR 01:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not even an explanation? I'd think that if it was vandalism, they'd have said something about "liberal vandals". Or RobSmith is a parodist. Umlaut 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You can see the deleted content at http://209.85.129.132/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservapedia.com%2FPants - nothing obvious I can see that warrants nuking though we do have some rubbish about democrats wearing pantsuits is some kind of feminist superiority message as opposed to nice republican women who wear skirts. MikeR 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The part comparing Democrat women wearing pantsuits and Sarah Palin wearing "respectable skirts" is probably parody. It's a tough call though. --PitchBlackMind 02:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pants! ħuman 03:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find cp:Women in Pants did that get nuked as well? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's actually Essay:Women_wearing_pants. Silly twit 07:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've screenshottennised that google cache version. Upload y/n? (assuming my crappy abacus will take the strain) Totnesmartin 09:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There's been a couple of attempts to add "pants" to the Conservative Words list. Perhaps the deletion is in response to that.--WJThomas 09:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Men should wear pants. Women should wear dresses. Some women wear pants. Women in pants bad. Hence, pants bad. Bad, Bad, Bad. (Read aloud in voice of Gareth Keenan for best effect.) Jimaginator 12:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked out out the pants essay for giggles and went to the category:Essays. I haven't laughed this hard in awhile. I can't tell if they are pardoy so I can't link to them, but some of them are comedy genius. Check em out when you need a chuckle Teabag 17:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)