Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive148
== No hope for Ken
after all ==
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/05/gay.to.straight/index.html
PDF of the findings here -- http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/therapeutic-response.pdf
--71.246.96.183 19:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- One method might work... beating them to near death and raping them. But we'll leave that to the government interrogation system. Kettle o' fish 03:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is more than two pages long, Ken
won't read it; he will just wait for someone else to quote-mine it for him and then paste the quotes together in such a way as to make it look like it supports praying to God to overcome homosexuality. - π 03:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Andy, Andy...[edit]
Where are my new conservatve words? I need them NOW!!! EddyP (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I thought conservative words grew geometrically but... there hasn't been a single edit to the page since 20th July! Could we be seeing the downfall of Conservatism AS WE KNOW IT?!?!?!?! SJ Debaser 21:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Irony of Ken's mainpage drooling[edit]
The irony of Ken is that he deosnt seem to realise that when making fun of Thunderf00t's stutter it takes him 20+ edits to get it right. Which is akin to some kind of wiki-stutter. Ace McWickedModel 500 03:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- The irony of Ace's irony. Sorry, it was just too easy. - π 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to do it if you didn't, Pi. At least Ace has an excuse, his blood alcohol is probably in the .2 range right now. Wiki-stuttering is much worse than actual stuttering. When you're typing there's time to think about what you're trying to do, and nobody is watching you do it. If you can't get shit right in at least say....five tries, you're probably working with a double digit IQ.--PitchBlackMind Do or drown in torpor 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ha, quite funny. But yes my blood alcohol/diazepam/codeine is fairly high right now. Ace McWickedModel 500 03:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, often your edit has been saved and you are getting a long lag in it displaying making it appear that it hasn't done anything. Unfortunately connection window size is effected by distance, so those of us in the antipodes have a slower RationalWiki experience. - π 03:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- He used the word 'convicted'. I don't think that's the word he meant to use. Call me crazy if you want.WilhelmJunker (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, often your edit has been saved and you are getting a long lag in it displaying making it appear that it hasn't done anything. Unfortunately connection window size is effected by distance, so those of us in the antipodes have a slower RationalWiki experience. - π 03:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ha, quite funny. But yes my blood alcohol/diazepam/codeine is fairly high right now. Ace McWickedModel 500 03:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to do it if you didn't, Pi. At least Ace has an excuse, his blood alcohol is probably in the .2 range right now. Wiki-stuttering is much worse than actual stuttering. When you're typing there's time to think about what you're trying to do, and nobody is watching you do it. If you can't get shit right in at least say....five tries, you're probably working with a double digit IQ.--PitchBlackMind Do or drown in torpor 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
A tad confused[edit]
It's nearly 4am (EST) and editing over at Cp isn't blocked. I thought "night" time was supposed to be from 1am-6am. Hmm.. don't mind my ramblings. Kix, they're not just for kids~ 07:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's OK, TK's on the case. Ace McWickedModel 500 09:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Billy Mays[edit]
Wasn't there something at CP a few weeks back treating pitchman Billy Mays as an exemplar of conservative values?
I wonder if the fact that cocaine use contributed to his death will change that? MDB (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Damn, that explains a lot about the way he acted. The man had a pharmacy in his bloodstream.--الملعب الاسود العقل Never betray the way you've always known it is 18:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- WHY ISN'T THIS THREAD IN UPPERCASE? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nice @ titmrtn.... ħuman
07:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nice @ titmrtn.... ħuman
- WHY ISN'T THIS THREAD IN UPPERCASE? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Who the Hell is ExFin?[edit]
Gunnar K. A. Njalsson; 14:23 . . (+569) . . ExFin (Talk | contribs) (Undo revision 690391 by [[Special:Contributions/DaleSveum Tracing through proxy to ISP. Undid vandalsim. Authorities contacted.)--and does he/she have checkuser? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's nearly a two year gap in his contributions, and he's not anywhere in the user-rights log, so I'd assume not.--EcheNegraMente I stay on point like icicles 18:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's what I thought--the tracing IP thing is BS, then? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that all the supposed "IP" tracking on Conservapedia is utter bullshit.
gnostic 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be BS even if he did have checkuser rights. I'm not very savvy with this stuff, but I don't think it's that simple to get past proxies and find someone's true IP. I could be wrong though.--الملعب الاسود العقل Hey vanity, this vial's empty 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed; a proxy wouldn't be much of a proxy if it was trivial to identify IP addresses the other side of it. The only real way to find out such information is to contact the owner of the proxy and say "someone was doing something to my site at time X, can you look in your logs and tell me who please?". Although I guess it's possible you might get that info with a suitably legal-sounding threat, I'm sceptical.. alt (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the Palin Mail Hacker was caught through exactly such a request, but I think I read it only worked so "easily" because, well, he hacked fricken PALIN's mail. Andy contacting a proxy or the FBI because someone questioned his dick size on an open wiki will likely lead to much laughter and little action. --Sid (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Most reasonably proxies will add an X-Forwarded-For header. However, as far as I know mediawiki doesn't record that, nor is it logged out of the box by most Apache installs. Also, deliberately anonymising services like TOR won't leave such things in your requests. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- ExFin seems like a sock of FOIA, especially with regard to the editing methods.
ListenerXTalkerX 20:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would bet serious money that ExFin is actually Gunnar K.A. Njalsson and his edits are vanity editing for himself and his so-called SPACEPOL publishing/consulting. There is no current SPACEPOL article at WP but there are multiple attempts to add redlinks for Njalsson and SPACEPOL at [wp:List of Manitobans] by an anon Finnish IP with other editors removing them for non-notability. The edit comments by BoN harp on about racism and anti-semitism when they are reinstated - evidently Njalsson is Jewish. One edit comment from BoN - User Kreegah (Multiple attempts at vandalism, ascertaining identity through local police) so this seems like a standard tactic against those who delete or making changes to his puff. Further searching shows that the original Spacepol article was deleted for "This is spam: it has been deleted from several other Wikipedias. This "company" most certainly is NOT worth an article in an encyclopedia, and has been deleted from several Wikis". It looks like he has also edited under the user names of Hanas06 (some detail here), and has inserted Spacepol/Njalsson links in various other articles (Think tanks, List of teetotalers, List of Canadian Jews, List of media proprietors). I note that Hanas06's last edit on WP was 9 August 2007 (hey, that's almost exactly 2 years ago, is it significant?) and he started at CP on 19 August 2007 with his user page "My Wikinightmare : I am a refugee of the Wikipedia edit wars. I gradually became disillusioned with the fact that "anyone or anything" was allowed to edit, regardless of how much (or how incredibly little) they knew about a subject.... and boy can some ignorant people be very arrogant! I think an encyclopedia should be a wholesome and intellectual hobby environment where everybody learns something through a respectful debate."
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 16:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's some nice detective work. Also, if we look at his CP page it says he needs to lose some weight. If we assume that Gunnar is the man in the background here, that would seem to correlate. EddyP (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- On second thoughts it might not be Gunnar Njalsson himself as this page mentions someone called Hans who "may respond to media queries as well". So it is probably his PA (I can't imagine there being too many other people involved with this). ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 17:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- On second thoughts it might not be Gunnar Njalsson himself as this page mentions someone called Hans who "may respond to media queries as well". So it is probably his PA (I can't imagine there being too many other people involved with this).
- That's some nice detective work. Also, if we look at his CP page it says he needs to lose some weight. If we assume that Gunnar is the man in the background here, that would seem to correlate. EddyP (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would bet serious money that ExFin is actually Gunnar K.A. Njalsson and his edits are vanity editing for himself and his so-called SPACEPOL publishing/consulting. There is no current SPACEPOL article at WP but there are multiple attempts to add redlinks for Njalsson and SPACEPOL at [wp:List of Manitobans] by an anon Finnish IP with other editors removing them for non-notability. The edit comments by BoN harp on about racism and anti-semitism when they are reinstated - evidently Njalsson is Jewish. One edit comment from BoN - User Kreegah (Multiple attempts at vandalism, ascertaining identity through local police) so this seems like a standard tactic against those who delete or making changes to his puff. Further searching shows that the original Spacepol article was deleted for "This is spam: it has been deleted from several other Wikipedias. This "company" most certainly is NOT worth an article in an encyclopedia, and has been deleted from several Wikis". It looks like he has also edited under the user names of Hanas06 (some detail here), and has inserted Spacepol/Njalsson links in various other articles (Think tanks, List of teetotalers, List of Canadian Jews, List of media proprietors). I note that Hanas06's last edit on WP was 9 August 2007 (hey, that's almost exactly 2 years ago, is it significant?) and he started at CP on 19 August 2007 with his user page "My Wikinightmare : I am a refugee of the Wikipedia edit wars. I gradually became disillusioned with the fact that "anyone or anything" was allowed to edit, regardless of how much (or how incredibly little) they knew about a subject.... and boy can some ignorant people be very arrogant! I think an encyclopedia should be a wholesome and intellectual hobby environment where everybody learns something through a respectful debate."
- ExFin seems like a sock of FOIA, especially with regard to the editing methods.
- Most reasonably proxies will add an X-Forwarded-For header. However, as far as I know mediawiki doesn't record that, nor is it logged out of the box by most Apache installs. Also, deliberately anonymising services like TOR won't leave such things in your requests. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the Palin Mail Hacker was caught through exactly such a request, but I think I read it only worked so "easily" because, well, he hacked fricken PALIN's mail. Andy contacting a proxy or the FBI because someone questioned his dick size on an open wiki will likely lead to much laughter and little action. --Sid (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed; a proxy wouldn't be much of a proxy if it was trivial to identify IP addresses the other side of it. The only real way to find out such information is to contact the owner of the proxy and say "someone was doing something to my site at time X, can you look in your logs and tell me who please?". Although I guess it's possible you might get that info with a suitably legal-sounding threat, I'm sceptical.. alt (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be BS even if he did have checkuser rights. I'm not very savvy with this stuff, but I don't think it's that simple to get past proxies and find someone's true IP. I could be wrong though.--الملعب الاسود العقل Hey vanity, this vial's empty 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that all the supposed "IP" tracking on Conservapedia is utter bullshit.
- That's what I thought--the tracing IP thing is BS, then? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
!HOW!TO!EXCLAIM!POINTS![edit]
In Ken's news points, I've noticed how he always adds exclamation marks at the end of his points when he's having a stab at something i.e. "Given the inadequacy of the atheist position, stuttering is hardly surprising!" Just say what you mean Kenny.
ATHEISM = BAD
Thanks for your time. PS - Hi, TK! SJ Debaser 20:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not to mention that he seems to have a balky "s" key on his keyboard; he uses singular forms in the place of plural ones with much regularity, as in the most recent example where he says "one of YouTube's most prominent atheist." ListenerXTalkerX 20:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. He does seem to have severe difficulty in editing coherently with punctuation - it usually takes him about 60 edits for one entry into how Obama's healthcare reforms will increase the spread of AIDS. SJ Debaser 20:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Stuttering? Then why do so many of the Christians in my church have a stuttering problem when talking about their faith? Or better yet, why do they fail to mention their faith at all? (in reference to "why don't you drink/have sex/do drugs/swear?" Silly Mr. Cat 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Stuttering in church? Doesn't that mean they're witches? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Stuttering? Then why do so many of the Christians in my church have a stuttering problem when talking about their faith? Or better yet, why do they fail to mention their faith at all? (in reference to "why don't you drink/have sex/do drugs/swear?" Silly Mr. Cat 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. He does seem to have severe difficulty in editing coherently with punctuation - it usually takes him about 60 edits for one entry into how Obama's healthcare reforms will increase the spread of AIDS. SJ Debaser 20:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Late to the convo, but what is the atheist position, given the known stance of the missionary position? ħuman 07:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- According to Kendoll, probably anal with another man. SJ Debaser 12:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Left hand... meet Right hand, you should talk[edit]
So, as fast as we have Smeg Ed and TightKnickers deleting "pop art" articles (PS Ed & TK - Ghibli is as much pop art as Assassin's Creed. Just thought I'd mention it. Get cracking now, you've got an "encyclopaedia" to break remember?), we have Kajagoogoo creatingimg articles on Batman's Joker... and they don't get much pop artier than that. Always nice to see a unified thug force in action. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wouldn't RJJ's cp:Leave It To Beaver also count as "pop culture"? Always nice to see consistency in action. --Sid (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh Lord, I can't believe that both of us didn't instantly remember this: Ed Poor + Pop Culture = "In Mudd's Women, Captain Kirk beams aboard a trader with an unusual cargo: three stupendously seductive women he says are to be wives for lonely men on frontier planets." --Sid (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I still prefer his version 1 of that masterpiece: "In Mudd's Women, Captain Kirk beams aboard an apparent interstellar pimp.img... with 'pimp' wiki-red-linked. Way to go building a family-friendly site, Creepy Uncle Ed. --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
| Articles deleted as being un-encyclopedic | |
|---|---|
| Article | Destroyer |
| Victoria Van Dyke | Aschlafly |
| Conservative Supremacist | Jpatt |
| Conservative hypocrisy | Jpatt |
| Treaty of Utrecht | Jpatt |
| James Joseph McGuiness sic | Ed Poor |
| Edward Ellis choose one | Ed Poor |
| William Murphy choose one | TK |
| The Ren and Stimpy Show | Aschlafly |
| J. R. "Bob" Dobbs | TK |
| Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis | RJJensen |
| Horston | Jpatt |
| Garibaldi Biscuits | TK |
| Full English Breakfast | TK |
| Case Closed | TK |
And there are some deletions which don't carry the un-encyclopedic label, but are just plain silly, e.g., cp:Stettin or cp:Beatrix of the Netherlands larronsicut fur in nocte 12:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wait... Treaty of Utrecht??!! Un-encyclopaedic??!! Palin's little stud-muffin thinks that's un-encyclopaedic? WTF? Is he a complete moron, or starting to show his parodist tendencies? --PsyWhut? 13:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's a pity! Now, you have to look up the entry of cp:Klemens von Metternich to get some insights on this treaty! larronsicut fur in nocte 13:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- That has to be a mistake. The Treaty of Utrecht was in like 1713. Metternich became prominent in the Napoleonic era, 100 years later. The word "Utrecht" doesn't even appear in Metternich's WP article. It's not just controversies; CP can't even get simple, basic facts right. Bluefish (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ach! larronsicut fur in nocte 13:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- *snerk* --Sid (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also on the Metternich article, Tordesillas was the treaty that divided the Americas between Spain and Portugal in 1492, Metternich had been out of office for 18 years and dead for 7 by the time Austria had to make peace with Bismarck's Prussia, and as far as I know Metternich had little involvement in military affairs and no impact on military science (here he may be being confused with Clausewitz.) So the article gets his name, lifespan, nationality and one of his most important achievements right, and everything else wildly, wildly wrong. Hurry up and burn it TK. Bil08 (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's a shame that this criticism is more likely to result in an improvement (i.e., deletion) of the article than my annotations at its talk page over a year ago... larronsicut fur in nocte 16:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- But wait! TK is "404 blocked" remember, so he can't read this to delete the article... unless... he was *gasp* lying like a cheap rug - again. --Psy - C20H25N3OYou know you want to 16:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's a shame that this criticism is more likely to result in an improvement (i.e., deletion) of the article than my annotations at its talk page over a year ago... larronsicut fur in nocte 16:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also on the Metternich article, Tordesillas was the treaty that divided the Americas between Spain and Portugal in 1492, Metternich had been out of office for 18 years and dead for 7 by the time Austria had to make peace with Bismarck's Prussia, and as far as I know Metternich had little involvement in military affairs and no impact on military science (here he may be being confused with Clausewitz.) So the article gets his name, lifespan, nationality and one of his most important achievements right, and everything else wildly, wildly wrong. Hurry up and burn it TK. Bil08 (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- *snerk* --Sid (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ach! larronsicut fur in nocte 13:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- That has to be a mistake. The Treaty of Utrecht was in like 1713. Metternich became prominent in the Napoleonic era, 100 years later. The word "Utrecht" doesn't even appear in Metternich's WP article. It's not just controversies; CP can't even get simple, basic facts right. Bluefish (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's a pity! Now, you have to look up the entry of cp:Klemens von Metternich to get some insights on this treaty! larronsicut fur in nocte 13:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is just a case of "Wikipedia has an article and it is a cesspool of liberal popular culture cruft, so we must eliminate our article.... - Poor Excuse (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, it was a kind of a stub, though ;-) larronsicut fur in nocte 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- TK...deleted..."Bob"?
- I SHALL HAVE MY REVENGE! His grandchildren's grandchildren* shall curse his name for the wrath he has invoked this daY!!!@!!1!! TK shall wish for death, and death will not find him! --Gulik (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- (Well, IF TK had any offspring.)
cp:User:OscarJ reads wigo! Terry Koeckritz: fetch larronsicut fur in nocte 06:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- FFS you guys! Don't you know when to keep your mouths shut? We all know there is parody and disinformation at CP but it is not our jobs to make it easy for the fuckwits to find. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Believe me, I learned my lesson: I thought that a subtle hint to the insights of the article on cp:Klemens von Metternich would be a way to share my joy. Won't do it again, promise! larronsicut fur in nocte 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yikes, didn't occur to me that it was parody, though looking again, it clearly is. Many apologies. Bluefish (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, last time I checked this whole WIGO CP thing was about two things - poking fun at stupid stuff at conservapedia, and (normally futiley) confronting the crap Andy puts on his site with the intent to get rid of it. By pointing out this parody we managed both. So where's the problem? Bil08 (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, "poking fun at stupid stuff at Conservapedia" is about poking fun at the stuff that Andy and his cronies write which is therefore immune from deletion. Highlighting stuff that other people have written which may or may not be true but still makes them look like the incompetent idiots which they are is better left in place. Highlighting stuff which then gets deleted is epic phail, you have made an improvement to CP by proxy which you might just as well have done using a proxy IP and changing it yourself. It's not our job to improve CP. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 13:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well why is it then that everytime somebody asks us to justify what goes on, some appeal to protecting the little homeschoolers picking up on bullshit is made? I understand why it might not apply in this case, as the mistakes were such that few could be tricked into believing them, and perhaps it highlighted the lax moderating standards on CP (which are not particularly interesting compared to the actual work of said moderators) but still, the statement "It's not our job to improve CP" seems a bit, well, false given other statements about what our "job" is. Bil08 (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, "poking fun at stupid stuff at Conservapedia" is about poking fun at the stuff that Andy and his cronies write which is therefore immune from deletion. Highlighting stuff that other people have written which may or may not be true but still makes them look like the incompetent idiots which they are is better left in place. Highlighting stuff which then gets deleted is epic phail, you have made an improvement to CP by proxy which you might just as well have done using a proxy IP and changing it yourself. It's not our job to improve CP.
- Actually, last time I checked this whole WIGO CP thing was about two things - poking fun at stupid stuff at conservapedia, and (normally futiley) confronting the crap Andy puts on his site with the intent to get rid of it. By pointing out this parody we managed both. So where's the problem? Bil08 (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yikes, didn't occur to me that it was parody, though looking again, it clearly is. Many apologies. Bluefish (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Believe me, I learned my lesson: I thought that a subtle hint to the insights of the article on cp:Klemens von Metternich would be a way to share my joy. Won't do it again, promise! larronsicut fur in nocte 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings WIGO enthusiasts[edit]
It has been suggested that it is time for another boycott. One week is usual, however Labour Day has been suggested, but given that is the second Monday of March, I was thinking 2 week? So usual poll click up to boycott. - π 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
   | 25 | Should we boycott CP? |
|
1 week |
1 |
|
|
|
2 weeks |
7 |
|
|
|
Until Labor Day (US/Canada - 1st Monday in September) |
9 |
|
|
|
Until Labour Day (Most of Australia - 2nd Monday of March) |
3 |
|
|
|
Until Labour Day (UK and a bunch of other places - 1 May) |
23 |
|
|
|
Until Mothering Sunday |
0 |
|
|
|
Goat |
34 |
|
|
|
Until Resurrection Sunday/Easter |
1 |
|
|
|
Until the Second Coming |
5 |
|
|
|
Until Christmas |
1 |
|
|
|
Until someone Rule 34'ed Conservapedia |
4 |
|
|
|
Until Labour Day (Ireland/northern parts of Australia - 1st Monday of May) |
0 |
|
|
|
Until Labour Day (Trinadad and Tobago - June 19) |
3 |
|
|
|
Until Labour Day (The Bahamas - First Friday of June) |
0 |
|
|
|
Until Labour Day (Jamaica - May 23) |
1 |
|
|
|
Until Labour Day (New Zealand - 4th Monday of October) |
2 |
|
- Personally I think its pointless. What'll it achieve? Ace McWickedModel 500 23:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- The general idea is to move away from CP not fix ourselves to it. The boycott is to give us time to work on and look at things that are not CP. Besides what are we going to miss TK blocking another 100,000 IP addresses? - π 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- And CP just hit a landmark on pageviews. We scoot away for a bit, Andy will start crying, "where did everyone go?"--Tabris (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Given several CP Sysops, and maybe Andy Pandy himself, read this page, I think that is very unlikely.Anus Deaton (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- "What'll it achieve" is actually an interesting question. I seriously seriously doubt there are more than a few non-core editors at CP. If "we" honestly approach a boycott I suspect editing at CP would grind to a standstill but for RJJ and the monomaniacs.
23:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- "What'll it achieve" is actually an interesting question. I seriously seriously doubt there are more than a few non-core editors at CP. If "we" honestly approach a boycott I suspect editing at CP would grind to a standstill but for RJJ and the monomaniacs.
- Given several CP Sysops, and maybe Andy Pandy himself, read this page, I think that is very unlikely.Anus Deaton (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- And CP just hit a landmark on pageviews. We scoot away for a bit, Andy will start crying, "where did everyone go?"--Tabris (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- The general idea is to move away from CP not fix ourselves to it. The boycott is to give us time to work on and look at things that are not CP. Besides what are we going to miss TK blocking another 100,000 IP addresses? - π 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
When does his next term start? tmtoulouse 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Next term of Conservapedian schooling starts some time in september featuring Conservapedian Economics. Perhaps we should have such an article before boycotting CP? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not really, you could work on it during the boycott. Gives you spare time if you are not reading WIGO or looking at CP to find good WIGO material. 192.43.227.18 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have vowed to my beloved Kettles to oppose any boycott of CP suggested. Boycotts kill our traffic, and half the fun here (after all, many are WIGO CP addicts), and accomplish nothing in terms of building the "rest of RW". Let's just work on the "rest of RW". Let's get wikisynergy to entertain us or something. IT DOES NOTHING, folks. Too many junkies still go there, puppeteers still stick their hands up their hose, so their edit rate doesn't change much. But our visit rate and new editor plummets. Many people here come for the "CP lulz", but stick around and fix little things, or make big things. Strangling ourselves is just asinine, "boycotting" CP has been shown by scien-fucking-tific evidence to hurt us more than them. The last boycott dropped our pageviews by like 50% and showed no obvious effect at CP. Personal boycotts are fine, of course. If you don't want to go there, don't. Killing WIGO CP for the sake of some disproved goal is cutting off our nose to spite our face. How about we put some cool RW links (like "random") at the top of WIGO CP to encourage new visitors to explore? Add "best of RW" above the WIGO items? Use our premier draw to promote the rest of the site? ħuman 07:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly would a boycott of CP entail? Shutting down WIGO CP for a couple of weeks? I'm not sure about the point of that exactly, especially if we give ourselves a time limit, as the Conservapedians will know we'll be back. I'd say do it permanently (or at least for two months) or not at all. SJ Debaser 12:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- DAY 1 Boycott starts. Edit rate here slows to a crawl.
- DAY 2 one or two people WIGO stuff from CP and get reminded of the boycott.
- DAYS 3-END OF BOYCOTT saloon bar gets filled up with people saying how boring RW has become.
- I don't follow WIGO CP much but still, I'm against the boycott. If you want to laugh at CP, do it. If not, don't. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, I'm with L-X, I really don't want to go too many days without Cp. And I sure as heck don't want to out my sock on there after I worked so hard on getting one. Fuzzy =^_^= 18:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is just an idea of mine. Instead of doing a long, boring boycott, why dont we agree not to go to CP on specific days. Let's say, for the next two months, no one goes to CP on Tuesdays and Thursdays. We do a graph that shows how CP pageviews drop on those days and we gloat over our supposed victory--Tabris (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, now we have WIGO aSK to enjoy. While we're turned away from CP we can give ol PJR some much needed page hits and sunlight.HumanisticJones (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is just an idea of mine. Instead of doing a long, boring boycott, why dont we agree not to go to CP on specific days. Let's say, for the next two months, no one goes to CP on Tuesdays and Thursdays. We do a graph that shows how CP pageviews drop on those days and we gloat over our supposed victory--Tabris (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, I'm with L-X, I really don't want to go too many days without Cp. And I sure as heck don't want to out my sock on there after I worked so hard on getting one. Fuzzy =^_^= 18:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't follow WIGO CP much but still, I'm against the boycott. If you want to laugh at CP, do it. If not, don't. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Counterexamples to an Old Earth[edit]
This is one of the most hilarious articles at CP, and now, it's vastly improved: Aschlafly got rid ofimg the {{fact}} tags - by, well, getting rid of them...
Two high-lights:
- freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young
- the existence of inland salt-water lakes, such as cp:Mono Lake and the cp:Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global cp:flood
--larronsicut fur in nocte 15:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- ...Lakes can form [at an arbitrary time] after the earth right? How would that suggest a young earth? (Andy never heard of water cycle?) I think Dead Sea is formed by geologic activity (closing up places accessible by sea); not sure about those lakes he mentioned though. The Moon orbit: ~384000km receding at 38 mm per year (assume linear receding) gives 5+ billion years (10 if you excludes the volume of the earth and the moon), more than enough to cover the age of the earth. Does Andy have data suggesting nonlinear increase in distance? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
To me, the opening line is the best: "It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule." He left out one very important phrase "proven counterexample." For example, before the Wright Brothers flew, the statement could be made, "heavy than air powered flight is impossible." Then Orville shows up and says "I just flew my airplane." You say, prove it. He says no. Yes, there is a counterexample, but it is unproven, UNTIL VERIFIED! Jimaginator (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not to mention that the inland saltwater lakes business stinks of presuppositionalism, which cannot be used in that context. ListenerXTalkerX 21:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, there IS evidence of a nonlinear increase in distance. The problem is, it's nonlinear in a way that contradicts Creationists--so they ignore it. The rate at which the moon is receding from the Earth is increasing as a result of tidal drag; thus, it was receding more slowly in the past. This is one of those examples where, no matter how many times the flaws are pointed out, Creationists ignore them and keep repeating it. --Phentari (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I still wonder how much of anything on CP is Andy's true beliefs or him just trying to convince himself, though I'm leaning toward the latter mostly out of hopeful optimism. If a part of something is younger than the whole, the whole is young too? Really, Andy? You must be lying about being 48 since your erythrocytes are at most only a few months old and some of your cells don't have shortened telomeres (let's see that birth certificate)! My apartment building was built in the early decades of the last century, but the windows are two years old. Does that make the building two years old? Apparently to Andy it does. It's another example of him taking the angle that is with such blatant obviousness the exact polar opposite of true. Yet he *always* denies that his claims can be turned on him- somehow it doesn't take only one counterexample to disprove the "theory" of a young Earth. Instead he says it's illogical and irrelevant to apply his own analysis to his own claims. Long story short, it's completely nonsensical stuff like those posts about anything young disproving that something else is old that pretty much convince me he's just in denial about not truly believing everything he wants to be able to believe. Kalliumtalk 03:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Andy's doing linguistics again...[edit]
He is at it again. He should just combine all his projects into "Conservative Word Analysis of the Bible Retranslation Project Concerning the Geometric Fit and the Triumph Over Liberalism". Ace McWickedModel 500 21:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well that earns a 'WTF?'. At this point I think Andy's given up on Conservapedia as an alt to Wikipedia and is just trolling for a fight so he can feel victimised and martyred, and ultimately justified (I wonder if he understands that such behaviour is just pure masturbation).--SW:TOR! SW:TOR! SW:TOR! (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- "The word 'expatiate' does not appear in the entire Bible, not even once." That means, um, something.
- Also, the Whirled History teacher confuses "nation" and "nation-state." "Nations didn't appear until long after Jesus." Why is that his point of reference for everything? Godspeed (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Quite right, Andy. Why bother reading complete sentences and finding out what the Bible actually says, when you can just count up words and use your 'findings' to support basically anything you want?
- A bit like Kabbalah, only stupider and requiring much less effort.--
Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 21:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. I wonder how many times "flagpole" appears in the OT? Of course Andy is working with a an English translation of teh bibble so his concordance analysis tells us nothing about the bibble but a lot about the vocabulary of the translators. What an utter moron he is. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 22:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Andy appears to be turning into one of those maddening Peter Cooke characters that no sane person would ever want to sit next to - "I've got a viper in this box". ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 22:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Andy appears to be turning into one of those maddening Peter Cooke characters that no sane person would ever want to sit next to - "I've got a viper in this box".
- Hmm. I wonder how many times "flagpole" appears in the OT? Of course Andy is working with a an English translation of teh bibble so his concordance analysis tells us nothing about the bibble but a lot about the vocabulary of the translators. What an utter moron he is.
Mark[edit]
The idea that the "certain young man" represents the author of Mark's Gospel is actually a fairly old, traditional piece of guesswork. At the very least, it's not an Andy Insight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14#The_garden_of_Gethsemane mentions it. Bluefish (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Haha, "The audience is for Gentiles." TK, tell Andy to fix that please. ħuman 01:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do not think anyone else used the presence of the word "certain" in that sentence to argue the point. ListenerXTalkerX 01:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't read Andy's post as though he was claiming anything about the word "certain" per se. Just that an allusion to "a certain young man", with no other information offered, is likely to refer to the author himself. Like "the disciple that Jesus loved" in John.--
Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 08:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Unlike the other disciples, who he hated deeply. Etc 09:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't read Andy's post as though he was claiming anything about the word "certain" per se. Just that an allusion to "a certain young man", with no other information offered, is likely to refer to the author himself. Like "the disciple that Jesus loved" in John.--
Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 08:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do not think anyone else used the presence of the word "certain" in that sentence to argue the point.
LowKey's CP Swansong[edit]
Well, hereimg is what will probably be my parting shot at CP. If anyone's interested. It's mild, but won't last long. Tricksy (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have a screen cap if you like. - π 03:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's well-stated, factually correct, and timely. Thanks for sharing Brad. I'm sure your prediction will be correct but that's not a project any person of conscience can associate with. 03:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like the ideal place to put them, actually. RJJ is the only person on the entire site with any expertise, credibility, or self-respect. What is he doing there again?
03:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Edit warred at WP and even Citizendium got fed up with his article ownership and total disregard for what others are contributing. Still twenty more of him and CP would have good quality conservative biased articles and might be stimulating to read, even if you don't fully agree. - π 03:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, that explains a great deal. Thanks for the background. 05:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, that explains a great deal. Thanks for the background.
- (EC2) Socrates: "For if you kill me you will not easily find another like me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the State by the Gods; and the State is like a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life." ListenerXTalkerX 03:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Edit warred at WP and even Citizendium got fed up with his article ownership and total disregard for what others are contributing. Still twenty more of him and CP would have good quality conservative biased articles and might be stimulating to read, even if you don't fully agree. - π 03:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like the ideal place to put them, actually. RJJ is the only person on the entire site with any expertise, credibility, or self-respect. What is he doing there again?
- It's well-stated, factually correct, and timely. Thanks for sharing Brad. I'm sure your prediction will be correct but that's not a project any person of conscience can associate with.
(OD) Jpatt just permablocked me, for nonsense/gibberish OR vandalism (take your pick, I guess). Nice to know I live in gold though (note: Aus, Auz, or Oz). Tricksy (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- That was quick. Don't lose any sleep over it. You've made good choices. I don't always agree with you but it took integrity to do that, for which I respect you. 03:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I do find this habit of CP sysops of burning all dissent particularly sickening. TK will have to find out about your sepaku from this page. Hi TK. 03:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- So it goes. One more pesky user out of the way. Normally I don't like to give Troll King the attention he so desperately craves, but the permaban was from Jpatt. Regarding RJJ, I really don't have any respect for him- he seems perfectly content to sit by and watch TK wreck the place, as long as he gets to write his articles. As a retired professor, he should find CP repugnant. Corry (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- The WIGO I posted of it wasn't very funny but I wanted to get a jump on it before it was burnt. Thanks to whoever changed it. Ace McWickedModel 500 04:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing, Bradley. See you (occasionally) at aSoK. ħuman 04:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the post has now been oversighted (I assume by TK). I notice though that only my post was oversighted, so the reversion is still there telling the world that something has been hidden (the wiki equivalent to a large bump in the rug). Also my CP account (which retains the username I have everywhere else but here) is apparently a sock of my my account here, even though I actually put my real name to LowKey, and openly identified myself here. "Sock" appears to be TK's "inconveivable!". As in "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Also, CP's privacy policy states "Conservapedia does not sell or share any information about users, except as necessary to report obscenity or vandalism to authorities." Any bets on when that will be, er , modified. Tricksy (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- TK, your cowardice is showing. Pull up your knickers. 05:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- (EC) Do you want your name here changed to LowKey, now that you are permabanned at Conservapedia? ListenerXTalkerX 05:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ooh ooh, all the crats line up for the opportunity to do something "useful"! Choose me choose me! Or else I can go back to sysopping everyone who has been here for four days/twelve edits... ħuman 05:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Human is just jealous that I beat him to renaming FA. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 15:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ooh ooh, all the crats line up for the opportunity to do something "useful"! Choose me choose me! Or else I can go back to sysopping everyone who has been here for four days/twelve edits... ħuman
- (EC) Do you want your name here changed to LowKey, now that you are permabanned at Conservapedia?
- TK, your cowardice is showing. Pull up your knickers.
- Well, the post has now been oversighted (I assume by TK). I notice though that only my post was oversighted, so the reversion is still there telling the world that something has been hidden (the wiki equivalent to a large bump in the rug). Also my CP account (which retains the username I have everywhere else but here) is apparently a sock of my my account here, even though I actually put my real name to LowKey, and openly identified myself here. "Sock" appears to be TK's "inconveivable!". As in "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Also, CP's privacy policy states "Conservapedia does not sell or share any information about users, except as necessary to report obscenity or vandalism to authorities." Any bets on when that will be, er , modified. Tricksy (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing, Bradley. See you (occasionally) at aSoK. ħuman
- The WIGO I posted of it wasn't very funny but I wanted to get a jump on it before it was burnt. Thanks to whoever changed it. Ace McWickedModel 500 04:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- So it goes. One more pesky user out of the way. Normally I don't like to give Troll King the attention he so desperately craves, but the permaban was from Jpatt. Regarding RJJ, I really don't have any respect for him- he seems perfectly content to sit by and watch TK wreck the place, as long as he gets to write his articles. As a retired professor, he should find CP repugnant. Corry (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Active users[edit]
I noticed we currently have 136 active users and CP has 83. If we subtract the bots and people that walked out just after they walked in I would say we have at least 120 users regularly. If CP has blocked just 23 users who have edited in the last week, we are now twice as large as they are. Can we have some stats, please Larron, to confirm this? - π 03:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Glad to be able to oblige:
- there is quite a drop in the number of active editors at CP over the last thirty days
- Juli/August are generally the slowest months at CP
- since a couple of days, RW's numbers of active editors are better than CP's.
- however, taking into account only the editors who are currently not blocked, RW surpassed CP quite a while ago....
larronsicut fur in nocte 10:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks LArron. - π 10:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Ever notice...[edit]
Tk deletes the Jewish category, stating they do not identify by religion. They keep the Muslim category, yet Obama (who they claim night and day is one) isn't listed there.--Tabris (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- How about a "Possible Muslims" or "Suspected Muslims" category just for him? Etc 08:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure I saw that suggested as a category before. SJ Debaser 12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- How about Known muslims for Obama, and Suspected muslims for everyone else (ie people like Osama, Ayatollah Khomeini, Ahmedinejad, Ali, etc). --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure I saw that suggested as a category before. SJ Debaser 12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Largest Econ Class[edit]
Does Andy mention the actual number of students that are enrolled in his econ class? The econ 2010 course I took my freshman year of college had at least 90-100 students, and nearly all of them were teenagers.--EcheNegraMente When you're a star, I know you'll fix everything 04:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- After an argument he will add the words pre-college, this happened last time. - π 04:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- A great Schlafly statistic in the "course" description: "Among over 70 students who have taken this course, 100% of those who took the CLEP exam passed it to qualify for college credit." Wow, from within a group of 70, all of a subset containing an unspecified number of students that took an easy test passed it. That's like bragging that out of all 500 books you own, you've completed all the ones you read. Only 498 to go! This bookshelf is growing rapidly! Kalliumtalk 04:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- From my sit-ins, there were probably about 40% (at best) who would be capable of taking the CLEP. But based on the confidence levels and desired professions (most being gold-digging housewives), there may only be 20% who would actually take it. I'm being generous with my numbers. Silly Mr. Cat 05:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know how wide spread the practice is, but here private schools are known for selectively weeding out and discouraging students from taking the final exam if they look like they are going to do bad. The end result being some expensive school has the only class in the state that had all full marks in a course with only about 4 students in it. - π 05:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- But then Andy would only be able to preemptively claim liberal bias. Or is it better to have students fail? I'm so confused. 05:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe only Andy's strongest students can be exposed to the bias of the CLEP exam least their faith becomes tainted. - π 05:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- But then Andy would only be able to preemptively claim liberal bias. Or is it better to have students fail? I'm so confused.
- I don't know how wide spread the practice is, but here private schools are known for selectively weeding out and discouraging students from taking the final exam if they look like they are going to do bad. The end result being some expensive school has the only class in the state that had all full marks in a course with only about 4 students in it. - π 05:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- From my sit-ins, there were probably about 40% (at best) who would be capable of taking the CLEP. But based on the confidence levels and desired professions (most being gold-digging housewives), there may only be 20% who would actually take it. I'm being generous with my numbers. Silly Mr. Cat 05:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- A great Schlafly statistic in the "course" description: "Among over 70 students who have taken this course, 100% of those who took the CLEP exam passed it to qualify for college credit." Wow, from within a group of 70, all of a subset containing an unspecified number of students that took an easy test passed it. That's like bragging that out of all 500 books you own, you've completed all the ones you read. Only 498 to go! This bookshelf is growing rapidly! Kalliumtalk 04:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Question: Does Andy has a habit of changing the lecture as he teaches, or is there some expected finalizing date (like he'll stop changing them when the term starts)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 10:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's quite amusing to watch student's answers being incorporated into his "lectures" after they've been given. I suppose that this is a good thing though - shows he's willing to learn<snorkle>. I am eating
& honeychat 10:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Here's a question for people who have been around longer than I- before the US history class, did Andy push his notion that large classes are better, and that teachers only like small classes so the librul teachers unions can hire more libruls? When he bragged about his big history class, and we challenged him on it, he made up a big fistful of reasons that small classes = librul = bad. Jazzman will remember this, if he's luring, and probably Spiny. Corry (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've never understood Andy's position on this. After all surely one of the advantages of private schooling, homeschooling or tutoring is the better teacher/student ratio. It's normally the poorer inner city schools which have large class sizes. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 11:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm working from fuzzy memory here, but I honestly don't remember Andy ever making the argument that large classes are better prior to his bragging. (Which is why most of us were so surprised at it - we're used to Andy's bullshit claims, but they are normally at least halfway consistent over time.) Indeed, one of the few actual advantages of homeschooling I could think of would be the "class" size since regular homeschooling (as opposed to Andy's "Homeschooling is just like public school with large classes, but without a properly certified teacher") usually has a teacher/student ratio in the 1:1 area (maybe 1:2 if you got siblings).— Unsigned, by: Sid / talk / contribs
- Andy is consistent only until it serves him to be otherwise. Remember that liberal den if iniquity known as Wheaton College? ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 11:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Andy is consistent only until it serves him to be otherwise. Remember that liberal den if iniquity known as Wheaton College?
- I've never understood Andy's position on this. After all surely one of the advantages of private schooling, homeschooling or tutoring is the better teacher/student ratio. It's normally the poorer inner city schools which have large class sizes. Yes, but that's ordinary teachers (probably Liberals withal) you're referring to, not the Great Educationalist. Fretfulporpentine (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Simple: Andy is boasting his teaching ability by saying "I can teach a class twice as big as these public school teachers and the students are getting better scores in standardized tests!" Which reminded me about a certain argument about sizes of guns. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, this is one of those classic cases where Andy gets called out and proceeds to construct a huge, erroneous logical framework to avoid criticism. He brags about having a huge class. We question the pedagogical benefit of that. He makes up a lot of reasons that large classes are better, none holding up to scrutiny. We push back, he makes up conspiracies and threatens to ban. Those were the good old days. Now everybody just gets immediately banned for speaking out of turn. Corry (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I loved the bigger classes=better classes argument, since it was soooo obviously self serving, and made Andy create some wonderfully retarded arguments. Like his argument "bigger classes are better because they allow for better interaction between students". And when people commented on this (like "student interaction isn't really useful during a lecture with 100 students") he'd throw a classic Andy hissy fit and call everyone liberals, proving his argument correct. Good times indeed --GTac (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The only advantage that I can see from a large homeschooling class is all the extra prayer power that is generated. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 11:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- And all the extra money Andy gets for no extra teaching hours. - π 11:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The only advantage that I can see from a large homeschooling class is all the extra prayer power that is generated.
- I loved the bigger classes=better classes argument, since it was soooo obviously self serving, and made Andy create some wonderfully retarded arguments. Like his argument "bigger classes are better because they allow for better interaction between students". And when people commented on this (like "student interaction isn't really useful during a lecture with 100 students") he'd throw a classic Andy hissy fit and call everyone liberals, proving his argument correct. Good times indeed --GTac (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, this is one of those classic cases where Andy gets called out and proceeds to construct a huge, erroneous logical framework to avoid criticism. He brags about having a huge class. We question the pedagogical benefit of that. He makes up a lot of reasons that large classes are better, none holding up to scrutiny. We push back, he makes up conspiracies and threatens to ban. Those were the good old days. Now everybody just gets immediately banned for speaking out of turn. Corry (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Simple: Andy is boasting his teaching ability by saying "I can teach a class twice as big as these public school teachers and the students are getting better scores in standardized tests!" Which reminded me about a certain argument about sizes of guns. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 12:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm working from fuzzy memory here, but I honestly don't remember Andy ever making the argument that large classes are better prior to his bragging. (Which is why most of us were so surprised at it - we're used to Andy's bullshit claims, but they are normally at least halfway consistent over time.) Indeed, one of the few actual advantages of homeschooling I could think of would be the "class" size since regular homeschooling (as opposed to Andy's "Homeschooling is just like public school with large classes, but without a properly certified teacher") usually has a teacher/student ratio in the 1:1 area (maybe 1:2 if you got siblings).— Unsigned, by: Sid / talk / contribs
- I've never understood Andy's position on this. After all surely one of the advantages of private schooling, homeschooling or tutoring is the better teacher/student ratio. It's normally the poorer inner city schools which have large class sizes.
- Here's a question for people who have been around longer than I- before the US history class, did Andy push his notion that large classes are better, and that teachers only like small classes so the librul teachers unions can hire more libruls? When he bragged about his big history class, and we challenged him on it, he made up a big fistful of reasons that small classes = librul = bad. Jazzman will remember this, if he's luring, and probably Spiny. Corry (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
debating the real issues[edit]
Quite a bizarre little debate going on concerning Dungeons and Dragons and how this is somehow linked to liberal indoctrination...only on CP Jammy (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- An interesting point is brought up; namely, that even the good charecters go around mudering and pillaging, and no one seems to have a problem with this. Its always bothered me about D&D that the "good guys" have a pretty fair latitude when it comes to mayhem, all because of their "good" status. Z3rotalk 15:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- 'Twas always thus. When Roy Rogers killed he wasn't a murderer because he was one of the Good Guys and wore a white hat. It's just another version of the 'Bang, bang, you're dead' games I played as a youngster back in the dark ages and any attempt to place any morality in it is pointless. Bob Soles (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- All good characters go around murdering and stealing (in fantasy/action/sci fi stuff). Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, everyone in LOTR, Picard, Kirk, Leslie Nielson in the Naked Gun films (does he kill anyone in Police Squad? I can't remember) etc... I guess the idea is that if the good guy is fighting someone, the person they're fighting is considered bad, and thus deserves to die, whereas if the bad guys are fighting/killing, the people they're fighting/killing are good and/or innocent, and thus don't deserve to die. Whatever the reasoning, it's been a standard part of basically any story that involves violence through all history, even the Bible. X Stickman (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe what bothers me is the acceptance of it within the game by the players; you jsut destroyed an entire town fighting that dragon? Here's a medal! To me, it kind of breaks the illusion, when I don't believe what is going on. But point taken about how this infects every story that involves violence, ever. Z3rotalk 15:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think The Order of the Stick does a pretty good job of explaining it--if there's an afterlife, what's so bad about dying, aside from the fact it usually hurts? --Gulik (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe what bothers me is the acceptance of it within the game by the players; you jsut destroyed an entire town fighting that dragon? Here's a medal! To me, it kind of breaks the illusion, when I don't believe what is going on. But point taken about how this infects every story that involves violence, ever. Z3rotalk 15:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- All good characters go around murdering and stealing (in fantasy/action/sci fi stuff). Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, everyone in LOTR, Picard, Kirk, Leslie Nielson in the Naked Gun films (does he kill anyone in Police Squad? I can't remember) etc... I guess the idea is that if the good guy is fighting someone, the person they're fighting is considered bad, and thus deserves to die, whereas if the bad guys are fighting/killing, the people they're fighting/killing are good and/or innocent, and thus don't deserve to die. Whatever the reasoning, it's been a standard part of basically any story that involves violence through all history, even the Bible. X Stickman (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- 'Twas always thus. When Roy Rogers killed he wasn't a murderer because he was one of the Good Guys and wore a white hat. It's just another version of the 'Bang, bang, you're dead' games I played as a youngster back in the dark ages and any attempt to place any morality in it is pointless. Bob Soles (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm tempted to jump into the BenP/TheHeroExcelsior debate and claim that Second Amendment rights extend to virtual weapons. Plus, these games teach appropriately aggressive and pre-emptive defensive strategies to young people! Or am I the only one who sees irony in this? --Simple (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not to mention that D&D has a medieval theme and, as everybody knows the Middle Ages were wonderful. Godspeed (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- BS, D&D is so liberal. Look at the two classes that traditionally have the highest intelligence, the Wizard and the Rouge. Typical heroes of liberal values, a satanic magic user and a theif (obviously a representation of redistributing the wealth). Also they have clerics from all religions that are just as effective (typical of liberals, believing that all cultures are equal). They don't even have different starting stats for Boys and Girls, ingraining that there is no difference between the genders. Deny this and lose credibility! HumanisticJones (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, Poe's Law is operating with a vengeance. I want to believe that at least one of these two is a parodist. I really, REALLY want to believe that. I'm not sure I DO believe it, and I'm not sure which one is the parodist if so...especially since I remember more-or-less the same argument on their D&D talk page (conservatives who play the game versus conservatives who think Jack Chick comics are investigative reporting.) --Phentari (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good times. Barikada (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, Poe's Law is operating with a vengeance. I want to believe that at least one of these two is a parodist. I really, REALLY want to believe that. I'm not sure I DO believe it, and I'm not sure which one is the parodist if so...especially since I remember more-or-less the same argument on their D&D talk page (conservatives who play the game versus conservatives who think Jack Chick comics are investigative reporting.) --Phentari (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- BS, D&D is so liberal. Look at the two classes that traditionally have the highest intelligence, the Wizard and the Rouge. Typical heroes of liberal values, a satanic magic user and a theif (obviously a representation of redistributing the wealth). Also they have clerics from all religions that are just as effective (typical of liberals, believing that all cultures are equal). They don't even have different starting stats for Boys and Girls, ingraining that there is no difference between the genders. Deny this and lose credibility! HumanisticJones (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Economics Homework[edit]
So, I was reading the changes Andy was making to his economics lecture, specifically the homework questions, and I forgot for a second what website I was on. I read the question "6. There are many parables by Jesus that use familiar concepts of money and economics in order to teach a deeper, more profound spiritual point. Pick one if these parables and discuss it" and thought, wow, that would be a tough one (mostly because jesus deals little with economics). I was thinking how I would go about answering it, and how many paragraphs I would need, then I remembered it's CP. The answer "jesus multiplied fish, therefore there is no scarcity" would probably get full credit. Again, being fair, the answer "I don't know" would probably get an 8/10. Z3rotalk 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is moar!img [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
TK to the rescue[edit]
Poor old JM (who insists on using his real name, despite its unAmerican accents) Can't log on. Well known computing expert TK is on the job!img. I am eating & honeychat 00:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The only way he can help is if Andy has given him server access, which I don't doubt he is stupid enough to do. - π 00:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- By the way the regex /^[0-9][a-z][A-Z]/ is probably part of the problem, TK. - π 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- We knew that, but did you have to tell him? I am eating & honeychat 00:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Now I think of it, the original name was corrupted during the server swap due to it not being standard character, the account won't exist any more and you can't recreate it due to the aforementioned regex in the blacklist. I'll send you a bill for my services. - π 00:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- How does that regex match JM's name? — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 00:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- haha...i thought I was taking crazy pills for a second. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 01:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- btw, wtf is "(?i:"? Some variation on non-capture? — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 01:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think they are trying to make it case-insensitive. They are using a ridiculously old extension, which has no ability to fine tune to certain levels and uses a non-perl based regex system. - π 01:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad un-mercan symbols can be used again. Too bad they'll never figure out how to block it...çŏçќšůčќëṝš. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- There are a few better tricks than that. - π 02:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- ¡ǝɹɐ ʎ1ǝɹns ǝɹǝɥʇ 'pǝǝpuı Etc 05:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Are you from 4chan, or did you see that link on ChrisZ's page about textflip? Kix, they're not just for kids~ 06:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure where I got the link from the first time, I think you find it if you just google "upside-down text" or something like that. Etc 11:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Are you from 4chan, or did you see that link on ChrisZ's page about textflip? Kix, they're not just for kids~ 06:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- ¡ǝɹɐ ʎ1ǝɹns ǝɹǝɥʇ 'pǝǝpuı Etc 05:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- There are a few better tricks than that. - π 02:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad un-mercan symbols can be used again. Too bad they'll never figure out how to block it...çŏçќšůčќëṝš. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think they are trying to make it case-insensitive. They are using a ridiculously old extension, which has no ability to fine tune to certain levels and uses a non-perl based regex system. - π 01:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- btw, wtf is "(?i:"? Some variation on non-capture? — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 01:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- haha...i thought I was taking crazy pills for a second. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 01:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- How does that regex match JM's name? — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 00:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Now I think of it, the original name was corrupted during the server swap due to it not being standard character, the account won't exist any more and you can't recreate it due to the aforementioned regex in the blacklist. I'll send you a bill for my services. - π 00:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- We knew that, but did you have to tell him? I am eating
- By the way the regex /^[0-9][a-z][A-Z]/ is probably part of the problem, TK. - π 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of TK[edit]
All those additional facts were just distracting the read from the ad hominem . - π 00:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Oh I see the problem it is TK's article.
- Just above JM's plea for help - "Higher Union wages are offset, for the most part, by higher tax brackets and mandatory union dues". Showing TK is just as economically illiterate as Andy. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 05:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- He's just toeing the conservative line against paying people a living wage. Remember, all minimum wage earners are teenagers! (I lived off two barely-above min wage jobs, working 60 hours a week (roughly 30 each), in my twenties...) I think I might made over ten thousand dollars while doing that for a year. That's a lot of money! (Unless you have to fix your car or something). ħuman 05:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mandatory union dues are, essentially, the unions being given a free pass by the State to be subsidized by industry. Like any other money obtained in such an underhanded manner, it is not used all that well. ListenerXTalkerX 05:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, you've got a corrupt union official to contraverse all union activity ever! You know what, there is a battle going on between Capital and Labor. Ironically, without Labor, Capital cannot create wealth. So why should Labor not get a seat at the table? And get paid well enough to potentially have their kids become successful Capitalists? ħuman 06:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- On the other hand, without capital, labor is not given sufficient direction to execute the large-scale achievements made in industry.
- If labor is to have a seat at the proverbial table, labor should take some of the loss if labor makes a bad decision. The union brass currently go entirely scot-free in this regard. ListenerXTalkerX 06:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- And when a major industry nearly goes tits-up (like, say the American auto industry), Labor should...? --Gulik (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Buy the capitalist pigs out with their own net worth, and try to run the company properly? ħuman 06:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- My main point of issue was that somehow your higher pay-rate is magically disappeared by the higher tax bracket? One wonders why executives bother taking any more than the minimum wage themselves if that's the case. And while I'm no supporter of the excesses that some unions exercised during the 70s and 80s, without them the weakest members of our society would be even further exploited. Many jobs require membership of a professional body, (law, medicine etc.) which then lobbies for the rights of its members and I don't see why a similar argument cannot be applied to those at the other end of the pay/social scale. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 07:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- My main point of issue was that somehow your higher pay-rate is magically disappeared by the higher tax bracket? One wonders why executives bother taking any more than the minimum wage themselves if that's the case. And while I'm no supporter of the excesses that some unions exercised during the 70s and 80s, without them the weakest members of our society would be even further exploited. Many jobs require membership of a professional body, (law, medicine etc.) which then lobbies for the rights of its members and I don't see why a similar argument cannot be applied to those at the other end of the pay/social scale.
- Buy the capitalist pigs out with their own net worth, and try to run the company properly? ħuman
- And when a major industry nearly goes tits-up (like, say the American auto industry), Labor should...? --Gulik (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, you've got a corrupt union official to contraverse all union activity ever! You know what, there is a battle going on between Capital and Labor. Ironically, without Labor, Capital cannot create wealth. So why should Labor not get a seat at the table? And get paid well enough to potentially have their kids become successful Capitalists? ħuman
- Mandatory union dues are, essentially, the unions being given a free pass by the State to be subsidized by industry. Like any other money obtained in such an underhanded manner, it is not used all that well.
- He's just toeing the conservative line against paying people a living wage. Remember, all minimum wage earners are teenagers! (I lived off two barely-above min wage jobs, working 60 hours a week (roughly 30 each), in my twenties...) I think I might made over ten thousand dollars while doing that for a year. That's a lot of money! (Unless you have to fix your car or something). ħuman
What's Newt on about now?[edit]
As a UK citizen I am rather puzzled by CPs link to an article by Newt Gingrich in which he shouts about the evils of NICE and the NHS. I didn't see any sources cited myself, so I was wondering if anyone had read anything that backs him up? Jammy (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's probably true that NICE won't fund any drug therapy that costs more than that but provides less benefit. That's called a cost/benefit analysis, and anyone who don't think that private insurance companies do exactly the same thing are incredibly naive. This completely ignore the issue, which is if it is better to go with an egalitarian system based on need or a darwinian system based on the ability to pay. I know which I prefer. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say private insurance would be worse for it. With cost/benefit analysis, governments work on people's contribution to society, tax etc. etc. so a person is "worth" something like
$2 millioncouple of thousand or maybe hundred thousand (it's an abstract thing but I recall a big-ish fuss when the US officially wiped 10% of the value of an american citizen for various reasons), but with insurance, they'd just be the bottom line of the premium they're paying, which will be much, much, much less.gnostic 13:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC) - Some article in Time about it gnostic 13:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone knows that NICE does that kind of thing, but the point is that Gingrich has twisted it so far beyond reality. Jammy (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Newt's article ends up - go ask a British citizen if it's worth it. Well, by a huge majority, the citizens of the UK support the NHS, and, although we don't always like the NICE decisions, in general we understand the need. Bob Soles (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I liked this comment: "Hey, doesn't Stephen Hawking have the British government-run health care plan? How is he getting along?" Cantabrigian (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just back from an appointment with my GP, it's a long story. He suggested I needed an operation ASAP, and would have to rush to hospital. I finally got through the front doors of the hospital after pushing through the rotting carcasses of the disabled (the socialist undertaker's union had decided that it was much more productive for the motherland if undertakers concentrated on feeding the tasty youthful dead into meat grinders for rationing) where I was greeted by a half-dead victim of an accident resulting in double amputation, crawling out on his bloody stumps after being deemed unable to continue operations at the butter scone factory. After queuing for 17 hours I was finally able to check in, stating my ailment. The 746 bureaucrats at the desk then convened together, voting to take a strike against their foul treatment at the hands of bad-mannered customers, but fortunately one of them pointed me in the direction of the testing chamber, and as I walked away I caught a glimpse of red and blue stripes under her sleeve, and she gave me a knowing wink. A glimmer of hope, brief but wonderful.
- I liked this comment: "Hey, doesn't Stephen Hawking have the British government-run health care plan? How is he getting along?" Cantabrigian (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Newt's article ends up - go ask a British citizen if it's worth it. Well, by a huge majority, the citizens of the UK support the NHS, and, although we don't always like the NICE decisions, in general we understand the need. Bob Soles (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone knows that NICE does that kind of thing, but the point is that Gingrich has twisted it so far beyond reality. Jammy (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say private insurance would be worse for it. With cost/benefit analysis, governments work on people's contribution to society, tax etc. etc. so a person is "worth" something like
- The worst now began. Cleric Muhammed Yusuf Hussein (a man who I knew had recently been made Commisar for Health, a stepping stone to a seat on the Islamic Council currently covertly running Britain) had decided to personally carry out the testing. The intelligence test went well enough, and I was able to recite all 14 verses of the Qoran that he requested along with all ten points of the Communist Manifesto without pause. Not that I'd be able to pause for thought anyway, after the compulsory thought-monitoring-chip/remote-bomb insertion act of 2005. But it came down to reflexes in the end. Apparently I was in the lowest 25% of the country for reflexes, and given that my only possible career had already been narrowed down to "Ministerial bullet catcher" Hussein decided that the operating team would be better used mopping the floors of our city's new mega-super mosque.
- Walking slowly back outside the building I saw through a window the resistance fighter from earlier being excecuted publicly by the police, which was perfectly legal thanks to the pro-terrorism act. I kept my tears to myself. But one thought, one dreamy hypothetical as I trudged down the litter-coated roads to the forced euthanasia end of life service. If only, somehow, Orwell could be here today, to condemn this far-left, egalitarian, socialist, nightmare. Thank you. Bil08 (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- P.S It happened here! Bil08 (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, here's one thing that Newt misses - the NICE recommendations are just that, RECOMMENDATIONS. This means that if a hospital thinks that NICE got it wrong, they can ignore them. Another thing he misses is that the figure he quotes is not an absolute. It actually goes up in a sort of S curve, like this - http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/NICE_small.jpg (lifted from http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2008/08/nice-job-cost-e.html). This means that it is more likely that the treatment will be rejected if it costs above $45,000 dollars per year, but, even going all the way up $100,000+ per year, it never gets to the stage where a treatment will DEFINITELY be rejected. A third thing is that this isn't per patient, it's per treatment. This means that, taking Newt's figure of $45k as being absolute, which it's not, a patient with multiple conditions or problems that need, say, seven different drug treatments plus physiotherapy isn't restricted to $45k per year, but $360k per year ($45k for each individual drug, plus $45k for the physiotherapy). A fourth thing that he misses is that the fact that NICE rejected a treatment as being too expensive has, on occasion, caused the drug companies to lower the price so it will get accepted - which results in cheaper, more efficient health care with no loss in treatments available. 92.2.179.16 17:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, this is anecdotal (but true):
- NHS X-ray : no charge
- NHS full-body MRI scan : no charge
- NHS multiple blood tests : no charge
- NHS bone marrow biposy : no charge
- NHS three-week course of radiotherapy : no charge
- NHS multiple consultations with orthopaedic consultant : no charge
- NHS excision of tumour and affected bone from upper arm : no charge
- NHS four-day hospital stay : no charge
- NHS post-operative physiotherapy : no charge
- NHS course of chemotherapy : no charge
- NHS monthly lambda-kappa protein analyses :no charge
- NHS fitting of solid titanium prosthesis in upper arm : no charge
- NHS multiple consultations with oncology consultant : no charge
- NHS stem cell transplant : no charge
- NHS consultations with transplant consultant : no charge
- NHS 30 day hospital stay in isolation room : no charge
- NHS ambulance transfer between hospitals : no charge
- NHS all hospital drugs : no charge
- NHS bi-monthly intravenous medication for five years : no charge
- NHS one year of outpatient prescription drugs : £90
(or if you live in Wales : no charge )(at that time the Welsh exemption had not been implemented, that's why it is only one year)
- Enough said. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 17:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reminds me of the Republican supporter who went to live in France and bitched and moaned about the high taxes he was forced to pay to keep the health system running, right up to the point where he needed surgery (I think it was for his knee). At that point he changed his mind, stating that if this happened in the States he would have been swamped with documents and bills, whereas in France the only paperwork he had to worry about was a bill for just over €4, a bill he gladly paid without questioning what it was for.--SW:TOR! SW:TOR! SW:TOR! (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've tried to write something here about 4 times now and failed. Thanks, Genghis for that one. If it weren't for the NHS, I'd almost certainly be dead now. Chemotherapy, scans Hospital stays & operations - not to mention the prescription drugs I'm on now would have definitely have topped the £200,000 mark (my friend's was a nurse & has been able to cost some of them). The case GK talks of sounds more like £106. People like Newt (what a lovely name; does he know our Mr. Livingstone, I wonder) make me feel positively murderous. I am eating & honeychat 19:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you mean this guy, it was cancer. --Gulik (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's the one, thnx, I remembered reading about it in the Guardian years back, but just spent 3 fruitless hours going through their computer archives trying to find the story.--SW:TOR! SW:TOR! SW:TOR! (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've tried to write something here about 4 times now and failed. Thanks, Genghis for that one. If it weren't for the NHS, I'd almost certainly be dead now. Chemotherapy, scans Hospital stays & operations - not to mention the prescription drugs I'm on now would have definitely have topped the £200,000 mark (my friend's was a nurse & has been able to cost some of them). The case GK talks of sounds more like £106. People like Newt (what a lovely name; does he know our Mr. Livingstone, I wonder) make me feel positively murderous. I am eating
- Reminds me of the Republican supporter who went to live in France and bitched and moaned about the high taxes he was forced to pay to keep the health system running, right up to the point where he needed surgery (I think it was for his knee). At that point he changed his mind, stating that if this happened in the States he would have been swamped with documents and bills, whereas in France the only paperwork he had to worry about was a bill for just over €4, a bill he gladly paid without questioning what it was for.--SW:TOR! SW:TOR! SW:TOR! (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
An almost too-good-to-be-true follow up to the earlier comment about Hawking: If Hawking were British, he'd be dead by now. alt (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nice hit, Alt! Hilarious... ħuman 23:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Liberal denials about history and Gestapo-Care[edit]
Does anyone else think the caption on the Gestapocare page is just a tad (only a tad) racist? Oh, and another thing, has anyone made a page with rebuttals to their "Liberal denials about history" page? Because if not, then I would be more then happy to start it. --Passerby25 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Go for it! --Gulik (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not so racist as offensive. Do those idjits even know what the real Gestapo did? It certainly wasn't to reform health care. Czolgolz (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- An article about a half-cooked idea? An irrelevant picture? A "funny" (for loose definition of funny, very firmly in scare quotes) caption? Why, I've never seen this being done in encyclopaedias, but I have certainly seen this done in blogs. *cough* incaseanyoneasks. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
This whole thing reminds me of what Churchill said about how the Labour party of 1945 was going to have to implement it's policies only with the use of a Gestapo. I would point out how wrong he was, but in Conservoland he was clearly, completely correct. Bil08 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- A tad racist? Yes. Virulently racist like the Obama entry? Not in the same league. And everything those idiots know about the Gestapo most likely came from watching Hogan's Heroes re-runs.--Simple (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The Spite Is Flowing Vapidly[edit]
The July installation of the series started here and here. This time entirely in green, the color of life, youth, health, and hope, as befits a site as vibrant and energetic as the revolutionary awakening that is Conservapedia. Also, better legends. Please enjoy. You suck. I hate you. 01:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the graphs! Interesting how the number of editors per month fell to an all-time low in July 2009. Just a question: users active this month but not banned at the end of it... Did you really check the blocking status of the editors at the end of each month? Or is it the number of active users who are not banned today? BTW, I don't think that this makes much of a difference, as there are only a few short blocks. larronsicut fur in nocte 13:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The number of editors may actually go up over the next couple of weeks. The numbers from last summer seem to suggest that some of the recent decline may have been seasonal. I really checked each editor's blocking status at the end of each month. I have a script for that. You suck. I hate you. 01:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I take it these are registered users only? Or is the faithful army of BONs I see improving RW on a daily basis also counted? ħuman 02:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- What's a BON? Help me out here. You suck. I hate you. 02:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Short of "bunch of numbers", sometimes written as "bunchofnumbers", or an IP address. gnostic 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Short of "bunch of numbers", sometimes written as "bunchofnumbers", or an IP address.
- What's a BON? Help me out here. You suck. I hate you. 02:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I take it these are registered users only? Or is the faithful army of BONs I see improving RW on a daily basis also counted? ħuman
- The number of editors may actually go up over the next couple of weeks. The numbers from last summer seem to suggest that some of the recent decline may have been seasonal. I really checked each editor's blocking status at the end of each month. I have a script for that. You suck. I hate you. 01:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. My charts only talk about registered users, viz. accounts you can edit from. IPs or IP ranges are not counted. You suck. I hate you. 04:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
No Conservative bibles exist[edit]
Not that I particularly give a crap, but I think Andy has finally lost his mind... Historygeek2007 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Come on Andy, I thought you were writing your own bible! It's amazing, basically Andy thinks the bible is infallible but no edition exists that says what he wants it to say. Welcome Andystrip One, where Double-think is supreme. Ace McWickedModel 500 23:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Andy just made my brain bleed and now I am weeping blood.ENorman (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- How the hell do they reconcile this shit? I can't imagine having that much cognitive dissonance in my brain. Just ditch Christianity altogether, Andy. Start the Church of Ronald Reagan and get it over with. Hell, you can even make your mommy a prophet in it.--EcheNegraMente
Midnight wish blow me a kiss 23:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mommy Dearest was the prophet of His Holiness Goldwater though. ENorman (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The best part is that by saying the KJV isn't good enough he's just alienated a large swath of Xtian fundies, although admittedly of the mouthbreathing-through-their-monotooth variety.--SW:TOR! SW:TOR! SW:TOR! (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I love this: "written at only the 7th grade level" is a reason not being conservative. Apparently easy to understand isn't a conservative value. Implication: They're trying to keep their ideas secret. (Why the f**k do they have CP to spread the ideas then?) [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Moar brain fart. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- The best part is that by saying the KJV isn't good enough he's just alienated a large swath of Xtian fundies, although admittedly of the mouthbreathing-through-their-monotooth variety.--SW:TOR! SW:TOR! SW:TOR! (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mommy Dearest was the prophet of His Holiness Goldwater though. ENorman (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- How the hell do they reconcile this shit? I can't imagine having that much cognitive dissonance in my brain. Just ditch Christianity altogether, Andy. Start the Church of Ronald Reagan and get it over with. Hell, you can even make your mommy a prophet in it.--EcheNegraMente
Midnight wish blow me a kiss 23:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- In fairness, Andy doesn't say there's no edition that says what he thinks it should, just that there's no translation he likes. He might have studied the original source texts and come away satisfied they are in actual fact as Reaganite and Birtherific as he'd assumed they'd be. He might thus have been forced to conclude the Bible has been bastardized by the deceitful philologists and theologians that interpret it for us. Of course I'm guessing here because my Latin is weak, my Greek and my Hebrew are rudimentary, and my Aramaic is completely nonexistent. I'm probably in no position to question Andy. You suck. I hate you. 01:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- In fairness, Andrew Layton Schlafly has proven time and time again that he can barely read English, never mind Greek, Heberew, Latin or Aramaic, so he should just shut his pie hole right about now. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sir, I'm afraid I believe your sarcasm detector needs to be recalibrated. You suck. I hate you. 01:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Some more brain fart to help calibrating. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- He'll probably drop this like the last time he tried to mess with the Bible. I'm raging hard though. ENorman (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Its been awhile since we had some real good old fashioned Andy insanity. This time he has really gone over the edge. Ace McWickedModel 500 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's this bit of scholarship as well. Didja know that the word "drugs" isn't in the Bible? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- If I'm interpreting this right (and, frankly, interpreting Andy's thoughts is like trying to forecast tomorrow's weather with chicken intestines), this differs from the previous bible retranslation project in one key way; in the original project, he wanted to retranslate the non-english versions into an english version he liked, which proved impossible because he can't speak / read any other languages, and he doesn't trust anyone else who can. This new approach, though, sounds scarily like he's just going to take a pre-existing english translation and edit it to read as he wants. Which could have horrible results. On the plus side, this means that he'll probably actually make some progress on the project, so we might see some actual outcome. Which has hilarity potential. X Stickman (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds about right. You suck. I hate you. 02:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Since transistor is a conservative word, I'd like to see him incorporating it into his version of the Bible. and this pretty much means you will end up with portions of Gospel of Mark x3 instead of the usual 3 different Synoptic Gospels at the end of the day [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- All that the link shows is that Andy will purge the Gospels of such liberal concepts as Forgiveness. Those first-century liberals and their deceitful alterations. Bluefish (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I really can't see it happening. He'll bang on about it for a while, do a couple of chapters, spend the next six months making the odd tweak here and there, and then move on to his next insane idea. No way he's going to go through something like 30,000 verses, amounting to something like 600,000 words and make sure they all adhere to his idea of a perfect bible. A new translation of the bible is a major scholarly work. Not a project for a dunce in a basement. Worm (t | c) 08:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you're right. But for betting purposes, we could wager on which of God's basement prophets gets further in their respective Bible astroturfing projects, Joseph Smith, or Andy Schlafly. - Poor Excuse (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- "A new translation of the bible is a major scholarly work. Not a project for a dunce in a basement." Yeah, an actual translation *would* be a major scholarly work. But I don't think he's going for a "translation", I think he's gearing up to just replace words he doesn't like with words he does. Using the example he gives, he'd just change "cast lots" to "gamble", cut out that adulteress story etc... Rather than sitting up all night surrounded by transcipts in an attempt to properly translate a single phrase, I see him skimming through a bible with a biro, crossing out words and writing in what he wants, at a rate of a page a minute. That way there's no room for debate like there was in the original one, no one can challenge him with "the greek doesn't translate that way". He'll just say "they would've used this word/term if it existed back then". Hopefully he'll actually see it through. Should be fun to watch. X Stickman (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you're right. But for betting purposes, we could wager on which of God's basement prophets gets further in their respective Bible astroturfing projects, Joseph Smith, or Andy Schlafly. - Poor Excuse (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I really can't see it happening. He'll bang on about it for a while, do a couple of chapters, spend the next six months making the odd tweak here and there, and then move on to his next insane idea. No way he's going to go through something like 30,000 verses, amounting to something like 600,000 words and make sure they all adhere to his idea of a perfect bible. A new translation of the bible is a major scholarly work. Not a project for a dunce in a basement. Worm (t | c) 08:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- All that the link shows is that Andy will purge the Gospels of such liberal concepts as Forgiveness. Those first-century liberals and their deceitful alterations. Bluefish (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Since transistor is a conservative word, I'd like to see him incorporating it into his version of the Bible. and this pretty much means you will end up with portions of Gospel of Mark x3 instead of the usual 3 different Synoptic Gospels at the end of the day [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds about right. You suck. I hate you. 02:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- If I'm interpreting this right (and, frankly, interpreting Andy's thoughts is like trying to forecast tomorrow's weather with chicken intestines), this differs from the previous bible retranslation project in one key way; in the original project, he wanted to retranslate the non-english versions into an english version he liked, which proved impossible because he can't speak / read any other languages, and he doesn't trust anyone else who can. This new approach, though, sounds scarily like he's just going to take a pre-existing english translation and edit it to read as he wants. Which could have horrible results. On the plus side, this means that he'll probably actually make some progress on the project, so we might see some actual outcome. Which has hilarity potential. X Stickman (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's this bit of scholarship as well. Didja know that the word "drugs" isn't in the Bible? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Its been awhile since we had some real good old fashioned Andy insanity. This time he has really gone over the edge. Ace McWickedModel 500 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- He'll probably drop this like the last time he tried to mess with the Bible. I'm raging hard though. ENorman (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Some more brain fart to help calibrating. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sir, I'm afraid I believe your sarcasm detector needs to be recalibrated. You suck. I hate you. 01:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- In fairness, Andrew Layton Schlafly has proven time and time again that he can barely read English, never mind Greek, Heberew, Latin or Aramaic, so he should just shut his pie hole right about now. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit button 0[edit]
(UD)
New to the thread but FAFUXAKE! What chutzpah! The man is beyond all reckoning; "I'm right and when anyone, even the Bible, disagrees then they're wrong." Does he really believe what he's saying? Is he suffering from delusions of grandeur or even delusions of competence. His total arrogance is amazing. I am eating & honeychat 10:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is why when I WIGO'd it I made not as a "funny" but as a "Andy has really gone over the edge". It is beyond mad. Ace McWickedModel 500 10:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I bet all the new Conservapedians will be queueing up for the "Andy Schlafly Conservapedia Bible". There is literally no reasoning with that man. SJ Debaser 11:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just in passing; "For example, the word "exodus" is not used even once in the Old Testament.img Err ... isn't there a book of the Torah, Pentateuch, Old Testament or whatever titled Exodus? I am eating & honeychat 12:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also (nitpicking) "English translations of the Bible frequently use the word "nation" in both the Old and New Testaments. Yet real "nations" did not exist until long after Christ. Is the term "nation" a mistranslation of a concept referring to a group of people, or a kingdom? " No nations? WTF is a Kingdom if not a nation? What about the Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, Chinese etc Nations & "Nation states"? I am eating & honeychat 12:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- He's actually kind of right there--the term "nation" as we think of it--a people with common language, culture history living in a fixed geographic location and possessed of a common political and social identity--pretty much took on its modern meaning after the Enlightenment/French Revolution. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also (nitpicking) "English translations of the Bible frequently use the word "nation" in both the Old and New Testaments. Yet real "nations" did not exist until long after Christ. Is the term "nation" a mistranslation of a concept referring to a group of people, or a kingdom? " No nations? WTF is a Kingdom if not a nation? What about the Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, Chinese etc Nations & "Nation states"? I am eating
- Just in passing; "For example, the word "exodus" is not used even once in the Old Testament.img Err ... isn't there a book of the Torah, Pentateuch, Old Testament or whatever titled Exodus? I am eating
- I bet all the new Conservapedians will be queueing up for the "Andy Schlafly Conservapedia Bible". There is literally no reasoning with that man. SJ Debaser 11:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Not really--they were kingdoms--sovereignty was in the person of the king or queen. In the modern idea of the nation-state, sovereignty is embodied in the people. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status - That's Biblical Egypt or Babylon or even the Greek city states for me. I am eating & honeychat 13:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so, really, they were much more territorially ambiguous. I pretty much agree with Repli below. ħuman 19:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so, really, they were much more territorially ambiguous. I pretty much agree with Repli below. ħuman
- It's an ambiguous term. The WP articles on nation and nation-state aren't bad. Those definitions are pretty basic and don't get involved with the subtleties of the word and how what we thought of what a nation is evolved over time...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- The word derives from nasci - "to be born". I'd have to agree that, in most cases, the word is an anachronism. Countries in the OT were mostly just whatever area had been conquered by some empire or another rather than a statement of ones birth. Arguably, though, Israel - the sons of Isaac - would quality as a nation. I'm not taking this too seriously either way though - just randomly musing. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- One meaning of nation - one of the oldest, in fact, refers to a group of people linked by common nationality, not to an area of land. Persia was an empire of many nations. The tribes of the OT were nations. The word is still used in that way today, as in the "First Nations" or the "Cherokee Nation": none of them are nations in the sense Andy describes, but all would be covered by the OT use of the term. Andy has always had trouble with the concept that words can have multiple shades of meaning. Bluefish (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- The word derives from nasci - "to be born". I'd have to agree that, in most cases, the word is an anachronism. Countries in the OT were mostly just whatever area had been conquered by some empire or another rather than a statement of ones birth. Arguably, though, Israel - the sons of Isaac - would quality as a nation. I'm not taking this too seriously either way though - just randomly musing. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Potential for lulz? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit button 1[edit]
Okay, this edit comment is whack. Now, Andrew wants to argue that the original languages that the Bible was written in were unable to convey the concepts that were in the Bible, and that, I would imagine, modern US English is able to convey those concepts. Awesome. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- You realize, of course, that Andy isn't in the least interested in making sure that the translation is accurate from the original Greek or Aramaic. What he really wants to do is translate from English to better English. We shall be rid of the last vestiges of Goldsteinism when the language is made pure. It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Stile4aly (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
So, which of these is the fairest summation?
- Andy's religion is conservatism, not Christianity
- Andy views conservatism and Christianity as interchangeable concepts
- Andy thinks (if that's not an oxymoron in and of itself) that if conservatism and two thousand years of Christian thought come into conflict, conservatism wins.
Honestly, this is one piece of evidence to my theory Andy Schlafly is either putting on a massive hoax like Blogs4Brownback or Landover Baptist, or that he's deranged. I'm not sure which. MDB (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Andy is his own religion. It trumps Christianity and conservatism anytime. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- @MDB, I think it's "both" - Andy is a bit deranged, and actually believes some of these things. There are other things where it's more about him "not believing" them (ie evolution). And on top of that is a rich fat layer of "poking with a stick" - in other words, parody. Now whether he is making his parody to watch the liberals (etc.) jump around, or doing it to embarrass Mommy Dearest and the Conservative Movement is another question. I think there's an element of both. In other words, the man is so twisted that the answer to any theory about his motives is "yeah, there's a bit of that, surely". ħuman 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's complicated as the two are intertwined but I think conservatism comes first for Andy. He then melds Christianity to fit in with his conservative world view. He knows what the real message of the bibble is so if there are bits which don't agree with the conservative viewpoint then they are liberal additions or have not been translated properly. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 20:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- When reading comments like this I am dumbfounded that Andy seems to think that there was "liberal" and "conservative" back then like we have it today. Ace McWickedModel 500 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Andy is unable to process the notion that either his political/social beliefs or his (stated) religious beliefs could be wrong. Therefore, when there is a conflict between the two, then it must be due to nefarious outside interference (that is, those sneaky damn liberals).--WJThomas (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- When reading comments like this I am dumbfounded that Andy seems to think that there was "liberal" and "conservative" back then like we have it today. Ace McWickedModel 500 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's complicated as the two are intertwined but I think conservatism comes first for Andy. He then melds Christianity to fit in with his conservative world view. He knows what the real message of the bibble is so if there are bits which don't agree with the conservative viewpoint then they are liberal additions or have not been translated properly.
- @MDB, I think it's "both" - Andy is a bit deranged, and actually believes some of these things. There are other things where it's more about him "not believing" them (ie evolution). And on top of that is a rich fat layer of "poking with a stick" - in other words, parody. Now whether he is making his parody to watch the liberals (etc.) jump around, or doing it to embarrass Mommy Dearest and the Conservative Movement is another question. I think there's an element of both. In other words, the man is so twisted that the answer to any theory about his motives is "yeah, there's a bit of that, surely". ħuman
- You may want to read these; I think they explain Andy fairly well:
- Know-Nothing Politics ("[K]now-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: 'Real men don’t think things through.'")
- The Class War Before Palin ("Republican political tacticians decided to mobilize their coalition with a form of social class warfare. Democrats kept nominating coastal pointy-heads like Michael Dukakis so Republicans attacked coastal pointy-heads. [...] What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.")
- Also these:
- Andy is neither a principled Conservative nor a principled Christian. He doesn't have any coherent ideology to speak of. He simply hates everything and everybody in any way connected with intellect, nuance, subtlety, or taste; things he knows, on some level, he's irremediably short of. Andy hates evolutionism not because it contradicts the Bible but because scientists understand long words with Greek roots. Andy hates atheism not because it makes souls go to hell but because urban secularists have friends in France. Andy hates feminists not because of theories they advance or polcy changes they demand but because his sex life has been a single continuous torrent of failure and humiliation since age seven.
- Andy does what Andy does because he is a pathetic failure even by his own standards.
- You suck. I hate you. 06:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit button 2[edit]
In the continuation of the Saga, "Government" is a pro-liberal term? What do you expect, tribes with chieftans? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that this morning...I think the idea here is that God's "government" is a Kingdom, one COO (who is god or appointed by said god) to rule and be obeyed. If one starts delegating social responsibilities to underlings (to more better able one to concentrate on making wars, [and such], drawing up enemies lists and fornicating), then an actual government (of people) is usually the result.
Once one has a government then one can expect that government to collect (the existing) taxes and make new ones to further the government's power over the people until it all comes crashing down in a socialist (read:totalitarian) Armageddon and the rapture happens, hallelujah!!!!11! AMEN!!!ELEVENTY!!1!! 20:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC) CЯacke®
The world's a funny old place[edit]
Isn't it?
I was thinking about the decline of Conservapedia as demostrated above and realised that one day, when Conservapedia has disappeared up its own Bible Retranslation Project and all that remains are references to CP on Rationalwiki, we will be able to truly say that Rationalwiki is Andy Schlafly's legacy to the world. This site would not exist were it not for the deceitful and capricious behaviour of the Assfly and the CP sysops that he appointed. Their behaviour resulted in the blockings that, in turn, resulted in this site's creation. I don't for a minute say that he gets all the credit. But he certainly deserves some.
Isn't it funny how things don't turn out how you intended sometimes. I think we've all had that experience. But for a man to set out to create a conservative Christian creationist website and end up creating a liberal science-based creation-debunking website is worthy of an entry in the Book of Heroic Failures. Perhaps a new edition will come out some day. --Horace (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is such a pleasant thought, if we can build this into a good reliable anti-stupid website that can survive without CP, your dream will come true. - π 02:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- That'll have to wait till CP's demise, which probably will last as long as Andy barring anything drastic. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Marzipan, indeed. ħuman 05:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- As Andy blatantly suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder and is unable to ever admit fault, I doubt Conservapedia will ever finish. Just moar lulz for us. SJ Debaser 11:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I often wonder about lil' Phy. Is something wrong with her, too? The fact that Andy has some very serious problems seems to be lost on her. I guess that goes for most everyone there, though... Is there some genetic component to this or is it just 'environmental'? The Schlafly's seem to be, on the whole, fucking insane. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 13:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- As Andy blatantly suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder and is unable to ever admit fault, I doubt Conservapedia will ever finish. Just moar lulz for us. SJ Debaser 11:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Marzipan, indeed. ħuman
- That'll have to wait till CP's demise, which probably will last as long as Andy barring anything drastic. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 03:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is reminiscent of Fitzroy and Darwin (but in fairness to Fitzroy, he was better educated and not a raving lunatic like Andy, at least not until his later years). Kalliumtalk 15:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Fossil WIGO/RJJ[edit]
Check a little further and you'll see that RJJ was just reverting JimZ, who "removed atheistic claim - how can something have existed on earth millions of years before the earth existed?" The entry was made by HSpalding on Feb. 1, 2009 [1]img. 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Great. Now you just started another episode of TK vs RJJ. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- (EC)I know that JimZ had removed the claim, but the fact that no other admins took action despite them being active makes it fairly clear that they felt the removal to be correct. RJJ was going against the grain here. EddyP (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I guess. Just wanted the chain of events to be clear. RJJ isn't the first author, though he did take a stand on the edit. 19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- TK doesn't put up with YEC bullshit from what I remember. He dabbles in all other types of trollery, but is not a YEC ENorman (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the real TK believes, and IIRC, the CP-persona TK isn't exactly part of the YEC frontline forces (though I vaguely recall him going arguing against radiometric dating - but this is just fuzzy memory right now, so don't take my word), but he is Andy's right hand, and thus fixes filthy UK spelling from "recognised" to... "believed". --Sid (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- (ECx... first comment to this thread) That just sums up Jeeves' point about how creation science and fundy Christians ignore evidence if it compromises their worldview.
- I have no idea what the real TK believes, and IIRC, the CP-persona TK isn't exactly part of the YEC frontline forces (though I vaguely recall him going arguing against radiometric dating - but this is just fuzzy memory right now, so don't take my word), but he is Andy's right hand, and thus fixes filthy UK spelling from "recognised" to... "believed". --Sid (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- TK doesn't put up with YEC bullshit from what I remember. He dabbles in all other types of trollery, but is not a YEC ENorman (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I guess. Just wanted the chain of events to be clear. RJJ isn't the first author, though he did take a stand on the edit.
- "How can something have existed on earth millions of years before the earth existed?"
- "Isn't it possible that this scientific evidence was here before that book and no other proof showed up?"
- "... no."
SJ Debaser 09:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Obama Article (again)[edit]
You have to love it when Ken does stuff like this. He discredits the article more than any of us ever could. I wonder how Andy will take one of pet articles being Ken-ified? I anticipate amusement. StarFish (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's the way Ken. Preview buttons are for sissies and liberals. StarFish (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am a bit disappointed with Ken
, I was watching a while ago hoping for another manic Monday Friday, but all we got were 57 edits in 4 and a half hoursimg. - π 12:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- But come on. A G=I=A=N=T photo of Obama photoshopped by a 5-year-old right in the middle of Andy's pet article. It's not bad. StarFish (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I remember the first time I made an edit to Wikipedia. I remember being happily surprised at the Show Preview button because I didn't want to make a mess on their nice wiki. Ken has been editing for over two fucking years and still doesn't seem to know it exists. His writing hasn't improved either: you'd expect somebody to get better in two years. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- But come on. A G=I=A=N=T photo of Obama photoshopped by a 5-year-old right in the middle of Andy's pet article. It's not bad. StarFish (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
became a sysop at CP before I realised you could edit Wikipedia. - π 12:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I love all those red links he's added to Obama administration+corporate bailouts/monetary policy/fiscal policy/deficit spending. Also the TOC is something like one fifth of the way down the article. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 13:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's the same set of redlinks he spammed to all the admins' talk pages (except TK's). Notice that he hasn't had a reply from any of them. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Now that Ken has taken this article under his wing I have high hopes of an amusing outcome. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 16:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Now that Ken has taken this article under his wing I have high hopes of an amusing outcome.
- It's the same set of redlinks he spammed to all the admins' talk pages (except TK's). Notice that he hasn't had a reply from any of them. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I love all those red links he's added to Obama administration+corporate bailouts/monetary policy/fiscal policy/deficit spending. Also the TOC is something like one fifth of the way down the article.
Ken said over on aSK that he was going to be working 80 hours a week on this stuff, but that seems to have gone the way of pretty much every other statement he's ever made. --Kels (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think he said he was going to work his job 80 hours a week, but given he was editing from 1 am to 5:30, he might find that hard if he is not a shift worker. - π 23:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been pointed out before, but take a look at the external links list of the Obama article. Did Ken add all those? Yorick (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Jeez which is it?[edit]
http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Obama-fascist_Newsbusters.jpg
http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Obamunism.jpg
I can't wait for "OBAMA - MONARCHIST".-Shangrala (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Obama is a "things I fear because I don't understand"-ist. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 13:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- To a Conservapedian, both Fascism and Communism are just labels for extreme liberalism, which means anyone who disagrees with them. They don't have to choose one or the other, because in their view, they're exactly the same. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 13:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think you'll ever see Monarchy used as a pejorative on CP. Remember, god-appointed monarchs were a big part of Andy's feudalism-utopia. HumanisticJones (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- The only problem with that argument is of course that the foundation of the United States was really a rebellion against monarchy and that's why they became a republic with a constitution designed to prevent a leader becoming "King". ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 19:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the United States (which is doubleplus good) was actually a product of the evil, humanistic Enlightenment? Godspeed (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- George III, against whom the colonies rebelled was "George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and so forth". Since the 13 states rebelled against an agent appointed "by the Grace of God", of course you are evil! Repent now, ye wicked ones! SuspectedReplicant (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that the United States (which is doubleplus good) was actually a product of the evil, humanistic Enlightenment? Godspeed (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- The only problem with that argument is of course that the foundation of the United States was really a rebellion against monarchy and that's why they became a republic with a constitution designed to prevent a leader becoming "King".
- I don't think you'll ever see Monarchy used as a pejorative on CP. Remember, god-appointed monarchs were a big part of Andy's feudalism-utopia. HumanisticJones (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- To a Conservapedian, both Fascism and Communism are just labels for extreme liberalism, which means anyone who disagrees with them. They don't have to choose one or the other, because in their view, they're exactly the same. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 13:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Needs more goat gout[edit]
I can only assume by Ed's addition to Gout that the magnificent idiot is suffering. 
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 16:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Libel?[edit]
After the recent WIGO about the CP main page edit on domestic terrorists in the Obama cabinet, and suggesting that Karajou might be interested in reading about libel, TK wrote this interesting comment. Any ideas what drug he's on today? Gauss (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't want to rub salt in TK's wounds so I will only say that this is silly bluster. Let's leave it at that. 23:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, he's completely wrong. There is no law anywhere in the world against posting, disagreeing with, or wandalizing an open wiki which invites members. --DogPMarmite Patrol 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm starting to think TK and I would get along swimmingly. TK, I'm in the California sex offender database near Palm Springs. Look me up. Conservapederast (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that you just missed him - TK used to live in Rancho Mirage. One of his publicly available email addresses "terry92270@somethingorother.com" refelected that fact. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 05:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- TK is a simpleton. I chatted too him twice on Messenger but I have dediced not to infuture. There is nothing to be gained from talking a liar - a pure and simple bullshit artist. Particularly a lair who thinks no one knows he is a liar. Ace McWickedModel 500 00:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I feel TK's pain. If even one of the things people said about him was false, maybe then he could make noise about libel. I've been on the receiving end of people saying horrible things about me that were unfortunately true. Doesn't feel good, does it, TK? I know how you feel rattling a cage of your own making and never being able to get away from knowing the darkness of your own heart. Conservapederast (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- It appears that you just missed him - TK used to live in Rancho Mirage. One of his publicly available email addresses "terry92270@somethingorother.com" refelected that fact.
- I'm starting to think TK and I would get along swimmingly. TK, I'm in the California sex offender database near Palm Springs. Look me up. Conservapederast (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, he's completely wrong. There is no law anywhere in the world against posting, disagreeing with, or wandalizing an open wiki which invites members. --DogPMarmite Patrol 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Amusing how TK capitalized "Websites". He must worship us. Geo.plrd vanished TK's random silliness a few edits later, btw. ħuman 01:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Everyone has their opinion and everyone bashes another. Terry Koeckritz.. but what we're doing is, if anything, giving Cp more traffic. We're doing you a good thing. Kettle o' fish 02:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- That "Websites" internal link also shows that TK doesn't know how to use wiki-markup properly - he pipes the plural to the singular rather than just adding an 's'. I know it's a trivial point but this exemplifies why they are such amateurs at running a wiki. There were great debates about whether article titles should be singular or plural. I believe TK plumped for the plural option (hazy memory) because it was the opposite of what WP did without ever considering why WP used the singular. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 05:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I also like how TK keeps adding {{stub}} to CP's articles, despite Andy saying they're an evil Wikipedia thing. --Psy - C20H25N3OYou know you want to 09:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- That "Websites" internal link also shows that TK doesn't know how to use wiki-markup properly - he pipes the plural to the singular rather than just adding an 's'. I know it's a trivial point but this exemplifies why they are such amateurs at running a wiki. There were great debates about whether article titles should be singular or plural. I believe TK plumped for the plural option (hazy memory) because it was the opposite of what WP did without ever considering why WP used the singular.
Ouch.[edit]
Furthermore, the statement must be presented as a fact. Parody or jokes are not considered defamatory because they are not intended to be taken seriously. However, this defense will fail if a reasonable person would consider the statement to be factual, i.e. from the credentials of the source.
- Geo.plrd
Is this a poe? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 06:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Bahahaaha[edit]
I found this very funny. Ace McWickedModel 500 23:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Godspeed in your efforts to find humor elsewhere, Ace. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 00:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I thought this section was about goat. For example, the most common word in the Bible is "Lord", which is used with even greater frequency than "God". I would've thought "thou" or "the" would've been the most common word in teh Bible. I don't know though, I haven't really read it. SJ Debaser 00:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Must have meant "not including articles, prepositions etc" - here's a list Totnesmartin (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't appear to be 100% accurate. For example the word CHESNUT is listed at 1 entry but clicking on the link shows it appears twice. Also CHESNUT is of course a typo for CHESTNUT which is also supposed to have 1 entry but has no examples. How can you trust a concordance which has typos in its source? ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 11:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't appear to be 100% accurate. For example the word CHESNUT is listed at 1 entry but clicking on the link shows it appears twice. Also CHESNUT is of course a typo for CHESTNUT which is also supposed to have 1 entry but has no examples. How can you trust a concordance which has typos in its source?
- Must have meant "not including articles, prepositions etc" - here's a list Totnesmartin (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I thought this section was about goat. For example, the most common word in the Bible is "Lord", which is used with even greater frequency than "God". I would've thought "thou" or "the" would've been the most common word in teh Bible. I don't know though, I haven't really read it. SJ Debaser 00:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)