Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive152

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>, <150>, <151>, <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)

Fortuitous Captcha

This made me laugh.

The Moose is Loose.

Gotta love random crap--Thanatos 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But did it let you actually edit Sarah Palin? Kallium^talk 01:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ace McCharacter Creation

I got this one a while ago and immediately thought of Ace. 01:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I formally declare this section to be Full Of Win, in case anyone cares what I think. Makes one wonder if Captcha is context-sensitive... ħuman 01:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the best ever Bugler moments was the time he claimed to be offended by a capcha that said "Ghoul Moses".-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 08:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Alger Hiss

FOIA seems to be stripping it down significantly. Evil educated Phantom! 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He is just streamlining the billions of references. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 20:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"code edit" - ahh, I love it! But really, this guy is easily sicker than Ken

. Maybe the sickest guy on CP. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ken

has atheism AND evolution.  FOIA only has it out for Alger Hiss, and although I haven't seen him around lately, Schlossberg has his KAL007 pet.  Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 20:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

FOIA has now made 2171 edits to Alger Hiss! (and a total of 59, most of them a long time ago, to everything else.) Gauss 21:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to struggle with homosexuality, it's another to base your worldview on debunked science for Jesus...it's quite another to wake up thinking about Alger Hiss. I've always imagined Bert had a loved one on 007, which could possibly justify such an obsession...although I think he had it out for flight crashes in general? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bert is the son in law of one of the passengers. He certainly does have proper and earned interest in the subject. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He has written a book on the subject. - π 03:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Anyone ever read the article? Maybe then you might understand the significance of Alger Hiss (a librul pretty boy who was a KGB agent, the first UN General Secretary, responsible for the rise of Richard Nixon, and defended to death by commies, Democrats, liberals, and other associated useful idiots. Hiss is the perfect mascot for RW. RobS 16:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You have a very peculiar view of the world Rob if you imagine that any of us would be remotely interested in the life of a Cold War spy for the Ruskies. Who gives a rat's ass? Your dark fascination with a long-dead political system, the 'war' against it and the agents who promoted it is about as relevant to a discussion of today's issues as the golf ball typewriter was to the development of the internet. Time to move past an obsession you've clearly had since the early 1950's. This is 2009. There are no Reds Under The Bed. They're all working too hard to support a family in the capitalist system which won. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the fact that I never knew about Alger Hiss before seeing that huge diarrhea of an article make me less of a liberal? Sniffle, why must you crush my dreams!? Vulpius 19:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hiss case is interesting, and the first of Nixon's Six Crises, which is a good read (BTW Richard Nixon is quite impressed with how Richard Nixon handled each of his Six Crises). The best thing about it is that, more than 50 years later, neocons are still harping on about Hiss as if he were somehow still relevant today. If you have to go back 50 years to dig up dirt on liberals, you're pretty damn pathetic. DickTurpis 00:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you guys pride yourselves as watchdogs of conservative thinking and actions. Ok, here's a leak: just google Alger hiss+ACORN [2]and look at some of the results (there's other combinations like +Obama, +Whittaker Chambers, etc. But this will put you onto the inside track of those evil right-wingers next moves). Here's a small sampling (the National Review is most interesting-the article doesn't even mention Hiss). [3][4][5] And the NYT Review of [6] ALGER HISS AND THE BATTLE FOR HISTORY : "Hiss was tailor-made for those who wished to besmirch the memory of Roosevelt, and to blur the distinction between Communism and liberalism. A treacherous Hiss proved that many liberals were secret Stalinists, able to insinuate themselves into the New Deal..." Do we need to connect the dots with Van Jones? RobS 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Please connect the dots. Preferably with red string between tattered news clippings plastered on the walls of your domicile. Then upload a picture. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Any word on Terry Koeckritz?

Rumor is TK is one of the CDC's first victims of the H1N1 virus being released out of the lab this fall in an effort to spur public support for ObamaCare. RobS 20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't try and sell me that clap-trap. Everyone knows the CDC shills for the neocon capitalists at Big Pharma. Terry's bloody mucous is on your conservative hands. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Counterexamples to evolution

Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence. someone should tell Philip about Andy's anti-evolution beliefs. (sorry can't give the diff link bloody phone) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost, but something's missing. "Human fertility is rapidly declining, and while disproving evolutionary improvement, a fundamental misunderstanding perpetuated by creationists, is fully consistent with modern evolutionary biology, which is not orthogenetic and also suggests a brief timeline for human existence of only about 2.5 million years, or 0.05% the age of the Earth." There we are- just needed some minor editing. Please forward to Andy so he may further refine his encyclopedia. Kallium^talk 03:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, think he wants facts?--Thanatos 03:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually human fertility is not declining at all. I think it is actually an example of Simpson's paradox. - π 03:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fertility is declining - but you have to look at it in the proper context. fertility to gdp or fertility to women's education. With either of them be sure to watch it as a movie and not just one point in time. Correlation is not causation... this is still interesting. I am sure others can find other correlations. --Shagie 05:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What I think you will find is that fertility is actually increasing, ie, you are more likely to get pregnant if you try, due to improved diet, life style etc. However people, especially with higher incomes, are not trying until later in life when you less likely to be able to have children or basically are less fertile. Fertility means the ability to have children, not actually producing them. - π 05:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was the idea that evolution → improvement that I was referring to originally as a misconception. The decreasing fertility (mostly dropping sperm count/viability in the first world, I believe?) could demonstrate evolution quite aptly. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 14:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Decreased fertility may be our only hope. Bob Soles 14:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Decreased fertility saves me thousands a month in child support payments. 24.14.72.223 14:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Lowered sperm count or even fertility in general may be caused by environmental factors rather than anything evolutionary. And most of the population data is actually birth-rate rather than fertility. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but isn't the reaction to environmental factors the essence of evolution? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, not "reaction" per se, so much as adaptation at a genetic level (ie, in the presence of toxins, those who are less susceptible may be selected for). ħuman 20:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "dying out" a reaction? (Cause that's wot I meant) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 20:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not if the existing systems are malfunctioning due to toxin etc. Evolution would result if low fertility confers a distinct advantage. 157.193.206.103 16:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Toxins are the environment: just as a superior predator might reduce a population, giving an advantage to the unpredated population those without the toxins are at an evolutionary advantage. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Positive selection would result if low fertility confers a slight advantage. Selection and evolution are not synonymous. Kallium^talk 03:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) The lowering of fertility may have more to do with access to birth control, waiting until later in life to have a child (and thus fewer children in the family), having a career (and thus less family time - smaller families) etc... Not so much evolution and biology, but rather a social economic thing. --Shagie 16:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It may well be that so long as there are enough to replenish the pool those with reduced birth rate also have lower mortality and could be more evolutionary successful by permitting more resources to nurture the fewer offspring to a strong adulthood . Whereas those with high birth rate may experience greater mortality and be scrabbling for resources so that those who survive may be weaker and less successful than the ones with lower birth rate. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Could also be because of the financial climate in countries who can afford IVF. People don't plan to have kids as much anymore because they can't afford them, and so there are fewer people at the age where they might be having fertility problems who are bothering to go out and get knocked up by a turkey baster. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ed

Don't think this was mentioned at the time (apologies if it was) but: Ed thinks it's worth a mention that ON SEPT 11 someone's having prayers at GROUND ZERO!^img Yea, Ed, don't suppose anyone else was there. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 14:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it was worth to mention that Ed has friends. --GTac 14:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

He thinks they're friends. Wonder what they think? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 14:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Poor Ed... --GTac 16:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Woodstock

Yup, the best thing (ok, worst if you're a CP'ian) about Woodstock was the "drug use, fornication, and denial of reality, as well as a search for a better one." No mention of Baez, Cocker or Hendrix. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 19:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a very bizarre article, especially from Daniel1212. Not ONE mention of homosex. Weird.

P.S. from here: "Once you insist on illogical thought, there is no end to the false conclusions that you will draw. The Bible is the most logical book ever written." Andy, I think I love you. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Still beats me how does he end up with a unique "most logical" book even to begin. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

CP used the same line to describe one of the biggest hippie events that I use to describe them. Really makes you think--Thanatos 01:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please add

I've been banned twice from Conservapedia in a week! Once as MICasey, the other is RoyP (which was in a course of HOURS because I got drunk and logged on and created since-deleted disasterpieces of neocon passion on RJJensen's talk page), which was labeled a 'moronic vandal'.So please make sure to include MICasey's attempt at logic on the 'Barack Hussein Obama' page regarding the Soetoro/citation controversy. It will overall make a better WIGO entry without making me the "VOTM" vandal-of-the-month...i've noticed my last incident with Ed Poor has nearly a score of 100! 72.152.226.150 04:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We'll get right on it. Thanks. 05:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well we don't have a "VOTM" so you are out of luck there and your IP is about to get blocked over at CP so you about to have an even greater shortage of luck. Also I don't call 90 nearly 100, I call it 90. - π 05:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Searching, finding "There were arguably more people at the 9/12 rallies", down voting now. Under-troll is successful under-troll. ħuman 06:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Want to here about my recent non-CP uber-troll, whilst we are all bragging? - π 07:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, calm down kids. Like I don't know the routine about sloppy CP trolling. I was blocked, my IP address is blocked - everything's blocked so now let me explain. I'm perfectly aware that there is no "VOTM". When your town gets sarcasm and humour, Morse-code me about the celebration. Also, Mr. Pi(e), I never made any mention of what you personally would call the number 90. But I'm SO HAPPY you realized I was secretly only talking to you in hopes that your self-centered egogasm would explode right in my mouth. But, then again, I am the self-centered one, so let's get back on the subject of me,me,me. I was just letting you know that there's an entire talk page section regarding the very same Soetoro-name issue. This was back when everybody at CP was still patting MICasey on the back. So it still merits selection as the fine, high-protein, high-stupidity, unencyclopedic wheat slurry you inject into WIGO each and every morning. G'luck out there, ranch hands. 72.145.224.163 17:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights. I learned a lot from your posts. You are a great asset to the site. 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that, though I added the WIGO, BoN is not me. Jeez, now I kinda want to downvote my own damn WIGO. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 18:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama WIGO

That has been there for nearly a month and it was Rob who added it. Can we keep it fresh? - π 05:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah really. Ah, who cares, CP has been deadly lame lately. Who knows who our fans are that are voting these lame fucking WIGOs up above zero lately... I haven't voted up on one in so long it's not funny. ħuman 06:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Pork rind

Approved by Schlafly & TK!

Who was that? It got up to number seven. Broccoli 18:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

HI, JPATT!!!!TheoryOfPractice 18:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Unauthorised content? Andy himself had edited that article! How authorised do you need to get? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Pork rinds are the lower class liberal pub snack. The true conservative prefers the noble scampi fry with his pint. Except they probably don't have pints, because no conservatives exist in the UK. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

According the CP article pork rinds were a favourite of George Bush Snr. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 00:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It was his concession to the lower classes. (It's true, btw). Jr. preferred pretzels ;) ħuman 00:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The pretzels loved him too... that's why they wanted to stay with him forever! Wazza^{Hello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me...} 11:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

Can someone please explain to me just what is so great about the Thanksgiving WIGO? It has 87 votes and is crap. CP's main page says "I learned from you that the first [official] thanksgiving was to give thanks for the Constitution". Wikipedia informs me that "George Washington... created the first Thanksgiving Day designated by the national government of the [USA].. (who proclaimed) 'Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States... that we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks... in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness.'" So are all the votes for a misquotation of CP? Did anybody actually read the CP posting? And if they did, do they possess any comprehension skills? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The saddest thing is that the people adding this crap are people who were here in the good old days and should know better. Evil educated Phantom! 18:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it, either. It's wrong and it's not even funny. Who the hell is voting it up?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 19:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It was amusing for the few hours before he tacked [official] on there. Not exactly Best of CP^TM material, but apparently popular. Or just spammed by someone. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The WIGO at least links to the diff before he added "official" after someone mentioned it on the talk page, right? ħuman 20:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. I was just disappointed that he didn't defend it or anything. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm. Yeah. The WIGO's cache is predicated on an incorrect belief both that Thanksgiving is always and only the harvest festival celebrated during colonial times in the states and that CP's article does not pretty clearly explain the multiple uses of the term as a private and public holiday over the years. Bad WIGO. Both the US under Washington and the Continental Congress proclaimed Thanksgiving a public holiday (using pretty heavy religious language at times). I may actually have voted this turd up without reading the underlying sources. I am stupid and lazy. 21:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a liberally biased crap hole. NotHuman 23:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that WIGO. I considered it interesting because Andy was putting up an apparent quote from one of his admirers that DIRECTLY, PALPABLY, BLATANTLY, and MANIFESTLY contradicted exactly what his Thanksgiving article (which he wikilinked) said. Other people apparently thought at the time that it was funny. Andy immediately changed the quote to make it no longer in direct contradiction with his article. What the admirer's actual words were we do not know. If the original words were as it appeared in Andy's original main-page article, (that is, without "official"), it may well have been outright parody, and the voting may have arisen from amusement that Andy would be so clueless about such.

As it happens, I do not know or care what the actual facts of Thanksgiving (1619 / Washington / Congress / Constitution / Lincoln / Roosevelt) are, or when the "first" one was. That's completely beside the point. The point was that the article said 1619 and the admirer said constitution.

Of course Andy quickly added the word "official". CP folks routinely burn things like that. That's what screen capture is for. The WIGO has definitely outlived its novelty. Gauss 05:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Team Killah.

Nothing in eleven days, seven edits all month. Speculation? TheoryOfPractice 03:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he has realised he is wasting his time as CP is pretty much dead, or maybe he has something going on in The Real World^TM. - π 03:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I just sent him a loving email.. I hope my pooky is okay. NotHuman 05:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nooo Human, don't do it! Argh, too late. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 06:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

NotHuman is not I, in case that is not clear. ħuman 07:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't looking too close, I've broken my reading glasses. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the same as Human? Dx NotHuman 17:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course not! You're Ames, just like me and everybody else here. --Johann 20:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was Kektklik.. NotHuman 21:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You are Number Six! --23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You been playin' around with that transmogrifier again? Who's number five? Secret Squirrel 00:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no, it's the duplicator! ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ yes, JAVASCAP 11:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just assumed he started oversighting all his contributions. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 12:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a wiki devoted entirely to Calvin & Hobbes? Good grief... well, it was bound to happen what with Wookieepedia and all that, once Wikipedia started deleting most of the excess fancruft. Is there a Bloom County wiki yet? Dukes of Hazzard? Gotta check... Secret Squirrel 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikia is Jimbo's side project, to basically have topic dedicate wikis with advertising, so he can finally make some money. Pretty much every tv show and computer game has its own wikia now. About 80% of Wikipedia should be moved there. - π 00:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder did andy tell him to piss off (or even worse, godspeed)? Looking through TK's last page of blocks/unblocks I see him carelessly exposing the IP address of a homechooler who has been at CP since 2007. JoeDuffy 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Jpatt redirect

Hilarious!! Anyone have any idea what the hell could he be thinking? Tetronian 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The words "think" and JPratt rarely occur in the same sentence. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly weird but the WIGO is lame IMHO. A good WIGO should draw the reader in, not spell it out for the lowest intelligence. I didn't even have to click the link to know everything about it. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused... Tetronian 18:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing special - JPratt just thinks that MooseKilla is the hottest thing since Mother Schlafly. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 18:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Phyllis "there's no such thing as marital rape" Schlafly is not even featured on CP's main page. I guess Andy feels that Mommy doesn't appreciate his pet project? Tetronian 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

He has this thing, on the internet... I don't know what to call it. - π 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sacred cow

He's at it again^img. This time he doubled it up saving it at cowtow^img. (how do you do that capture thing?) --Shagie 15:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WTF? Is JPatt off his meds or something? First, it's "kowtow", and second it's an entirely unrelated idiom. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

JPatt is certainly doing some very strange things lately. Surely if a non-sysop did that kind of redirect, it would be labeled as vandalism and the person would be banned. On an unrelated note, the Obama WIGO prompted me to reread the Obama article. Given the complete clusterfuck it was a year ago, I couldn't have possibly imagined it would get as bad as it has gotten. It used to be a pseudo-biography with excessive emphasis on his eeeeevil liberalness. Now it's just an outright "everything Obama does is Satanic" kind of article. What a mess. Stile4aly 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

JPratt seems to think there's a method to his madness. I can't imagine what, though. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is he doing? Regardless, I can't wait till Andy and the other sysops figure out about this...hopefully Wayne will tattle to someone. Tetronian 22:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

He probably thinks it'll improve the Google ranking or some such. I would imagine he's got Andy's permission before the event by some sleight of tongue. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 22:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm....if I didn't know better I'd say he's implementing some demented plan of Ken

's. Tetronian 22:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like he finally overdosed on the Kool-Aid, 'cause that's some special kind of crazy right there. Also, hey all. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 23:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

More: Glenn Beck loses his "sacred cow" status Tetronian 00:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your lousy cows and raise you a bull to present... cp:cattle. Well known for making cheeseburgers, which are frequently eaten with french fried cp:potatoes, a truly epic, sprawling clusterfuck. ħuman 00:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What seems to have happened is that someone was click-botting cp:Homosexual obsession, Jpatt noticed and decided to redirect all those hits to cp:Sarah Palin either just to mess around or because he actually thinks the number of page views matter. Right after that, he decided all those new views meant that he should make Palin one of the CP top articles which is of course not deceitful at all. As the WIGO shows, he clearly got caught by Andy and decided to burn the evidence.

I imagine the same thing happened with cp:Sacred cow and this time he decided to split up the views between the pages of the multiple conservatives that he fantasizes about.

I don't know who was/is running the click-bots but they should probably add an &redirect=no to the end of the URL like so in order to undermine Jpatt's genius plans. --Brian 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that truly is a plan worthy of Ken

. Well done Jpatt. Tetronian 01:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible vote inflation

It seems WIGOs are getting very high votes these days; more than they should. Why? Evil educated Phantom! 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing lurkers, like I was until very recently. Those of us who have little memory of CP's more lulz-filled days think the stuff going on now is funny. Tetronian 18:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It could be lurkers, yes. And if one never saw the bigger howlers, these probably seem pretty funny. We could also be getting some proxy voting by someone having a funny of their own... ħuman 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the vote records, nothing seems to be popping out to me as a potential single user inflating votes. They are all legitimate ip addresses, at different times, over a wide geographic area, with little to no known proxy use. tmtoulouse 21:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We can do that w/o checkuser? TheoryOfPractice 22:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mediawiki records the ip with every edit in the recentchanges table even without the checkuser extension. This is used for autoblocking. Checkuser just gives you a nice on-wiki interface to extract this information (it's not that simple, but you get the idea). Edits older than 13 weeks are removed from the table. Storing IPs can be disabled entirely, but that would disable autoblocking.

WIGO stores IPs even for logged in users. This is to prevent double voting by registered users (by logging out) and vote spamming using socks. -- Nx / talk 10:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The table that records which IP is logged into which account, is separate from the table that records which IP voted up/down for each poll. - π 23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, the only people that have access to the IP information are me and Nx. The information that is recorded is information that is included in the standard log files as well so it is not like we are grabbing any kind of info that normally isn't presented whenever you visit a website. That information is kept locked up per our policy and neither Nx or I would have the motivation, desire, or reason to use it for anything but the vaguest form of datamining. tmtoulouse 23:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama redirect

Newish here, just wondered if the redirect warning at the top of here [7] ("Obama redirects here. Did you mean Osama Bin Laden?") was worth inclusion in the WIGO.

Obvious parody is obvious. And lame, IMHO. -- Nx / talk 10:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)If it had been Aschlafly or RobS or one of the other old guard then yes, but it looks like someone trolling so probably not. - π 10:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Suddenly felt reminded of Jpatt's comment from a while ago. But yeah, it's vandalism. Or at least parody. --Sid 10:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But most of that article could be labeled "obvious parody". You can also get into the argument of whether leaving in the vandalism/parody is endorsing it. But I do like the previous edit of "if you take this down, expose your hypocrisy" I'm sure that's not the first or last time that's been tried. ^bomination 14:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, as funny as it it, and perhaps even tasteless (the Osama article has a similar note at the top), it is a likely typo and deserves one-click help for the konfuzed reader. ħuman 21:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Man, I haven't looked at the Obama article in months, and it has really become a masterpiece. Keep it up guys, you're really lending a lot of credibility to the opposition. Corry 22:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I admit I just Schlafly-skimmed it, but I couldn't find the section on "Obama and Homosexuality: Advancing the Gay Agenda". Could someone point me to it, or better yet, Ken

, can you get on the stick and add it? ħuman 22:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservative translation of Ezekiel 23:20

I know this verse was brought up at the Saloon Bar recently, and I got to thinking what the Andyland translation of Ezekiel 23:20 (There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses) would be? How could that possibly be cleaned up without just completely omitting it? Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 20:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There she listened after the liberals, whose mouths were like those of creeping things and whose deceit was like that of snakes. It's easy when you're Andy. Totnesmartin 20:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As it's a conservative bible, I imagine it would go along the lines of "She left the company of the men and went back to her kitchen, to bake delicious brownies for her classmates." SJ ^Debaser 22:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How did she get unchained from her stove in the first place? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

She had to bring me a sandwich and a beer. ħuman 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservative Bible Project

Some minor lulz: Andy's list of "12 conditions" for a conservative Bible actually has 13 items. Actually, make that major lulz since the whole article is the biggest joke I have ever seen. Tetronian 01:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Complex analysis

Does it? Kallium^talk 01:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Does what? - π 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Does "complex analysis assume a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative 1", as Andy claims is so obvious? And for that matter, what does that mean (I had calc a while back but am no mathematician)? Right or wrong, it's his tone that I found hilarious. Kallium^talk 01:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Complex analysis assumes nothing much really, you actually lose about 6 axioms that you assume about the reals. All you do is say we shall define a number $i$ such that $i^{2}=-1$ and you go from there. You can prove statements such as ${\sqrt {-1}}=\pm i$, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that statement that does not follow from saying, we shall define $u$ such that $u^{2}=4$ and proving ${\sqrt {4}}=\pm u$. Actually one of my sigs is largely rubbish. - π 02:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's complete rubbish, you don't "assume" anything to construct the complex numbers, you simply _define_ them as, for example, ordered pairs (a,b) of real numbers, with a certain multiplication rule. Andy's objection is basically to "adjoining an element"; he is unwilling to believe that we can say "let i be a symbol such that i^2=-1", since no such i exists in the reals. There's no "assumption" in this process once you understand what it means. If you're afraid of that, you can just as well define the complex numbers to be the set of 2x2 matrices of the form ( a b \\ b -a ) with the usual matrix operations. I'd trying arguing this with schlafly again, but I already lost my last login to it, as it looks like patrickd may soon... --Lesjohn 02:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a sad state over there. The only people allowed to touch the maths articles are slash-and-burn Ed and Foxtrot who is as mad as Andy is. - π 03:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The best part of this is that both parts of constructing the rationals from the integers and then the reals from the rationals are more complex than constructing the complex numbers from the reals. Can you imagine Andy trying to understand the construction of the real numbers?

Scratch that; the best part will be when Andy discovers the wp:quaternions and starts raving about how j and k prove that there isn't a "unique" square root of negative one, and liberal mathematicians are full of deceit, raving out of one side of their mouth that there is only one square root of negative one, while inventing an uncountable number of additional square roots. Coarb 03:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the cube root of -1? Oh, nevermind, that's -1... anyway, try slipping this deep parody past the Schlafmeister: "since, according to the Frobenius theorem, it is one of only two..." Frobenius, indeed?! ħuman 04:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's -1 and $\textstyle e^{\pm \left({\frac {\pi }{3}}+2k\pi \right)i},\forall k\in \mathbb {Z}$. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 05:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Short answer to the original question: No, it doesn't. Complex analysis most emphatically does not "assume a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative 1". And it's a good thing, too, because what he claims it must assume just isn't true.

The insistence that the complex numbers aren't legitimate is an ongoing fantasy by Andy; in fact, there's a section about it (Conservapedia:Conservapedian_mathematics#A_digression_on_complex_numbers) in the Conservapedia:Conservapedian_mathematics article. There seems to be a line he can never allow anyone to cross, no matter how many times he gets pwned and proven wrong, and he will lash out with such things as bogus 90/10 threats if he feels people are getting too close.

He was pwned on this issue no less than 3 times on the page in question, Talk:Elementary proof. Once, at the top, by his brother Roger, to which he responded:

I'd love to see a proof that the following exists and is unique (plus and minus roots):

${\sqrt {-1}}$

Of course, he will never see a proof of that, because it isn't true.

Second, 2/3 of the way down the page, again by Roger.

Third, after several pwnings by MarkGall on issues related to Andy's obsession, by PatrickD. This is what Andy was referring to by his comment "You're the person who claimed it was wrong that complex analysis assumes a unique, algebraically manipulable square root of negative 1, which was silly. It does assume a unique pair."

Patrick's argument seems to have been that the complex numbers could not have been based on some purported unique element "i" defined as the unique square root of -1, because -1 doesn't have any square roots until the complex numbers have already been constructed. The uniqueness of the square root of -1, in addition to not being true, isn't related to "i". "i" is created formally in the construction of the complex numbers.

Now, if you read very closely, Patrick seems to have made some progress: Andy says that "It's a unique pair, obviously", backing off a little from his claim that it's a unique square root. Yes, it is a unique pair, and if it makes Andy feel better to believe that the complex plane requires that pair, it's OK. At least he's basing his fantasy on something which is actually true.

Gauss 05:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never understood how Roger can be a fairly competent mathematician and yet not believe in complex numbers. It's like refusing to learn integration. Evil educated Phantom! 15:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the Andy obsessions that I never really could figure out. Almost all of his obsessions can be traced to his blind faith in the bible (or at least the parts of it he chooses to read)/Reagan/his mom or his blind hatred of liberals (who evidently lurk around every corner and have been pulling the strings all throughout history, just like the Illuminati). He hates gay people. He wants prayer in school. He loves the death penalty (just like the Romans!). He hates any branch of science that threatens to dislodge his god from one of its gaps. But complex numbers? I could never figure out why he digs his heels in on this one, despite being proven wrong so many times. I can't stand seeing creationists cling to their 6000 year fairy tale in the face of withering evidence to the contrary, but I can at least wrap my mind around why they're acting that way. The war on i, though, completely blows my mind. Corry 12:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, since when did the square root of -1 becomes unique, even counting multiplicity (pair)? I didn't read anywhere they are taking branch cuts, so $\textstyle e^{\pm \left({\frac {\pi }{2}}i\right)}$ is as good as $\textstyle e^{\pm \left({\frac {\pi }{2}}+2k\pi \right)i},\forall k\in \mathbb {Z}$... or is there some reason Andy don't know about polar coordinates? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you need branch cuts for exp like you go for log. IIRC, $x^{y}$ has q solutions if $y=p/q$ in reduced form and countably many solutions if y is irrational. I think the set you give is $\{1,-1\}$ Coarb 15:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so Andy really was wrong on that, instead of just sounding like an idiot. My hypothesis is confirmed! Kallium^talk 14:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Does Andy ever reconsider his positions if Roger disagrees with him, or is there no hope? Maybe someday Roger will follow up in one of these debates about i and put the matter to rest. Andy Jr. too is a perfectly sensible math student who buys into the liberal lie of complex numbers. But it seems there's no hope for the rest of us. --Lesjohn 17:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Roger actually is a totally competent mathematician. He doesn't drink Andy's complex-numbers-are-wrong Kool-Aid at all, and he pwns Andy every few months or so. Andy just ignores Roger. Too bad he doesn't take the same attitude toward the many other people who have tried to bring in sanity.

There are still just two square roots of -1. This is just the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, proved by (devout Christian! So there, Andy! I said it!) Karl Friedrich Gauss. The square roots of -1 are the solutions to $x^{2}+1=0$, which, being quadratic, has two solutions.

If one wants to go the exp/log root to get this, one uses ${\sqrt {-1}}=exp((1/2)log(-1))$. Now the log function is multiple-valued: $log(-1)=(2K+1)i\pi$ for integer K. Multiply by 1/2, and you get $(K+(1/2))i\pi$. The exp function would therefore seem to give an infinite number of results for those infinite number of arguments, but exp is invariant under adding $2\pi i$ to its argument, so K=0 and K=1 are the only values that give different results. Now, if you replace "1/2" with "1/3", to get the cube root, you get 3 different results, and so on. If you replace it with an irrational number, you get roots all over the place.

Gauss 17:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I misread your post. Evil educated Phantom! 17:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing that amazes me is that Andy has a degree in Electrical Engineering. You simply cannot get through a year of introductory circuit analysis (the first Electrical Engineering course anyone majoring in it takes) without getting to the point you can work with complex numbers in your sleep. It is possible to analyze Resistance-Inductance-Capacitance (RLC) circuits in the frequency domain without complex numbers, but that would require solving integro-differential equations, and would be an exercise in mathematical masochism. He should have spent a solid year in college living and breathing complex numbers, and even Andy couldn't argue that circuit analysis has been corrupted by liberal professor values. One more bit of evidence to my suspicion that Andy is running a massive parody. MDB 14:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is JPatt for cereal?

Is he a parodist or something? pardon me, I'm not very observant, so if I am asking an obvious question, I apologize. But his recent actions seem to just be the work of a bored parodist.--Passerby25 02:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

He must work hard at it if he is. - π 02:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if he's actually Stephen Colbert. Corry 04:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

He's been deep in his oats for a long time... and, yeah, probably a Colbert staffer. ħuman 04:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

He does appear to be the real thing - he's been there far too long to be a parodist, unless he's very very good. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 06:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You can read all about Jpatt on this great blog. - π 06:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me the recent weird redirects might be an attempt to stop pages like Homo Obsession and Sacred Cow from being so high up the popular pages list, without losing the page views. I don't think it's working though.--Little Bobby Tables 08:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

SOMEONE! PLEASE LISTEN!

If you don't listen too me, I'll die!^img. Jesus man, get a hobby. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 04:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This unfortunately is his hobby. - π 04:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Get psychiatric help, more like. There's something seriously wrong with Ken

. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont why he doesnt just get a sandwhich board and hang out in Times Square. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 04:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Lack of talent? The homeless would laugh him off the corner. ħuman 04:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Inability to find a sandwich board big enough to make multiple reversions on? Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 04:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

'Cos the devil invented chalk to evidence evilution? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If people stopped calling attention to his... well, to his attention seeking antics, would he eventually give up or would he explode in some even more entertaining way? X Stickman 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy v relativity - round twelvety

For fuck's sake Andy, stop embarrassing yourself. "Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses." Other than electromagnetism of course. And classical mechanics. And quantum mechanics. And fluid dynamics. And elasticity. Follow this up with "The mathematics of relativity require no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid". I have no idea whether or not relativity falls apart just after the origin of the universe. But if it does that doesn't mean anything other than it is an incomplete theory that can be improved on. Just like classical mechanics falls apart at very large velocities. JoeDuffy 19:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that bit Andy added based on Genesis or the Big Bang. --Shagie 22:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm wondering - which "origin of the universe" does he mean? ħuman 23:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Quantifying Openmindedness

"Do you think that there must be a material explanation for remarkable homing and migration behavior of birds and butterflies?. Actually Andy, there is such an explanation. Go figure eh? Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 22:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I always thought "they feel like flying south when it's cold" was a decent explanation, at least in this hemisphere. It looks like Andy's been more open-minded than me for quite a while, though. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 22:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thought when I saw that article. But notice his careful (or completely accidental) wording: do you think there must be, not do you think there is. Kupochama's link does contain a great line though: "In evolutionary terms, butterflies are merely insects far less developed than humans. But most humans could not even navigate, unaided, 1870 miles to a certain destination." That's pretty efficient: I count five mistakes in two sentences (one per 5.2 words). Given that the previous line states that migration "confounds purely materialistic explanation", someone should present this to Andy to see if he magically becomes an expert on ecology, neuroscience and entomology too. Perhaps he'll need the original data? Kallium^talk 00:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If only we humans could travel in a certain direction for a long time.

Also, while most of that essay's loaded jabs at liberals questions are easy enough for agnostic types to "pass", the materialistic explanation part is pretty contradictory. The question seems to be "do you think migration might contradict reality itself?" I guess he's just relying on the assertion that there are things that can exist, yet could not possibly exist without humans and/or God. I'd like to be able to assume physics exist, though... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 04:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's wonderful how all the questions about "are you openminded?" really summarize to "do you agree with me?" (and in actuality have nothing to do with openmindedness- especially the empirical ones), but I got a really good laugh out of #10: "Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?" Talk about a loaded question! Of course #12 is good too. Kallium^talk 12:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy is also clueless about how easy it is to navigate a fairly true course in any cardinal direction (harder in the tropics, of course), especially if the goal is only to go generally north or south. Now, of course, finding a particular destination makes it a bit harder, but still. Columbus got home from the WI and found his way back to the same damn island, after all. ħuman 21:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God

Actual line from Conservapedia I just found. I typed in Obama...

Obama redirects here [to Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Did you mean Osama Bin Laden?]

I just found this. Speechless. SJ ^Debaser 23:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has been there. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What is shocking is Andy and Rob have edited the page since and it is still there. - π 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You shock easily. 76.16.40.84 01:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's got roughly 0 votes for a reason, but I like that they've neglected to remove it. Andy edited the first paragraph and Rob edited five times, so it's pretty well-endorsed. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 04:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This was already discussed somewhere above. Personally, I think the "Osama"/"Obama" differentiation is important for people who might use CP as a resource, since they might not know the difference. ħuman 05:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Heckage, they cannot even be sure he was born or not whether in Hawaii or elsewhere. 21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC) CЯacke®

More Ed

I don't normally go for Ed's nonsense, but this is just amazing. Z3ro^talk 16:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I...... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

...*gestures vaguely* --Sid 16:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wah. Buh. Guh. ED YOU'RE A MORON. I just have to get a capture of this^img. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(Oh, incidentally Ed, I found the same information in three seconds by typing "logitech headset bluetooth PIN" and hitting "I'm feeling lucky" in google.) Sheesh. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

See, this is the sort of information that the Liberals want to censor from Wikipedia, and call it "cruft". Logitech headset default PINs are an essential part of Bluetooth. This information could save your life. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What would we be expected to do? Just start randomly plugging in 4 digit combinations until it worked? CRAZY!!! I can almost see Ed doing just that, writing down combinations he's tried. "1103? No. 3454? No. 9921? No. 0937? No." ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's always 1111 or 0000. Always. Except on my bluetooth battery powered printer, on which it's 6000 just to be awkward. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it should be replaced with "To obtain the default passkey (4-digit PIN) for the Logitech F-0399A headset, Read the fucking manual!!1!!!one!!!eleven!!1!!" [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

...*open mouth, close mouth, shake head*......What? Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 22:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Moer

[1]^img. Shakes head in sorrow. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

aaaaaaahahahahahahahaha god a fucking idiot. He is well deserving of his award. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 01:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My irony meter just broke...

...after looking at today's "historical quote:" There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity. I wonder if Joaquin gets the joke? Tetronian 02:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservatives have no sense of humor.--Thanatos 02:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike us liberals! A rape joke here, an abortion sketch there... bloody hilarious! SJ ^Debaser 12:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jpatt and his crazy moves

Anybody has an idea why he is moving stuff back and forth? And what are those "unauthorized bots" he speaks about? Is it just the voices in his head?

The "Sarah Palin/Homosexual obsession" thing gave me a feeling that he was trying to switch click-botted pages with more appropriate subjects, in order to increase apparent pageviews on his favorite pages, but now he just seems to be moving stuff about at random. Etc 09:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have NO idea what bot he wants to confuse by moving pages in more and more elaborate circles. Everything about this screams "parodist", but we've established multiple times that he's likely real, so I think he's just very, very confused. Or maybe he's just pretending to fight some evil bot in order to look productive. --Sid 10:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that if a bot loads Homosexual obsession it will be redirected to Sarah Palin and increase the viewcount for Sarah Palin instead of Homosexual obsession. -- Nx / talk 12:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words, Jpatt wants to use unauthorized bots for his own purposes. That's nice. Why don't the bot operators just grant him his wish and pimp his hate-essays and "articles" sky-high? See how Ken reacts once Jpatt's "insights" shove his three pet articles out of the top ten... --Sid 14:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I happen to know that the Obama, McCain, Biden, Palin and United States Presidential Election, 2008 ‎articles were all heavily click-botted in order to keep Conservative's Evolution article out of the top ten. I understand that these articles were chosen as "untouchables" and that they would never be deleted just to reset the view count. Don't ask me how I know this but let's say "a little bird told me" and I have the statistics which appear to verify it. Silly twit 12:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Gay

Just another Ed clusterfuck^img. Then again, it wouldn't be Ed without "a truly obsessive desire for sexual experiences."--Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 17:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny, that's the edit I would have poked last:

• "In the late twentieth century, homosexuality advocates chose to reclaim the word 'gay' as a badge of honor, implying that promiscuity and immorality were acts of courage deserving approval from the mainstream."
• Ed Poor cites RICHARD DAWKINS on language. Bonus points for the paragraph that comes after the quote in the original article:
  • Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". You can say "I am an atheist" but at best it sounds stuffy (like "I am a homosexual") and at worst it inflames prejudice (like "I am a homosexual").

Ah, Ed... you never let us down when it comes to far-out WTFs. --Sid 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Time for some new usernames... GAydar and GaidaR... ħuman 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

When I was once lamenting the loss of "gay" to mean happy and carefree I was told by feminist friend of mine that "gay" used to be applied to prostitutes in days of yore. Sadly, I have never bothered to check the veracity of this. Must read Ed's posts before commenting. :( Silly twit 12:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Moer Ed on Wp

Ed is told off: "Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view" and reminded that he's on probation. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, whoever "Cirt" is, they seem intent on ripping Dumb Ed a well-deserved defecatory orifice. Note how Ed Poop keeps harking back to when he was elected a 'crat, but no mention of when he was stripped of all his user rights...? ħuman 04:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just when CP had stopped being funny...

This WIGO reminds me of all the futile glory that is arguing with Andy. Corry 04:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Andy's hilarious when he gets going. Too bad the scotch takes until he has turned editing off and passed out to take effect these days. And I mean his scotch, not mine. ħuman 04:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What is worse is, if we are to believe kettleticket, Andy doesn't drink. That means he's doing things like this stone cold sober! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 07:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it. IIRC, the conservative parable about "The Desperate Smoker" originally took place in a liquor store. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What IS going on with conservapedia? - I can't even edit my own talk page....

(I don't have a talk page, btw)

I created an account last week, and have only made a couple of sycophantic posts on talk pages, but I can't seem to edit anything... It says I have to be a member of the Admin group to edit. Have they thrown the towel in and decided to be as much of a true wiki as they are an encyclopaedia? (Note: The British spelling does NOT indicate that I hate Americans) DeltaStar 09:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You've probably been blocked for Talk Talk Talk or for hating Americans. ^bomination 09:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

They're in "night editing" mode. You need to have "edit" rights. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 09:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Which not that many people have. These are the specifically allocated ones, but does not include Sysops, Admin etc. What is quite interesting is how many of the users on that list have not edited for a while. I'm assuming these are mainly students? AmberS - last edit May 2009. AshleyS - last edit March 2009. DeniseM - last edit March 2009. Double Edge - last edit Feb 2009. JCL91 - last (and only) edit Sep 2007 (!) . Possibly some of these are now blocked as well ;) Worm ^{(t | c)} 09:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

*Chimes in* ...I guess Amber and Ashley (twin sisters) felt they don't need Andy's Economics. JCL91 has a new account. I'm guessing he forgot that he had that account. Silly Mr. Cat 10:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What a bunch of hypocritical wankers (Note: By using British insults I am NOT being anti-American)

Oy, Ken.

You know what to do. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Already partially defused by Ed Poor: "Turing merely contributed. On second thought, let's just omit that it was a homosexual who made these contributions." --Sid 10:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

An article on Great Achievements by Homosexuals would be an interesting concept. --SpinyNorman 15:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I call parody. The WWII line set off my Poe meter. 24.13.203.96 15:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You guise are a little late on finding this image. I've had it for a few months now. Anyway... "who cares if it helped end WWII?" I'm pretty sure I care. I really wanted bananas in my Twinkie filling. But no! That won't happen anymore! *sobs* NotHuman 17:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

She's holding a rainbow flag, I don't know how much more Poe it gets. Z3ro^talk 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a Poe's law thing - she is holding a parodic sign, that's pretty straightforward, right? It's probably a counterprotest to some anti gay hate thing. Anyone know where it came from? ħuman 21:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Boston, March 2004 larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Cool to know it's not fake... ħuman 23:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add that explanation to the image file itself. It'd be quite useful to note. ^bomination 15:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That tricksy jesus

I don't know if this is WIGO worthy, but apparently peace and miracle have changed meaning. Yorick 18:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WTF! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 18:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite obvious: "peace" has been taken over by the hippies, and "miracle" has become too common, losing its Godliness. -- Nx / talk 18:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this is fascinating. I don't quite get the reasoning why a 'miracle' would be a pejorative word for a sign or work of God, unless he sees it as denial of God's omnipotence. Secret Squirrel 02:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fucking insane. Truly. ħuman 04:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

All jokes aside, Andy clearly has issues with everything that is ambiguous and needs interpretation. "Peace" as in "peace of mind" vs. "peace, not war", and "miracle" as in an "God did something" vs. "something good happened that was very unexpected/improbable". Andy is just following his regular pattern; anything that can make different people think differently and give them a chance to interpret reality in their own way, is bad. Etc 09:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is: What is better/worse? Andy's "We need to retranslate the Bible to say what I want it to say with no possibility of reading things another way" move, or Philip's "We don't need to retranslate anything - the Bible already says exactly what I want it to say with no logical way of interpreting it another way" handwaving? --Sid 11:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice comparison, Sid. ħuman 23:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, regarding Andy’s whole reinterpret the bible kick, I was kind of curious about that. Supposedly he’s a Catholic yet obviously takes a literalist approach to his scripture (support of young earth creationism, ban on homosexuality, etc…) I’m curious how he was able to reconcile in his mind the idea that the bible is literally the word of God and needs to be pruned of “liberal bias” at the same time. Given his propensity for seeing things in an as unambiguous light as possible one would expect that kind of mental conflict would cause his head to explode. --Tygrehart

If you read through the various articles and their talk pages, you will notice that Andy actually gave a fascinating answer to that: The Bible is the literal Word Of God - but the languages (both the original languages the Bible had been written in and the KJV-level English) back then weren't advanced enough to properly express the powerful conservative messages and concepts of the Bible. *steps aside so that he won't get his by debris as your head explodes* --Sid 22:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Schlaflys at the idiots convention

A fine way to sucker people into attending a conference is not to tell them who is speaking until they are there. The schedule of the conference showed Andrew chaired more than his fair share of sessions and John got to chair one on defending traditional marriage. However I am shore Aschlafly's talk on bring youth into the conservative movement was riveting. Anyone got a spare ten bucks to get a copy of that session? - π 03:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"HOW TO USE THE INTERNET AND NEW MEDIA TO WIN YOUR CAMPAIGN: Cherilyn Eagar Chairman: Ruth Carlson" As I recall Schlafly called Obama's campaign and new media tactics a "silly stunt". Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 03:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, it was organised by Big Momma Schlafly and Janet Fucking Folger! She's the idiot that produces those anti-evolution vids. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 03:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

On the radio stations I listen to, anti-American bigots all, this meeting is being referred to as the annual Ku Klux Klan convention... ħuman 04:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We really need to report on this nut-job meet-up. ħuman 04:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"HOW TO RECOGNIZE LIVING UNDER NAZIS & COMMUNISTS" Really? They jumped the General Lee right over Godwin with that one. Kallium^talk 11:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't getting John Schlafly to chair the anti-gay marriage panel a bit like asking the turkey to organise Christmas dinner? What's the gay equivalent of "uncle tom"? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Log Cabin Republican"? --Gulik 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And can you get any more self-righteous than "How to Take Back America"? Kallium^talk 11:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to spend $150 on the complete set of DVDs and bittorrent 'em for our amusement? It's a bit steep for my tastes. You could get the whole of the world at war for that, --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not just $150 for the DVDs. It's the money for the TV/monitor you smash while watching them, and then the cost to have the hand that did the smashing stitched back up (except for those of us who have socialised medicine). Oh, and I have the W@W DVDs. Much better use of money. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 12:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Eugh, sod that. They seem to have a small amount transcribed. This for instance, which doesn't seem to address the issue of why they hate gay people, they just brush it aside and focus on how they're not really that obsessed with homosexuality... although as we all know, given the likes of Conservapedia, this is flat out wrong. ^bomination 12:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've only just noticed that the one that is "refuting" that they have a homosexual obsession is the only extract readily available. They may as well stamp GAY all over the damn website. ^bomination 12:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I like it. It's deliciously self-defeating:

Jared: "Christians, as a whole, focus too much on the homosexual issue alone [...] and so we as Christians are set up as anti-gay instead of anti-immorality."

Matt: "Make no mistake; the sin of homosexuality is the bunker-buster bomb in this war against morality."

I could cite more, but that sentence really sums it up. It's not even that they claim they're not obsessed - they defend and celebrate their obsession. Heck, the clue is in the title: "HOMOSEXUAL EXTREMIST MOVEMENT"... --Sid 14:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Suggested donation" is what they think we should pay? Like they'd accept anything less than $150 for the whole thing. "I'll give you $10!" "Um... no." "Fifteen!" SJ ^Debaser 13:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand, you can give them less than the suggested donation. I do it occasionally at the Met in NYC when I've been there several times in the past month and am only checking out one exhibit. On the other hand, Focus on the Family wasn't too happy when I asked them to send me $80 worth of Narnia stuff for free and I never received it. I'm not exactly sure what the law is on that, but I wasn't looking to pursue it. It was a shame thought- it was all 7 books on CD. I'll try again sooner or later. Hactar 07:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Found this on digg. Seems like the soiree was a bastion of reasonable thought. Yorick 06:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

...holy crap. After reading the excerpt, I'm genuinely scared to watch the YouTube clip. --Sid 18:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

About to come here to mention that myself. here's the story on Digg, if you like comment voting systems. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Aaaand, another story. Choice quote?

"Obama's first act as president of any consequence, in the middle of a financial meltdown, was to send taxpayers' money overseas to pay for the killing of unborn children in other countries," said Frank. "Now, I got to tell you, if a president will do that, there's almost nothing that you should be surprised at after that. We shouldn't be shocked that he does all these other insane things. A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can't do that right, then he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity."

Indeed.... I like the damage control from the spokeswoman afterwards. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

TK

I've sworn off of WIGO:CP, but TK's sick^img...RaoulDuke 00:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he got some kind of repetitive motion injury from pushing the "block" button so many times. Tetronian 00:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Trust he's insured. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno..."obsessive liberal banning" might be considered a pre-existing condition. Tetronian 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I for one wish him a speedy recovery to full health. ħuman 00:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks "Wayne", whoever you are. ħuman 00:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh no he didn't! Countdown to Wayne being blocked and deep-burned in 3...2...1... Tetronian 02:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Terry - be well. 03:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, Buttboy. 03:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope he has a speedy recovery. Corry 04:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(UD)Excuse me if I don't join in the TK love-fest. While I do not wish him (or any other human) harm, he's just a faceless character on the internet whom I do not know personally but I shall reserve my sympathy and best wishes for all those other people whom I do not know that are too poor to pay for medical insurance because of the economic policies of politicians that TK openly supports.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In all sincerity

It's hard to tell if we are being serious or snarky above, so I wish to clarify, that whatever "animosity" I may hold for the TK character as an internet persona, in my role as this internet persona, I truly do wish that he recovers well and speedily from his surgery, as a human being. ħuman 05:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Aye. I'm not all that active here, and I don't have anything extra to contribute other than I agree with you completely. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 06:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. I did wonder where he'd gone. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Human. We should wish TK a speedy recovery, as he is just another human being like us. Tetronian 11:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think he'll put some of these comments on his talk page, attributing them to us, like he did with the dead wife quote (which wasn't even from here)? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget his nonsense about "liberals never change their spots, commiserating with somebody you don't like is deceit". So with that said, I'll say a prayer for his speedy recovery... oh wait, I'm an atheist. Ah well, too bad, so sad. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 18:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Would our failure to pray constitute a malicious witholding of treatment? To be on the safe side, I just asked God for TK's speedy recovery, and a speedboat. Either one is good, but the speedboat is just a little present to myself. --Concernedresident 21:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Schrödinger

The typical approach of Ed to mathematics: I don't get it, so I'll just destroy it. And by the way, you may be editing here for a year, I don't like your name anymore. Let's say how long the current crop of mathematicians will withstand Ed's storms of ignorance... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, JacobB may be next since he liked Guardian's work on that article... --Sid 15:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That derivation is the most interesting thing I've read on Conservapedia in months. ^bomination 15:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Liberal rant

Quite funny

Not worthy of a WIGO (what is these days?) but I got a screenshot of this rant someone posted before Karajou deleted it, because I found it quite funny.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I give him credit for being consistent with his spelling. Yorick 17:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My god, it reads like Time Cube. Evil educated Phantom! 17:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Rush Limbaugh is a racist, And Sucks." I don't know why, but I foudn that line funny. Z3ro^talk 17:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is funny, and likely as effect as running a TV advertising campaign to persuade flies to stop walking on dog shit.--Concernedresident 18:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell, that is pretty timecubish. And apparently Obama isn't a muslin, which is a shame because I was going to use him to filter my homebrew wine. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, except for the spelling errors it reminds me of a Jpatt "essay." Tetronian 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There was another one of these posted on the Harry Potter Article. AnnaAmerican deleted what was there and then blasted CP.See Here. Has there been a recent CP news-article somewhere?--Thanatos 00:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, but whilst looking I found this, which hilariously is under the impression that Conservapedia is a "conservation website". Here's^img the article in question. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's hysterical! I wonder where the CP article was plagiarized from.. .Tetronian 02:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of it is taken verbatim from this page. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Now THAT is funny! I wonder how many decent people concerned with the future of our planet wandered over to CP for a looksee...

Shock Horror! More old earthism at CP!

I know it's not a new article - but whoever lifted this piece verbatim and plonked it into CP forgot to pepper it with "secular scientists believe / creationary geologists disagree" etc etc etc. Someone needs to pop on over and make the 'corrections'..... DeltaStar 04:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What's really odd is that PJR made an edit to this article, which sort of implies that he must've at least skimmed parts of it. --Sid 11:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution

Pitdown hackel appendix wrong teenagers pitdown man appedix. Pitodwn man hackel drawings! Appendix! Hackel Drawings appendix teenagers! Agenda open mind! (cease arguing like Andy) ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ voicing attorneys! 11:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever seen Plunkett and Macleane? Everytime I see PJR write anything, I always think of Johnny Lee Miller in that film exclaiming "Information, Information, Information!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If there was ever something that we could describe as textbook Andrew Schlafly to show what a complete arsehole AND idiot he is, that exchange would be it. Did anything he say that was reported in that WIGO actually have relevance to the discussion?? User: "Yes, it may have a use, but that wouldn't disprove evolution" Assfly: "Ah! You won't admit you're wrong.". Non-sequitur much? I mean SERIOUSLY DEAR FUCK, do these people honestly think that science and evolutionary theory hasn't moved on in 150 years? Come on, this is just any excuse for them to try and pass-off a perfectly valid theory as nothing more than a personality cult because that's all they're capable of doing, they can't think in a non-religious context in any way, shape or form. That's all Schlafly knows and will ever know and the world is much worse off for it. Come on, give us "evolutionists" a fucking challenge and pick holes on a modern genetics paper or something. Oh, wait, they tried that and failed epically. I know this is, as you say, par-for-the-ccourse but sometimes it still amazes me that someone can be this idiotic and hypocritical and closed minded and deluded and still think he's right. ^bomination 13:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What dreams may come...

In honour of Andrew's continued attempts to destroy the English language via the "Conservative Bible Project", a friend and I have written him a tribute: Andy, Prince of Conservapedia. Feel free to add and advance the plot! --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 10:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I shed a tear for the Bard, who must be turning in his grave ENorman 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fuck Shakespear (this coming from an English graduate); nothing but pop-writing drivel. As to the interpretation, brilliant. Z3ro^talk 14:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As an English graduate, you should at least check for typos in his name! (Sorry :)) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I was insulting the man, not saying I could spell his name! (why does that always happen?) Z3ro^talk 17:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, he couldn't spell his name either. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna say, isn;t this the same man who spelled his name "Shaxpere?" or something like that? SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 18:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is why I don't read CP so much any more.

Catching up on the doings of CP this week, I noticed that visionary genius JPatt added these words of wisdom to the front page. Sarah Palin wants more deregulation to fix the financial crisis caused by a total lack of oversight over financial services? It's no wonder she has a reputation for financial smarts. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you've never seen Jpatt's hard hitting analysis of the effects of state law preemption under the National Bank Act and Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act on financial markets? 14:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. If JP can even understand that phrase, Palin's got my vote. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"the financial crisis caused by a total lack of oversight over financial services?"

How exactly the crisis was caused by the lack of oversight? care to explain? 190.45.72.243 14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Alger Hiss

FOIA has made over 2000 edits to that one article. That must be a record? RaoulDuke 01:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. Ken

would have have made more to either evolution or homosexuality. - π 01:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to wonder, what is FOIA's deal? Who is he, and why is he so obsessed with Alger Hiss? Tetronian 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ken has made 2059 edits (and 957 out of the last 1000) to Evolution. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 02:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And 2028 edits th the Homosexuality page, not including the tie-in pages like Homosexuality and Tree Stumps or Homosexuality and Javelin Throwing. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 02:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

But there is a whopping 2731 FOIA edits to Alger Hiss (and 2 by yours truly!). Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I particularly like Ken's countless edits to his article on "Homosexuality and bear absolving". (thanks to Pi. This site has the best templates) 03:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a template called gerund which conjuncts the verb properly. Combine this with the capitalise and you get Homosexuality and bear absolving. - π 03:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You people are fucking insane. I consider myself lucky to count you among my friends. bear - does it always return the same answer? Do we need to add that trick we use on our sigs? ħuman 05:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

bear bear bear - Yep. :) Tricksy 05:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys are awesome. I refreshed the page about ten times, I was laughing so hard. So far my favorite results have been "Killer Whale Assassinating" and "Monster Lolling." Junggai 21:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My count of FOIA's Hiss edits (including a few edits to "The Legacy of Alger Hiss" or whatever it's called) is 2824, as of 21:53 EDT, 30 September. Note this also. Gauss 03:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about the splinter page. And his talk page line is interesting. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 03:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep this competition to a single article or a cluster of articles sharing a word in the title to keep it fair to Ken

. Also, perhaps someone should tell him at AWK that FOIA is outrunning his obsessional behavior and if he wants to earn his medal come Conservapedia Day III.14 he'll have to get lazerin' ħuman 05:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I say all things homo vs all things Hiss. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just realized: the Hiss article has two pictures of piles of corpses. So much for Andy's "family friendly" encyclopedia. Tetronian 01:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Who the fuck is Alger Hiss anyway? (good name though) DeltaStar 18:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Exposing "parody"

Is it parody if it was written by a non-parodist?

I have found two hilariously absurd math articles on CP. They were written by someone who is a longstanding contributor. Exposing them may get them fixed, which will then reduce future lulz. What to do? Coarb 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Take screenshots & post 'em. Then the lulz will never die. JS Leitch 15:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends on who the poster is. Don't forget that some people have long-term undercover socks who are still adding this stuff undetected. It's not just about getting the lulz incincerated you may be threatening their existence. Are they still posting? Have any of the Gang of Ten edited the article? Normally if they are a current sysop there is no problem but I believe that the likes of Fox added stuff before he left because he was so annoyed at them.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy it privately, and then point it out after it gets spotted and changed (if it ever does). I believe that's the convention.

Although, people here often mention not-exactly-parody-but-still-funny pages like cp:Clothing and cp:Sound and they never seem to get fixed.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Forward it to a cabal member to be shared and admired in private in the super-secret-TK-proof cabal forum. 17:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal.. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn right there's no cabal. ^bomination 18:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't expose parody (or gross stupidity), even if you have screenshots. We want such material to stay up as long as possible for others to see by accident, even if we can't laugh about it publicly. I have my own private stash of CP garbage in math and science. If you really want to share, email us. Gauss 01:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Most CP members either don't read RW or have the same reaction regardless. "Official" edits make the best WIGOs, but it's still fun for everybody to see the staff ignore blatant parodies. ^img your hearts out. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy's off with the fairies again...

...dancing by the rivers of insanity and twirling in the glades of delusion. Is he trying to justify his hatred of "socialist" Britain and Europe? And I was surprised to learn that Canada and Australia are monarchies; must be that durn librul censorship. EddyP 17:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Long-time reader, rare contributor, but I must add that the Assfly is half-right. Technically, Canada is a constitutional monarchy with the Queen of England as our official head of state, though of course our Prime Minister is nominally the head honcho, so to speak. However, he is certainly wrong about Canadians not having the right to free speech, something guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But naturally, since gays can marry up here in Soviet Canuckistan, obviously the free speech of good, right proper conservative Christians is being trampled on by the godless Lieberal horde. AdamNelson 18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely right that they're constitutional monarchies, but it's mostly irrelevant to the point about language anyway. But the free-speech claim is definitely bollocks, considering that my university was ranged-blocked by CP (yeah, there's your freedom of speech boys) I have a hell of a lot more free-speech in this country than in the US. ^bomination 18:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

EC Jensen's taken out the bit aboot Canadians not having freedom of speech, eh? Wonder how long 'til friggin' Andy friggin' puts it back in, eh? RaoulDuke 18:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Armondikov, you're clueless. Liberals use speciation as a cover-up to hide the fact that polio vaccines cause homosexuality and death. Free speech is a conservative value and only God is capable of enshrining that right. Expand your mind and contribute substantively, or go join the other Liberal Sodomites at Wikipedia. AdamNelson 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a homosexual with polio??? I think I'd rather take my chances than risk turning gay. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what he's trying to say is that if there was freedom of speech outside of America (which there isn't, obviously), then everyone would choose to speak American English, because it's the best form of the best language. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that Andy is defending his Bible retranslation project because language evolves changes over time, so the Bible needs 'updating', yet he doesn't see that maybe the differences between British English and American English are simply because Britain is not America and vice versa, so they've changed in different ways, or changed in one place and not changed in the other. Or maybe, for him, that's a bit too close to biological evolution for him to be comfortable admitting it? 92.9.236.218 20:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) To the wingnuts, criticism of what they say = lack of free speech. So, when you point out that their Obama claims are silly and racist ro that creation "science" is bunk, you're suppressing them.

It's the little things that always impress me when he goes batty. Leave it to Andy to make the connection between freedom of speech and spelling. Also, the abysmal ignorance: "American English" apparently refers to a spelling system, rather than a dialect or group of dialects. Godspeed 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw, RJJ "sanitized" it [8]. ħuman 20:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. Now my blood can go back to being a liquid. Evil educated Phantom! 20:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, but Schlafly still insisted on adding the whole "concise and economical" line a second time. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd very much like to comment here, but as a Australian, I might be given capital punishment (oh wait, we don't have that), I mean I might be shot (oh yeah, we have gun control), I mean I might be given a mystery virus by the government (that's right, we have universal health care). Damn our constitutional monarchy, always making this country such an awful place to live, how bloody rude! /extremesarcasm.
However, Andy's actually kinda right, Australians have no right to free speech with the exception of what the courts infer. That is to say, the constitution does not have a clause that clearly states "Everyone gets free speech" to the best of my knowledge. That's why there's been renewed call lately to implement a bill of rights over here.
I hope my spelling+grammar is okay, the doctor gave me some pills that make me a bit ditzy... wheeeeee!. -Redback^G'day 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As an Australian, your opinion is not important, and as such will be ignored. However, y9our inegbraiated state left less typos that your tuypical edutsd. ħuman 04:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's really funny to see Andy take little digs against Canada and the UK as monarchies. The commonwealth folks are free to correct me, but it seems that all the royal family does nowadays is draw tourists and sell tabloids, and they have about as much influence on the government as they do the weather. Anyways, we all know that Andy doesn't like Canada and the UK because they're generally more liberal than us and have dirty socialized medicine, and it's ironic to see him attempt to impugn them as monarchies, when it is well known that Andy thinks that feudalism is wicked awesome. Corry 05:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy should really work on his loser history book in private, not in public. His intermediate versions are, well, intellectually embarrassing. ħuman 05:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And the end result will somehow be different? Corry 06:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1984 references here are overused, but seriously ... stripping out the "u" in "colour" makes the language more economical somehow? This is what Newspeak is all about, stripping down a language to the bare essentials, eliminating every unnecessary key press, leaving nothing left for interpretation or poetic beauty. Etc 07:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy believes the letter U should only be followed by the letter S and A. Clearly anything else is a waste. Yorick^Crass. 07:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

AndyPants is just down on the UK because we have laws prohibiting incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred - and CP would probably fall foul of those laws :) Worm^{(t | c)} 08:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

RJJ's good work is on the verge of being for nothing, Schlafly is definitely wanting to shoehorn in the "monarchy" and "economical" bit. Hopefully if Andy stays away they may get a decent article out of it. ^bomination 10:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Has a parodist hit the speciation article? Poe?

Speciation is a hypothetical process by which new species arise. In fact, speciation has never been observed directly or indirectly. An atheist believes in speciation regardless of the evidence, because it serves as his substitute for the existence of God

I read this and immediately thought 'Poe', and I was a bit pissed off that a parodist could give the game away by being as over-the-top as this. However, I then checked the history, only to find that this little gem was added by Assfly himself! So there you have it; as CP is the trustworthy encyclopaedia, I believe in speciation as a substitute for god...... DeltaStar 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have spent years campaigning to have the British national anthem changed to "Speciation Save the Queen", but to no avail. :( Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Speciationspeed! Evil educated Phantom! 21:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Urh, despite being a proud Brit, I HATE our national anthem. I don't believe in gods and I am against the monarchy, so it really couldn't be much worse. Rule Britannia - now there's a tune!

On somewhat of a tangent from that tangent; what is an advisable ratio of 'normal' edits to atheist/liberal/environmental/homosexual bashing edits on CP so as to not be suspect of being a parodist? DeltaStar 21:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Our national anthem is awesome, how can you not like it? "Confound their politics /

Frustrate their knavish tricks / On Thee our hopes we fix / God save us all!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Several points:

1. Rule Britannia is incredibly badass.
2. I would advise no ratio of normal to argumentative edits. Dissent on CP is pretty much dead these days- anybody not toeing the line gets bloxored doubleplus quick. You might as well argue with Barney Frank's kitchen table.
3. Poe is being misused here. When you first see the stupid, you should be thinking "parodist," not "Poe." When you then see that the outlandish statement that you thought was parody is in fact the seriously considered brain turd of one A.L. Schlafly, THEN you think "wow, that's a Poe." Poe's law comes in to play when you can't tell the difference between fundamentalism and parody of fundamentalism.</pedantic> Corry 03:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Corry earns 3 1/2 internets for using "toeing the line" correctly. I can't remember the last time I saw it properly used. (Everyone writes "tow the line". F'ing morons) ħuman 05:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair point re Poe's law, Corry. Good use of "toeing the line" too; don't even get me started on people who use the phrase "As thick as two short planks"... (When the correct word is "shaw" - Shaw planks being the particularly thick planks used to support a ship in dry-dock.

Anyway, I wasn't planning on any form of dissent on CP, I am only there to write & edit as a fundie parodist; what I was asking was should I make some benign 'normal' edits so as to not appear to have just signed up to spout right-wing bible-bashing nonsense? Erm..... hang on..... actually....................... DeltaStar 06:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy editing for grammar, spelling, and so forth, and find that it ups one's edit counts. It's rather easy to find articles in need of such help; use of the random page link can be handy. One can also add well-written articles on perfectly legitimate subjects; articles on food, quirky (gay?) famous people, and species of sea birds abound. It is an amusing challenge to write these in such a way that fellow parodists say "hmm" while earnest fundies see nothing out of sorts. And Rule Brittania is f'ing awesome. --Too tired to log in 03:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

RE. "Short plank": Got me worried for a moment there Delta: Err ... rubbish! it is short. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure (if you'll excuse the pun) that's correct, as I've been told such by many old shipbuilders. Although I've just searched t'internet for it and can't find anything, so it must be bollocks. Bollocks. DeltaStar 19:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to rain on this particular parade but if I remember correctly someone was once arguing for reign being an acceptable alternative in the phrase "give free rein". Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that "reign" was the correct term; as the phrase relates to giving someone the freedom whilst in control to do whatever they want. I suppose "rein" could be used if you were going to let your horse do whatever it wanted...DeltaStar 07:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a standard horsey phrase: To give free rein is to allow the reins to hang loose & the steed to do as it wishes. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

CP = hate speech?

Some of the more conservative/right-wing web sites are classified by corporate web filter databases (like Websense, Mcafee, Bluecoat, etc) as "Hate Speech & Discrimination".

Given some of the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-gay / anti-Islamic commentary on CP, should CP be added to that "Hate Speech & Discrimination" classification? Steve 09:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's too small for most corporate filters to pick up; mine doesn't, and it filters out almost everything. Z3ro^talk 14:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno about corporate filters, but WOT displays a warning when one visits CP, and the good thing about WOT is that it's based on user reviews, not just what some company thinks. The Google SearchWiki (not sure if link'll work) comments are rather entertaining, although most of them are probably us. Finally, Compete is accurate enough to include "discrimination", "hate-speech" and "lies" in the Tags section of the site profile. Of course, these are obvious examples of liberal censorship of conservative facts. -Redback^G'day 12:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
moar: Nah, the searchwiki link doesn't appear to work unless you're already logged into Google. What a useless product, seriously. Still, I'd take Google over Yahoo any day.

About a year ago I found (long story) & mentioned here (had a discussion with Jinx _{hi Jinx!} about it at the time) that the local church had a blocking filter on CP. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 12:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gravity

I bet Andy has one of those "2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2" shirts. --Sid 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

He's certainly "open minded" enough... ^bomination 14:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems like he should have a problem with geometry too. A cube's volume would be length^2.99998 if liberals stopped making grabs for Nobel Prizes.

...And incidentally, there's a nice old quote on the CP:Cube talk page. "I was relatively weak in the 3-dimensional stuff.--Aschlafly" He sure has branched out since then. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I can get 2+2=5 in Excel if I set the display to no decimals. ;)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Active Editors, Bots, 403s, etc.

I finally updated Conservapedia:Active Users. Conservapedia was quite unfriendly towards bots in the last couple of days - last month, I had no trouble at all to get the data, this time, I run in 403 errors and other signs of not being welcome. Was there so much unfriendly bot activity in the last time? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 17:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

They don't like bots clicking on their articles and distorting the page views. You're lucky the FBI doesn't operate in Germany. Totnesmartin 21:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Terry (is he back from having wisdom teeth inserted?) has done his job - it's basically only the sysops making any edits to CP (with the exception of 'focused' individuals like FOIA and Daniel and Jinx who's still putting out in an attempt to regain his rights - how's the "investigation" going?). Way to go! The site is growing rapidly. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 10:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

They really should take a look at one of these. Guess they believe in quality over quantity, but...--Thanatos 19:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at where Andy's been!

Apparently, he's been palling around with some very radical people opposed to any and all attempts to reform healthcare. --Crazyswordsman 21:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

See above. Kallium^talk 23:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just been archived since your post. Which is a shame, as it contained some good info. Stuff like a Republican congressman seemingly suggesting that only Christians should be able to be in any position in government, and that Obama's first act as president was to pay for the killing of unborn children in other countries. Calling him an enemy of humanity. That kind of thing. For those that want to read, the section is now here. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I post here so infrequently, what with becoming a student again and all (redundancy ftw!), but that article really is a window into the batshit scarily insane world of the far-right. At least my neighbourhood BNP are reassuringly inept: some of these guys were serious presidential candidates, ffs! Silvermute 10:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Liberal" vandalism?

Someone has just created an account with the rather splendid name of "EDfatFREAKpoor", deleted a load of admins' talk pages, and then got blocked 6mins later. The reason? Vandalism? No. Liberal vandalism! What on earth is liberal about that? These people are insane, and this level of outright hatred (and fear) cannot be healthy. DeltaStar 19:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

CP Admins are conservatives. Those who oppose something conservative are liberals. So vandalizing talk pages of conservatives? Liberal vandalism. It all makes sense once you switch your brain off and see everything from the "with us or against us" POV. --Sid 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're new to this, aren't you, Delta Star? That's the typical institutional response by CP to anything it doesn't like: call it "liberal." Even though the word has no real meaning over there except "what we disagree with." RaoulDuke 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this was part of TK's "telling it like it is" campaign. A conservative wouldn't vandalise so by definition any vandalism has to be liberal. I don't believe that plain vanilla vandalism even features in their block-reason list any more.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed quite new to this, but even so it still staggers me that these people think like this. Do you think they actually believe what they're writing? Liberal vandalism! Brilliant!DeltaStar 20:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

For a lot of stuff, like Andy's "Liberal X" series, the Obama article, or just about anything Ken

writes, they don't especially care if it's true.  The smear is what's important. --Kels 20:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

How long until a vow of chastity is required for all CP sysops? They must keep out the filthy--Thanatos 20:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I presume that you're a European DeltaStar? Because despite what we think we know about America from TV and movies there is a sizable constituency of the fundamentalist Christian conservatives that we just don't have in any number over here. Most of those in power at CP do genuinely hold these hateful views although I suspect that TK just puts up a jolly good show to suck up to Aschlafly. Although I understand that he considers himself a Reaganite and believes in old-Earth Intelligent Design rather than young-Earth creationism.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I'm not a yank! I have visited to states on a few occasions, including working trips to Texas so I was aware of the bible-bashing mentality; but I didn't realise the level of outright hatred of 'liberals', and from reading CP it seems that anyone who doesn't meet Assfly's VERY specific criteria for being a 'conservative' is a liberal. My naivety must be refreshing to those who are used to this kind of shit, but it still staggers me. DeltaStar 05:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Vaccine

I was wondering how long until Andy jumped on this story. And of course he's not going to let the latest updates ruin his view of things. Jammy 17:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Now if only some dirty liberal would bring it up over there... Andy is prime for some serious cognitive dissonance on this one. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. It's so sinister, this conspiracy to keep women from getting cervical cancer. Without cervical cancer, how can we scare the kids into abstinence? We need cervical cancer. Jesus loves cervical cancer. Corry 03:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

When I read this WIGO, I thought to myself, "I hope if someone brings this up he'll claim it was a conspiracy to cover-up the real story...." and then decided that not even Andy was nuts enough to say that. I stand corrected. --EcheNegraMente ^{A smooth operator operating correctly} 05:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Note how he "honored" the commenters for questioning the details on the update article... SEND ME THE DATA! ħuman 07:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I had my free NHS winter flu jab on Monday (a day ahead of the rest of the nation because I'm "special") and I'm still here. (Please don't express your disappointment too obviously.) No effective medical intervention is entirely risk-free but on balance, vaccines save lives and money. Andy's campaigning against vaccines in general but HPV in particular is rather like those spurious arguments against wearing seat-belts in cars when it was first made mandatory, based on some freak accident where someone survived because they were not wearing a seat belt. My contempt for the man knows no bounds. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the poor girl died of a tumour affecting her heart and lungs ('though Andy will deny it I expect). A terrible thing for someone so young and apparently healthy. One wonders just how close to death anyone of is without having any idea. I'm afraid I haven't got the heart to make any snarky comments about her love of Jesus.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if the vaccine did cause a death it's one death. I used the BBC's pie-chart to illustrate a point on the article here. Out of those 1.4 million girls vaccinated, hundreds would be expected to contract the virus and dozens would die. Preliminary reports show the vaccine is extremely effective, so we could almost expect the virus to be wiped out like Smallpox or Measles or Polio (the last two were on track to be gone by now, but the anti-vaccination crowd happily brought them back from extinction). So, the vaccine killing one person or the disease killing dozens each year... I hate to leave it in the hands of cold and emotionless statistics, but I know which I would choose each time. I'm not even sure that story should even have been reported, but the headline "girl dies after jab" is a bit better than "girls don't die after jab". ^bomination 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Millions of people receive a vaccine. Statistically someone will die shortly afterwards. Not necessarily anything to do with the vaccine. The same applies to the millions of people who ate an apple today. Statistically someone will die shortly afterwards. Not necessarily anything to do with apples. The same applies to the millions of people who went to the toilet today. Statistically someone will die shortly afterwards. Not necessarily anything to do with toilets. The same applies to the millions of people who X today. Statistically someone will die shortly afterwards. Not necessarily anything to do with X. Auld Nick 13:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

_{(Trying pi's cool new template)} Millions of people enjoy absolving their bear each day, so statistically speaking, someone will die today shortly after absolving their bear. _{sorry, couldn't resist}Junggai 21:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And did you know that every death throughout all of recorded history was preceded by detectable blood levels of dihydrogen monoxide, which bears striking resemblance to the infamous molecule carbon monoxide (with two hydrogens in place of the carbon) but is found in the environment in far greater quantities? You cannot deny the single obvious meaning of such a perfect correlation! Kallium^talk 01:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait.... I thought believing in conspiracy theories was a liberal trait? --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 13:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, well, I mean, that's, um... no, YOU are! So there! Kallium^talk 14:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What's a "hominin"?

MichaelJB seems to think it's a word but Merriam Webster doesn't. could he mean Hominid? I thought at first it was a typo (twice in one article?) but Ed (who else) thought it was worth a red link. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 13:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably conflating it with hominem as well.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope it seems is if it is a real word. However, when it comes to redlinks, you must remember that Ed thought that "rimming" needed one too - although I see the original link has been vanished now. Do we have a capture of that? Yes --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 13:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hah! I stand (or rather sit) corrected. One up to CP! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 13:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I thought ad hominy meant a side of grits ala carte. RobS 18:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't ought to do that Rob (sign after an IP comment) some people might range block you. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not much, what's a hominin with you? Heyooo --GTac 09:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation bias bad! Translation bias good!

I won't WIGO because it basically just repeats what we knew, but it's still a slight WTF in this form: Andy rewrites the intro of the "Conservative Bible Project" article and points out that "translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one (...) introduces the largest error" - his solution of course is to translate the KJV into modern English with conservative bias. Brilliant! --Sid 11:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh God, I just realized that we've come full circle (yeah, only now - I'm slow)! After all, Andy started Conservapedia because Wikipedia was full of liberal bias, and his vision to fix that problem was to create an encyclopedia full of conservative bias. *groans* --Sid 11:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that diff was wigo-worthy. Sid, surely you could have written a brilliang wigo based on it? Yes, I know we've been doing this for seventeen years (it seems) but your work has always drawn my eye. Anyway, very funny link. ħuman 11:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll give it a shot, you old charmer :P (Though something inside me always rebels against these deja-vu moments - I need a genuine Sunday Insight to freshen things up!) --Sid 12:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What the hell (see what I did there?) does he mean by "Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil." How on EARTH can believing that there is an actual place with an actual devil where people actually go for eternity be logical? DeltaStar 12:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You must have missed Andy's phase where he claimed that Jesus emphasized Hell. *nods sagely* Bringing up Hell is (or was?) actually one of his suggestions to convert someone who's on the fence back to Christianity. --Sid 13:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there it is: cp:Essay:Passages Most Likely to Convert --Sid 14:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it considerably funny that what fundies think is actually based on the Bible...that they are now rewriting to better fit their beliefs. It's gonna be interesting circular discussions in the future: See, Jesus DID prove there is an everlasting hell, because it's written in the Bible I translated to emphasize there IS an everlasting hell! Kapow, I win! --Ireon 14:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The premise alone makes me groan: "The Bible is the infallible Word of God - it just doesn't say what I want it to say God back then didn't have the proper words to convey his message more clearly." --Sid 14:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always had a similar thought regarding the New Testament: "the Word of God, _{revised edition}". My favorite part of that link though is when Andy admits that his greatest disagreements with the wording of the NIV are because its committee is composed of "higher-educated participants". That's right: skool makes you not think good. Kallium^talk 14:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If any one is interested, here is the list of "liberal" college types responsible for the NIV:

E. Leslie Carlson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Carlson died in 1967 and was replaced by Larry Walker.

Edmund P. Clowney, Westminster Theological Seminary.

Clowney resigned in 1968 and was replaced by Robert Preus.

Ralph Earle, Nazarene Theological Seminary

Burton L. Goddard, Gordon Divinity School

R. Laird Harris, Covenant Theological Seminary

Earl S. Kalland, Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary (Denver)

Kenneth S. Kantzer, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Kantzer resigned in 1969 and was replaced by Richard Longenecker.

Robert Mounce, Bethel College (St. Paul).

Mounce resigned in 1967 and was replaced by Youngve Kindberg.

Kindberg resigned in 1983 and was replaced by Donald Wiseman.

Stephen W. Paine, Houghton College

Charles F. Pfeiffer, Central Michigan University

In 1974 the "long-inactive" Pfeiffer was replaced by Kenneth L. Barker

Charles C. Ryrie, Dallas Theological Seminary.

Ryrie resigned in 1977 and was replaced by Ronald Youngblood (appointed 1979).

Francis R. Steele, North Africa Mission.

Steele resigned in 1969 and was replaced by William J. Martin.

Martin died in 1980 and was replaced by Bruce Waltke.

John H. Stek, Calvin Theological Seminary

John C. Wenger, Goshen Biblical Seminary

Marten H. Woudstra, Calvin Theological Seminary

Just for the record...

The deletion log of Ken's userpage has more entries than the history of their Andrew Schlafly article. --Sid 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I do wonder if we can't find an improvement to "damsel". Perhaps "bimbo"?

Andy ftw. You couldn't make this shit up. ħuman 05:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Still catching up but the "comfortable and nice" clothes brings up the image of Jesus in a Ralph Lauren polo-shirt and beige chinos, maybe even a pair of Gucci loafers. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't fault their logic though; 1) The bible is the literal word of the creator of the universe, therefore the absolute truth. 2) We don't like what some of it says. 3) Let's change it to say what we want, thus the absolute truth is exactly what we want it to be. Brilliant! DeltaStar 07:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You have to laugh really. I suspect the whole project would be dismissed as heresy by many religious groups. It also completely rides roughshod over the whole tone and construction of the language used in the bible. It's a bit like translating 'Tyger, tyger, burning bright' as 'Glowing tiger' and claiming that it is the same. Doofus. Worm^{(t | c)} 08:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Glowing" is too reminiscent of Halloween and other liberal occultist practices. Perhaps "hot" or "big" tiger instead? ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hooooooly shit. I thought the headline was RW-style snark, but then I clicked the WIGO'd link. There is nothing I could possibly add to make this any funnier, so I remain utterly speechless. --Sid 09:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That is wonderful, we couldn't have thought that up if we tried. Seriously, 'bimbo'? How does that man's mind work? Still, I can't wait to see Mary Magdalene referred to as "that bitchin' ho". --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bimbo? I can't believe that one of the Bible-is-the-inerrant-work-of-God CPers hasn't called Andy out. It's even offensive to those, like me, who take a broader view of the Bible. What do the parents of those home-schoolers think when they see this? I guess if they're letting Andy teach their kids, they aren't overly concerned about the details.--Simple 18:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck is wrong with "girl"? (if it needs any alteration at all. Or "slag" would fit better with his conservative intent. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 18:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

isn't "bimbo" a pop-culture word? TK will have to delete that. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 19:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Bimbo" is wrong wrong wrong. The word Andy is looking for is "hussy".--WJThomas 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Bird? Flange? Bint? Tart? Totty? Chick? Talent? Piece? Ho? Bitch/Biatch? Whoer? Woman? Girl? Lady? Educationally-less-capable-partner-to-man? DeltaStar 18:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, hands up

Who here is helping with the translation project? I can only expect that most if not all the non-Andy contributors are parodists though none are capable of matching his level of utter absurdity. I may or may not be MarkGall, DouglasA, DerickC, CPalmer, DanielPulido, or JacobB. 17:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time for that shit, what with slowly, but surely (and sloppily) copying the entirety of my older brother's history thesis on Alger Hiss. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just afraid the whole project is a honeypot to draw out the parodists and then ban them. Even Andy must realize that no one who backs him up on "bimbo" could possibly be for real. --Lesjohn 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pubes, my bet is on DouglasA and JacobB.^{— Unsigned, by: 76.188.8.219 / talk / contribs}

I helped out with the layout because either JacobB or RJJensen messed up when creating the page. RandomSock 22:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've put in a little gem, but I'm not one of the major players. EddyP 22:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am one of those people, sorry, yes. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not have sexual relations with that bible project. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I was getting ready to write about heavy construction machinery in 2007, but for some reason I could no longer contribute. ħuman 06:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I blame your silly pattern of edits. --Kels 19:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

@ LesJohn - do not underestimate the power of the assfly or suffer your fathers fate you will. Also, in general, what if one of those people Publius named actually IS a parodist, is it wise to discuss the possibilities here? Zelmerszoetrop 04:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He's ba-a-ack!

Damn, Fuck and Buggery department. Like a modern-day Lazarus, TightKnickers rises from his sick bed, and promptly does what he does best. By the way, how can an IP addy be 'a member of a vandal site.' Maybe he's still recovering from the personality transplant. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 10:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank God! We were missing him. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 10:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, modern surgery heals quickly. Hi TK, glad you recovered quickly, now, fuck you! ħuman 10:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I see he's made Andy's entire month which is strange, because I thought time spent with TK made your hole weak. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 10:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Psy, you made me cough up my tea! XD And as an aside, I wanted to check what TK-insight made Andy's day... only to realize that the ban and deletion is all TK has done so far! Which makes it pretty much official what TK's role on CP is. Welcome back, TK, welcome back. --Sid 11:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I just checked Wayne's contribs... and realized that he's the guy who already had been banhammered... for wishing TK a speedy recovery --Sid 14:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I was registering an unusual amount of tolerated dissent over there. Hopefully TK will have everything back in order shortly. Fedhaji 21:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! Just a bit earlier today, Karajou gave a user a 2 hour block! TWO HOURS! Check his contribs and you will see just how much Liberal Tolerance has crept into the gears of CP. --Sid 22:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Ipblock-range-contrib-Conservapedia-20090125.png range blocks at CP

blocks at CP

Much to do, TK: the range blocks dropped dramatically in your absence... And keep an eye on this new crop of mathematicians, they seem to inject some sense... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sysop approved"

From the Olympics section above, "...if an admin edits the article without removing something, it's basically endorsed/approved by that admin"

I have seen versions of this argument many times, and I think it has some holes. Now, if said sysop actually edits the "lines" in question - correcting spelling, grammer, rewording, etc - absolutely, they have stamped it with their imprimature. But often, they may not have even seen it - they may be editing other parts of the article and not reading the whole thing. I often do "follow up" edits fixing little things in one section without necessarily checking out and "endorsing" an entire article.

Imagine if someone craftily added some parody to, say, the "101 evidences" article, then made several sensible edits in other sections of it, leaving a typo in their last edit. Does someone correcting that typo "approve" of the parody added several edits before?

It's a minor point, but one we need to be logically careful of. Especially if the argument is used poorly at, say Andrew Schlafly (no jokes). ħuman 19:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good point and one that I agree with (It's also what happened with the "hit list", if I remember correctly). Of course in this case, none other than Andy Schlafly himself edited not only that section, but half a year on when the wording was not "they neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved" but rather the even more insane "they neglect to report all aspects of the economy are at hisorically [sic] high levels" he edited that very sentence. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, when I edited the "hit list", I was just adding a category (big surprise), and had no idea what the nature of the page was. I certainly didn't approve of it. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 00:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference between you and a CP sysop is that the latter is part of the self-appointed content police. While you would have to argue back and forth to be allowed to remove something you disagree with, they have the liberty to do so at any given moment for no reason. So them editing an article can be seen as silent endorsement (though I fully agree with Human's point: Context is everything - if it's a long article and they're just fixing a typo in a parody-free paragraph, then we should assume that they were simply too lazy to do their supposed job by checking the rest of the article and not that they explicitly approve). --Sid 00:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed the tendency for them to ignore obvious parody when they are on a catting binge. This leaves the impression that they have edit the page with no changes to the parody so it is allowed to stay. This does cut both ways though, an editor who does not know what to do maybe thinking of removing it as parody, sees a sysop has edited the page last and leaves assuming it is "right". - π 01:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not WIGO-worthy....

But this edit comment^img is classic Andy: "...CSGuy, what's wrong with Jesus saying "Shut up!"?? Hope that discomfort does not reflect a double standard .... Jesus sends people to Hell too." RaoulDuke 23:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Jesus sends people to Hell too." -- Andrew Schlafly <-- That would be an interesting shirt motto. --Sid 00:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it should be added to the ALS madlib generator? Also, another good shirt: "'Shut up!' - Jesus" - Andrew Schlafly ħuman 01:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's days like this I wish Jesus really would return^{right after he makes himself exist} so he could have a word (or two) to Andy. Of course, if Jesus himself told Andy to shut up, Andy would just turn around and scream "Librul censorship!" -Redback^G'day 03:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy is really enamored with the idea of hell. Similar to everybody else so enamored, he is convinced that he's on the right side of the law and that everybody else is wrong. It's amazing to me how a person can be so certain that they have the one right interpretation. Self-righteous arrogance, the stock and trade of fundamentalism. Corry 03:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Olympics

Does anyone else think that if this had happened when the messiah Bush was in charge , then the mainpage would be screaming about the "liberal anti-American IOC" as suchlike? DeltaStar 12:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I imagine it would. I also imagine that if Obama didn't get involved they'd use it as a point to slag him off. ^bomination 12:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Face it, where Obama's concerned, he could do the whole loaves and fishes thing, and CP would accuse him of "over catering." I think it's wonderful to see all their bitterness at getting their republican asses collective whipped coming to the fore. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 13:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Especially as the two main opponents, Spain and Brazil, are "Liberal" icons (see Zapatero and Lula). Editor at CP^{mały książe} 14:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Delta, Bush was never a messiah to Andy or the CPers. Reagan is their touchstone. They actually pretty much hate Bush for being a neo-con and a spendthrift. RaoulDuke 14:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's only lately though. If you go back a couple of years, you end up with revisions like this (especially read the last half of the article), and this (Economic and Faith sections). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell! That has got to be a parody!

Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well

DeltaStar 16:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Put in by Ames or Human, I believe. Is it still there? RaoulDuke 16:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not I, I would have spelled "Exxon Mobile" correctly. ħuman 19:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the main reason that the IOC didn't like Chicago was the post 9/11 entry restrictions instigated by the Bush administration: It can apparently take up to 3 months & several hundred dollars for some to get a visa. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 16:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This Olympics business is interesting. I actually don't like that Obama made a personal pitch, and I think it's fair to give other countries the opportunity to host the Olympics, but cheering about us not getting the games because of Obamahate is silly. I hope it provides some good talking points against conservatives in 2010- nobody likes it when you cheer against your own team. Corry 17:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, seems fair for a president/prime minister/uberlord to assist in the bid. The government would be involved in the running of the event, so why not the sales pitch to host it? I agree with Arm: Whether Obama had been involved or not, either way the fundies would have criticised him for a failed bid. Let's just hope it is remembered. --Concernedresident 17:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Olympic bids from any country can't succeed without government backing - certainly London 2012 was heavily backed by the government. So I don't see a problem with Obama going, or even McCain if he had won last year. Totnesmartin 08:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It was added by "Torture4Terrorists" (which certainly sounds like a parodist) here, 10th March 2007, and he was blocked the next day for vandalism, but it was left in for many months afterwards, despite the article being edited by admins multiple times in that period. When this happens I like to think that whether it was added by parodist/vandal or not, if an admin edits the article without removing something, it's basically endorsed/approved by that admin (see also the "hit list" fiasco). In this case, the article had been edited by RSchlafly, MountainDew, Geo.plrd, Aschlafly, RobSmith, DanH, Jallen, Joaquin Martinez, TK and others, many of these editing the article and protecting and unprotecting many times before the bit was finally removed upon the section being rewritten on the 17th of January 2008. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)The Exxon quote has been removed has it not? I pointed it out to Stephanie Simon for the LA Times article but it stood quite a while afterwards before it was eventually removed. For me that was one of the greatest pieces of parody ever. It was so damning to their viewpoint but they couldn't see anything wrong with it. Absolutely brilliant and I only wish it had been me who had inserted it. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Exxon/executive salaries entry makes me laugh every time I see it. Definitely one of my ten favorite things that's ever been on CP. --EcheNegraMente ^{Boredom will die, ears will bleed} 17:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding parodiaticalistic work! It is strange how they ban someone for parody (or vandalism as they'd call it) but leave some of their edits intact. In fact, my first attempt account was blocked after three edits, but my line in the Richard Dawkins 'article' has only just been removed. Do they still class it as vandalism if a parodist posts something they agree with? DeltaStar 18:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That dilemma has been discussed several times here. Some people don't agree with vandalism of CP but feel it should be vilified purely for what it is. Others, perhaps those from the early days, have seen adding disinformation and parody as a way to undermine the credibility that CP aspires to. Now does adding stuff that a liberal (I'm simplifying here) finds ridiculous count as vandalism if the conservative accepts it with open arms? I guess an analogy is the "honey traps" that some law-enforcement agencies use. For me, vandalism is posting grafitti, porn or deleting pages; parody, satire and mockery are valid age-old tools of the political arena and are especially effective if done well. Bugler was a great example of a parodist although the role-playing did upset those on the receiving end. I don't know how new you are to Conservapedia or RationalWiki but our archves have some funny stuff from their early days. The Pacific Northwest Arboral Octopus was the original (but as far as I know nothing to do with any RW member) while a personal favourite is Melchester because of the multitude of joke references. Check out Category:Conservapedia_spoofs for more examples. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, deleting pages or posting insults is out-and-out vandalism, and isn't funny. Surreptitiously editing articles with outrageous rightwing/bible-bashing views - that they find agreeable - is certainly not. I think good parody can be very effective, for example Sacha Baron-Cohen's Borat character get people to open up and show their true colours. I am quite new here, but I have already read about Bugler's legendary exploits, I will check out the links you've just posted too. Cheers! DeltaStar 19:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That Melchester article is fucking brilliant! For how long was it on there? DeltaStar 19:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)