Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive150

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

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

TK

Bitch, bitch, bitch. He's bound to have done something annoying. Carry on everyone. Genghis Khant 04:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

MOAR OBAMA

It is now official, there are now 10 pictures photoshopped messes of Obama an the front page. Theemperor 16:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a crying shame that TK downsized them all. If Ken had been allowed to carry on unchecked then MainPageRight would have been a work of sheer beauty. Genghis Khant 09:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I'm Psy and I'm a WIGO addict. I also just want to say I'm willing to have Genghis' children for pointing me here. --Psygremlin 17:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

Don't forget there's no capturebot here guys, so you'll have to manually save the good stuff - TK won't wait for us to come back online... Totnesmartin 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be running capturebot manually, but obviously I can't catch everything (especially since I'm in Europe). When you wigo something, make a screenshot. Nx 15:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the real TK isn't aware of this place so won't be monitoring threads here. But even with capturebot I usually keep copies for myself just in case, especially if they are off-WIGO. Genghis Khant 16:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Might as well mention it here: I've started putting a commented out note on the WIGO to enable me to find it on my machine when we're back up (so's Nx). Toast 16:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Doubtless they'll be surprised at the sudden interest from a previously unknown wiki in their traffic - at some point. For now, we might be below the radar. Can you IMAGINE the gloating and hand-rubbing that's going on over there at RW being down. I suggest a good response is for one of us to post there that we have all decided to give up RW, and go our separate ways, and that it was voluntarily closed down. Keep 'em guessing! DogP 18:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There's probably been discussion of it in the secret clubhouse. --Kels 19:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually you don't have to tell any site where you came from. Consider this FF addon.--Bob M 19:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC)No, Trent posted the link to the RW blogspot in the saloon bar and told us to use it in the event of RW crashing. I reckon it's fairly likely that they know about the blogspot, and from there it's simple to get to here. But they seem to be having problems of thier own atm. EddyP 19:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding that there are few reversions to look at these days - many are being oversighted by Jpratt and TeamKillur. Nutty Roux 22:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is now 3:46 Eastern Daylight Time...

...and there has not been a single edit to CP since 11:16--four and a half hours. This project ids growing rapidly. We are more active without a website than CP is with one. TheoryOfPractice 19:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup! as EddyP noted above: there's trubble at t'mill. Shame. Toast

Oh well, it was a nice four and a half hour gap. Toast

RobS

He hasn't flipped. He always was a deranged little nutbar, seeing conspiracies in every shadow. It's just there's so many other nutbars dining room tables out there, he feels validated now. --Kels 21:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

But what does it mean? Toast 21:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It means he's saying bad things about Obama. That's all it means for any of them, he's the enemy and thus he's every bad thing you can imagine. Hitler? Stalin? Mao? He's all of them and more. Not for any reason, just because he's The Enemy. There's no thinking or meaning involved, and Rob's only too happy to get on board with the rest of the dining room tables. --Kels 21:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Pharisees / Intellectuals

That is comedy gold. Although, I'm not sure if Andypants is having a dig at intellectuals (probably, because he gets so jealous over things he's not) or pharisees. The Virtual Jewish library tells me "The most important of the three were the Pharisees because they are the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism. Their main distinguishing characteristic was a belief in an Oral Law that God gave to Moses at Sinai along with the Torah. The Torah or Written Law was akin to the U.S. Constitution in the sense that it set down a series of laws that were open to interpretation." I would have though these were the guys Andy loved? And really... his "translation" is going to replace standard and accepted terms like Sadducees and Pharisees, with American equivalents. What will the Good Samaritan become? "Some sucker from Detroit"? Ooh, I feel a blog posting coming on... Toast I'm pinching your WIGO comment. --psygremlin 14:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Attribution is all ;-) Toast 14:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody explain why it is the American right has this distrust of intellectuals? What have they got against smart people who study things?--Bob M 17:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I like how Andy is downsizing; from sea to lake and from ship to boat. Can we expect forty days in the wilderness to be a weekend camping? Pity that he's not doing the OT or Jonah's whale might end up as a catfish. Genghis Khant 17:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The distrust of intellectualism seems to be related to the false populism of the Republican party. Sometime between Nixon and Reagan, the Republicans realized that if they could cast the political landscape in terms of "the elites" controlling the fates of the good and decent masses, then they could side with the masses against the elites and thereby gain political power. The problem was that the Republicans were the elites as they were the party of the rich and campaigned on the basis of tax cuts and deregulation which favored the rich disproportionately. The solution was to describe the Democrats as cultural elitists, and thus rose the concept of the Ivy League educated limousine liberal elite with the media in their pocket. It was convincing enough to cause people who rely on Democratic programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to be swayed to the Republican party since they considered themselves to be better served by good-old down-home types, rather than people who enjoy arugula, windsurfing, and dijon mustard.

In other words, it's a load of crap. Stile4aly 19:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

While Stile is quite correct, there has been a strong strain of anti-intellectualism in the US for a long, long time. Roots seem to be in the "conquering the wilderness", "self made man"-type fantasies. Chicago, the "city of broad shoulders". Americans are people who get things done, not sit around thinking about them. And the worst comes when the intellectuals tell the "doers" that what they are doing is a bad thing in the long run... Human 19:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The twit is twittering

I love JPatt's twitter, it is so full of stupid. But is he really too thick to realise that there might be a technical reason for this? I mean they are giving you a free service, what more do you want you ungrateful bastard? Pi 04:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This clip is appropriate. Corry 04:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That is what I mean; three years ago it didn't exist, 6 months ago it was slow, now he is upset because he can't receive messages from more than 2,000 people. Pi 04:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Jpatt is an idiot. "Oh noes, I can't talk to people on the internet for four fucking minutes!" Loser. On the other hand, we're really cool. SuperJosh 16:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Currently up to 300 people I can't follow because of lame Twitter imposed limitations. Tear down this commie wall." If you're going to do an enormous shout-out doesn't it make sense, at the very least, to get your grammar correct? And does he really read all the tweets that get posted anyway? I signed up with a couple of accounts back in March and haven't posted anything for five months, yet nearly every day I get an email informing me that some sad loser who doesn't know me is now following me on Twitter. Genghis Khant 17:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Because alive, non-senile Reagan would have sorted out your commie twitter problems lickety-slit, JPratt. All he needed was your foetal stem cells to live, but you had to selfishly be born. You personally killed the greatest man of the 20th century, I hope you're happy. --Jeeves 18:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I gave up on twitter because i was fed up of the spam. I mentioned an aquarium shop, then a spammer follows me - he sells tropical fish. that kind of crap. Totnesmartin 19:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I gave in and got my own Twitter started. Since part of my job once I get done with school is self-promotion (in the honest sense, not the spammy), then it'll develop into a very useful tool over time. Better to get ahead of the curve than get stuck behind it. --Kels 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I shun Twitter, on the grounds that I feel it anti-intellectual. Phantom Hoover 19:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But! God twitters! Toast 19:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The new "voting" system

I hope it is "working" well for everyone. Human 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, just wait until Pi gets here and starts abusing his math powerz. Nx 20:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: e^iπ. The lack of a <math> tag is a hindrance, though. Phantom Hoover 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

MOAR ED

as he creates usefulness. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. 21:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And they blocked me for inserting Monty Python quotes at random?!?!?! Gentle fondlers. SuperJosh 21:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (PS, please not to swear on teflon wiki SJ)

More Ed Poor stupidity: CP's Memorial Day article begins: "Memorial Day, previously called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died while serving in the military of the United States. In 1971, Memorial Day was declared a national holiday by an act of Congress and the date to observe the holiday was set as the last Monday in May. [1]" so, Ed Poor adds: "Memorial Day is not just about the beginning of summer and barbecuing - it is a day to remember and honor military service members who gave their lives while serving/defending our country." Excuse me, isn't that what the article already SAYS???!! I don't think he even bothers to read the articles before adding stupid comments. Refugee 22:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed doesn't work, so he's still stupid. --Kels 22:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Supercomputing is a stunningly revealing article as well. Worm 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What a complete idiot. Human 23:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What did Ed do to deserve to have nearly a thousand words burned and then oversighted? (diff) (hist) . . m Talk:Harry Reid‎; 12:44 . . (-989) . . TK (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Ed Poor (Talk) to last version by TK) 24.14.72.223 23:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Ed now simply creating articles from quotes for no reason? Worm 20:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Eddie's been doing that for quite some time. It's one of his regular lazy article creation strategies.--WJThomas 21:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet Andy says - "Conservapedia does not simply cut and paste quotes from others". Genghis Khant 21:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but he said that to avoid coming up with any evidence for his claim. He's really been a bit (more) incoherent the last few days. Human 23:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Account creation

Have they just shut it down for good? It doesn't even say "create account" on the link any more. So much for the site growing rapidly. Phantom Hoover 21:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't create at night-time (By Andyland's time standards) but you're right, I haven't seen the create account button there for a couple of days though. Looks like TK's in the home stretch to destroy Conservapedia. Andy really was right when he said an encyclopedia that "not just anyone can edit," eh? SuperJosh 21:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, I don't visit CP for a few days, and everybody immediately goes insane

Don't believe me? RobS is arguing for NPOV and Ed complains about Wikipedia double standards. Okay, that last bit isn't exactly news, but his "Wikipedia has double standards, so I'm happy that CP exists!" stance is getting more and more bizarre as CP continuously spirals further into insanity. --Sid 19:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I particularly like the fact that at the end of that conversation, Ed uses egregious to sound academic, but can't spell their. Fail. Worm 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Love the sideswipe at female mathematicians in the cut & paste WOGO "No math professor will publicly admit that the best mathematicians are men rather than women, but that denial does not alter the obvious truth" Not to mention the hysterical use of whom & has in the first sentence. Toast 20:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed concisely shows us why he is the most loathed Science Expert possible

Ed gives style hints for science-related articles:

Please don't put "new" proposals or scientific papers in the lead paragraph. You know it takes anywhere from 6 months to 3 years, for a new scientific claim to be evaluated by academia. The "latest" scientific paper is the last thing we need; so, put it at the end of the article.

Yes, he's saying that the most recent findings (which might very well turn the entire field upside-down) in a science-related topic should be presented LAST. So what's next? Consequent chronological sorting within science articles, with the intro stating the historically initial view? --Sid 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

They should do it with everything:
The Sun is the light of the glory of god. It travels round the earth once every 24 hours. Recent scientific findings, which have yet to be validated, suggest it may be a ball of fire. Even more recent speculation hints at the possibility of nuclear fusion. A foreign scientist once claimed that the earth went round the sun, but this was later retracted.

Totnesmartin 08:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice. MOAR!!! Human 08:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

When i get back on t'net... sometime. Totnesmartin 08:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You could come to my house! Phantom Hoover 13:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You could come to my gig! 188.220.32.68 15:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I just found this. I am actually slightly depressed after reading it and might go to bed and cry. Pi 13:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hate site confirmed?

The best time to kick a man is when he's dead, it seems. EddyP 19:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hardly surprising, but disgusting just the same. Being from the UK, I'm not that familiar with his politics, but my impression from what I have read so far is that he was pretty widely respected on both sides of the aisle. Of course, AndyPants is incapable of respecting someone who disagrees with him - he doesn't have the mental capacity perhaps. Worm 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's really vicious. Of course, we were pretty nasty when Falwell died... but we aren't pretending to be an encyclopedia. Human 20:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Falwell was one of the most repressive, bigoted men in the United States, actively seeking a theocracy. Ted Kennedy just doesn't stack up in his liberal-atrocities. Publius 01:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

They think he was far worse than any of their people. Human 03:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You thought Andy was done after that "news" story? --Sid 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Usually I would dismiss this as typical of Andy's misplaced bitterness, but unfortunately I went to WorldNutDaily first where every other comment from Farah was making a "joke" about that young lady dying in Kennedy's car. This is sadly enough another example of the hyper-partisanship that is making political debate in the US almost impossible. Pi 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

News you won't see on CP anytime soon: "The senator’s final moments were spent peacefully, among loved ones, in prayer. Kennedy biographer Adam Clymer on the family patriarch’s secret: the depth of his Catholic faith."TheoryOfPractice 04:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am happy for one thing if nothing else - the old dog died peacefully at home among his loved ones. We should all be so "lucky". Human 04:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm shooting for the Johnny Hart method, just conk out on my drawing table. --Kels 16:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Andy is a fucking disgrace. I wasn't here when Falwell died and I wouldn't have said anything if I was here anyway. Andy is just a hate-filled ugly human being, and Ted Kennedy was twice the man Schlafly will ever be. SuperJosh 19:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that's what I call damning with faint praise! Lily The Pink 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Honey, you know it! SuperJosh 19:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said on Human's talk page, I'm not a hateful person by nature, and I don't like to wish harm on people.... But I hope Andy gets cancer of the Penis. This is beyond disgusting (and especially ironiic given that their article on Uncyclopedia consists mostly of bitching about the Falwell thing). SirChuckB 20:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Shame no one can edit mainpageright to say "Hooray, TK is dead!" Human 03:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Regicide

I know that various bits of Andy's NT re-translation project have been WIGOed but has any one actually read the translation of Mark? It flows like broken glass through the rectum. Erratically, painfully and with a pile of bloody shit at the end. It may be conservative in his eyes but it has murdered the language of the KJV. And on a pedantic note, having decided that lake was a better word than sea, he blithely continues with references to the "seashore". Never one to miss a plug for largely defensive weapon of gun he also now has translated a "strong man" as a "well-armed man". Genghis Khant 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. He's not "translating" by any means, nor is he de-liberalizing much. He's just sorta re-wording everything, and doing it poorly. No doubt he's quite pleased with hisself.--WJThomas 21:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. "What a great way to start the day!" LOL Nx 21:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[1] Yeah, that's awesome. It's almost worth stealing. Human 23:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history DoglasA & lately Daniel Pulido seem to have joined in the fun quite a bit. Parody? Toast 21:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I was under the assumption that Andy's translation was going to be something like "In HELL the HELL beginning HELL God HELL reated HELL the HELL heavens HELL and HELL the HELL Earth. Hell." Phantom Hoover 21:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

He's likely saving HELL for the major Jesus speeches. Because you need to remember that Jesus emphasized HELL. Not love. Not forgiveness. HELL. --Sid 00:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes me laugh everytime Andy says that is Jesus actually didn't emphasize hell...... HELL DIDN't EXIST TO JESUS. The ultimate punishment he often spoke of was a seperation from God when the son of man came and brought heaven to Earth. I assume you all knew this, but it feels good to type it. SirChuckB 05:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words." Like I said on good old RW before the great darkening, Andy wants to translate the Bible from English to better English. He's not interested in the accuracy of translation, he simply wants the Bible to say whatever he wants it to say.

This goes beyond mere narcissism or delusions of grandeur. Andy clearly believes that conservatism is his god and that Christianity must be in service of that god. Stile4aly 05:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It makes me laugh. I was shopping out to different religions to see what each one was all about and I mentioned to a friend that I couldn't join a religion that went against certain political beliefs (treatment of women, gay rights, etc) and she yelled about how horrible that was. I shut her up by saying "Hey, I'm going in with that view. Better than some people who join a religion and then warp that religions teaching to their views." SirChuckB 05:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See, now you're missing the point of religion. The most popular religions are great big moveable feasts. Basically, they have two core beliefs. The first is unique to the religion (e.g. "Jesus, the son of god, is our saviour and died for our sins" or "There is no god but god, and Mohammed is his prophet" etc.) and the other is the same with every religion; "Give us your money." The rest of it is entirely up to you, you can find a branch of the religion that more or less exactly reinforces the prejudices you came in with, just like choosing a political party.

Oh yeah and back on the original topic, I love the way Andy translates "wilderness" as "among the sceptics" in one verse and in the very next verse he translates the same word as "desert." Epic metaphor fail. --Jeeves 08:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Watergate

Rob if you are reading us here could you point to me where Liddy says they were looking for information on Chappaquiddick? As far as I could read they were looking for information about an alleged prostitution ring being run out of the DNC, but more likely they were looking for what ever they could throw at the democrats. Ignoring all this, trying to blame the victim rather than the perpetrators of the crime is pretty bad. Pi 05:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In Robworld everything is connected, and the only point that matters is that the red under his bed is not dead. Everyone to the left of Goldwater is suspect, nay, guilty of being a Stalinist mole, and everyone else is suspect, too, of eating the last pop-tart. Human 05:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Goldwater isn't above suspicion either. TK 22:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

RJJensen has no balls

Look at him get kicked in the groin repeatedly by TK. It's been happening a lot lately. I think it's because TK misses us. RJJ has some certain desperation or I have no idea why he sticks around. 13:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

RJJ's problem is that, while he apparently agrees with CP's theoretical foundation (a general pro-conservative tendency, if I recall correctly), he doesn't quite know when to say "Yessir, you're absolutely right, sir."

Odd how he got sysop rights if he still doesn't (want to?) understand that on CP, you're only a conservative if (and as long as) Andy/Rob/TK find nothing bad about you. Let's see how this pans out. (Especially since RJJ - CP's resident historian, of all people! - still doesn't learn from history and merrily stays in the debate.) --Sid 14:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

this shows a certain amount of backbone. Calling TK's entry a 'little lecture' with 'deep flaws' isn't exactly towing the party line. Bob Soles 14:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. It's a pissing contest between a gutless retired professor who routinely gets his face rubbed in the dirt by a gutless sadistic community college dropout. TK's projection is palpable. I wonder how much time he spent perfecting his lectures to Herr Doktor Professor. As far as I'm concerned the only interesting outcome at this point will be if RJJ, notwithstanding his own wingnuttery, finally gets tired of participating in such a completely hopeless cesspit of a project before TK disappears him. Anything along the way has gotten pretty boring. BON 24.14.72.223

I'm not really a Prohibition/history expert, but shouldn't Andy "Economics Teacher" Schlafly applaud the business sense of someone who patiently sits on a supply of alcohol and starts selling it right after the ban is lifted (a time when there will be extremely high demand and when people who have the goods ready in large quantities can pretty much dictate the price)? But I guess things are different when it's about someone he doesn't like... --Sid 16:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How galling must it be for a history professor to be lectured in sound historical scholarship by a used car salesman. He wouldn't take that kind of shit from no undergrads, so I can't fathom why he puts up with it from TK. --Jeeves 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I have much sympathy for RJJ - like all the others, he's condoned the actions of the others there with his silence (not to mention his banning of Etrundel over the latter's plagiarism claims), so he's got what's coming to him. What's ironic is that he was "hounded" off WP and CZ for POV pushing (I assume - whatever he did on CZ got Larry involved) and now he's getting hounded out of CP by TK. The man must really want to work on a wiki for some reason. Maybe retirement is boring. Btw, wasn't it Editor@CP who kept asking us not to attack him for some reason? -- Psy_Whut? 18:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

They're all the same - I'm surprised TK hasn't deep-burned the stuff that was just posted here to promote the idea of a united Conservapedian front. It's not like at RW where you have varying degrees of agnostic/atheist and users from across the political spectrum (even if we are generally centre-leftists). Conservapedia: Barack Obama's an evil muslim socialist-fascist-nazi, George Bush and Christianity are literally the best things in the world and if you don't believe this then you get kicked off. So I've got no sympathy for any of them. SuperJosh 18:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Hehe, funny, a few edits later [2] TK says "For you to state someone is or was a conservative 40 years ago..." struck me as funny. Now, at least, 50 years ago (his earlier vague figure), 1959, Joe had not yet had his stroke and was whoever he was. 40 years ago (aug 1969) he was 3 months from death. Human 21:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

RobS throws down against RJJ....TheoryOfPractice 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

RJ Grows a Pair

Right here TheoryOfPractice 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that Rob has the acuity to defend himself. TK or Assfly will inevitably step in. When will you learn RJ? The (nearly exhaustive) list of conservatives is:

• Mama Schlafly
• Andypants
• Reagan
• Jesus
• Rush
• TK
• Savage
• Hannity
• Beck
• Rob
• Malkin
• Coulter
• Farah
• Chuck Norris

18:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: HAH! Didn't take long... 18:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ed stepped in to derail defuse the issue. Probably the wisest thing he did in a long while, even if it's likely just motivated by him realizing that TK and Rob are slightly out of their league there. My major WTF about his post, however, is (I fear) more universal and not just limited to Ed himself: Does every cause have to be "owned" by liberals or conservatives? Do people really try to quantify which end of the political spectrum opposes racism more? --Sid 19:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and while I was writing that post, Ed pretty much tells TK to stop sniping RJJ. Nice one; can't wait for TK's smooth reply. --Sid 19:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"the GOP in the South is based on the white collar/business/better educated groups that are the least racist" - RJJ wow...I think I just lost all credibility for RJ. 207.67.17.45 20:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet he's the most normal and most educated man on that talk page, as RobS, master of reading comprehension is eager to demonstrate: The only argument you have is, he was an anti-Semite, therefore he was conservative." --Sid 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Given CP history it's painfully obvious that the outcome will be communism/fascism/racism/atheism will all emerge on the liberal left with God and goodness on the conservative right. RJJ will be gone in a matter of days if he hasn't already left by the time I've finished typing this; 1. Joe was NOT liberal; 2) he was right wing; 3) he did use anti-semitic language from ToP's cite. TK won't stand for that. I can't help but notice Andy standing out the way and allowing his puppets to batter the shit out of one another. SuperJosh 10:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Andy pretty much always looks away when sysops tear regular users or even each other apart. Sometimes, the fallout even happened right on his talk page while he was busily editing, and he never even acknowledged that anything was happening. And he doesn't have to. After all, he knows he can rely on his good friend and selfless helper... TK. --Sid 10:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive

I don't take a lot of interest in Cp any more so I'm afraid so I'm not sure what's hot or still potentially interesting. Could somebody who is up on the conversations archive anything possible? It's to reduce bandwidth. Thanks.--Bob M 19:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. TheoryOfPractice 21:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ToP.--Bob M 21:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You should enable output compression on your server. That would cut down bandwith usage by quite a lot. --79.45.237.109 06:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Moar Ed

Ed is not known for his contributions to MainPageLeft but true to form his addition to the featured article was to insert a red link. Genghis Khant 06:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hence his lifetime achievement award of Biggest Idiot on Any Wiki Anywhere. Human 07:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Jpratt createded teh article. Now there's tweaking about who actually believes the tripe, which I find revealing. Patti says it's a founding belief of Catholics. The Good Doctor thinks it's a founding belief of fundamentalists (and some protestants). I would have guessed it's a founding belief of...Christians. My conclusions: RJ is a liburul. 207.67.17.45 18:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

JPratt also did a lot of copy/pasting from here it would appear. Like his articles on the saints, they're all all plagiarised. -- Psy_Whut? 16:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Copypaste Fail, advertisement, non-encyclopedic tone... hi, Ed!

This is the current version of senior sysop Ed "Fifty million years of Wikipedia experience" Poor's latest masterpiece. Take a good look at it and then guess how many edits Ed invested into these three lines (plus one link). --Sid 23:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would love to meet Ed, what a mutant. Ace McWicked 23:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Urban rumours"? Genghis Khant 23:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great name for a rock band. SirChuckB 02:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have gotten a lot out of that book. Corry 03:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I, TK, plagiarist

In case anyone was wondering whether the rambling screed was actually TK's own, it's not. 24.14.72.223 05:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find TK's words there, but I chuckled at this: "everyone should be afforded equal opportunity to pursue happiness for himself [sic] and his family". Equal oportunity? Isn't that a liberal program? Human 05:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"unalienable" Hahahahahaha. Human 05:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't dig deep enough into TK's screed. Yeah, nice theft without attribution. Theft of a lot of lameness. Human 06:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

TK vs. RJJ (and reality), sweetheart time

"My problem? You want to make this personal, RJ? Are you sure you do? If so, I can go there, but I really don't think you want me to. And if you do, it will show more about you than me. Maybe you need some time off..." [3]

A TK classic.

Moar funny

TK fixes the typos in the original he stole without attribution

Human 06:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh christ. Deep burned. Eeehehe and I'm a celebrity: (Block log); 01:20 . . TK (Talk | contribs) blocked 24.14.0.0/16 (Talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) (IP of blocked vandal / troll / troublemaker) 24.14.72.223 07:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I wondered if should have screencapped that crap. Oh well. Amusingly enough, TK may have killed a diff or two, but his poopybuttness is still on display on edit after edit on that talk page. This is a beaut. If it's still there. Hi TK! Human 07:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have his removal of his comments to Jensen saved, but unfortunately, I'm not sure I can say much more. I'd like to discuss it, but not openly. If someone has an email account they can post without fear, I really want to pass it on, but I have to also outline my fears. Mt 08:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You can email me. Genghis Khant 09:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone notice TK's shout at Ed? Genghis Khant 09:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, email sent. Mt 09:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And received. Genghis Khant 09:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What I love with this, is how T "everything must be discussed via e-mail" K is quite happy to troll the other administrators publicly on their talk pages, but the minute it goes against him, then it needs to go off-line (or gets burnt these days). -- Psy_Whut? 09:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's weird how he accuses Ed of discussing policy when Ed simply suggested a truce to not troll RJJ off the wiki and that there is more to history than "Do you agree with all my political views or are you a liberal?" Oh, wait, I forgot that "Do not disagree with Andy or TK" is policy. --Sid 10:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

TK's such a nasty piece of work to put it politely. He really does remind me of Stalin in the 1920s - forming friendships when he needs them and then ousting people left, right and centre when he's done with them. RobS is crawling up the Hit List... SuperJosh 10:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I kinda died on Conservapedia. Not blocked, just more like inactive for the past two days. *glad I found this place* Kektklik 10:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Just like Stalin he excises from the picture all those who have fallen out of favour. Genghis Khant 11:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether TK's recanting of his diatribe agains RJJ resulted from some "behind the scenes" discussions. I could well imagine that both Ed and Andy regard Jensen as too prolific a quality editor to lose. If RJJ walked away then CP would be a ghost town despite the monomaniacs. Genghis Khant 11:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to think so. His approach has been to drive away admins one by one, without any need of pretext, and RJJ is the most (only) valuable person on the wiki. Also, I'd be interested to know what was in the burned posts, if anyone can give further details.Publius 16:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

After Ed's intervention to say things may not be so simple, TK posted:

The problem is, Professor Jensen lacks the political qualifications to judge who is and isn't conservative, Ed. Stale facts, without context and a deep knowledge of politics, cannot alone be the deciding factor. Academics deciding on political orthodoxy is much like the three blind men describing an elephant. While I have long ago conceded some of Joe Kennedy's positions were conservative, to state in our article that he is one, is another thing altogether. We had another Admin, recently, who insisted he alone was right, while everyone else was wrong, (I believe he left to start his own encyclopedia) but here, we are not just an encyclopedia, we are a conservative encyclopedia as well....so I would like to see more accommodation and cooperation, and less insistence on declaring, unilaterally, he alone is correct, bolstered by references to other articles here at CP, that, surprisingly, are content added by the same person. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 02:05, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

And a bit later:

My problem? You made the assertion, not me. It is entirely up to you to back your supposition, and I have already told you that here, at Conservapedia, we don't accept 4 out of 5 on some list as proof of being conservative. You want to make this personal, RJ? Are you sure you do? Maybe you need some time off.... --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 01:45, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

I'll upload images when RW is back online. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder who that former admin he was talking about was? It's so hard to tell. --Kels 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the text TK burned Ghengis? If so, thanks to you (and Mt) for keeping it; I was wondering what TK had burned off that talk page. Someone should send that to RJJ (but not me, because I don't think he likes me). EddyP 20:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There's one other bit. The first version of his "My problem" line was:

My problem? You want to make this personal, RJ? Are you sure you do? If so, I can go there, but I really don't think you want me to. And if you do, it will show more about you than me. Maybe you need some time off.... --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 01:45, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

But then changed his mind and used the one from above, THEN deep-burned the whole thing. SuspectedReplicant 22:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Life imitates art: for ages RW has been saying that only teh Assfly gets to define what a conservative is, and now Uncle Ed confirms it:

Please stop categorizing political people. Leave it to others, particular senior admins, to decide whether someone is conservative, libertarian, or liberal. There's no point arguing over this sort of thing. --Ed Poor ^Talk 16:47, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't know whether to feel happy or sad. SuspectedReplicant 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm moderately certain he means TK, not Andy. Ed's pretty much always been on TK's short leash and only goes to Andy for the occasional suck-up. (And for reference, here is the diff in question - the edit summary is VERY interesting: "Cease and desist, my deal colleague") --Sid 00:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly TK, Andy would be "site owner" and doesn't involve himself with wiki-basics like categories. This is a great example of Ed's alleged "moderating" skills; you may be right but just shut up and let the bully win. He did the same thing with PJR (IMMSMW). Unfortunately RJJ is on hiding to nothing as his views can be attributed as "professor values". Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 07:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I see now he's openly advocating that the conservative LDP in Japan is "doomed"... that'll go down well. Psy_Whut? 12:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi TK...?

Anyone think TK (and therefore Conservapedia) has found us here? Following my TK-is-Stalinesque comment above and the blocking of someone he thought was Skalextric he said "Sock of blocked user: Kettle O Fish, no longer wanted/needed" Coincidence or pandering to us? SuperJosh 10:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Always assume that you are being monitored by TK. I'm sure he followed us over almost straightway. If a numbnuts like Jinx found Trent's blog then TK would have been away ahead. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 10:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that 24.14.0.0/16 got a rangeblock just after 24.14.72.223 posted proves that he's watching. SuspectedReplicant 10:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A new, tamer TK?

Here's an odd discussion: "Need your input"

Rob eagerly suggests an image with a "funny" caption (about Kennedy and Kopechne) on TK's talk page, and TK... distances himself from it and says that while he participated in such things in the past, he'd rather move to the moral high ground.

Cue the Wild Mass Guessing about whether this is related to TK oversighting his own comments against RJJ or if something else is going on. I personally dunno, but hey, it'd be nice if it's genuine, so here's hoping. --Sid

Ooh, a fellow troper. Phantom Hoover 20:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Only lurking so far. But that alone keeps me occupied for hours at the worst opportunities... --Sid 00:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. My theory on TK's behaviour is that he's a Time Lord, and he just regenerated. Phantom Hoover 10:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Master? Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 11:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC) 11:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

<drwhonerd>The Meddling Monk?</drwhonerd> 81.149.103.17 (totnesmartin in an internet cafe in Chelsea) 12:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Batman WIGO

The batman WIGO just reminded me of a comment Reginald D Hunter made on "Have I Got News For You" one time: "I don’t respect the concept of Batman because of what i understand about politics and that. I’m going to lay it out for you, Rich dude owns a corporation, has state of the art equipment and he uses this to beat up on street level crime. He doesn’t mess with the industrialists or the super capitalists, the Murdock or the Trumps he’d rather just f**k with the purse snatchers on the corner! Batman is a Conservative's wet dream. F**k batman!". Crundy 21:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice comment. But you're not supposed to say [poop] here ;) Human 04:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Edited swear words. Crundy 08:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Range Blocks

Just two new pics. :-) DiEb 06:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't wait for RW to get back running so we can collate all these blogs together. Pi 08:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

and a preview of the stats for August... 94.79.171.45 20:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I just found this

[4] It's unsettling. SuperJosh 14:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

But it's ok - Dean links to it, so it has sysop approval. Also I see Dean isn't above stealing an XKCD cartoon... and probably can't see the irony in the one he's using Psy_Whut? 14:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not stolen so much as the licence is completely stuffed up. That reminds me when RW is back up, we need to fix the licensing on our pictures, including attributing on use. Pi 06:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Since his wife died that seems kind of ... something or other. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 16:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Terry! 18:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Now i've ruined all these people's userboxen fun! Operation Flying Panther worked! SuperJosh 19:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was predictable. We point, TK burns without caring about collateral damage. --Sid 20:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you at least screenshot the image and the userbox before moving it in front of TK's idiotcannon? Human 23:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I got a screencap of the image page (and the hilariously damning "what links here" list). No screencap of the user page and/or the template, but that wouldn't have been that interesting (in my eyes) since the image had been incredibly scaled down, anyway. --Sid 11:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a userbox which said "This user was raised Catholic" and the piccy was of a nun beating a student with a ruler. SuperJosh 12:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded by our old friend Teresita. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 06:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Economics course

Andy fails at English again with this edit summary. And I like his sequence of much improved - finished -better - finished - better. Has he finished yet? Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 16:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be part of the largest Economics course in the world right? I love that claim. --DogP 17:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope we are back up and running before that class starts. It ought to be soon, people I know are back in school, and the UNH students are clogging up the local liquor store... Human 23:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That explains so much...

When you fail at teaching as hard as Andy does, it's no surprise that your students learn more from the classroom prayer than the lectures. That, however, does not mean that there is a "connection between knowledge and faith".

(And no, don't try to understand how Andy's post is supposed to answer any of the questions from Hsmom's post.) --Sid 17:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Celibacy

"a couple just cooling it for a while" - classic Ed Poop. Human 23:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The voice of experience. It's amazing how much people give away about themselves, like Andy's woman on a plane who lost $5. I am now going to retire from Teflpedia until next month and hope Bob's bandwidth keeps within limits. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 11:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember the woman who lost $5...where is it? It's not on the conservative parables. 14:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the econ lectures. TheoryOfPractice 15:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's RobS' Law

He doesn't even try to make a connection any more. Pi 06:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just thought of something...

TK = Ted Kennedy.

Coincidence??? SuperJosh 10:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! What about the former Snooker player, Tony Knowles!! (and it turns out there's a former Governor of Alaska with the same name too!!! You could be on to something!!!! SuspectedReplicant 17:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I forgot about Tony Kaye from Yes!!!!! SuspectedReplicant 17:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I mentioned the Kennedy Konspiracy a few days ago... Human 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

StephenE

I saved a cap of TK chasing him off. It's pretty standard...let me know if anyone is even interested anymore. 207.67.17.45 13:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Was that the trainwreck where Jpatt attacked the guy over the Founding Fathers terminology, only to have TK go all "HOW DARE YOU SPEAK UP AGAINST A SYSOP!?!?!?!?!?!" on him after a fairly polite reply? Edit: Didn't realize that the section after this was a copypaste of that trainwreck. I'll make it a subsection to avoid archiving confusion. TK doesn't even try to make his bans look reasonable anymore. --Sid 14:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The best part of that was how his my talk page has been replaced with a "retired" notice, as though he I left voluntarily. TheoryOfPractice 14:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much standard for TK. If I recall correctly, the "Retired" template was made for TK-banned users. It was his way of pissing on the grave, basically. --Sid 14:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you learn something every day. What a cock. Armondikov 15:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I was blogging this last night in the absence of telfp. A shining example of what complete and utter toss-pots Terry and John are. -- Psy_Whut? 17:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Link? TheoryOfPractice 17:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. SuspectedReplicant 17:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There are so many great aspects to these posts, not least of which is Terry Kockring's assertion that Stephen should post "more suggestions/conversation on the talk pages". In other words, post on article pages -> get blocked for being over bold; post on talk pages -> get blocked for "90/10". SuspectedReplicant 17:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell, he can't help himself can he? "simply drop me a line via email, or IM, both of which are given on my user page". Effin' creep. Crundy 13:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Correction Comments

This section is a copypaste of StephenE's user talk page

Can you stop with all the correction comments? If you insist on adding United States Founding fathers, I will have to block you and I have already mentioned it before. It is either American Founding Fathers or America's Founding Fathers or founding fathers of America. In the future, you would be best to read Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia. You are guilty of #15 and #20.--Jpatt 14:00, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

And you are guilty of poor wiki-behavior in that I have spent quite a bit of time working on articles in dire need of good editing and the least you can do is thank me instead of berating me. Perhaps I was mistaken on the accepted nomenclature re: the Founding Fathers (but at least I know to capitalize the term), and if that was the only problem with your articles you might have more of an argument. StephenE 14:11, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

• The term should be American Founding Father, if referencing one of them, and collectively the Founding Fathers of the United States, or just Founding Fathers. I suggest, Stephen, you cool it with the groaning edit comments, as oftentimes they could be humorous, or just exasperation showing, but could convey nastier connotations to some. Perhaps less unilateral, lone wolf editing, and more suggestions/conversation on the talk pages, would help? Insulting Jpatt isn't going to be a winning strategy, you know....I mean you do know that, right? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:24, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps, sir: but neither is a belligerent attitude toward editors. StephenE 14:26, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Well, can you contain yourself, or should I block you for a day, to at least stop you from moving this to the point of no return? You can feel free to avail yourself of my expert (second only to Professor Ed Poor's!) and free mediation services...simply drop me a line via email, or IM, both of which are given on my user page. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:58, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I will tone down the edit comments. As for e-mail/IM, one thing which appeals to me about the wiki format is its openness; conversations occurring "off the record" strike me as antithetical to that fundamental idea, so I'll pass on the invite--anything I want to say, I'll say here. Finally, if you really feel the need to block me for punitive reasons, so be it, though I would invite you to look at my edit history and find one instance where I made an edit that did not, in intent if not action, seek to improve the content of this project. StephenE 15:12, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

There is absolutely nothing about a wiki that mandates public conversations about all things, so your statement is false and made up out of whole cloth. Even Wikipedia, implementing Flagged Revisions, knows that! What a silly postulation! Gods speed to you. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:27, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

A historian's view of the world

It's only history, and American history at that, that counts when RJJ defines parity. I wondered what a parity bit was now I know (?). Toast 16:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

...wow. That's... wow. --Sid 16:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The week that never happened

I was just wondering, reading over Jinx(hi Jinx!)ies comment that "Gawddunshudtehvandalsitedown!" comment. Does it occur to him as strange that CP has hiccups, I daresay, more frequently than RW? (CP is down for me now, BTW) Javascap 00:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does, but he's lying ("Ohhh, they can't puzzle out what happened!") and invoking the Almighty for petty agendas ("God, Creator of the Universe, shut down a site we don't like!") already, so a bit of ignoring key facts isn't much of a leap... --Sid 00:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

EC) It's OK for me but I've had an error (503 if memory serves) about 4 times today. Toast 00:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone stole Andy's idea!!!!!!!!!!!1

what will he do now? Ace McWicked 02:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. He should sue. Human 03:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For the perfect, unchanging word of god, they sure do like to change it a lot. I don't understand the point of this exercise. The NIV is already written in the next best thing to tellytubby speak, what updating does it need? At least the Assfly has a method to his madness. --Jeeves 10:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear... why do they always scream "IT'S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!!!112" whenever someone happens to do this. Face it, most of these words in the original languages don't have proper literal interpretations into English and lots of languages have non-gender specific terms that just don't mesh with English, heck most of it's written without vowels, IIRC. Though I suppose it's too much to ask for them to bother learning a heathen language so they can at least get preachy accurately. Armondikov 10:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

God guides the translators to ensure inerrancy. There is no need to learn inferior languages that aren't even powerful enough to express modern conservative concepts. Godspeed. --Sid 11:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"The New International Version, the Bible of choice for conservative evangelicals" - Isn't the NIV one of those liberally biased versions? I'm too lazy to check right now, but I vaguely recall him dissing it. (Besides, it's international, so how can it be US conservative?) --Sid 11:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think he'd do? Call it liberal. Duh. 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd.. Phyllie uses NIV. I gave her an NIV translated Bible for college level students, which little open ended questions and commentary at the end of every few chapters, as an early Christmas present for 2008.. she didn't like reading KJV. Kektklik 04:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Time

Oh dear. Just read cp:Time after the WIGO. That is sad. -- Psy_Whut? 10:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(I tweaked the link since we apparently don't have the "cp" shortcut here.) Wow, I couldn't make it past "New Testament". That has got to be one of the most garbled and random streams of consciousness I've ever seen. --Sid 11:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Assfly really knows how to take an already incoherent article and make it worse. I'm only surprised he isn't claiming that Christianity invented the concept of time. There's all his little pets in there, Christianity invented..., mentions in the Bible, theory of relativity, economics. All that's missing is trifling little things like a definition, or mention that it's a fundamental SI unit. Not important stuff, clearly. --Jeeves 11:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Time is a valuable resource, and each person has the responsibility not to squander the gift of time by engaging in unproductive activities such as .... frequenting worthless websites on the internet". Does that mean we should abandon WIGO CP? Pi 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it means you should be a Christian so that you get all eternity to squander on WIGO CP. Though, presumably up there they have a heavenly host with no down time at all. --Jeeves 12:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

When I'm finished with it, I'll send those guys a copy of Why Does E=mc²? and they can rewrite it. I imagine, that considering the state of the rest of the article the "sequence of events" bit in the opening sentence is ripped from the WP version. (...lol, ...morelol, but I'm sure you guys can check yourselves!) Armondikov 14:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

ONLY Conservapedia could take an abstract concept such as "time" and turn it into something like that. First paragraph... "Christianity introduced eternity..." (no references) "...evil focuses on brief periods, good tends to last longer such as the Resurrection..." (no references) What the hell? As for "frequenting worthless websites on the internet" are they referring to us or themselves? SuperJosh 16:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That article is amazing. No "vandal" could ever even come up with such brilliant parody, let alone get away with saving it on CP. Human 19:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As Goldmember would say - "It's a keeper". Make sure we have a copy of it before they regain their senses. (Which may not happen soon.) Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 06:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Empty set, meet empty mind

Christian scientists and others hold that it is impossible to create nothing from nothing, casting doubt on the existence of the empty set. However, it remains an important tool among secular mathematicians.

Statement removed by MarkGall (with explanation of reasoning) and re-added by... JM (with no comment whatsoever, of course)?

This should be amusing to watch... *grabs popcorn* --Sid 23:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It has be endorsed by Aschlafly's inability to read. Pi 23:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Joaquin =/= TK Toast 01:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have often felt that the best asset a wiki admin needs is the ability to humble, take any insults you receive on the chin and be prepared to admit they are wrong. I was going to list which don't have that ability at CP, but then I realised that is 70% of them. Pi 01:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, refreshing to see that he reverted himself! :) However, JM's had his fits of idiotic stubbornness (see Talk:Painting and the Painting history for example), too, so while he's not TK, he's not exactly a role model for wiki sysops (then again, who on CP is?)... --Sid 02:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If only Cp had more "sane" editors (not forgiving JM's endless copyvios). Human 03:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

CP's admins are largely people who are not welcome else where. The biggest problem they have is they attribute it to discrimination based on their beliefs, rather then their behaviour. Pi 04:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put, 3.14 guy. Please make sure to make that point in new article at RW "when we get home". Human 04:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy, YEC and his religious beliefs...

Alright, it seems to me that there's a little uncertainty I need to clear up, mostly because I have no life. Andy is a YEC, right? This edit certainly points in that direction, though I believe other dedicated Andy-watchers have argued that he's always been a little cagey on YEC vs. OEC. But dude IS a Catholic, right? Or has he been born again/converted to some Evangelical Protestant branch? 'Cause it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that YEC is not really a "Catholic thing"--I certainly think of it as a born again thing. thoughts? TheoryOfPractice 03:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pragmatism: he doesn't want to come out as anti-YEC 'cause that'd alienate a lot of right wing Xtians especially those who submit their kids to his classes but I think he's a true Catlic (when the Pope agrees with him, that is) at heart. Toast 03:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Toast, ironically, Our Andy is a whore, not a true believer. But the edit ToP linked above... shows Andy to basically be insane. Human 04:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I remember of Andy's few discussions on the topic he can't see how any Christian theology works without YECism. It does make sense if you don't consider is all as an allegory. His basic argument is Jesus died as a sacrifice to the sin we are all born with. Catholic's believe that through baptism you remove the original sin, through confession you are absolved from all other sin, and through the Eucharist you partake in the sacrifice of Jesus, the only perfect human. In Andy's mind all this only makes sense if the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, eg. that original sin is not a metaphor for the fact none of us are born perfect, but that there was a sin we all must suffer for. Pi 05:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am worried that you can see so clearly into Andy's "mind". You still didn't make him make sense to the rest of us... Human 05:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy's a Catholic but a YECretinist as well. Few Catholics can escape the clutches of Mother Rome so he just rewrites his religion to fit in with his world view. Let's not forget that the RCC used to be YEC but changed its official stance in light of the overwhelming scientific evidence. Andy probably believes that the church was wrong to do that. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 05:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Shorter version, Andy could sleep in Sunday mornings if Adam and Eve didn't exist. He ironically is about theologically on par with Richard Dawkins. Either God created the Earth 6,000 years ago as it says in the bible, or alternatively it is all made up and Jesus (even if he did exist) is guy with a beard and long hair who did some stuff, but overall is unimportant. Pi 05:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

@ GK, Andy doesn't "believe the church was wrong", he thinks the church never said what lies you claim they did. Human 05:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Or liberals are making it say these things. Pi 05:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer. Toast 06:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Cue the "That is merely his personal opinion, he is not speaking for the Church unless he explicitly says so!" whining... --Sid 11:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Andy's alleged Catholicism (I've said this before, but it bears repeating): I was born and raised Catholic, went to Catholic school from K-12, have known all manner of Catholics from liberal liberationists to hard-core pre-Vatican2 types, but Andy is unlike any Catholic I've ever met. If I didn't "know" Andy was Catholic, and had to guess to which Christian sect he belonged, "Catholic" would be last on the list. While there may be some coincidental crossover, his belief system is decidedly un-Catholic, and goes against all manner of church policy/doctrine/dogma.--WJThomas 21:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my sentiment. Other than being "nominally" Catholic, and the occasional gripe about the Vatican and evolution, he's never given so much as an inkling that he's Catholic. None of his ideas even resemble catholicism. Publius 23:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

An older catholic lawyer friend of mine says there is a growing trend among catholics to move more and more to the right with this YECretinism, dogmatic relativism, etc. Is anyone aware of books, blogs, or articles discussing this? Nutty Roux 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"But... but... but... MY GOSSIP!"

RJJ and Rob are poking each other again, this time on Talk:Harry Hopkins (and the associated article where several edits either add or remove several thousand bytes...) --Sid 11:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ed & George

Does anybody even want to hazard a guess as to what Ed is up to with all those Orwell quote templates? -- Psy_Whut? 17:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about those too... My guess is that he'll use them on talk pages to save time when labelling people one thing or another. SuspectedReplicant 18:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Socialised medicine

Whoever added the arguments for (if you're reading this) good job, but there was an obvious block coming. Here's what you wrote:

"Unfortunately, the system is biased towards wealthier individuals from the start, so it hinders the ability of poorer individual’s to expand their capital"

and here's what Conservapedia saw:

"Conservatives are bad"

Nice try though. SuperJosh 16:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That gives me an idea for a side-by-side type thing based on that. One side is what is actually said, and the other side is what CP (or Ken, TK, Assfly) reads it as. Could be fun :p. Armondikov 12:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

When I created the Liberal Protection Suit for the Conservapedia Gang I had a translator that did just that, although I never really made use of it in the series. SuperJosh 12:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Irony meter

Ironic that TK copies our irony meter meme. Never an original thought from the Top Klepto. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why I included it, though as I've only been here about 5 months I didn't know if "irony meters" originated here or at CP. Obvious nod to us though. Hi TK! SuperJosh 17:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary has its definition dating from the end of 2005, which is somewhat before RW or CP. I remember using the term in RL pre-2000. SuspectedReplicant 17:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was originated here, but it has become a WIGO meme and TK is a regular lurker. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 18:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know - it was a reply to SJ, but I'd agree with you that The Knife was copying it from here/RW. SuspectedReplicant 19:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for all these expansions of "TK" when there's the one original that he's displayed (before CP even, @ Hot or not) and continues to display so well. Let's just call him what he is: a self serving demolisher of others creations: a true Team Killer. Toast 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

When we get back home we need to solicit more information from the Hot or Not people about the Team Killer's conduct there. I'd be interested to know if his strategy of doing nothing productive, yet demanding deference while decimating the team was as well evolved there as it is at CP. 24.14.72.223 22:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone got a contact for Kevin Conolly? I know he peruses RW. ("When we get back home" - yes, it does seem like that). Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 22:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The holiday has been pleasant in ways, the scenery is nice, but I'm getting tired of sleeping in strange beds and taking piccies of seagulls. Can we go home now? Human 01:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Home is where the heart is. --Sid 02:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, you peed on my sentiment with a ghastly link! Human 03:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that I haven't enjoyed this wiki, but it will be nice to go back to RW. The articles, the friendly blocks, the WIGO voting, the userspace farting... Also, who's Kevin Conolly? Old workmate of TK? SuperJosh 11:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume that he is some one from HotOrNot.com Pi 11:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

See PJR's I was a Conservapedia administrator website. Sorry, I don't have the link to hand. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 15:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. SuspectedReplicant 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I just read all that stuff. Really makes me wish I was here two years ago, then I could have been in the cabal... I have to say, I was never really sure TK was a parodist, but now... ;) SuperJosh 12:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's good to see the admins are obnoxious to each other too: "And now I'm demanding you leave Conservapedia.". Classic. SuspectedReplicant 12:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ken hits the big time!

According to Eoinc Ken's Evolution article is mentioned in Dawkin's latest tome. Unsurprisingly it is not favorable, but that won't matter to KenDoll. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 15:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what's wrong with Dawkins' approach IMHO. Ajkgordon 15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Why give some marginal crank in a basement the kind of cred that comes with a shout-out from a guy of your stature? Leave him to us. TheoryOfPractice 17:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's awesome! Ken's sense of grandeur will last as long as the book! Dawkins is watching you Ken - He fears you! GET HIM!!!

But anyways... I believe more sunshine is a great thing for CP. 207.67.17.45 18:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ken to Eoinc: "please quote mine it for me, I don't know how real books work". Human 19:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Eonic helpfully adds the text:

"Andrew Schlalfy, creationist editor of 'Conservapedia', the notoriously misleading imitation of Wikipedia, wrote to Dr Lenski demanding access to his original data, presumably implying that there was some doubt as to their veracity. Lenski had absolutely no obligation even to reply to this impertinent suggestion but, in a very gentlemanly way, he did so, mildly suggesting that Schlafly might make the effort to read his paper before criticizing it. Lenski went on to make the telling point that his best data are stored in the form of frozen bacterial cultures, which anybody could, in principle, examine to verify his conclusions. He would be happy to send samples to any bacteriologist qualified to handle them, pointing out that in unqualified hands they might be quite dangerous. Lenski listed these qualifications in merciless detail, and one can almost hear the relish with which he did so, knowing full well that Schlafly - a lawyer, if you please, not a scientist at all - would hardly be able to spell his way through the words, let alone qualify as a bacteriologist competent to carry out advanced and safe laboratory procedures, followed by statistical analysis of the results. The whole matter was trenchantly summed up by the celebrated blogwit PZ Myers, in a passage beginning, 'Once again, Richard Lenski has replied to the goons and fools at Conservapedia, and boy, does he ever outclass them.'" - Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show On Earth, p.131.

-- Psy_Whut? 19:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, the Lenski trainwreck made its way into print? WIN. --Sid 20:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If it were not for TK I am sure we could prod Andy into taking this public, writing to Dawkins demanding he remove his name from all copies of his new book. That would be awesome. Ace McWicked 20:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree that Dawkins is becoming a little tiresome. His earlier books on evolution were absolutely fantastic, and even relatively recent ones like The Ancestor's Tale are must-reads. The God Delusion was, I'm afraid, boring. It caused a stir in the pro-Christian Replicant household when I put it on a Christmas list though...

Having said that, I would prefer to see Ken's POV get spread as wide as possible. When I'm asked by my family why I'm an atheist, these days I can just point them to CP and say "THIS is why". There's a bit more to it than that, but having such splendid wingnuttery within easy reach makes it so much easier. SuspectedReplicant 20:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thus, so everyone else is clear, Ken's "articles" appear to have NO mention, but instead it includes Schlafly's much more significant debacle with an actual scientist. And we're assuming on good faith that this is actually in the book. Edit: It also makes sense why it might be included. "Random creationist drivel on the internet" is obvious, but "absolutely crazy ways that creationists interact with science and scientists" has a point. Publius 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, too bad RD didn't mention RW, then we could haz WP artikle... Human 20:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Irony being that Dawkins mentioning CP will encourage people to register, which will cause TK to block them, and less people get to edit CP. And around and around we go! 02:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Headed off at the pass. I haven't seen registration open on CP in days and found night editing on at 1 pm MST when I managed to create a sock. 24.14.72.223 03:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How come Wikipedia doesn't have an article on RationalWiki? Is it just because of that one CUR tried to make when it was obviously bashing CP? SuperJosh 11:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No reliable sources. The only thing that meets that criteria is a brief two paragraph mention in a Los Angeles Times article about Conservapedia. RationalWiki redirects to the criticism section on the CP article. Pi 11:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, H-man. Considering RW probably has the best record and commentary on that affair, it seems unfair not to get a shout-out. Well, never mind. Better luck next time. Armondikov 12:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is Chippeterson?

Never came across this guy - and he's an admin now. DiEb 06:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

He was the guy that copy and pasted dictionary.com to win DeanS' copy and pasted prize. Pi 06:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So, um, Andy got up out of bed with a delighted smile upon his face and rewarded his date in the only way he knows? I dunno, it's just a theory! Human 06:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

He does seem to be the only person left who is not either banned or a sysop. He is a bit of a wiki gnome. Occasional sets off a slight tick on the parodist alarm. Isn't he used as an example on our parodist guide on how to contribute without actually contributing in such away as to need to take 5 baths a night? Pi 07:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, TK. Think you're clever don't you? Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 08:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What about me? I'm not banned. Oh and a question while we're on the topic of banning... If I don't have my cookies enabled while creating an account, then Checkuser won't work, right? Kektklik 09:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Check user records your IP address, cookies are not involved. Pi 09:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, the Mediawiki software records the user ID and IP address of those who edit. That's all stored in a big database. Checkuser just gives access to that database. Normally checkuser is reserved for just a few trusted individuals because of personal privacy issues. However, CP now probably has a greater percentage of sysops than any other wiki with that power (excluding those with just two or three admins of course) Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 09:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

15 check users for 51 active users, is it now officially a police state? Pi 09:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

At very least, it's a wonderful example of herd behaviour in response to predator pressure. --Jeeves 11:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

After a while, CP reminded me of a lame version of Autobot City. It looks open and inviting ("Hey, it's a wiki encyclopedia, so why not join and help us out?"), but the moment they think that something might be wrong (or when they're simply bored), a hit of the switch sends the site into Night Mode with registration disabled and full Checkuser sweeps for anybody, with banhammers set to kill the moment two people edit from the same /16 block (or when one user once had a different IP for whatever reason). And afterwards, anybody who asked why the site was locked down for an entire day will simply get the standard reply "Night mode starts around x o'clock in this and that time zone." ("Yeah, b-but it was down much longer than- *banned*") --Sid 17:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice, the really fast talking one (at 6:02) reminded me of Karajou for some reason. Kektklik 19:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing Chippeterson "promoted to administrator" looks so weird. Anyway, I thought he was a kid in Andy's class. SuperJosh 11:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know about it, just make it up

I have just noticed RJJensen correcting the Australia article and wondered who made the error in the first place. Turns out Karajou couldn't see the inherent problem with Australia being a Unitary presidential republic and its Queen being Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Looking for Conservative Insights^TM about constitutional monarchies I found out the UK has a constitution now. Nice to see that when they are out of their depth they use the principle s*** floats. Pi 13:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The UK does have a constitution, it's just not a written constitution. The CP article is actually right, on the stopped clock principle anyway. --Jeeves 14:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I see a subtle implication that it is written down, rather then it being a set of conventions and related laws. Although the UK article does mention that it is not written down as such. Pi 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest WIGO

Yes I know it's cheap to make a WIGO out of a tyop, but I thought that was a funny one. I'll get my coat. SuspectedReplicant 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

CP down

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@conservapedia.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. O_O

Javascap 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RW and CP down. Yikes! There must be a God... Sterile 19:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to go and yank Jinxie's chain? Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If God intervened to take down RW, maybe Satan intervened to take down CP. Stile4aly 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I knew we could count on Lord Beelzebub. EddyP 21:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn the evil liberal atheist conspiracy to corrupt the children and destroy traditional American values! Javascap 22:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Screencap or it didn't happen. Theemperor 03:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Fake voting

Just bragging here, that idea has been a fabulous success, everyone seems to be coming up with new hilarious "numbers". Thanks for playing along! On another note about the same thing, we need a way to preserve those jokes when we merge back to RW. Put all the WIGO edits in a special archive perhaps? Human 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Better, we could fix the regular WIGO so that the ordinals for every entry are randomly replaced by funny numbers to confound voters. --Jeeves 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How about if the random substitution was moderately rare, so there'd perhaps be just one every second or third load? That would really muck with people's heads... Human 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Feminist mistranslations

Andy handed me a chuckle on a silver platter this morning with the feminist mistranslations edit. I was struck in particular by the shocking hypocrisy inherent in his whinging over "the wife's duties in marriage," as I calculate that Andy doesn't make more than $45-60k a year doing his homeschooling and appellate brief writing and that as a physician his wife makes substantially more. What duties, exactly, does Andy's wife have aside from being the major bread-winner in their household if Andy's the one staying home all day making Thee Encyclopedia? Does he even do the dishes or does he just leave sandwich crumbs all over his Compaq Tower desktop for her to clean up? I'll be as surprised if she reads this nonsense as she will be when she does. Nutty Roux 16:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

May be it was something Ed was hinting at in his cp:Celibacy stub - when a couple decided to "cool it" for a while. His wife's probably at that age where female hormones start doing weird things. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 18:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the word "kow-tow" is particularly encyclopedic. Human 23:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"...to obscure differences between me and women"? He's the man... --79.30.235.165 07:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

TK and blocking

So, why is that TK can see that StevenM and Mike1234 have the same IP yet not understand that IP addresses have the ability to change? Kektklik 23:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't use "TK" and "understand" in the same sentence. He doesn't understand, or care about, anything. He just blocks, incinerates, and lies, as much as he can possibly get away with at any given instant. He blocks people for being socks of each other with total disregard for those pesky things called "facts". He claims people are AmesG, or you, or whoever, whenever he feels like it. He also claims to have access to checkuser at aSoK.

It's interesting that, though he blocked StevenM and Mike1234 as socks, he was persuaded to back down: [5] at the "request of another admin". He also backed down in the case of TrishaM, having been asked by her mother KristiM. It seems Trisha is in the economics course. Moral: the way to get unblocked is to get another sysop to plead your case, or to be in one of Andy's classes and have your mother complain.

There was also an interesting discussion near the bottom of PatrickD's user page. He makes the startling admission that he "assume[d] he [RoyL] was indeed socking it up" rather than knowing any facts. He also admits that "Perhaps I was completely wrong in my thinking" (another word that doesn't look correct in the context of TK), and that "you expressing a worry about being caught up in that, seems to take the perhaps out of it." Patrick takes him to task for assuming rather than using facts, and TK of course ignores the issue and goes on to blocking other people. Gauss 04:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A gem just above where the mom edits TK's talk page: "Is this the amatuer [sic] porno star? Rob Smith 15:52, 30 August 2009 (EDT) " Human 05:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, foolish me! I just looked again at the paragraph relating to the "gem just above", and finally figured out what he was talking about. John Edwards. I honestly hadn't figured it out before---I thought the reference was to Newt Gingrich, who wanted his wife to sign some divorce papers while she was in the hospital for cancer surgery. And I couldn't figure out why CP would bring that up. Gauss 05:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, that photo is Mary Jo Kopeckne, post-Chappaquidick. But your ideas are funnier. Human 05:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I knew the picture was of Ms. Kopechne, but she didn't have cancer, and, as far as I know, wasn't a "harlot in Hollywood". So the whole thing, and the "cheating on his wife, riddled with Cancer" confused me. I must have been expecting discussions on TK's talk page to make sense and stay focused. My bad. Gauss 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah - I have/had no idea who TK was referring to. McCain? Gingrich? I think he was mixing up his memories of Den and Rep slimeballs. You know, it's funny, I spelled it "Kopechne", then looked at the cp image title and used the spelling from that. The image title is spelt wrong... Human 22:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

math/science, round 10^10

The science/math stupidity is heating up again. Andy is cleaning up the liberal bias in the relativity article, for example, here. Violates the "arrow of time"? The light cones are invariant under the Poincare/Lorentz transformation; it's not just a 4-dimensional Euclidean rotation, dummy! And Roger and Li'l Phyl are in a fight over deprecating that Jew guy's role in relativity. Phyllis's latest posting is deliciously snarky. Careful, Phyl! Andy might cut you out of his inheritance!

And Andy is back to spewing nonsense about elementary proofs.

(I've got more things to post, but only after RW is up and I can securely get screenshots.)

Gauss 05:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Download ScreenGrab, it's way better than PRTSCRN. Human 05:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a Firefox extension BTW. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 09:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

;___; I can't use Firefox. I have to use Opera. Kektklik 20:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? Phantom Hoover 22:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Phyllis might be referring to this blog post (and the next) by Uncle Roger. I liked his reasoning in the second post: Einstein was so popular because he was a German, a Jew, an ex-German and an American, so Germans, Jews, ex-Germans and Americans liked to credit him as one of their own. ...huh? Oh, and he was a liberal. Duh. --Sid 12:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and about the Elementary Proof: "The talk-to-substance ratio is very high in the above replies, and that's not a good sign." = "I didn't understand most of what you said, but you don't sound like you're agreeing with me, so you're wrong." --Sid 12:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User counts

It's funny... people are watching the "current editors" at CP drop to the low 50s. Meanwhile, in just two weeks, roughly 65 RW editors have joined teflonwiki. Human 22:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Before RW went down we had twice as many current editors than Conservapedia. If CPs numbers remain this low when we get back, we could have three times as many, however I doubt that will happen Pi 23:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We have been back up and running for only three or four hours and we already have 45 active users. - π 02:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but we cheated, by breaking the site to encourage editing... ħuman 03:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The stupid is getting more concentrated. Don't they know fresh is always better than concentrated?--Tabris (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Economics Answers WIGO

Luckily, I have a textgrab of the answers that were deleted. I'm not going to post it just yet - I see the student's father has got involved and I want to see how it plays out. SuspectedReplicant 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And the Fly responds with a warm "Fuck you, you are a liberal because I say so!" Javascap 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What is it with CP and using "liberal" and "deceit" so frequently! I love it. Stay classy, Andy. 24.14.72.223 16:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Update: Nutty Roux 16:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous user, it is clear based upon your lack of contributions that you regurally engage in liberal deceit. This is not wikipedia, where we allow vandals like yourselves to edit freely. Don't you know what cybercrime is? In summary, I have looked at your contributions, and found much in the way of "citation needed" banter. Godspeed! --Aschlafly

Deleted "Economics Homework One Answers - Student Two"

1) Tea is a good, which I saw on the news last night is rising in price Graphic Design is a service. It produces something that did not exist before, but something that cannot be traded directly. Although the designs that are created may be traded subsequently, it is a service that creates them.

2) If you go to eat out at a restaurant, you have to pay towards the cleaning and upkeep of that restaurant - more than just the food you eat. Also, you pay to give them a profit. If you eat at home, your mother must use her time to buy ingredients and cook them. If your mother earns a lot of money the transaction cost of going to a restaurant may be less than staying at home. In my case, both my parents work long hours, and it is often our nanny that must cook the evening meal. Although this avoids the transaction costs of going out to eat or of my parents spending time on non-economic activity, the cost of the nanny is obvious an additional transacation cost in this case.

3) Scarcity is about some items being common and others only being rare. In earlier centuries, substances that are now common, like nutmeg and cinnamon, were worth more than gold. These days, they are fairly cheap and gold is still valuable. I think it is to do with transport as much as anything else. Now we can get to the East easily, and can even grow spices ourselves, they are less scarce than they were. Gold, in contrast, is still found only in a few places, and is difficult to extract.

4) "The Invisible Hand" is a metaphor for man's ability to help himself, and also for God helping those who help themselves. Whatever even the most expert thinkers suggest in the field of economics, it mayh be God's will that their schemes fail.

5) Luke 12:13-21 is an example of someone who treated an exceptional result as an ordinary one. The rich man in Jesus' parable spent his money on storing the excess from a "good crop". In economic terms, he was wasting his money because it is unlikely that such a good result would recur regularly enough to justify the expense. In spiritual terms, the man showed a miserly and selfish outlook. In Biblical times there were many poor and hungry people. If he had donated his surplus to the poor, or sold it to them cheaply, he would have avoided the expense of storage while at the same time saving many of God's children.

6) Caveat Emptor has more and more applications in modern life. There are many reports of people sueing restaurants like KFC because they became obese through only eating one type of food. They claim that the restaurant has a duty to make clear what the nutritional contents of their products is. This is a typical liberal argument, and places the burden on hard-working businesses rather than the people who are not intelligent enough to buy more than one thing day after day.

Honors: 8 - "Money is a good servant, but a poor master." Please explain.

Money is a way of storing your labour and hard work over time. In the past, for instance, a cobbler would have to swap a pair of shoes for food once they were made, and would need to haggle to obtain value for his work. With the invention of money, the cobbler could sell his shoes for currency, meaning that the economic result of his labour was now stored in coin that he could spend at a later date.

The problem with this came because many people made the acquisition of wealth a goal in itself. Liberals such as Bill Gates and George Soros accumulated huge fortunes could have been deployed better in furthering Christian acts such as feeding the poor. Worse still, other liberals make their money from immorality. Pornographers, such as Richard Desmond in Britain, have no moral difficulty in selling pornography that makes them money that is then used to expand, in his case, into main-stream newspapers. Similarly, drug dealers sell their obscene products with no regard to the human misery they create, mainly because it lets them raise huge profits and live an affluent lifestyle that is the envy of others.

If you contrast the actions of philanthropists such as Mother Theresa to those of money-worshippers mentioned above there is a very clear difference. The Good Mother raised huge amounts of money, not because she was interested in it as an end, but because she wanted to use it to benefit the poor. The people of Calcutta benefitted from her good works, and people all over the world were touched by her charity and good works. She knew that money was a servant, enabling her to help those that needed it. Instead of taking pride in a sinful list like the various "Rich Lists" that stain our world, she knew that she could use money as a tool to ensure that her name was forever enshrined at the top of a moral list of those Christian people who have enriched mankind.

Responses

TBH, that's about the best set of responses I've ever seen given to a set of Assfly questions. The nanny bit could be parody though. SuspectedReplicant 16:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that her answers are in direct contravention to Andy's prosperity gospel beliefs. Yes, the rich man in question 5 could give all his money to the poor, but then the poor would have no incentive to work. Instead if he offers to sell his excess to the poor then they have a reason to work so that they can afford his food, and in so doing he will increase his wealth, thus proving the godly nature of his act. Likewise, in the honors question, Andy's clearly loaded the question so that he gets the answer he wants; which is that the wealthy are able to do more good with their money as long as their not motivated solely by the accumulation of wealth. Amanda hasn't learned Andy's most important lesson - that the poor are only poor because they're stupid, lazy, and inferior, and that they deserve our scorn, not our pity. Stile4aly 21:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello...

I see editing's been turned off early. I just get the "view source" button. Where's that nifty link that shows if night mode is on or not? -- Psy_Whut? 18:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That would likely be this one, but it hasn't updated "in a while", it seems. --Sid 18:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, it saves the hassle of finding out which of the "about 50%" I got wrong. heh - it's a lot more than 50% right, I can tell you that know. And i love his 'I bet you looked stuff up' like he knows all that off by heart. -- Psy_Whut? 18:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't edit either. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Late "Duh" insight/memory: Just hit the "View Source" tab. If it says "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, edit." (instead of "Administrators, edit, [something else like "user" or "autoconfirmed", I forgot]"), then it's Night Mode. --Sid 20:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Uploading images

I'm going to start Capturebot now. Some pages have already been burned, please upload screencaps of those if you have. -- Nx / talk 00:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The ones needing upload:

• http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/File:Capture_18aba89b63b738298903ec7a3384784b8b413bd2.png
• http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/File:Capture_3ef477c8ac8d700527dc053307627cbee9f2479f.png
• http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/File:Capture_18ebd045f4c6dd1ea9e76b8033ab6ea877ce0f52.png

There might be others. Check Category:September_2009_Conservapedia_screencaps

I've uploaded my captures but I'm not sure how to likn them. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but there's no need to upload all of them, Capturebot already got most of them. In case of the ones that show an error page because the page/revision has been oversighted, just upload a new version in place of Capturebot's image -- Nx / talk 01:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dumb Christians

(this is in response to Andy's latest essay/list covered by WIGO)

Okay, okay. So being a former Christian, I decided to take a look and see how I "score" on Andy's "test". After reading over the questions, I realize, that probably only 5 or 6 of the high school and college students in my church (have over 50 of them) would be able to answer more than half of the questions... Those 5 or 6 students are ones who are seeking to work in some field of pastoral or ministry.

Further, of those 5 or 6, maybe -- And I stress MAYBE -- 1 could answer all of those questions correctly.

I answered less than half correctly, but at least I know how to challenge other Christians when it comes to beliefs about the Old Testament and junk. (What are some of the oldest books in the Bible? All of them!!!1) Kektklik 03:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless you were a biblical scholar I doubt you could answers those question and these days Andy is an amateur biblical scholar because he nothing better to do. I could compile lists all day long that most educated people would not be able to answer just by asking a few technical questions from a highly specialised field. Pi 03:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are random facts, at best, about the Bible. I'd say 1 or 2 of those questions would actually be useful, like the one about who wrote most of the books in the New Testament. Paul did.. It helps you see his transformation from Corinthians and onward (he goes from greatly disliking marriage into being indifferent about the whole thing). Kektklik 03:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

When I scanned the list I think I could probably answer slightly over half. Paul, John, 37, Aramaic/Greek, etc. (not in order, just random memories of being quizzed by Teh Andy. Human 03:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jew isn't a language?! Kektklik 04:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a Floridian. Human 04:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean a New Yorker-ian? SuperJosh 11:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is just such a wonderful fail yet again by Andypants. "Just to prove atheists are dumb, I'm going to set a quiz on a book they have little or no interest in." Now, that's like me setting Andy a quiz on the complete works of Jasper Fforde and calling him illiterate when he can't answer most of the questions. -- Psy_Whut? 15:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's see...

1. About 25 million copies per year

2.There are four Gospels included in the bible, but around 20 were excluded

3.Three are attributed to eyewitnesses??

4.Hebrew/Greek (even though they lack the expression of powerful conservative concepts)

5.Probably "thee", "thou", "and", or something like that.

6.Paul

7.Slightly longer

8.KJV!!!!111!1!1!

9.I have not the faintest idea

10.Latin, of course

11.66 I believe

12.Deuteronomy, IIRC

13.Luke

So I probably scored about a "C". Ah well. Theemperor 19:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Psy summed it up as far as I'm concerned - I don't give a tinker's cuss for any of it. Ⓖⓔⓝⓖⓗⓘⓢ 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't get this quiz. So Atheists are stupid because we arn't experts in the bible? Does that mean Scientologists should consider Andy a moron because he doesn't know the ins and outs of dianetics? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Andy is just bored. WIth TK preventing any of those dreaded liberals from storming the castle, Andy has nobody to "defeat" in debate (we all know he just spouts his drivel, bans them, and masterbates over it, but he considers it debate). This is a pretty sad attempt at getting people to challenge him. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 18:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Right wing webshites

I've copied that list from CP's main page. Where to put it? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 10:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What a mess. Can Ken

read? If he can, does he read his own stuff? I am pretty shit at writing but even I shake my head at that. And Alexa now has conservapedia at more than 64,000, they would not be on that list anymore. Ken

just annoys me so much. - π 11:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting

You know, I love being able to click the little voting button thingies again *happy sigh*... but there was something special about the "come up with an original number" thingie on TeflonP (which sounds like a planet in THHGTTG). --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 18:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The number thing was like an entertaining CAPTCHA in my eyes: "To prove that your Lulz is epic enough to be listed, think of an original number or something related that hasn't been taken yet" :D --Sid (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

42 I'm glad you guys liked it. The fake votes are still buried in there as comments, by the way. Oh, I see someone overwrote my pretty arrows with some ugly ones... ħuman 20:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dancing Legs WIGO

Love it - it's either a sign that RJJ has finally flipped, or he's given up and is taking the piss over there. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 18:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dancing Wigs LEGO

Sorry, I'm getting dyslexic in my old age. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Raspberry

Apparently Andy has a Blackberry. Now is that a liberal or a conservative trait? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet another thing he has in common with Obama. We should list these: Harvard Law School, Blackberry, ... (please add; this list is growing rapidly!)--Simple (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Believes in God. Opposed to gay marriage because of that. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it's a little late for this, but

TK's Muslim WIGO. First off, most Muslim scholars agree that Honor Killings are considered evil in Islam. Radicals use Islam to justify them, but in fact they are based off of pre-Islamic tribal codes. In fact, there was a famous case of a girl being murdered for converting to Islam. And death by stoning and amputation of hands doesn't occur in all Muslim countries. Malaysia doesn't have it I'm pretty sure. --Crazyswordsman (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Much like the radical Christians in the states, anything can be justified with religion..... It has nothing to do with the religion, it just adds some juice to your smoothie. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all Christian countries/states have the death penalty, nor laws against blasphemy nor working on a Sunday (though how priests managed to get round that one I'll never know). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pat Robertson's imaginary state does. He wants to stone everyone who believes in aliens. --Crazyswordsman (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Young Phyllis's romantic intrigues

Young PhyllisS is engaging in some sort of "chance meeting on the street" session on Conservapedia with an ex-boyfriend, who looks to be a cradle-robber of some description. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

errrrr think harder LX, and closer to home. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 05:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we at some level let the young 'uns be young 'uns? And leave them to their "privacy"? (as if there were such a thing) ħuman 05:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No privacy on an open wiki I'm afraid. But yes, we'll try our best. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Since when did Conservapedia become an open wiki? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Inasmuchas the young lady is probably a legal minor, I move that this section be stricken from the page. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 06:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel one way or the other about whatever's going on here, but I'm ignorant of any relevant laws - what does her being or not being a minor have to do with the matter? Megaten 07:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

More of a moral issue than a legal one really. But I'm pretty sure she's in college, and assuming she didn't "graduate" early she's not under 18.--الملعب الاسود العقل ^{When everyone around me's busy drowning, I float} 07:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's one of the unwritten RW laws - leave the kids alone. Come on, we're supposed to be the good guys. Bob Soles 08:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and that goes as well for taking the piss out of their homework. Sure some of it is risible but I'm not sure I would have done much better when I was that age, especially if taught by that clown. Bob Soles 08:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reinstated this section after it was deleted not because I approve of the content but because deletion of stuff we don't like is not the RW way unless it reveals significant personal details like phone numbers or addressess. PhyllisS is over 16 and is not one of the homeschooled kids so does not fall under our normal guidelines. Quite honestly I'm amazed that anyone is stupid enough to use CP as if it were facebook, actually most of Facebook is stupid for broadcasting identifiable personal details to the world. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If I had something I wanted to make sure nobody ever read, Conservapedia might not be a bad place to put it these days. Those clickbots can keep a secret, surely.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is an enormous deal. CP is public and they know we crawl all over it. But I do think it's tasteless, prurient and just kind of not the sort of thing we should be getting involved with. I agree with Toast that it should be removed. Discussing a teenagers romantic relationships feels wierd in an Uncle Ed kind of a way to me. StarFish 09:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how gawping at Phyllis's CP-blogging further's RW's mission. We've posted up RWers' RL stuff here lots of times, so why ridicule theirs? Totnesmartin 10:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously I thinks Kektklik has made his feelings on this conversation clear. Could we drop it for his sake at least? - π 10:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"It's one of the unwritten RW laws - leave the kids alone. Come on, we're supposed to be the good guys. Bob Soles 08:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)"HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

etc.

You people really do have no idea, do you? Just goes to show what horny teenagers and irresponsible adults can create when an excess of free time is thrown in. MarcusCicero 10:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Altered perceptions

This isn't so much "WIGOCP" but a general thing that a few of us have mentioned or noticed. There are certain words or phrases which have acquired a new connotation for us, a meme if you will, that is so strong it almost overrides "real world" usage of the terms. Here's my short and obvious list, are there others that have come up? Surely there are. Let us all drink to them...

• Godspeed - I fall off my chair when it's in a movie or something
• Trustworthy - will never mean the same thing to me
• Gentlemen

Human 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know it's more to do with American political antics than CP, but I've learnt to see the word liberal in a different light. For instance, here in Aus when we refer to Liberals, we refer to the Liberal Party (centre-right). So everytime I hear on the news about "The Liberals are doing...", or "The Liberals want to...", I expect to hear one of Andy's insane, Godwin-centric, daft, paranoid, misleading, asinine, childish, sophomoric rants on how Obama is going to, oh I dunno, introduce a drug into the water supply that turns everyone into goats communists. Rebback 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC) (Been lurking a while, but CBF registering until now, need to hide my brand new IP from Kennybuns)

The same applies in Britain. Phantom Hoover 07:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

How Andy's ruined my life...

• Mystery - Do liberal teachings cause mental illness?
• Abortion - Breast cancer (and vice versa)

SuperJosh 11:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"The same applies in Britain." Not entirely. The Liberal Democrats are to the left of Labour and the Tories in terms of political allegiance, but since the election of Nick Clegg espouse economic policies that are to the right of Menzies Campbell, Charles Kennedy and Paddy Pantsdown (who is actually a former member of the SBS and not somebody you want to piss off, so I'll take that back). Technically that makes the Lib Dems the Right of Left of Centre party in the UK, unlike the Tories which are the Slightly Left of Right of Centre Party, Labour which is the Just to the Right of Centre Right party, UKIP which is the party of the Right, and the BNP which is the party of the Far Right and natural Daily Heil Mail readers. See, nice and clear, and no wonder Andy doesn't understand it.--AndyPandy - 'cause Zues decided you can never have too much stupid in the world (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Insight--Matt 09:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant

Absolutely brilliant. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised he hasn't brought up Hell yet... he's more subtle than usual (which leads to the idiocy being more visible)... --Sid (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the beauty of teh Assfly which the mere pig-headedness of PJR cannot match. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any topic of discussion one can have with Andy which does not eventually become a discussion on either classroom prayer or gun control? --Johann (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That entire exchange was fantastic. I'm happy, but very surprised, that Andy didn't attempt to spin it as an atheists scamming the system or being dishonest or something like that, but I figure there's still time to go down that route. ^theist 09:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama was homeschooled - Someone let Andy know!

I was reading the raw data of Obama's planned address to school kids and this immediatly leapt out at me -
"When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn't have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday - at 4:30 in the morning."
This needs to be brought to Andy's attention so he can add it to the list of famous homeschoolers. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Got a link for it anywhere? Broccoli (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

linky linky. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the best things about Andy's definition of "homeschooled" is that he's made it incredibly elastic so that he can count all these Great Historical Figures as among the homeschooled--even if, like me, your mom taught you some ABC's and basic reading (I could read before I got to kindergarten...) you count as homeschooled to him. Except, obviously, in this case. It would be nice to watch him pull out the "only liberals blindly insist on consistency" rule when confronted with this. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember someone trying to add a Nazi to the home-schooled list but it being removed for some reason. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

*Gasp* If what TOP is saying is true, I'm going to have to take {{User public school}} off my user page. My mother wouldn't let me go to school until I knew how to write my name and phone number. You know, in case some stranger wanted to give me a call sometime... or if I got lost I could tell them how to call my parents, I dunno. -Redback^G'day 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And another thing which makes Andy's definition of "homeschooled" even better, is that he can just as easily state that Obama's socialism/fascism/communism/muslimism/terrorism/racism/liberalism OBVIOUSLY comes from the brainwashing he received in the public schools, NOT from his homeschooling™. --GTac 09:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy. Nail. Head.

"It's axiomatic that once someone accepts a logical contradiction, then he can justify anything. Perhaps that's the real appeal of the [Christian] belief system. But the end result is not pretty for those who subscribe to it. " - Andy Schlafly ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 00:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet, Andy rejects proof by contradiction. Coarb (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Gee, that link is over a year old. As is that whole thread. Come on, folks, get yourselves up to GodSpeed! ħuman 05:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that Andy has changed his mind? Coarb (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it ain't exactly "news". No offense, but it's bit stale. ħuman 05:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The stuff Neveruse is quoting is on WIGO today. Coarb was contrasting it against his beliefs on proof by contradiction. - π 05:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thank you. Sorry, kthxbai ;) I fail at merging wigo and talk wigo in my tiny brain :) ħuman 05:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have the problem of not even reading WIGO and then reading this page, trying to follow what is going on. Thankfully most of the main players are so predictable you can guess most of what has happened. - π 05:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, which WIGO is it? ħuman 21:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

adulteress Story

I love the debate (the section header alone, wow!) of Aschlafly and Conservative. Ken

criticizing the self-declared biblical scholar Andy, that's really something to behold. Though Ken

, you should try to stay up-to-date: the Bible Retranslation Project has been abandoned, it's now project Conservative Bible - and it may evolve further... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That must be the first time I've managed to read anything substantial from Ken without my eyes subsequently having to book two weeks at the Priory. Ajkgordon 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe Ken wrote that. Maybe the Dr Jekyll side of Ken is at work here; Mr Hyde-Ken would have sprinkled in some "in regards to"s and much more repetition of key phrases.--Simple 02:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Arrow buttons

They seem to have changed from the simple gifs we had to something else, without any comment or input from anyone. Personally, I liked the simple up and down green and red arrows. The orange thing in the middle does not move me. But whether all agree or disagree with me, let us not change the look and feel of the site at whim, just because "we" (and you know who you are) can. Bounce your ideas off the mob, first, please. Discussion please? ħuman 06:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Noone would care if I just suggested it somewhere. This way I get better feedback, even if it's negative like yours. The hover and press effects are not just for show, they are there to improve usability. -- Nx / talk 06:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, so why not "suggest it somewhere"? The hover and press I don't care about, they're probably an improvement, but the new crappy blurry images bug me. So, let me ask: "Why" did you not suggest it somewhere first? Is this how you plan to operate in future? Implement whatever you want first, then tell complainers no one would have cared if you asked first? This is very poor wiki-form in my opinion. ħuman 06:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, I see the buttons are all back and like the old days (expect with improved hover/press things?). Please ignore above rant. WIGO pretty again? Now, if you think the "new" buttons were better, anyone, let the discussion begin? ħuman 06:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I preferred the newer ones. SuspectedReplicant 08:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Human. StarFish 09:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TK, why haven't I been blocked yet? I didn't see any change, I guess this happened whilst I was sleeping. Keklik 09:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been reverted back so you can only see the old ones. I'll post them both for comparison. - π 10:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Boring old gifs -

Sexy new pngs -

I think I like the boring old ones better. Less blocky, more smooth. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the new ones, but I agree that the orange block isn't as intuitive as the old 0. Not sure of a resolution though :) Worm ^{(t | c)} 10:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The new ones are fucking sexy, they should "light up" when you pass you cursor over them though. - π 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually we can make that happen if we want. - π 11:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I kinda like the new ones, but can we make a sexier version of "0"? Javasca₧ is writing a comment 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Brown and round, perhaps? Or a black circle/gray center with similar gradient work? ħuman 23:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What has happened to the vote neutral option?. I like the block for the neutral, less intrusive on the more important up/down-ness. - π 23:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I meant a black circle/gray gradient center roughly the size of orange blob - less intrusive as you say, and also intuitively a "zero" vote. ħuman 23:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought '0' a bit counterintuitive, how about 'Meh!' or similar?

If anyone's still interested: [6] -- Nx / talk 19:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you get Human's permission to set that site up or do I have to report you to ICANN? –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 19:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (I like the images)

The arrows are hands down better. The orange thing is confusing, but I don't know what else to do...maybe a goat? ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's for april fools' day. The colors are based on this, in case it wasn't obvious. As for the shape, well, I don't know the visual metaphor for meh. 0 only makes sense if a) the other two are +1 and -1 or b) you know how the software works -- Nx / talk 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Oh! I vote for smiley face, neutral face, frowny face.....make 'em goat faces! tmtoulouse 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I do like the final implementation at RationalBeta, but I am now sold on the smiley face idea. - π 23:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not going on at CP, but related.

Richard Dawkins' new book ("The Greatest Show on Earth") references (on page 131) Conservapedia, Andy Schafly and their triumph in defeating the evil Prof. Lenski and his "scientific" minions.Toffeeman 11:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Who reads books these days? Millions of people buy Dawkin's books, but less than 1% will ever read them. [7]

This is actually above or in the archives somewhere. - π 11:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's wigo2430. SuspectedReplicant 11:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ken

was informed of this during RW's downtime. His response consisted of "Aha! So I see Richard Dawkins could not find any factual errors to refute in the Conservapedia atheism or evolution articles! :)", and when RW came back online he burned and restored his talk page, minus that section. --Johann 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Imagine his hard-on if Dawkins decided to devote a book to those articles...That's classic delusions of grandeur, the Lenski affair is notable because of the importance of the experiment's actual results as well as creationist reactions to them in general (CP just happens to be the most embarrassing reaction), Conservapedia is, despite what they think, not notable. ^theist 11:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of Curiousity...

Anyone got the stats yet on how RW being down for a few weeks impacted CP's page hits? - Tygrehart

According to Alexa the last few weeks have been pretty dire for CP with it regularly dropping out of the top 100,000. In fact this is the worst I've ever seen CP achieve. It's hard to say if this can be attributed to RW though as CP's ratings have been falling consistently for the past few months and the trend is just going on. There has been a bit of a spike up in the last couple of days but is it just a spike (Alexa's figures are usually very spikey for some reason)? Is it because RW is back on the air and everyone is linking through? Or is it because they got a mention in the new Dawkins book? It's probably a bit of all three. Nice to know we might have had an effect though. StarFish 13:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me if a quick check of a list of thier refering sites had RW, if not number one, then at least in the top three. Course Andy & Co would probably spin that to say that those hits are evil liberals finding "the truth" at Conservapedia and being converted as a result.- Tygrehart

At one point the active user (people who have preformed one action in a week) fell to about 51. They are back up to 80 (in two or three days we have had 99 users). 192.43.227.18 03:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just note that for every user here, there are at least 2 active socks on there. I'm actually encouraging my block. Never thought I would have to beg for one. Sometimes, I think those people forget how to block people who have usernames based on their naming conventions. Kettle Kin (Version 2.0) 04:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, going by Alexa, the pageviews/user certainly nosedived during the RW crash (high pageviews/user I assume, therefore, are due to people reading WIGO and clicking on a high proportion of them) and similar significant drops with Time-on-site and Search % (which is odd). The rest of the figures seem steadily in decline and look too noisy to tell. ^theist 11:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporter seeking contacts

I'm researching for an article on Christian conservatism on the web and investigating conservapedia.com. I'd like to speak with people on both sides but have been ignored by mr. Schlafly and his websit does not appear to have a place like this to ask general questions. Does anyone have better contact info for admins at that site? ^{— Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs}

Just go to Whois and type in Conservapedia.com, it has all the information to contact CP there. - π 02:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's for a friend from the tribune who has been blocked and ignored several times. I believe Andy is on he Whois but does respond to email. Sorry about the crummy formatting. I'm on my phone browser. 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If your friend emails me I can give them his fax number, but seriously you only get this if it is legit. We only use it when we want to communicate in the most formal way, usually when Andy sends us legal threats. - π 03:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Andrew would be glad to grant your friend an interview, as long as Andrew retains complete control over the article that results. ħuman 03:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Has Mr. Schlafly sent any legal threats to RationalWiki? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia:Andy's Copyright Threats. - π 03:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Andy's "work"/fax number is listed on one of those "yellow pages" sites. If not, then just guess all the numbers in a certain range (I actually just checked my phone and noticed that I deleted the numbers).

As far as email goes... from what it seems, he rarely checks his AOL account anymore. I think he has a yahoo under the same name. Fuzzy =^_^= 04:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You might try the contact listed at http://www.conservapedia.com/DMCA_Agent --Shagie 04:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got his fax number and home phone number but if Andy doesn't respond to emails my friend will just move on to email other admin. 04:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have both home phone numbers? o.O Keklik 05:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Terry Koeckritz likes to have his name in the newspapers, they should contact him. - π 04:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nutty Roux, how the hell did you get his home phone number? SJ ^Debaser 11:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned above that some members of RW have for extremely formal communication, such as legal threats that occurred some time ago. But if he's purposefully shying away and avoiding contact, then just take it as "refusal to comment" and proceed with an article. You can possibly send an almost complete version of your article (this also shows you're serious rather than just trying to grab contact info or troll the crap out of him, remember you're dealing with the most paranoid man on the internet, perhaps with the exception of David Icke) to grab his attention but then you'll just be stuck with mostly offering "right-of-reply" rather than an interview, unless you want to then rewrite it... ^theist 11:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Better Wigos

Recently, I'd found WIGO CP to be getting quite boring, but now there's a couple of classic Andy WIGOs up there. It makes me happy. SJ ^Debaser 11:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be the case that TK poisons everything, even when it's only being mentioned by WIGO. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup - I would never WIGO TK. Once you cotton on to what he's about it's just boring. Andy on the other hand continues to surprise and delight with his mad obsessions - he is the soul of Conservapedia.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly Shortsightedness

I did a literal spit-take when reading the (WIGO'd) "Hooray for letting corporations pump money into political campaigns!" announcement.

Is Andy really openly approving of the coal industry potentially buying politicians to fuck up our planet even more declare Global Warming a fraud?

Then I guess he will have no objection to the tobacco industry doing the same, right? Oh, and abortion providers. And the porn industry. And anti-religious groups.

I'm surprised, really. Especially since CP usually seems to oppose lobbyists potentially influencing politics. Oh, wait. My bad. CP merely opposes lobbyists potentially influencing liberal politics. Sorry, folks, I briefly mistook CP for a site that treats both sides of the political spectrum equally... --Sid 00:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sid" (obviously your parents were atheists to give you such a pagan name so you're probably obese), you're clueless. I skimmed through your recent edits and you rely on a secular conception of the past, so admit it, you're a homosexual. You are in complete denial that that winning in Iraq stops depression. It's simple logic: science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this. Try applying for a graduate program by saying how much you'd like to be like an ostrich, and then let us know much that impresses the professors. --Aschlafly 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn, you got me, Andy. =( --Sid 00:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Rob is still my favorite (ab)user of the english language

Compulsory insurance will be mandatory! 207.67.17.45 17:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Niiiiice! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It almost sounds like a Yakov Smifnoff(sp?) bit: "In Soviet Russia, mandatory insurance is compulsory!" (Oh, and sorry for posting the WIGO before I saw this under "Talk"). MDB 17:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems redundant, unnecessary, pointless and without any need to point this out. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 17:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What about non-compulsory insurance? Will that be mandatory too? I bet so, Obama is always pulling crazy stuff like that. --Interiot 18:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He catcheth the crafty in their own craftiness. RobS 20:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you get the part about compulsory and mandatory being synonymous? Making the statement tautological? ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean making mandatory insurance compulsory, or compulsory insurance mandatory. Interesting debate. Kinda like auto insurance, if I choses not to have mandatory insurance, I have the option to walk, ride a bike, or use public transit; but if I chose not to have compulsory healthy insurance, what are the Democrats gonna do to me, force me to not live? RobS 02:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sure they will get you when The Great Purge comes, Rob. - π 02:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely that's the choice!!! Goddamnit, if you won't take care of yourself by buying insurance, then we'll just kill you off so that you won't need healthcare!!! Seriously, I have to agree that I am seriously concerned about forcing everyone to buy insurance. What about the homeless? What the fuck are they gonna do? Is the government gonna deny them the can of beans they spent 2 hours begging for if they don't have insurance?Lord of the Goons 02:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) This might come as a shock to you Goonie, but Rob and anything he links to are not reliable sources of information. - π 02:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I know. But I still wonder myself about mandatory insurance, and how we'd go about forcing people to buy it.Lord of the Goons 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Rob, yes. The new rule will be that everyone has to be part of the pool. And if you can't afford it, it will be provided at reduced cost. You do not have the option of "not wanting it". You have the option of moving to some nice civilized country that does not provide universal health care, of course. America - love it or leave it, you hippy. ħuman 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do we even indulge RobS? Apart from being bat-shit scared of the perceived "red menace", the guy is a waste of time. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 02:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We've already discussed that... Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 05:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Human, so you'd agree with me the logic is flawed in this Associated Press report [8] dated Sept. 8. It reads, "The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage." Just like auto insurance. If I opt out of driving, I don't have to pay, likewise if I opt out of breathing, I don't have to pay.

Sheesh, you Dems, libs, commies, progressives, or whatever you wanna call yourselves, good luck on this one. Looks like a tuff sell. RobS 02:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as we allow you to use this site to spout such nonsense, do you mind chipping in a few buck? The problem with Free Speech is it is not exactly free. - π 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So true. That's probably why Rush Limbaugh earned a quarter billion dollars in the free market and Air America has so much unsold advertising space filled with dead time (music). Conservatives pay to hear ideas, nobody in thier right mind pays thier hard earned cold cash for commie BS (except George Soros, but he's not in his right mind). RobS 03:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(ECX2)As the right are more supportive of big business than the left, you are always going to have a larger share of mass media market. Kind of puts a crimp in the old left-wing media bias talking point though. - π 03:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not in your right mind Rob. Where are the commies now? Under the bed or in your closet? Weirdo. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 03:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A few years ago I remember commenting that there are only about 6 actual communists left in the world and a few hundred thousand undergrad posers. - π 03:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Last I noticed, Rob, Air America is still on the air despite boycotts by conservative advertisers. The station I listen to is fully "advertised". If you are listening on-line, sometimes spots reserved for local ads are just blurred with that silly bland rock noise. Oh, and screw Baucus. The point it to get everyone into the health care pool. If you want to "opt out of the communism, buy private health insurance. Or what? How about no health care if you fall and can't get up? Watch out if you fall near your bed, since the reds are only sleeping, and they will come out and chew on your liver... ħuman 03:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Conservatives pay to hear ideas." - Er, no. They pay to have their bigotries and prejudices reinforced. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Exactly Rob. I don't have time to listen to talk radio and have my views reinforced. Some of us have work, or school, or both and have better things to do than sit around and be told how and what to think. Nice try though. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Seriously guys, I need some input on cp:Obamunism#Indoctrination. Did I manage to connect the dots? RobS 03:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)What you connected a mixture of newspaper editorials, the comments of a now ex-government advisor, a few dedicated campaign works and a false rumour? I can't even work out the point you are trying to make and I pride myself on being able to speak fluent wingnut. - π 03:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock us from CP, asshole, and we can discuss it in a more appropriate forum, asshole. TheoryOfPractice 03:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock us from CP, friend, and we can discuss it on the talkpage, friend. I'd also really love to see your liveblog of Barry's speech tonight on utubez. ħuman 04:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I enjoy all the ad hominem argumentum which only demonstrates the sterility of rebuttals and liberal ideas (kinda like Godwin's Law does), unblocking any of you would only give CP herpies which I'd get blamed for and I believe in abstinance. And I haven't a clue, the time, or patience to sort out who is who in the all various and sundry sockpuppets created over the past several years. If you want credibilty, create an internet persona and stick with it. All else is trolling. Just some advice for the youngsters. RobS 04:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

See if you can learn out to spell "herpes" and "abstinence;" otherwise the youngsters will not take your advice seriously at all. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Asshole? You sound just like Van Jones. Ex-adviser? Hmmphh. D'ya suppose something can be done with this material?

Excerpts of Herbert Hoover's 1940 speech to the GOP convention: Pages 213-214 pdf)

"In every single case before the rise of totalitarian governments there has been a period dominated by economic planners. Each of these nations had an era under starryeyed men who believed that they could plan and force the economic life of the people. They believed that was the way to correct abuse or to meet emergencies in systems of free enterprise. They exalted the State as the solvent of all economic problems. ...These men shifted the relation of government to free enterprise from that of umpire to controller. Directly or indirectly they politically controlled credit, prices, production or industry, farmer and laborer. They devalued, pumpprimed and deflated. They controlled private business by government competition, by regulation and by taxes. They met every failure with demands for more and more power and control ... When it was too late they discovered that every time they stretched the arm of government into private enterprise, except to correct abuse, then somehow, somewhere, men's minds became confused. At once men became fearful and hesitant. Initiative slackened, industry slowed down production.

"Then came chronic unemployment and frantic government spending in an effort to support the unemployed. Government debts mounted and finally government credit was undermined. Out of the miseries of their people there grew pressure groups business, labor, farmers demanding relief or special privilege. Class hate poisoned cooperation."

Let's now look at the some of the material in Van Jones's Reclaiming Revolution: history, summation & lessons from the work of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), Spring 2004, for example pg. 35 pdf, : "Party discipline. Members are expected to put the interests of both the organization and the movement before their own." Then examine Robert Gibbs statement: "The president and the CEQ accepted his resignation because Van Jones, as he says in his statement, understood that he was going to get in the way of the president and ultimately this country moving forward on something as important as creating jobs in a clean energy economy. [9]

Rob,
1. If you find fault with ad hominems, why did you give [10]this user a block with the reason "Stalinist holocaust denier; Soros stooge."? I did not see them deny the Holodomor, and simply writing in an editorial style (not openly discouraged at Conservapedia) in favor of socialized medicine doesn't make someone a "stooge" of Soros. Soros did not create the concept of socialized medicine, or even name it - I believe the AMA did that when Soros was only 17. How is this not an unwarranted ad hominem?

2. What is your feeling about the Conservapedia sysops who have left the project, such as PJR due to harassment by a RationalWiki-editing parodist who was frequently commended by Andrew Schlafly and then given sysop status by him, all while many at RW believed him to be an obvious troll? Or DanH, who left because of Schlafly's insistence that Obama is a muslim? Or JessicaT who left due to harassment by TK?

3. Are you citing Herbert Hoover's GOP convention speech, which the party essentially ignored completely at the time, as an accurate prediction of the economic state of the USA some 70 years later? Well, whether you are or not, could you please give me a politically neutral (or even liberal) link to the complete text or audio of his speech? All I can find from Googling quotes is a handful of right-wing blogs, a New World Order/Third World War conspiracy site and a Christian ministries site. Megaten 05:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) ok, so you found one instance of me dealing with a troll, big deal. (2) To quote Eisenhower, I don't get involved in personalities. (3) There's a link provided with page numbers cited. John Flynn quotes him verbatim. Look at Hoover's conclusion, "Then came chronic unemployment and frantic government spending in an effort to support the unemployed," (emphasis added) after years and years of stimulus. Look at yesterday's NYT, "[11] "Many experts envision a jobless recovery," i.e. "chronic unemployment." 15 million Americans now are unemplyed, with no hope to return to work anytime soon. Obamunism envisigaes so-called "structural unemployment" at 8%+ in perpetuity. 15 million human beings, that is more than the 11 million FDR had.

Who are these "starry-eyed men who believed that they could plan and force the economic life of the people," Van Jones? Max Baucus? "shifted the relation of government to free enterprise from that of umpire to controller," e.g. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Motors, etc.

"They met every failure with demands for more and more power and control;" after the Bush stimulus with the $600 rebate failed in 2008, they demanded a bigger dose of the same bad medicine, Obama's $787 billion dollar stimulus in 2009.

"everytime they stretched the arm of government into private enterprise, except to correct abuse, then somehow, somewhere, men's minds became confused. At once men became fearful and hesitant. Initiative slackened, industry slowed down production." We couldn't describe better why there is no hope for Recovery anywhere on the horizon better than this -- the threat of extendeding the hand of government into healthcare confuses minds, no one will risk creating new jobs, initiative slows, a jobless recovery & chronic uenemployment is all that's in store (but as Rahm Emanuel said, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. So hopefully, all this government created misery will rebound to the Democratic party's benefit with new WPA type projects).

Read the source & see what was left out:

"These men thought they were liberals. But they also thought they could have economic dictatorship by bureaucracy and at the same time preserve free speech, orderly justice and free government. They might be called the totalitarian liberals. They were the spiritual fathers of the New Deal.

"These men are not Communists or Fascists."

Hoover may have been polite, but others may have had other opinions likewise. RobS 21:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"If you want credibilty, create an internet persona and stick with it." OK, Rob, I'm Human on CP, here, probably WikiSynergy, and aSK, at least. Or if you prefer, unblock my IP address and let me create the user "HuwP", although I'd prefer to retain credit for all my work as "Human". ħuman 21:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As Ronaldus Magnus said, "There you go again." I thought you were AmesG. RobS 21:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that's you. --Kels 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This user is Spartacus!

Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 05:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)