Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive155

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <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)

Going out on a limb here......[edit]

....but those fucking "MOAR!" entries look silly. I agree with MC on this that these internet spellings are ridiculous. Fine on talk pages but I think we should keep them of the mainspaces. Thoughts? AceMcWicked 21:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. I only use "moar" because I've seen it used in WIGOs for years. Do you want to change "moar" to "more" in existing WIGOs, or just stop using it from now on? Tetronian you're clueless 21:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Just in future. At least I will be. It looks adolescent to me. AceMcWicked 21:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hear hear. --DamoHi 22:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I knew I could count on a fellow countryman. Wanna come over? I am on my third beer of the morning but you can catch-up on the plane. AceMcWicked 22:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I would but I am off to the SPCA to get a dog. If I am too pissed I might get the Pitbull by accident--DamoHi 22:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You said you could do with a Speights in your edit summary.....Speights? Really? Filth! FILTH! I have Montieths and Heinekens in the fridge so get your ass over. AceMcWicked 22:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
My southern roots are showing huh. I was brought up a stone's through from the Speights Brewery in Dunedin--DamoHi 07:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
(help, ECs) As an American, I hereby validate this suggestion by agreeing with it. Please send a crate of booze to Chicago in exchange. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 22:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll go with the not-using-moar on the mainspace/WIGO entries. I'll not go with the Heineken. A German friend once called it Dutch-piss. Unless it is Heineken Dark, which is pretty f-ing good. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 22:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't even drink, myself...but somebody's sure to buy the stuff. Capitalize on it! ~ Kupochama[1][2] 22:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Heineken is a good "drinking to get drunk" beer. If I want flavour I buy other tastier beers. Anyway, I still think we should avoid "MOAR" and "teh" etc on the mainpage. AceMcWicked 22:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh "teh" fucks me off. What fucks me off even more is when I remove it from articles and people put it back, because it has some alleged "humour" quality to it. It does not, it just looks like you can't use your fucking keyboard. - π 01:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Fine, but we have to draw the line somewhere. "MOAR" is out, but we should still be able to put "Assfly" in WIGOs. Tetronian you're clueless 22:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
To be honest I dont think "Assfly" is funny and I also think it detracts from a quality WIGO, adding Assfly makes a WIGO sneery. The best WIGO's contain dry snarkiness I find, dry wit. AceMcWicked 23:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I am with Ace, assfly is just immature. What fucks me off the most, is after PC has been editing an article and it is suddenly full of "teh assfly" all the way through. I'll be honest all those red down votes you see, they are mostly me voting this shit down. - π 01:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the kind of things that detract from good quality WIGOs: running commentaries on Andy's arguments. Seriously, unless it's a highlight worthy of a WIGO by itself, there doesn't need to be a new link. I can follow the argument by myself. Bil08 00:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The addenda are over all poorly done, with the bold text and moars. If a new link is worth adding rewrite it so it tells the whole story. - π 01:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
(EC) The problem with that is that all of Mr. Schlafly's responses are usually worth a WIGO highlight. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that we should avoid MOAR and TEH. ASSFLY was cute once, months ago, whenever it was first used. And a good beer to get drunk on: Pabst Blue Ribbon.--Simple 01:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

@Ace: ok, fine, no more "moar," "teh," or "Assfly." <sarcasm> hELL, you'd think this is some kind of encyclopedia. </sarcasm> Tetronian you're clueless 01:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Just makes us look silly instead of Aschlafly. AceMcWicked 02:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I approve of the above discussion. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
One has to consider that many visitors land there first: it should be devoid of "in-jokes" & such, so use of "Assfly", "Jinx" & similar should be minimised. I am eating Toast& honeychat 10:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, then agreed. Anytime I see something like that in a WIGO I'll change it. AceMcWicked 10:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the above discussion. 'Assfly' never had an ounce of humour in it anyway. DogPMarmite Patrol 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with doing away with internet spelling and colloquialisms. Further, I think we should avoid profanity in the articles for all the very same reasons. Get a thesaurus for God's sake. However, I think the addenda when done with some wit are a good thing. I almost never visit Conservapedia directly so the add-ons help me out. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 22:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I dont think any of our proper mainspace articles have much profanity aside from the "bullshit" tag. But you're right, particularly in our front page articles. AceMcWicked 22:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"I dont think any of our proper mainspace articles have much profanity" - that's a big fucking problem right there. DogPMarmite Patrol 15:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


Let's make a list[edit]

Just for the hELL of it, let's make a list of words/memes that are never to be used again in WIGOs/mainspace articles:

  • moar
  • teh
  • Assfly
  • profanity (I don't think we need a list of these words)
  • Semprini

Feel free to add moar more! I'm going to sift through old WIGOs and see what else can be removed. Tetronian you're clueless 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Jinx hi Jinx! and Ken? Any thoughts on those? Tetronian you're clueless 20:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the Jinx and Kendoll templates and I don't think we need a list. Just, you know, write in fucking english. AceMcWicked 21:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I am all right with losing the intentional misspellings, but proscribing profanity seems excessive. Of course, the Jinx hi Jinx! and Ken templates should stay.
Also, there is absolutely no need to go back and edit all the old WIGOs, Ministry of Truth-style, to match the new policy. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I meant to find words that should not be used again, not to revise them. Tetronian you're clueless 00:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

First battle of the 'war of wit'[edit]

I'm proud that RW has made its first step out of self denial and into the real world. Maybe this is the first stage in winning the 'war of wit' - reclaiming it from the dead hands of 4chan losers and back into the context driven minds of Monty Python and Frankie Boyle admirers... MarcusCicero 10:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that Monty Python's humour was based on the unexpected happening, it only succeeded in being funny once. People who repeat Monty Python jokes are worse than memists, as a meme is (allegedly) suppose to get funnier through repetition. - π 10:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
What? Please read what you wrote again as it has no bearing on what I said. Monty Python is context driven and its unique selling point is that the jokes rarely have punchlines - leading to long winded deviations and point by point analysis of real life human nature and situations. Whereas a meme is just a pathetic repition of an unfunny collection of letters, Monty Python is driven by the context of the joke. Hence the difference is as sublime as it is uproariously funny. MarcusCicero 11:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
So when are you going to start making these sublime, high brow, context driven comedy WIGOs so we can all see how it is done? - π 00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I also would like to see some of this Oscar Wilde comedy from MC. All I see so far is a reptition of swear words about how we all suck. AceMcWicked 00:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop making me want to try 4chan. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 11:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Seriously it is just an anime (?) forum; all the talk about it is mostly its own self congratulatory masturbation. - π 00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
That is not a meme driven idea. In memetics an idea that is good at spreading will spread, it can be like a joke that people continue to think is funny, or something that just shows that it works, like a knife. --Opcn 09:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
MC has a rather limited concept of what "meme" means. I think he should look it up. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I know what a meme is, and its not funny... MarcusCicero 12:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
We're all forgetting here that MC is the only one who knows anything and disagreeing with him is, by definition wrong. Bob Soles 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"a meme is just a pathetic repition of an unfunny collection of letters" no, I don't think you do know. Perhaps you should use a better word to express what you mean? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy's Radio Interview[edit]

This isn't worthy of a WIGO, but Andy was on the radio this morning, to discuss the Conservative wank-fest Bible Project.

Looks like the radio station's web editors have the same... high writing skills... as conservapedia.

And I quote (emphasis added):

taking out what he calls 'gender neutral terms' that immaculate it

The rest of the piece is a spectacle of punctuation that would drive a high school English teacher to develop a morphine habit, but the quote above struck me in particular. MDB 14:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Urgh, terrible writing skills... whereas us here at good ole Ratwiki have apparently banned use of the words "moar" and "teh" in WIGO. SJ Debaser 14:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The progression should be: UPDATE: MORE: MOAR:, not that pussy bullshit they're putting in now. Yet another reason why I'm leaving. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

While we're talking about Andy in the media (and moar again for some reason), Conservapedia was mentioned briefly on a show I frequently watch (GNW for all the Aussies out there). The site wasn't mentioned by name, it was just a quick mention of the retranslation project and the expected "OMG how stupid of them" reaction from the comedians and the crowd.

Not worth copying off my TiVo. I just thought it was funny that CP is now so stupid, Australian TV shows are starting to make fun of them as well; and it takes a lot to make Aussies think something is stupid, after all, we're the people who brought you this. I'll refrain from going on a rant about how it's apparently okay for two black guys to use makeup to look white, but when white people colour their skin black, all hell breaks loose. I mean, hello? It's okay for one group of people to do it, but not the other? How is that not racist in itself?

Ugh, I've been keeping that in since that hypocrite Harry Connick Jr got up on his high horse about it. Now that I've vented, we can resume normal activities. Thankyou for reading. -RedbackG'day 15:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Logic dictates that snarky words are being generated at a geometric rate. Deny this and lose all credibility. We need these snarky words to faithfully express the lulz. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Not taking any sides on this, simply answering the question, you have to remember that whitefaced wasn't used for hundreds of years to demean and mock a cultural (in not so subtle terms, see Birth of a Nation) whereas that was exactly what Blackface was for..... Sometimes you just have to accept the reality of the situation. I should also point out that when done correctly, Blackface causes relatively little controversy, such as RDJ in Tropic Thunder. SirChuckBA product of Affirmative Action 19:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, well I won't argue the point too much, I understand you're just answering my question. I just feel that people should be intelligent enough to understand that it was not intended to offend; and I honestly feel that people, (forgive me for being honest here) particularly Americans, seem to think they have some sort of right to never be offended. Of course you're going to get offended now and then, that's when the term "get over it" comes into play. And trust me, the jokes that have been made on Aussie TV regarding the incident are far, far more racist than the act itself - but nobody minds because nobody's wearing makeup. I mean, whooo, have there been some racist jokes on TV lately! -RedbackG'day 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Reds, more like (or, to be more specific, identity-politicos), and the American right-wingers who have tried to adopt their rhetoric as they interpret it prima facie. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Listening to it now. The host calls him Lafley and Andy doesn't correct him but instead says "close enough." Andy sounds like a muppet choking on diarrhea. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How are you listening to it now? That linkie not work for me... And Andy always sounds like that, I think it is because he is a muppet, and due to the location of his head, he swallows - and spews - a lot of diarrhea. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's the mp3s [1] [2] Andy's bit starts about 2/3 of the way into the first one. I can see him making his awful hand movements in my mind... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
[3] part 3... should we transcribe this? I love the callers, jes' simple country folks... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
And it wraps up here [4] Does anyone know if these links are permanent, or will they be overwritten with tomorrow's show? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I saved the four mp3s (I think) just in case. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The best interview so far: Andy faced up against a non-hostile interviewer and callers, and presented his case well. Broccoli 13:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Ya think? I thought he encountered some real Bible-believing foks, and they mostly didn't buy his new professorial-valued re-interpretation of the Holy Word of Jesus. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
If you accept (not that anyone should) Andy's idea that the Bible has been mistranslated by liberals, then the CBP makes sense. Something like: 'All English Bibles since the KJV have either been written by commies (NIV, etc), or are unreadable thanks to overly literal translation (ESV, NASV), therefore we conservatives will go back to the best source manuscripts (better than the KJV ones) and produce a readable version. In the interview, he made that fairly clear. The really funny part is when he talks about the amazing scholars coming forward, while we know it's really people like Terry 'I have a pocket dictionary' H and parodists. Broccoli 10:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

CP and checkuser - how does it work?[edit]

And more to the point how can I make sure I don't lose another account? I created my first CP account from home, I was then blocked. I created my second one from a hotel, and then used it only whilst at work (I was mighty proud of the work I did with this one, much more subtle) but then inadvertently logged in with it from home; it was then blocked as it was used from the IP address of a known 'troublemaker'. So, my question is this: If I make a new account from work, will they spot that it is from the IP address my second one was used from (but NOT created from), and block me again? I hope that makes some sense.... Cheers! DeltaStar 21:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Proxies it is then......22:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we have an article on that...yes we do. Tetronian you're clueless 22:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for that, I've been wanting to get TOR up and running for a while, but I've been having problems with apt trying to connect to a non existent local IP address ( instead of the repositories - any Linux (Ubuntu Jaunty) geeks on here..................?DeltaStar 23:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's something that I use, it is a bit paranoid I guess, but I keep a file called, "cp-accounts" that has a list of which IP addresses are paired with which username (and whether it's blocked or not). I think I'm at 5 free out of the 30 or so I've created. 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Rob you can keep your privacy invading shit to yourself. Can someone oversight that please? - π 02:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
What about that real question, what motivates a person to spend hours of thier time with the specific intent to be obnoxious toward thier fellow humanb beings? Is that rational? Is that compassion? RobS
Non-sequitur much? - π 03:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
What would you do if you were me, block the IP? He/she/other obvious is not a bona fide contributor, and you think blocking someone like this who is determined to make themself a pain in the ass will stop them? RobS 03:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know Rob, what should we do with you? - π 03:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I like the "account creation disabled" that I got. Do I understand that correctly as it blocks account creation from all the IPs I had logged in from? or just the latest one? --Shagie 04:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

DeltaStar, you will probably even have problems with proxies. Most of the common ones have been blocked and an IP address lookup usually reveals whether it is a TOR node. Also editing from multiple IPs automatically creates suspiscion, you can guarantee that any non-trusted editor is automatically checkusered several times and by using a proxies or TOR you will automatically get banhammered. Even if you have a dynamic IP it normally floats within a range which will all get blocked. Of course this in itself can be considered a "win" as it reduces the number of future editors. Ideally you should get multiple ranage-blocks in many different cities and states as possible. If you wish to actually edit CP then the best tactic is along the lines of a Bugler/RodWeathers suck-up, otherwise you need to be really subtle and don't overdo the parody to soon. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 11:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't you have a gay rights parade or save the planet rally to attend? All you do is give credibility to cp:Liberal deceit with a response like this. RobS 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Rob, with a response like that, all you do is give credibility to cp:Conservative spite. Huh...that's a red link? Weird... — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting question. When I'm not organizing unions, attending gay rights rallies, or protesting the war in Iraq, I like to unwind by going over to my favorite parody site, Conservapedia, and toss a few turds on the pile. It's getting big, but there's always room for more. I take it you don't believe cp:Liberal deceit isn't parody. Interesting, considering a good number of the entries were written by known parodists. At some point you have to ask yourself whether the entire shitheap was a farce perpetrated on a few willing ignoramuses by a few master parodists. It's sort of a conundrum, isn't it? Trying to discern the intent and purpose of something created by so many people. Is it a serious project because you believe Andy Schlafly when he says it is? Or is it a joke because he embraces people like TK? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
That's why I was so pissed off with myself for blowing my last account by logging in from a blocked IP address; I was being very subtle and had even had positive words from some sysops.
DeltaStar: the best thing to do is move house and then try again.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 11:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Or change ISP, which may be a little less drastic. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 11:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Dunno man, if you're changing ISP because of Conservapedia, that's already pretty drastic.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

True... but compared to moving house? –SuspectedReplicantretire me 14:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd consider using Tor to be drastic for just getting onto Conservapedia. Scarlet A.pngtheist 14:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorta with RobS on this one. Posting on CP can be fun, but if you're going to a lot of effort to get in then you probably have things out of proportion. Plenty of other fun to be had on the net.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 14:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean pr0n? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
If you have a wireless router, then just turn it off and turn it back on. For me, that usually gives me a new number (ie. ... where "x" is a new number)
Tor isn't reliable and it's just a matter of time before they install the Torblocker extension. Just use a web proxy that's not listed on any blacklists so TK and the other checklusers over there (not including you, Rob!) can't translate "possible proxy" into "confirmed proxy server/network sharing device". If you're feeling particularly froggy, learn some of the much more reliable and convincing ways to use proxies than web proxies. RW really isn't an appropriate place for instructions on more advance proxy use so I'll leave it to you to figure some of that stuff out on your own as I had to. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that I'm being a bit of a wet blanket here, but I don't feel that we should be actively encouraging people to disrupt other wikis.--BobNot Jim 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we're not so much. If people want to come and brag about their oh-so-subtle parody and disruption, that's fine, but I rarely ever see full endorsement by RW as an entity, or more practically, from more senior editors who haven't just discovered Conservapedia in the last month and haven't quite got over it yet. If people want advice about how to access it, that's fine; the owners and admins have made it deliberately difficult to get onto the site; what they do once there is up to them. I hope they attempt something rational, calm and mature with it (forgetting that a lot of people have already tried and failed because they get blocked). Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Screw access. I have more fun getting entire universities, libraries, and Blackberrys blocked. If you really want to run your head into a wall, go to ASoK instead. If you want to parody, go to CretinWiki. CP is fun to watch, that's about it. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Did Andy blow a fuse, or what?[edit]

Because thisimg doesn't sound like the Andy we know. Tetronian you're clueless 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, he's just posing for the camera. He knows the eyes of the world are upon him, so he's pretending to be a decent manager running a publicly edited project. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised he wasn't blocked for having a name suspiciously close to yours Human. - π 03:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe The Missuz gave Andy "the annual" and he was feeling kindly. MDB 13:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Not likely, for most of the last week he has been up editing till at least midnight. I don't think I'll let my mind wonder on this topic too long, but seriously he is up that late every night. - π 13:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Random mention[edit]

I just heard my radio (MPLS) say Andrew's name. Before they say the new dead guy's thing (Munsters, Green Acres). Wait for the new Conservative Bible news? ħumanUser talk:Human 09:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I ran the wrong player on my internet radio. I'm listening to the hhh prog on WRONG again. As you were. ħumanUser talk:Human 09:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder...[edit]

...what the "liberal detector" bot score would be for the original KJV text for a given gospel, like Mark, versus the corresponding conservative version blessed by Andy. If this were suggested, I could see Andy becoming obsessed with fine-tuning the translations to bump up the conservative scoring, as if that somehow mattered in the end, like his geometric progression of conservative words over the centuries. --SpinyNorman 15:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You would have to significantly change the formula for it to apply to the Bible, since it is partially based on number of mainspace vs. non-mainspace posts and the length of those posts. Tetronian you're clueless 15:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • (Block log); 09:12 . . Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked Jesus (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) (Violation of 90/10 rule: talk, talk, talk) — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Something like this is already suggested in cp:Essay:Quantifying Liberal Style, among other things. --Lesjohn 15:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Conservapedia's idea of conservative style is typically just a high reading ease score, so short sentences with short words, not that hard to do, and might legitimately help the CBP, getting rid of their stilted grammar. --Opcn 17:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
What's ironic is that there are places where Andy, almost certainly unaware of what the reading level of a text is a measure of (low grade level indicates ease of readability, high does not indicate intellectual rigor), takes some Bible translations to task for being at a lowish reading level, considering them "dumbed down" for that reason. He considers "the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level" to be an actual criticism of the translation. 09:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
What sort of age group is 7th Grade? I'm guessing around the 10-11 mark? If so, having text written for such an audience is probably a good idea. The average reading age of the British population is about 10 (yes, 10 and no, I'm not making it up although a quick Google turns up no proof). That's why the popular newspapers like the Sun and the Mirror are written the way they are. The Guardian, to pick one example, has a much higher reading age. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 09:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
7th grade is ages 12-13, approximately. But yeah, most papers are written at a low reading level, but it depends on their intended audience. The New York Post, for example, is written for 3 year olds (ok, I'm exaggerating, but if you've ever read it you know what I mean) but the New York Times is far more sophisticated. Tetronian you're clueless 20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, make sure that you're not making the same mistake that Andy does; a high reading level is -not- a virtue in a text. Reading level is a measure (albeit an imperfect one) of how clear something is. Lower is better. Now, there's a certain point below which you start sacrificing eloquence or style to achieve a lower reading level, but "twelfth grade reading level" doesn't mean that a piece of text is intelligent and sophisticated; it means that it's fairly opaque. (Or rather, it means that it has a high average words/sentence and syllables/word, (or other similar things, depending on the test) which aren't quite the same, but which are generally correlated.) A work consisting of interminable sentences full of five-dollar words will have a high reading level, but that's normally a -bad- thing. The NIV, meant to be read by a large section of the population, including youngsters and the undereducated, is wise to consider its reading level. High reading level -never- means "better written", and is actually a very negative thing unless your intended audience is very likely comprised entirely of sophisticated readers. (An academic journal, for instance, and even there keeping the reading level reasonable is still better.) Incidentally, a few stories (all on politics/government) grabbed at random from the Post and Times all clocked in at a reading level of 8 using Flesch-Kincaid, plus or minus 1. That doesn't mean that the Post contains writing that's as intelligent as that in the Times, just that the Times is no more difficult to read. 05:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely - no argument from me. The important thing is to write for your expected audience. I learned that lesson way back when I used to write political leaflets: if you start blethering on about macro-economic policy you turn half your readers off but OTOH if all your sentences read like "We good - others bad" you turn the other half off. By attacking the NIV for being written for 12-13 year olds, Andy must be aiming it at people who can read for a noticeably higher age (or he wouldn't bother mentioning it). If his bible is aimed at people who read like 18 year olds, he is probably writing it in such a way that more than 50% of people can't read it.
Having said that, what I've seen so far reads like it was written in crayon on the walls of a padded cell by a deranged idiot. Bimbo indeed. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 06:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
A padded cell in Castle Aaaarrgh. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- My turn to be the turd in the punch bowl, it seems. BoN was doing so well until I saw "unless your intended audience is very likely included entirely of sophisticated readers." "Comprised" is a perfect example of a word that gets misused because it sounds fancier than the simple words that really say what's meant. Sprocket J Cogswell 16:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Looks like bon used "comprised" correctly, and you used "included" incorrectly. Perhaps if you rearranged the sentence? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The dictionary agrees with the human. edit: Though SJC is correct that the usage was once considered uncouth. That said, "included entirely of", while it sounds wrong to me, does appear to be attested. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that "included entirely of" usage is grammatical. Just read the excerpts in those google hits! "Someplace it is a phone messaging software of the platinum proxy, the included entirely of the cost units is quickest a informant or partner that supports..." indeed. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think it is either. I just found it interesting that it's actually something people say, however mistakenly. The thing about "comprise" is interesting, though. English prescriptivism is a bit of a lost cause in some areas. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 18:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, here it is in simple terms. If you are ever tempted to use any form of "comprise," try substituting the similar form of "include" and see if it still makes sense. I did that above, and it did not make sense to say "very likely included entirely of sophisticated readers." See?
There is always a simpler, more correct word instead of "comprise" unless, of course you mean to use it as it originally worked. Sadly, lexicographical anthropologists have legitimized its incorrect use, i.e. to mean "compose." More simply put, enough people have used it wrong that the wrong usage has made it into descriptive dictionaries. It is still a word that, for me, marks someone as an ignoramus trying to sound fancy. Sprocket J Cogswell 20:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that kinda went over our heads before. :P Anyway, this kind of pedantry is something up with which you know the rest. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Arrant pedantry? Guilty as charged, m'lord. To quote someone else entirely, "I may be a pillock, but I'm sensitive." Sensitive in real life, where I suffer blowhards and stuffed shirts badly. Thank goodness no one here fits any such description. Sprocket J Cogswell 13:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Sir, I'll have you know pedantry has no place on a website dedicated to nitpicking the minutiae of goofy people! It's simply not done. Anyway, I'm kind of fascinated by this whole "comprise" thing. I didn't know it was distinguished from "compose" in any meaningful way. English really does have a word for everything. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 22:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What do I win?[edit]

What do I win now that the Relativity WIGO has ascended to #1 position in the charts, as I predicted? Do I get a blow-up red football? DogPMarmite Patrol 15:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You win Andy's sense of self-satisfaction. --IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!YossarianThe Man from the USSR 15:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
That prize is very generous but is too big and won't fit in my house. Can I have something smaller, like maybe Jpatt's brain in a jar? DogPMarmite Patrol 15:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you a Sunderland fan?--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 16:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not, not since The Scowler quit the manager's gig anyway. I'm a gooner. But you have to admit that was a top drawer goal. DogPMarmite Patrol 04:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The only thing we have left is Andy's dignity, but you'll have to get your own microscope. --IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!YossarianThe Man from the USSR 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Candlelight vigil[edit]

I'm holding a candlelight vigil here, now for the return of our Parodist in Chief, Terry Koeckritz. I miss you, Terry. It's just not the same without you. Come back soon.

Amnesty-candle-ink.gif — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

He did block someone as recently as Monday, so hopefully he'll really be back soon! --Pyfgcr 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, we've had some truly awesome wigos since he's been absent. There are more than enough megalomaniacs over there to block the wandals, which means there are more people asking reasonable questions which Andy promptly embarrases himself with. Those questions would never arise if ThickKunt was still about. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
True that, Crunky. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of dyslexia, it certainly hasn't dented my mate's confidence. Just the other day, he went to see Lennox Lewis at a book signing, and he reckons he managed to take him down with just one punch. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
[Random internet meme]. That one might be lost on non-UK readers. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 10:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It bears repeating that TK is not fun. And I think more and more people will agree that Andy's in much better form when new users last longer than half an edit before they're banhammered. This bible nonsense would have been abandoned by now if it weren't for lowly editors who signed up during TK's absence. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. TK being absent is the best / worst thing to happen to CP (delete as appropriate). CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Best. DogPMarmite Patrol 04:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait for it, wait for it...[edit]

Because based on this comment, I have a feeling that Andy's interpretation of "first shall be last, and the last shall be first." is that what Jesus really meant to say was "big government and government leaders we don't like shall be last, and main-streeters, hockey moms and tea-party protesters shall be first". This is actually what the framers of the Constitution were aiming for, but my understanding is that Jesus was talking about the importance of humility, not power to the people where government is concerned. Keep "reinterpreting" that liberal claptrap, Andy, like turning the other cheek, the meek inheriting the earth, and the last/first phrase above. Given that Jesus seemed t be pretty consistent, you have a lot of edits to make. --SpinyNorman 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"the 'highest position among men shall be last, and the last the shall be first.'" Silver tongued, that Andy. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Classic, classic Andy[edit]

This. Although Karajou's reply was what made me smile more: "he [a scientist] says it happened, and we are to sit here and believe what he said about it; he offered absolutely no proof whatsoever" Tetronian you're clueless 22:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


Is something wrong with him? Try and read this. Has he always been like that? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a guy called Bert on Conservapedia? SJ Debaser 16:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I never read any KAL stuff, so basically I'd never read anything he's written. The guy wrote a book, I figured he could form sentences and express thoughts with words. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in the literary world of today, the qualification for writing a book appears to be that you do not know how to do that. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
That is correct - after all, you should write a book to learn, not read a book. DogPMarmite Patrol 01:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Ooh! Andy has a Holy Spirit Detector! Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, is Bert channelling Lucky from Waiting for Godot? --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 22:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

North Dakota, that barometer of Conservative effectiveness...[edit]

Well, at least Ken picked a good conservative-oriented state to profile, since the conservative "triumphs" in the redder-than-red states of Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas and Oklahoma haven't been doing so well. --SpinyNorman 22:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A thought[edit]

Isn't today (still the 23rd here) the supposed anniversary of creation? Shouldn't that be mainpage news on CP, especially given the current CBP? Doesn't failure to do that mean that Andy is concealing the Truth and being Deceitful through exclusion? Kalliumtalk 01:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice point. At the least, we honor the day of creation on RW... ħumanUser talk:Human 06:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
That is only the Ussher calendar; creationists allow some degree of ambiguity, but no timespan in five or more figures is permitted under any circumstances. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionist lies & Robert Smith[edit]

Those last two WIGOs are top-notch Andy. The 47million year old fossil may need to be classed in a different evolutionary family (arrived at due to open discourse and academic investigation based on evidence), ergo evolution is false and humans were created by a magic man 6000 years ago (right after he created the entire universe). Logictastic!

Then I was very confused as to why a member of Robert Smith's band would be donating money to Planned Parenthood, but once I understood my mistake I could then search for the evidence posted by Andy to back up his claim that "The link between abortion and breast cancer is clear". (Note: quoting from another evidence-free wingnut site does not constitute evidence).

Speciationspeed! DeltaStar 22:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"This is a Lie" would be an appropriate theme song for Andy. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 22:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Jorn Hurum of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, an author of the Ida paper, said he welcomed the new analysis. Darwinius is an example of a group of primates called adapoids, and "we are happy to start the scientific discussion" about what Ida means for where adapoids fit on the primate family tree, he wrote in an e-mail.
See the way evolutionist censor debate. - π 00:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
"Pi" (your chosen name is obviously unacceptable), I have an open mind about this. I looked at many of your edits before reverting them and I think several of your postings are an example of liberal deceit, so my confidence is over three standard deviations away from the mean that you're being taken in by liberal lies. Denying this calls into question all of your credibility on the fact that the Bush doctrine helps resist murder. In sum, Conservapedia is not limited to liberal medical journals. We tell the truth, even if it is censored elsewhere. No one denies that, yet you won't admit it. If you think it "is OK to be wrong sometimes," then please be wrong somewhere else.--Andy Schlafly 00:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Love will tear us apart..... DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 04:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This 'debate' on conservapedia's talk page led me to the oh-so-beautiful 'conter-examples to evolution'. THAT talk page is a delight for amateurs of Andy's debate skills. There are two very nice 'if 2+2=4 I'm right' gambits, finished by the classic '99.99% of the world is with me' delusion conclusion. --Ireon 10:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty." - The man is insane! At first I wanted to smash my computer up and scream at his idiocy, but this quickly gave way to uncontrolled laughter. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 17:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
At home he's a tourist. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So, just to summarise, people like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers have been saying all along that the media were way overblowing the significance of 'Ida'. According to Andy, there are now indications that this is 100% correct - so this proves evolution false? 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily not liking the Conservative Bible Project[edit]

This can't be good - - Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily (already a foaming rightwingnut site in it's own right) has vented on Schlafly's Conservative Bible.

Choice quotes:

"I've seen some incredibly stupid and misguided initiatives by "conservatives" in my day, but this one takes the cake." "It's nutty." "Enough of this foolishness!" "A plague on the houses of anyone and everyone who would tamper so frivolously with God's Word."

I almost want to give the guy a beer, although it'd be a half. Of shandy. With flat lemonade. And ice. SҚ_ 08:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This the greatest moment in clogo history. My two favourite self important wingnuts mouthing off at each other. - π
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA-*wheeze*-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, this is BRILLIANT. CP worships WND like crazy on their front page, and WND replies by saying "a self-described 'conservative' is spearheading an effort to rewrite it to his liking" - with quotation marks around "conservative"! Schlafly, have a taste of your own "You may call yourself a conservative, but you are not one!" medicine! =D --Sid 08:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Not appearing on CP's main page in 100,000...99,999....99,998.... Totnesmartin 08:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I love how Farah will never describe himself as conservative, even though he clearly is, but he is willing to push Andy straight of the boat - despite his "heroic" mother. - π 08:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh God, I just reached the bottom of the page: "Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND" <-- OUCH! --Sid 08:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Farah was one on the organisers of Mumma Schlafly's idiot convention. He probably has know him for years. - π 08:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Eff! they've got night editing on: I was gonna burn a sock to spam that link all over. I am eating Toast& honeychat 09:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, have you seen Farah's blog? He don't care for them Islamists, do he? I am eating Toast& honeychat 09:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Nice spottage Piez- it's reasonable to assume that JF and AS have met, given their "fame" in Conservative circles, so what did Andy do to deserve that kinda coverage? Has Queen Phyllis actually come out in favour of the CBP, or has she kept a dignified silence?

I'm not presuming that all Conservatives are quite as "movement" as the Schlaflys (Farah seems quite populist in comparison, more a rabble-rouser in the Murdoch/Fox News style than an ideological purist like Phyl and Andy), but that's quite a stinging rebuke from WND nonetheless.

/me wonders if there are a few calls to be made when the sun rises over NJ.

(What with the WND-Conservapedia smackdown and Nick Griffin of the British Union of Not-Fascists-Honest-Guv-We-Just-Care-About-Indingi-Ingenid-Injun-Indengi-er-Locals behaving like an arse on the BBC last night, one could - at a stretch - feel a bit sorry for the global ultra-right wing, they're not having a good week) SҚ_ 09:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cut to the next scene: A montage of Andy walking on the beach, interspersed with scenes of Farah and himself enjoying trips to Disneyland, fine restaurants and the theatre. As he gazes in to the sky, wondering what went wrong, the song "Love Don't Live Here Anymore" plays softly in the background. Fade out to Andy trawling CP to remove all links to WND. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 10:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
If we're lucky, WND will become like the FBI and Andy's "confirmed bachelor" brother -- insta-ban for even mentioning it on CP. MDB 11:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow... when you're too whacked out conservative for World Nuet Daily... its not just that you're 'not playing with a full deck'; you've shown up at a Texas Hold 'Em tournament with Pokemon cards. MDB 11:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When was this? When did they take it off the front page? I wonder if words were exchanged. Momma Schlafly could have that zapped in no time. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 13:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
A commenter at freerepublic(!) about Andy: "Is he the homosexual son?" LOL larronsicut fur in nocte 14:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's ON. Can't wait to see Andy's reaction. Will he denounce Farah as a liberal? --Ireon 14:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

They will probably declare that Farah has always been a liberal, and that CP has always been at war with EastAsia WND. MDB 14:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Well put! I am F5ing conservapedia's talk page, can't wait! --Ireon 15:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You need a hobby. or a girlfriend/boyfriend. Or something. RaoulDuke 15:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
For those of us enjoying the show check out this edit on the Joseph Farah article. Bob Soles 15:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah!! As for RaoulDuke, I do have a hobby, and it's browsing the internet. And conservapedia is a lot of fun. BTW: Farah is *gasp* close-minded! Not yet calling him liberal, but it's getting there.--Ireon 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This will all be ignored. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Assfly claims Farah has his priorites wrong. They should be attacking only the liberal rewrites, not all of the rewrites. I'm surprised he acknowledged this rather than burning the link. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
WND over the top? Say it an't so! tmtoulouse 15:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing here... but could his "doubting a serious response is even necessary" be a retreat to save face? Make the bad men go away? WND and Free Republic criticising the project is a lot of conservative opinion going against him. SҚ_ 16:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Obviously. We say that creationism is not worth a serious refutation, but when we are pressed we can give one. On the other hand, I doubt he can see any way to refute Farah. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes he can, he can call him a liberal. :P SҚ_ 16:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Andy is calling it a preservation of the Bible. Preserve the Bible by changing it. I love you, Andy. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
"We had to burnchange the villageBible in order to savepreserve it." MDB 16:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember, Andy was wining and dining with Steve King, Michelle Bachmann, Trent Franks, Janet Folger, anti-health reform lobbyists bent on destroying it, and conservatives who instead of worrying Obama will fail, worry he'll succeed. --Crazyswordsman 16:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm enjoying the schadenfreude so much I actually went back to re-read the article with the Chorale from the 9th playing behind it. Seeing the scare quotes around "conservative" with the choir kicking off felt almost like cocaine... :) --Robledo 17:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I love it - Farrah calling Andy "Nutty" and saying, "I'm almost too embarrassed to write about this kind of trivialization and politicization of the Scriptures". I was wondering what the right would make of this. Any idea what WND's numbers are in terms of readers? Maybe we should drop a note to fellow right wing travellers like Malkin and the Coultergeist so they too can tell their followers how batshit insane Andy is. --Psygremlin講話 11:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Insanely high, several million a day. It is comparable to - π 11:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay the actual website is - so not a good. Although they do fair well compared to the redirect. - π 12:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I see from Alexa - they kick CP's butt. Also just dropped a mail to Michelle Malkin asking if she knows what these so-called "conservatives" are doing giving the movement a bad name. Trying to let the Coultergeist know, but I need an admin to approve my account on her forum first. (why are conservatives so goddam paranoid??) --PsygremlinTala! 13:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting aside[edit]

WorldNetDaily only stocks the King James and the 1599 Geneva Bible. Is that unusual for King James Only or is that part of a certain demographic's mentality? - π 01:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes people are KJV Only purely for aesthetic reasons, so it's not necessarily a dogmatic thing. Plus (according to WP) the Geneva Bible is very similar to the KJV. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 02:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sibling rivalry again[edit]

Holy crap, Roger goes for it again, and Andy promptly gives him a bitch slap. Will it ever end? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Roger must be a masochist of the highest order. MDB 22:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Wonder if they'll both be at momma Phyllis's for Thanksgiving? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 22:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
As a lawyer I find myself puzzling over what exactly "factual information" is. I understand this to be a common wikiphrase, but it nonetheless rings hollow to me. There are far better claims to make about "information" than it being factual. "True" or "verifiable" come to mind, but I'm a newbie at this. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I think "factual" is Andy's pet word - if he knows it, it's a fact, whether it is true or verifiable is nitpicking. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Some lame Bible Project wigo[edit]

"Yes, into all thinking you're completely hatstand"

WTF does that even mean? Please try to write these things is something resembling English. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not as bad as all that. The sentence you're looking at borrows its verb from the prior sentence - Christian denominations are united in thinking Andy's completely hatstand. Hatstand means crazy, but I agree with you that it's obscure. It ain't my WIGO but I'll change hatstand to something more clear. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I get the hatstand part. What I don't get is the mess of word salad before it. By the way, does it have to pay interest if if borrows a verb? OK, I see now I guess. Wow, that was really bad writing and whoever inflicted it on us should get seven whips of the goat's tail. People, it's not that hard to write clear sentences. Especially when your "message" consists of two sentences and a link. And thanks, Nutty, for clarifying. Also, PPPPPPS, I don't give a fuck "whose" wigo it is. If they suck, let's re-write them. People's got weird possessionally egoy things on here sumtimz (how's that for Ingrish!?). ħumanUser talk:Human 04:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not the best WIGO, but I don't see what's confusing about it. It is pretty clear (apart from the somewhat obscure 'hatstand'). Or has it been re-written since this was posted? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 06:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it was re-written by the time you saw it, DS. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Can't wait for A. Schlafly's Dickens: It was the best of times - it happened to be the worst of all temporal configurations larronsicut fur in nocte 07:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
@LArron - Fucking funny! Hahahahahaha!......@Human - quit your fucking ranting. AceMcWicked 22:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The new version is clear and coherent, thank you. I felt comfortable changing my vote to "up". ħumanUser talk:Human 01:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


Does anyone else think that Ken's response to this made a lot more sense than usual? Broccoli 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly better than Andy's drivel. Corry 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It was very clear and well-put. Wasn't Ken expecting improvements in his health? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Didn't see the publicity. I'd have expected a brain transplant to hit the headlines. I am eating Toast& honeychat 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
In the UK we sedate them and hide them away in care-homes. I guess that in the USA, without adequate health insurance, they just wander the streets and make a spectacle of themselves. I think the US approach gives more amusement to society in general but only at the expense of the dignity of the serially bewildered. Free-market captalism definitely loses in the humanitarian stakes. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 23:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

dear genghis,

I have a masters in counseling and have the unfortunate privledge of working in America. In America we put them in "boarding homes," there are essentially care-homes but quality varies considerably . . . we like to sedate them too . . . and give their relatives the bill. Long time reader first time poster. Ill set up an account ASAP as greepigfoot

The entire thread[edit]

This whole section is brilliant - classic Andy. He is true to form. AceMcWicked 00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My absolute favorite line is "You list yourself as an "agnostic" here, yet 100% of your edits here have been of an atheistic nature. An agnostic, if fair-minded, should be at least 50% Bible-based and 50% atheistic-based." Because that's what being an agnostic means. It means that you spend half of your time being an atheist and half of your time advancing a particular strand of a particular faith. 00:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone who is good at messing around with that quote generator thing definitely needs to add that some how (I couldn't find a place for it). Here is the diff. - π 01:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Done and done. --Purple George!YossieSpring in Fialta 01:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I had so many things to say... let me reduce them to "fucking classic Andy". What a tool. Why Phyllis did not name him Stanley no one knows. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
And here I thought no one had noticed this gem. I should really scroll all the way down before adding something to WIGO.TallMan 02:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly takes the bait, makes moron of self[edit]

"I wonder if it is possible for some public teachers to work less! How does someone work less than zero??" [5] Nice work, ThomasGret, if that is really your real name. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"ThomasGret" (obviously your parents were unbelievers to give you such a pagan name), thanks for serving the role of the liberal denier! I looked at many of your edits before reverting them and you seem to believe that the Romans had the concept of "truth", so anyone with an open mind can see that you're here to do harm to family values. You are in complete denial that that women knowing their place prevents video games. Liberals don't like it, but the more atheistic one is, the more he views government as the church, and officials in government as rulers. Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. --aschlafly 13:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Ordered pair[edit]

Just letting you guys know that polar coordinates needn't be an ordered pair.

An ordered pair suggests that each element has a unique and for an element . Owing to multiplicities of allowed angles () in the polar formulation, this needn't be true. You can restrict the angles, but there's still an ambiguity for the point at the origin, as any angle is as good as any other for . And whilst his explanation is bad, he's not necessarily wrong. Every ordered pair does correspond to a unique point on such a graph, even is that isn't its intended representation.--Star trooper man 07:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, though, a pair of polar coordinates corresponds to one point on the plane, although one point on the plane can have infinitely many polar coordinates. --Crazyswordsman 11:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This is wrong. An ordered pair is simply an element of the cartesian product of two sets. The sets need not be the real numbers , or even subsets thereof. For instance if is the set of complex numbers, doesn't correspond to a point on the real plane. A more abstract example would be a combinatorial structure known as a graph. So, Andy is wrong, but not for the reason given above.-Antifly 16:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Whilst I agree on further reading, that I am in part wrong above, and your example is indeed illustrative (though I do know a way to put the reals and the complex numbers into 1-1 correspondence, allowing one to define a total order on the latter!), my primary quibble is that "represent" suggests, at least to me, a bijection, and thus I don't really regard polar coordinates as a legit interpretation of an ordered pair per se. Also, I'm not sure if it isn't possible to define a total order on all sets. I can't think of a case in which is isn't, but that doesn't mean such sets don't exist. Open question: Do you know a way to construct a set that isn't amenable to a total ordering?!--Star trooper man 08:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I just re-read my post, and the sentence "This is wrong" is wrong. Sorry. Your post about complex numbers as ordered pairs does make sense. What is wrong is the approach taken by the WIGO. What I should have said is "The WIGO makes no sense, and the above clarifications don't address the real problem."
On to your quibble... represent may suggest that there exists a bijection to you, but the words are not interchangeable. Mathematics, perhaps more than any other discipline, requires precision of language. Polar coordinates are ordered pairs . It is easy to show that there is a bijection between and and a bijection between and . Thus there is a bijection between and . These bijections may not preserve any of the algebraic structure imposed on these sets, but that is outside the requirements of a bijection. You are, however, right that the correspondence between pairs in and pairs in known as "polar coordinates" is not a bijective map. As to what constitutes a "legitimate interpretation" of an ordered pair, I don't have the foggiest idea what you mean.
To your open question: see here. Of course, you must be pro-choice to accept it.
Mathematics is the second only to the Bible in logicality. Deny that and loose all credibility. Gauss-speed.-Antifly 19:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The polar coordinates (I was thinking within only, which makes them ordered pairs) seemed an easy shot at Mr. Schlafly's analogy with coordinates on a Cartesian graph. Another, only slightly more arcane, example of where Mr. Schlafly went wrong there is that an ordered triple of real numbers (which requires a three-dimensional graph to represent) is, by definition, also an ordered pair. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm rather fond of az-el coordinates, but hey, they have some fuzziness showing up at the zenith and nadir, where who gives two hoots what the azimuth is? For all practical purposes, they point in an unmistakable direction, so again, who gives two hoots? Sprocket J Cogswell 06:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


What do you think of him? Considering he's perhaps the best representation of a conservative scholar we're likely to find on the internet, do you not think he makes your catchall anti conservative insults a mockery in themselves? MarcusCicero 11:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jensen's takes on history might have been appropriate for a ninth-grade class thirty years ago. They're simplistic and do nothing to engage with recent trends in the scholarship. If he represents conservative intellectualism at its best, no wonder its a bankrupt ideology. BTW: How's your brother? RaoulDuke 12:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
TOP, you are an idiot. Your irrelevance is painful. I'd also hate to judge liberal ideology from a simplistic, frankly hysterical mind like yours. Just patter away off and attempt to do something useful with yourself you fucking dimwit. MarcusCicero 13:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you have nothing with which to counter my argument so you take off on a baseless, mean-spirited ad hom. Typical. Tell your bro I said hi. He should come by more often. He was a nice guy. RaoulDuke 13:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You are the most innane piece of shit every to grace this website, honestly. You don't say anything of value and I honestly don't expect you to have any ability to even understand Jensen's writings, never mind expect you to honestly and without bigotry read what he writes. In short, you are a scumbag, a real parasite. You don't make an 'argument', you yap on about my brother and pretty much say Jensen is an idiot - you are the fucking idiot living in a delusional state of mind. Just fuck of TOP, honestly. What the fuck do you even know about recent trends in scholarship? Your a fucking ignoramus. MarcusCicero 13:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I would say he is the greatest assest Conservapedia has: an actual historian. However, I can't judge his quality as a historian, because I know nothing much about history. It seems his area of expertise is recent American history, which I know less than nothing about. The strangest thing about him is his willingness to edit CP. Broccoli 13:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Instead of foaming at the mouth, why not show me where Jensen does something that critically engages with emerging trends in historical scholarship? RaoulDuke 13:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
RJ has quite an elastic definition of "fair use", and seems to think that "for commentary" covers using an image to comment on anything you like, when in fact it only covers commenting on the image itself.
That aside, I'm sure his scholarship itself is perfectly good, and I can't begin to fathom why he bothers to lend his talents to a batty enterprise like CP.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we might be seeing an RJ event soon. He has just begun a massive expansion of cp:Welfare state, creating a reasonable page. If Andy notices, however, then it will swiftly be trashed again. Jensen's response is often to back down and let Andy or RobS change the page to match their personal obsessions. Broccoli 14:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
For such a scholar his contention that Winnie created the UK welfare state to stop socialist nationalisation is debatable at least. Bob Soles 14:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
From what I remember of history lessons, the welfare state in the UK was first created by the Liberal party in 1906, though one motivation might have been taking the wind from the sails of the increasingly popular socialist Labour Party. At the time, I think Winston was pretending to be a Liberal, and supported the welfare reforms, but I don't think he was a driving force behind them. Broccoli 14:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
In it's current form it owes most to Beveridge and was mostly implemented by the post WWII Labour party. The very earliest roots were mostly down to Lloyd George. Giving Winnie the kudos is a major re-write of history. Bob Soles 15:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Lloyd George didn't start it but he did give it a big push, and Winnie was Home Secretary (I think) when Lloyd George was PM so would have had a big say in it. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 15:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC) (and here is a link. I should Google before posting) –SuspectedReplicantretire me 15:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
But Lloyd George implemented the reforms when he was Chancellor and Winnie wasn't Home Sec until the People's Budget mess up. Lloyd George wasn't PM until 1916. Broccoli 15:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, yes. That was from my increasingly-frail memory. I should have noted my mistake on the followup that got the information right. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 15:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RJJ is a sad egotist. Most of the articles he creates are the absolute best on CP (where they will never be read), but he was such a pushy ass as to get kicked out of Citizendium, and now ignores all of the utter filth and insanity at CP because it gives him a place to dump articles. He's not just a "Conservative" scholar, but it would appear a reactionary who has it out for Obama. What I still can't understand is Conservativenet, which seems like only he actively contributes to, with the odd respondent. PubliusTalk 17:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Prof. Jensen says here, "anyone who want a conservative interpretation of the economics of the depression should read my articles, especially The Causes and Cures of Unemployment in the Great Depression"(1989)." Well let's see what he says. On page 20,
  • "Supply-side economics was central to the New Deal. The main difference from the 1980s version was that the New Dealers worked vigorously to contract the supply of labor..."
On page 21,
  • "The final, and successful supply-side remedy was the draft, and after 1940 the increase in military personnel paralleled the reduction of unemployment. The problem with the supply-side remedies was that they cut output as much as input, made the nation poorer, slowed long-term growth, distorted personal choices, and increased unemployment."
In his conclusion on page 31,
  • "The refusal of the New Deal on ideological grounds to consider wage subsidies or training programs guaranteed that the hard-core would stay down, even as they hailed Roosevelt for rescuing them from utter destitution. Subsidies and training would have reduced the structural unemployment that was the greater problem after late 1933."
I'm not certain that that is a "conservative interpretation." In this 1989 article Jensen cites Ben Bernanke and several of Lawrence Summers works. In footnote 27 continued on page 23 to a discussion on Keynesian stimuli, Jensen says "My argument is congruent with Blanchard and Summers." Contrast those sentiments with User:Conservative who refers to cp:Obama#Larry Summers - Corrupt and Incompetent Chief Economic Advisor to Obama (nobody told User:Conservative Summers served on Reagan's Council of Economic Adevisors at the same time Jensen was commenting on supply side economics).
Jensen also gives special thanks to Eugene Genovese, a Marxist historian. [6] But Prof. Jensen pointed out Genovese got religion [7] at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, a plausible explanation. Many communists did repent and convert in the early to 90s, with the now obvious exception of Obama & company. RobS 20:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll bite on this subject. RJJ is probably the only contributor to Conservapedia that I have an ounce of respect for. He may be batshit insanely conservative, but he, at least, makes quality contributions there. I never have understood, however, how a high quality conservative like RJ could wind up writing articles for a garbage site like Conservapedia.AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 20:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Because he was kicked off or marginalized on other sites for putting a rather obvious pro-Conservative spin on his articles? Just a thought. (amusing to see that when RobS does indulge in personalities, it's always because communism can be injected into the discussion) Megaten 20:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Get used to it. You have years and years ahead of this, [8] unless you wish to be tarred as an apologists for an ideology of mass murder. RobS 22:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Rob, take your meds. Seriously. DickTurpis 22:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow Rob. After reading that I just lost a lot of respect for you. "Obama wants the American economy to fail"? Give me a break. If he wanted that, he would have done nothing instead of trying to revive the economy. Tetronian you're clueless 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Trying to revive the economy? yah right. Fed Chairman says the recession is over but 85% of the stimulus is unspent -- and we're already talking about Stimulus III. Obama spent $700 million to get elected but Congress now has $800 billion to get themselves re-elected in 2012. You think people can't see through this bullrot? My closest liberal Democratic friends keep asking, "Where's the jobs ? Where's the infrastructure improvement?" RobS 23:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Rob, the idea is that the banks can use the money so they can loosen credit, revitalizing the economy. It also prevented them from falling into bankruptcy, which would have sent the economy spiraling into ruin. Let's not forget about that. Yes, it is lacking in infrastructure improvement, but the fact that it has failed to create a bazillion jobs does not make it a complete failure. And more importantly, just because it hasn't cured all of our economic problems it isn't necessarily a Commie takeover plot. Tetronian you're clueless 23:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You're confusing the $700 billion bailout with the $800 billion stimulus (combined = $1.4 trillion deficit). I live in a town were they could have got $12 million in stimulus to buy new city transit buses, provided they could prove it created jobs. Legally, under NAFTA, it did since the buses were built in Canada. But it created a politcal problem locally. So they improved a few bus stops and bought automated tranfer machines. (Needless to say, they bought the buses anyway with money from elsewhere). RobS 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Rob, Genovese, tough now somewhat dated, wrote what is in all likelihood the single most important book about American slavery. Have you even read Roll, Jordan Roll? RaoulDuke 23:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, haven't read any of his stuff. Prof. Jensen says Philip Foner's book on the ssame subject is good, too, which may the case although I had objected to using Foner as a source for CP (Foner is a Stalinist holocaust denier). RobS 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah well you know what Rob? My closest conservative friends have been asking me "Where's the Republican Health Care plan? Why doesn't the Republican budget have numbers in it? And just where were those WMDs?" How many democratic friends have you got Rob? Huh? Because I've got 100 conservative friends. Bil08 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah well where's the Democrat's tax cut proposals? Where's the Democrat's school prayer plan? Why doesn't the Democrat's plan to end the death tax hav e numbers in it? And just where is focus on the Afghan War? Where's the WMD? in Iran & North Korea (oh, I forgot, the Axis of Evil is a Bush plot in bed with the Saudi King. BTW, why did Obama bow to the Saudi King, Bush's co-conspirator in knocking down the WTC as an excuse to get us into this mess?) RobS 01:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Woah Rob, no need to JAQ off now. Tetronian you're clueless 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey Rob, with a respected historian on the site you should ask him if he can find you some information on the New Ordeal. - π 01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
oooh, that's a sore point for Robby. Jensen totally pwned him on the "New Deal was socialist" thing a few months back. RaoulDuke 01:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
We've been collaborating on several articles. Actually, I pledged to Jensen to digest his article on great depression unemployment (linked above) and found Bernanke & Summers were big sources for it back in the 80s. So I've had a mass of material to digest that obviously relates to more current articles (this thread is the first time I've publicly commented on any of it) and haven't finished reading sources yet. Some material has been used to improve cp:Fascism, (you should really have a look). Also, Jensen & me did a bang-up job at cp:Scottsboro case, which has many promising and currently relevent insights we may even be able to carry over to WP. RobS 01:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

BM knew from the start WIGO[edit]

I don't think Assfly Andy suggests such a thing. At least not in that diff. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly said: "The British Museum raised or took money for decades by claiming that the Piltdown Man was real. In fact, it was a fraud. Do evolutionists support some level of accountability for that?" The term "accountability" generally applies only to those who actively took part in a scam, not those who have merely been suckered by it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Is does read as though he is saying they knowlingly defrauded people. Anyone fancy burning a sock asking him to clarify? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 16:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
But we need all the socks we can get for the Conservapedia Day awards... Mindless drug Phantom! 16:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The term "accountability" generally applies to those who have taken part in any action, intended or otherwise. e.g., you will be held accountable for involuntary manslaughter. Shitty WIGO. Just sayin'. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Andrew wants his refund for the Piltdown Man, and he wants it now!! [9] ħumanUser talk:Human 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Er, Andy apologised for getting that wrong. I was going to sock up and point out the error myself but OurMike beat me to it.
Thanks for the additional info about the unusual policy of the British Museum. I apologize for my error. That said, there is no free lunch. If the visitors are not paying, someone else is. Taxpayers, perhaps? The underlying issue remains the same.
Andy Schlafly 09:23, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The post referenced by the WIGO was, I believe, dated after the post where Mr. Schlafly admitted he was wrong. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I want to know exactly how and where these monies should be accounted for, collected and redistributed. It's got to be a fascinating scheme. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

CP block log fun[edit]

I saw some funny excerpts from the block log, thought'd I'd share them (along with some unfunny comments from me):

18:14 . . Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked Hero764 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (autoblock disabled) (be a real "hero" and use your real first name and last initial)

Andy....just Andy.

23:04, 25 October 2009 MarkGall (Talk | contribs) blocked WillJergens (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (please make only encyclopedic edits. liberals are welcome here, but they are expected to adhere to the rules governing CP.)

*Snort* Funny one Mark!

13:58, 25 October 2009 MarkGall (Talk | contribs) blocked Simaro (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Moronic vandalism: hilarious and original!)

Oh no, don't give yourself away Mark!

20:08, 26 October 2009 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked MegaGalvatron (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ ("mega" - clueless)

Is that a stab at humor? Way to go Andy!

23:43, 25 October 2009 Jpatt (Talk | contribs) blocked AndrewG (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Negative personal comments: Spiteful wittle liberal)

Typo or intentional? We may never know!

If you see any more good ones, please add. Tetronian you're clueless 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy's idea of what's Biblically relevant.[edit]

I noticed another nugget of Andy's conservative insight in the middle of this comment.

"Taking one, I feel the term "Pharisees" means nothing to people today, and their biblical views seem irrelevant."

The Pharisees and their Biblical views were irrelevant to the story of Jesus? I can't wait for Andy to offer a Bible study class when he's done with Economics.
He also didn't seem to have much luck replacing "Pharisee" with "intellectual" or "liberal elite", so now it seems that they are the close-minded "incumbents" who needed to be replaced. Yeah, I'm sure you'd be calling your bad guys "incumbents" if this was 2007 and not 2009, right Andy? I'm not sure it's WIGO-worthy, but it was worth calling out IMHO. --SpinyNorman 15:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to watch the clash between Andy, who really just wanted to go through the KJV, update the language, add conservative bias and remove anything he disagreed with, and Terry, who seems to be going for the New Poorly Translated Bible. Looks like Terry is winning at the moment, since Andy is out of his depth with all that Greek. Broccoli 16:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit like when the project first started a few months ago, someone called GloriaM started pasting in the Hebrew text of the Book of Esther and asking specific questions about that. Andy soon put the project to one side until she (or he) went away. Sic transit Gloria M.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 16:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that was clever. Nicely done. Corry 00:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I notice that Andy includes some Greek words in his replies, but only ones that he could have copied from a prior post.  Lily Inspirate me. 20:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh for the love of goat. I think TerryH doesn't know how to decline Greek nouns. Does anyone else agree? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
No! Because I can't decline Greek nouns either. I'd just have to ask my funky chunky Greek girl friend (and I don't mean girlfriend) Nicoletta to do it for me. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I forget where I put the diff, but I think Terry said he has a year of Greek language study under his belt. I wonder if when he said he could read it as fast as english if he simply meant vocalize, not comprehend. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How on earth did you all...[edit]

...miss this? EddyP 15:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As regards the whole wine/grape juice thing - it has always got to me that, if the 'wine' at the marriage in Cana was grape juice then why the fuss about serving the best last. It's alcoholic wine where you serve the best first so that
(a)the palate is not ruined and
(b)the tasters are too drunk to tell the difference when you serve the vinegar.
Hey, someone of my vintage knows just how palatable flat Watneys Red barrel (complete with floating dog ends) can be when you're drunk enough. Bob Soles 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, neither Noah nor Lot became drunk on grape juice! Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 15:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why fuckwit TerryH thinks the new grape juice will burst the old bottles (Mat 9:17, Mar 2:22, Luk 5:37). — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As good and phenomenally self-important as this letter is, it somehow lacks a certain something. In other words, I wish Andy had written it instead.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 15:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Terry took it upon himself to write it. I like the opening: "As the administrator-in-charge of the Conservapedia Conservative Bible Project". Wasn't that title self-issued when he just stormed in and said "Right, this is my project now"? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 16:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that TerryH asks Farah

First, where were you when the New International Version came out?

Well, I can answer that for Messer Farah: The NIV edition of the New Testament was first released in 1973, with the whole Bible following in 1978. Joseh Farah was born in 1954, so he was in his early twenties when the NIV was released, and hardly in a position to comment on anything. MDB 17:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose its possible TerryH meant Today's NIV, which is a much more recent release, and is quite disliked by conservative Christians. MDB 17:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Might comment on the essay/letter itself later (first wanna shower and then eat dinner), but just a quick comment about the NIV/TNIV issue: You make a good point about him being fairly young and thus not really being in a position to comment in a public way (especially in the pre-Internet age). If Terry meant the TNIV, we can answer this question more easily: Farah was at WND, writing "Today's New International Perversion" --Sid 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I take it TerryH does not partake of the Blood of Christ during communion131.107.0.85 18:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little confused as to your point, but I think you're assuming all Christian churches use wine for communion. That is not true; many Protestant churches use grape juice -- some because they think consuming alcohol is a sin, and at least one denomination (my own Metropolitan Community Church) to honor any members who might be in recovery. (And as a humorous aside, I know of at least two MCC's, including my own, that use white grape, because it doesn't stain.) MDB 18:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Remind me what the difference is between the American Fundamentalists and the Taliban, again? (edit: Oh, yeah--Bacon.) --Gulik 07:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Holy shit!! This is amazing. I'm hoping Farah will reply and this will turn into another Lenski affair. It is interesting that Terry started this, not Andy - he's playing a power game, I presume?

"What are you laughing at?"[edit]

I didn't bother reading any of that - my short attention span is getting the better of me these days - but I saw the first line and thought "I wonder if it was Andy or Terry that wrote this?" Lo and behold, it was Terry. I started laughing at this, forgetting that all my housemates were in my room at the time, prompting questions as to what I was laughing at. Jeez, TerryH is delusional... SJ Debaser 21:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

From my remote, and admittedly-informed-largely-by-teh-internetz point of view, this sums up the American Conservatives right now. There have been one or two blog posts suggesting the Republican Party is getting worried about its own base, and this is a perfect illustration: utter conviction in one's own POV; refusal to engage with most of a debate and focussing on only one or two points; etc etc. From what I've read elsewhere about the Bible Andyfication Project, comments fall broadly into two groups: "Liberals" laugh; "Conservatives" scream hubris. Both are right. If you want to put your own spin on the bible, you could make it say anything you want. "Rich man" -> "Idle rich" well... why not "Celtic and Rangers supporters"? Supporters of those clubs are rich in that one of those two clubs has won about 95% of Scottish Football League titles - pity the poor supporters of East Stirlingshire.
I'm looking forward to discussing CP's latest project with my god-bothering relatives this Christmas. Should be fun. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 21:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
"TerryH" (if that is your real name), I've skimmed through your rant and I find it has a low substance to words ratio, which means you are clearly a product of professor values, public schooling and no doubt are for gun control and against prayer in school too. In addition my MarkGall's LiberalBot tells me you have a liberality index of 3.2, which places you alongside such liberals as Richard Dawkins. Open your mind and realise that more people are laughng at the CBP (yes, Terry the "rants" and "screams" you heard were of laughter) than think autumn foliage is pretty or that 2=2=4. Please continue to contribute as you have because a) we enjoy a good laugh and b) we look forward to God proving his existence by smiting your mangy ass. Gods peed. - Andypants.

Watch this space[edit]

Emails to the editor at WND are non-permanent, so if he gets posted someone will have to grab a screenshot. - π 01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually tempted to play devil's advocate and ask Farah to reply to Terry.--Thanatos 01:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Andy vs Roger debate[edit]

Has a score of over 300. It is now the highest scoring WIGO we have ever had. Javasca₧ I saw a wildebeest around here... 02:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. - π 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Can I take partial credit and get hawtsecks from blindingly hot birds? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 01:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as long as I can too. Tetronian you're clueless 02:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
r0x0r CrundyTalk nerdy to me 10:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Anybody caught having hawtsecks with anybody whilst a member of RW, will be disbarred for the sin of having a life. Missionary position, with the lights off, is allowable, however. --Psygremlin講話 17:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
-- But only through he hole in the sheet and procreation purposes Alain 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper Circulation[edit]

This isn't worth a WIGO, as far as I'm concerned (or at least I can't come up with a snarky way to phrase it), but the latest news from CP is that newspaper circulation is down -- way down. Andy, ever desiring to be "helpful", suggests its for "time them to take a break from printing their liberal claptrap."

Of course, Andy regurgitates the standard conserva-line that newspaper circulation would be just fine if they weren't so gol-durn liberal. Ironic, of course, that he's posting that on the Internet, since pretty much everyone who doesn't have right wing blinders obscuring their vision will tell you that's the real reason newspaper circulation is down, because:

  • Every newspaper of any standing whatsoever posts almost all of their content on-line.
  • On-line content is more timely than a print edition.
  • Classified advertising has moved almost entirely on-line. Job listings go to and the like, for sale ads go to eBay and craigslist, personal ads go to any number of web sites, etc etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseam. (And classified ads were the bread and butter of the news industry for ages.)

Of course, Andy actually seeing that's the reason for newspaper circulation being down would require analysis beyond "they're big bad libb-burr-ulls!", and the chance of Andy doing that are about the same as Matt Damon and Ben Affleck inviting me to a three-way. — Unsigned, by: MDB / talk / contribs

Yes I saw that one and reacted the same way you did. His libb-burr-ull obsession is reaching new heights. Andy now goes straight to "Blame the liberals" without even bothering to try to find a link. Maybe his paranoia will give RobS a run for his money in the awards? –SuspectedReplicantretire me 11:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Funny I saw Murdoch the Younger on TV the other night blaming the BBC and ABC (Australia) for hurting the newspapers because they were giving away high quality news on the internet for free. - π 12:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I kind of have to agree with that analysis; the decline in newspaper sales is a complex issue, far too complex for someone who has repeatedly proved that their worldview consists of nothing more than "libruls are baaad". Indeed, it's a very complicated issue; circulation is certainly not as bad in Europe as it is the US at the moment, but I wouldn't suggest for a second that Europe uses less internet so that explains it - there's a far more complex set of attitudes to print media combined with the effect of the recent recession at work (Micheal Moore made some recent comments that popped up on one of the WIGOs recently regarding the fact that US newspapers really stopped being about publishing news and more about publishing adverts). Certainly, as Schlafly's view usually states that Europe is full of commie liberals, his explanation that liberal clap-trap is responsible for a decline in sales certainly doesn't hold much water at all. Scarlet A.pngtheist 12:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
With Murdoch charging for online access to the WSJ I expect other newspapers to do the same. However I reckon that gadgets like Amazon's Kindle will be used to download newspapers on a subscription basis so that people aren't tied to a pc in order to read it. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 20:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Some circulation figures for comparison[edit]

Ah, here we go.... Washington, DC is one of the few two newspaper cities in the country -- it has the somewhat liberal Washington Post, and the Moonie-run Washington Times, which might as well be "Fox News -- the print edition." (There's no affiliation to Faux News, its just the same politics.) This story is about eighteen months old, but its from the Times itself, and its the most recent one I could find. It reports that the Post's circulation was down 3.5%, the Times' was down 6.5%. So, the conservative paper lost more circulation. And the Post outsells the Times by a factor of over 6-1.

In all fairness, the DC area isn't a very fair choice to analyze press bias effects on circulation, since it includes the Maryland suburbs (generally liberal), Northern Virginia (kinda liberal, less so the further away you get from DC) and DC itself, which rivals Massachusetts as the most liberal "state". MDB 13:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw recently figures showing that t'internet was on the way to being the biggest advertising medium. Commercial TV & print media are really suffering from the revenue loss. The free sheets aren't helping either - taking their percentage of the ad revenue that does remain. We've just got a freesat box & the news channels are quite surprising: French, Russian, CNN and Al Jazira[sp?] among others. It's not any Liberal attitude, in fact the ones with (liberal?) Celeb gossip, & (liberal?) (half) nekkid grils are doing better than the broadsheets by and large. I am eating Toast& honeychat 16:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
For what its worth, in DC, one of the two free dailies is owned by the Washington Post. (And from what I've seen, its worth every penny you pay for it.) Plus, there's several free weeklies, both general interest (the City Paper -- well, general interest targeted to a younger, hipper crowd) and targeted (like the gay Blade and Metro Weekly, and one targeted at the African-American audience.) MDB 11:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured insight[edit]

Woo! Andy's Best Conservative Words essay is this week's featured article.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 12:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Figures. Like everyone else, Andy has no problem engaging in shameless self promotion. And the other editors at CP are probably too scared of the banhammer to question Andy's bullshit. Tetronian you're clueless 19:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How many minutes does it take....[edit]

.... to get a reference to the FBI investigation deleted?

Let's ask Mr. JPatt.

"Let's find out. One. Two-who! Three. Four! Five." #smack#img "Five."

Advice to would-be cp trolls: pick a user name that doesn't scream "troublemaker". "SaveMeJebus" is not a good choice. MDB 16:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And its down to a minute!img (The "TitsMcGee" name was a dead giveaway.)
Perhaps "banning wiki-vandals" could be an Olympic event. Too bad CP opposed the Chicago Olympics -- might have made it easier for them to send a team. MDB 16:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Advice to would-be cp trolls: don't bother, it's really really old by now.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 16:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on... it's a classic! It's one of very few instances where Andy actually knows he was wrong and can't (and won't ever, ever, ever try to) defend himself. I can imagine twisting the thorn in his side. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but classics can die. Scarlet A.pngtheist 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RobS and that naughty Obama administration (in 2007)[edit]

Outstanding WIGO! However, once the geniuses over there realise that the fecking article is from 2007 (it even says so in the URL!) when the messiah was in office, do you think it will be reworded to "deceitful liberals attack Georgie?) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was finally deleted (by Karajou), not re-worded. But still, this demonstrates how completely bankrupt of ideas the American right has become. When it was thought to be about Obama... "ZOMG! Obama's domestic spying program is under attack!" But when it turns out to be about Bush... crickets chirping. This just demonstrates the validity of the question I asked to ocnservatives during the original debate over domestic spying: "would you be comfortable with a Democratic administration having those powers?" The response was generally hemming and hawing. MDB 23:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fetal rights (WIGO?)[edit]

dunno... check it out.

New User: OHAI! I copied this article from Wikipedia.

Doomed User: You can't do that.

JPratt: OVER RULED! He's a new user, so I'll lie on his behalf.

Doomed User: You can't do that either.

JPratt bans for interfering with admin instruction.

Pretty standard fare, but if someone wants to snark it up (MOAR) and format it, go ahead. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I Googled "Memeshock" because I'd never heard of it before, and the first result to come up was a facebook page. One of the contributors to that page is a Mr John Patti. Anyone we know? Johann 22:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I am not a creationist or anything else like that. But for Straussian reasons I find it useful to spread my memetics there. ~Johanan Raatz, MemeShock founder — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Dearest Jpatt, how ever is he fairing? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 22:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Wait...doesn't Conservapedia not allow copy-paste from evil Wikipedia? We are at war with Eastasia. --Crazyswordsman 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
In defense of Jpatt, the guy was clearly a parodist himself, adding crap about witchcraft in Harry Potter and suggesting that anyone with a liberalism score above some cutoff should be automatically banned. He had it coming. --Pyfgcr 03:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Re. "copypasting from WP": The commandment does have an "unless it was your original work" exception there. This of course weakens their "Wikipedia is full of liberal bias!!!" claim, but keep in mind that Trusted Sysops Admins Senior Administrators will scan your every edit and remove any sanity liberal bias, so it all evens out in the end. --Sid 09:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How about andy and the evilutionsists don't read the bible gambit[edit]

Andy: Do you read the bible? Reply: Yes Andy: I doubt that because evilutionists don't read the bible. Looks like a check and a mate for Andy there. --Opcn 20:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Already WIGO'd. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
"You list yourself as an "agnostic" here, yet 100% of your edits here have been of an atheistic nature. An agnostic, if fair-minded, should be at least 50% Bible-based and 50% atheistic-based." 22:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC) well as 50% Hindu-based, 50% Buddhist, 50% Satanic, 50% Mormon, 50% alien civilizationy, 50% Muslim 50% Voodoo etc etc. That's why every single one of my posts is several hundred pages long. Etc 06:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It'll just get confusing if one of those 50% borders happens to be in the middle of a sentence: "God doesn't exist, so *twitch* God exists." --Sid 09:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

CP is again not accepting new members[edit]

Is it just me, or does than not seem to affect the number of things that top CP brass reverts? --Opcn 21:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think user creation turns off when night mode is on. Mindless drug Phantom! 21:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It goes on & off more often than a whore's drawers. I am eating Toast& honeychat 21:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Well everything shuts off at night, I was thinking about right now, it is shut off now yet still they revert. Why even bother to shut it off?
It is not night, it is only 18:27 on the server clock, night mode doesn't start until 00:00. - π 22:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't normally read this rag.......[edit]

....but rules 6 & 8 struck me as amusing [10] Mick McT 07:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Again I am eating Toast& honeychat 08:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

How many minutes will it take before BMpC gets banned?[edit]

Are there many other talk pages on CP that trashes CP that much ? Who's burning that perfectly good sock??? Maybe BMpC have not reached the legendary 90/10 ratio yet? But he received a FINAL WARNING from our fiend TK in june...

I believe that the Conservative Bible Project is motivated purely by politics and ideology and an attempt to take what is seen by millions as nothing less than sacred holy writ, and force it to conform to a subset of American social conservatism. Much of the wording will use "conservative terms", deemed as such simply based on personal opinion. This is an act of supreme hubris and egotism. Alain 18:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dissent is de jure allowed on Conservapedia, but it puts you on shaky ground with the brass. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So as long as someone corrects Aschlafly's typos, he gets a freeride on his talkpage? Alain 18:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sign your posts by placing four tildes after them. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Dang, LX, I thought that was a template. Nominated for "most boring talk page post ever"? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Alain signed his posts after I posted that, replacing two unsignatures. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Is that a bad thing? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It made my instruction to sign seem out of place. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but other than that... would you consider replacing unsigs a faux pas? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a very mild one, at worst. The timestamp ends up wrong, but most unsigs aren't stamped anyway. If nothing else it shows good faith, in that the "replacer", especially if they're a newcomer, is expressing that they know how now. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It always bothered me when I innocently forgot to sign a post and some wank ECs me with an unsig while I'm trying to sign. And I think it makes the poster look like they were trying to hide something. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Direct line to heaven?[edit]

" is the word that God actually used"

Quite a claim there TerryH. Jammy 22:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, but it is the norm for bibleheads. Because we are so used to it, we often forget how ridiculous this is. We are laughing at their bible project, but we must remember that the people actually think an invisible being in the sky SPOKE to blokes on earth who took a dictation. Crazy. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think they are confusing reality to Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the lost ark.--Thanatos 04:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
They're translating Genesis? How did I miss that? *reads* Oh God. The iconic "Let there be light" is now "Light shall exist!"? *headdesks* --Sid 10:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The more I read of it, the worse it seems to get. I happened across their Revelation "translation" this morning and see that of the four horsemen, Conquest and Famine have been replaced by Dictatorship and "economic depression so severe that it takes a full day's work to earn a day's meals". Admittedly that's in the analysis rather than the translation, but it's still priceless. I also like the way that wine is banished even from the "measure of wheat for a penny" phrase. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 10:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I chuckled at la Quinlan's "some cake" comparison. Reading CPs dumbing-down of the Bible gives me enormous pleasure, a warm fuzzy feeling inside: it is, of course, smug self-satisfaction, derived from being able to say, "See? I told you so!" Interestingly, the last similar attempt which springs to mind to reinvent Christianity in order to make it conform to the values of the time and place was in 1930s Nazi Germany. Fox 11:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
After reading more of the "translations" I have to chuckle at Andy's stupidity. He really thinks that after he has mangled the text it still qualifies as the literal word of God. Also: look at Genesis 1:8. Prime example of dumbing down and ruining the one good thing about the Bible, its poetry. Tetronian you're clueless 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The whole CBTP project makes me laugh because Andy "knows" what the Bible says and what God/Jesus meant. So why bother even re-translating the current works when he could just write what he "knows" and call that the "New Connservative Bible". Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 23:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

TK and Scientology[edit]

These two edits make it appear as if TK has had an epiphany and converted to the One True Religion. Does this revoke Ed's title as the loony cultist on CP? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably. How can anyone, especially so-called Christian conservatives, defend that cult? It boggles the mind. Granted, YEC isn't much better. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It's odd how tolerant Andy is of Scientology, Moonies, Jehovas Witness, Christian Science, Mormans; especially given that many Evangelical Christians regard these as non-Christian cults. Also, Scientology is especially interested in Hollywood celebs (Tom Hanks, John Tavolta); doesn't this bother Andy?--Simple 00:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
When everyone's evil for some reason, you have to pick your battles.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 00:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Daniel1212 made a lot of Unification Church friendly edits recently. Is he a Moonie along with Poor? MDB 00:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe that's the "surgery" TK was having? A CoS implant? He sure has been absent a lot from class lately. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of Joaquin's follow-up edits, mere minutes later, are intriguing too. Dreaded Walrus t c 00:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And another one. Considering the article was at this stage up until a couple of days ago, perhaps TK and Joaquin have been in contact off-wiki about it? Dreaded Walrus t c 00:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
TK is Catholic. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
When you are a religious nut you have to protect religious nuttery. Despite the fact that Andy commits blasphemy against the Muslims he blocked me as Opcn for good after I suggested that he should put a news item up about what the league of Muslim nations was doing in the U.N.. --Opcn 02:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been experimenting with their predilection for insta-blocking any Arabic sounding name, sometimes with "use your real first name and last initial" and account creation disabled, sometimes with "troublemaker/prevaricator." Disgraceful. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I wonder if other ethnic names will get the same response. Tetronian you're clueless 21:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Daniel1212 has just chipped in on this question. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology WIGO[edit]

Andy wasn't the one apologizing. --SpinyNorman 22:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is embarrassingly wrong. Would fix it but I'm on my phone. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism[edit]

Has anyone seen thisimg? That vandalism template is brill.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 12:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, how did we not notice this? It's been around since 2007 when PJR put it there. Tetronian you're clueless 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Obviously if they were built in 3000 BC it would have been washed over in the flood. - π 12:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There are so many pages with vandalism on them it might be easier for CP to have a "We haven't found any vandalism on this page yet" template. Of course, much of it is far too subtle for their little brains to find, like on this pageimg.MDB 12:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be funnier if it constantly quoted people through out it. - π 12:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

TerryH has seen God ruin people.[edit]

Thisimg might be the start of a very interesting discussion. Apparently, God directly authorized the Holocaust and 9/11, and Terry has seen God doing His work to fuck up lives. Oh, and good news for Computer Scientists: There is no true randomness in the real world, so don't worry if your RNG is not perfect.

And yes, God authorized this post, too. --Sid 13:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's odd that I'm inured to the epic hilarity of statements like this on AWK. but always pleasantly surprised to see them on CP : "Recall that the average life span of the descendants of Adam was about 900 years. After the Great Flood, man's life span dropped ninety percent, and in a hurry. We must assume that the life spans of animals varied in similar proportion." Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dream about Conservapedia[edit]

Wasn't sure where to put this. I've seen comments about Conservapedia at the saloon asked to be put over here, but this is not about WIGO, :CP or otherwise.

Rather, just saying that last night I had a dream concerning Conservapedia (among many other things), and I am providing a Humorous Aside for people here. To deflect accusations of obsession, I dream pretty frequently and this is my second Conservapedia dream in about three years of visiting this site (I've had roughly 10x as many dreams about fighting zombies). I can't remember the first one that clearly, only that I had it.

I have to admit I was rather disappointed in my behavior in the dream. I like to think that, were I to meet and confront Schlafly in real life, I would be able to maintain a fairly intelligent level of discourse with him. In the dream, however, my meeting with him went somewhat poorly - we were mainly shouting nonsense at each other while we walked down the street, with notable contributions from me including "2+2=1!" and "dicks!". In my dream-self defense, dream Andrew Schlafly was a rather imposing figure, standing at about 6 and a half feet and wearing what appeared to be two fabulous fur coats.

Sometime later I apparently was "undercover" as part of his homeschool class (a physical visitor, no less), trying to find a way to expose his deceit while avoiding some uncertain retribution I was expecting for doing so. At one point I believe I yelled "you lying shit!" at him, only to explain (apparently convincingly) that I was in fact addressing someone behind him who had just passed out of view. In another instance, I believe I trapped Jinxmchue in an upside-down wooden crate.

I can't say I recall much else about the dream, except that the warehouse the class was being conducted in had several blue vans parked off to the side, and I was woken shortly after each van unfolded into approximately ten heavily armed Terminators each. Megaten 04:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My CP dreams usually ends up with fistfights between Andy (9-0-0) and myself or Myself, Glenn Beck and Hannity (3-2-1) on The Factor--Thanatos 04:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You put it in the right place. I don't dream about CP, although I do "wiki-dream" about this trash heap. I dram a lot, especially when I don't drink enough to sleep through 'til, um, the crack of noon. Seriously, when I sleep lightly, I swear I dream sixteen hours of life in eight hours (or so) of restless sleep. Oh, yeah, but no one asked, so sorry for sharing ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 06:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've had one dream about CP. Andy and I were having a moderated debate (just the two of us and a nameless moderator) but we ended up not debating much, more just bitching about TK. We ended up good friends. Very worrying.
As for sixteen hours life in an eight hour dream, I know exactly what you mean. Way, way back when I was at school, one of my classmates told us of a way to make yourself unconscious by hyperventilating and then trying to blow air out of your nose while it was pinched shut (I've since heard this is really dangerous so I'm not recommending it). I was the first one to try it. When I woke up I was really scared because I'd had three full-length dreams that seemed to last for several hours, and I and assumed I had been out for a long time. In fact it was about four seconds. The brain can do weird shit when it wants. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 07:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we used to do that with the sleeper hold. Crazy ass dreams in four seconds. It's dangerous, but worth the risk, so I recommend you and your friends try it at home. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Meh, wikipedia says the sleeper hold is safe. Oh well. Still, try it. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sleeper hold is safe so long as they let go immediately after you start to go under, hold on for an extra 12 seconds and they are definitely dead. I don't see how hyperventalating and holding your nose could do damage with out repeated use. When you hyperventalate you get rid of the CO2 in your blood and the urge to breathe is controlled by the acidity of your blood, no CO2 means alkaline blood means less urge to breathe. --Opcn 16:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It was something to do with bursting blood vessels in the brain, I think. I was 13 - I went along with what others said; it's quite possible the whole thing is safe. We did use the sleeper hold too, but it was the whole forcing-blood-to-the-brain thing that we understood to be dangerous. Of course, one advantage of growing older as an ex-smoker is that jogging up a flight of stairs can reproduce the same effect. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 22:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh goody - now I can out the CP dream I had last night. Andy was holding a CP get together and sent me (or rather my sock) a plane ticket to attend. Now obviously I couldn't impersonate my sock in the flesh, so I was running around trying to find somebody to sock in real life for my sock. Very odd. --Psygremlin말하십시오 17:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology for WIGO[edit]

I think Tetronian should give one. EddyP 22:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I knew what I meant but had a brain fart and typed something else. Tetronian you're clueless 23:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This was a joke section based on two 'Apology WIGO' sections created simaltaneously above it, but because the've been merged the little humour this section had has been lost. Never mind. EddyP 11:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Really? It always seemed funny to me... sorry if I broke your joke, though. You can always reassemble it if you want. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. Tetronian you're clueless 12:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Brokeback Mount Ararat?[edit]

I was just reading through the ConservaBible translations TerryH had been doing on Genesis, and stumbled on his reinterpretation of Genesis 9:22 :

"Ham, the father of Canaan, took intimate liberties with his father, and told his two brothers outside."

So in one bold editing pass by the self-proclaimed Bible Translation Expert, we've gone from an adult son simply seeing his drunk dad naked, to having "intimate relations" with him? Words fail. --SpinyNorman 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Look. There are only so many words in his Hebrew pocket dictionary so he has to take some liberties here and there. Where he goes with them says more about his tendencies than what the bible actually says, nu? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Intimate liberties? Maybe that is what the original Greek text does say, and every other translation had it toned down, or wrong. Or not. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 01:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Errr, Greek? Naa son. The Hebrews wrote that shit in Jewish. TerryH is taking a correspondence class in it so he's qualified to spearhead a biblical translation team now. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that passage largely considered a later addition so the Israelites could justify acting like dicks to the Canaanites? - π 03:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I for one am disgusted by the concept. I like my dad, and all, but still... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The Hebrews wrote that shit in Jewish. Do you not have that the wrong way around? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
What's the dif? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I seriously hope you are joking. - π 05:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(EC) What is "Jewish"? Hebrew? Aramaic? Yiddish? And, biblically speaking, are not only some Hebrews Jewish? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
RACISTS. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I always thought all "Hebes" were Arabs. Color me wrong if not such is true. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Arabs and Hebrews are Semites, but Hebrews are not Arabs. Separate ethnic groups. Now try figuring out whether modern Jews can call themselves an ethnic group anymore, or if they're really a "civilization" like Mordecai Kaplan thought. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh shit, I might be a racist? Dang. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, this is a very mainstream interpretation of this passage. To know nakedness is used elsewhere as a metaphor for sex more clearly, so it's not a leap.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 08:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, that's one of two Talmudic explanations, the other being that Ham castrated Noah. Of course, cp would go with the one that meant "Ham got cursed because he was gay!" MDB 12:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The real point here is that TerryH is not translating at all: he is simply using the assumptions of others to reach a conclusion which is necessary to explain Kena'an's punishment. As Pleins points out (Pleins, J. David. "When the Great Abyss Opened: Classic and Contemporary Readings of Noah's Flood" (OUP USA; 2003) ISBN 0 1951 5608 0) "The similarity in language may be coincidental, and we may be guilty of reading more into the story than was intended." After all, the (similar) use of language in Vayikra that people look to as implying Ham "committed incest with his mother" is quite specifically - in the original Hebrew - different to that used in B'resheet - only once translated can they be compared! Far more likely is that the story should simply be read as it stands: Noach gets pissed and crashes out naked in his tent. Ham goes in and sees this. Rather than being a good and considerate son, and hastily covering him up and keeping shtum, he instead goes off laughing and tells his brothers, "Hey, the daft old bugger's pissed up in his tent with his wrinkly old dick on show to the world!" Shem and Yefet are appalled and rush off to cover him up before anybody else sees him. Occam's razor in action... This is why CBTP is full of epic fail; this is why Bible translations are carried out painstakingly by experts in the field, not by some guys on the internet. Fox 13:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"Noach gets pissed and ... wrinkly old dick on show to the world!" Awesome. You should go improve the CBTP with that wording. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should have our own version? Nobody has actually annotated our annotated bible, we could have the RationalWiki rewrite and rambling about crap bible project. - π 22:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I found my stunning contribution to RationalWiki's annotated bible. Imagine more thought provoking ideas like that. - π 03:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that "uncovering your father's nakedness" was a euphemism for sleeping with your mother in Leviticus, and that this was Ham's crime. Stile4aly 21:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


Is Joaquín Martínez a Scientologist? I've looked further and some of what he writes is critical. Proxima Centauri 09:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely, given that he is Mexican I would hazard a guess he is Catholic. Just because you edit an article doesn't make you that. Are you a creationist if you edit a creation article? - π 11:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"See Also: Charles Manson" WTF? What does Manson have to do with this? Hactar 16:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That's just JM - his non-sequitur "see also's" are legendary. --PsygremlinHable! 17:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


I just added the Hoffman WIGO with a brand-new ID number, and the score started at minus 3 instead of zero. This kind of thing happen to anyone else, or did the wikiware thing my entry sucks that much ? --SpinyNorman 15:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You put in the wrong number; 266 instead of 2656. Then I tried to correct it and put in 2666. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 15:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
2666 is the name of a book that I am halfway through.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 16:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Would that be equivalent to having completed reading 1333? MDB 16:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix - I must have looked at the numbers three times and still not caught on. --SpinyNorman
For what it's worth, the second link in the WIGO is great reading, and the photo of Hoffman kind of resembles what an older Andy would look like. One of my favorite quotes:
"A flustered and ill-at-ease Mr. Hoffman objected to the heated questioning, saying he should have been provided a list of questions he might be asked. He was, if he had taken the time to read the Thursday morning Times editorial raising the very same questions."
No wonder Andy can relate to the guy. --SpinyNorman 16:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This entire election is what I've predicted would happen for some time -- the hard core right wing faction of the Republican is spinning off into its own party. And its basically one that demands complete ideological purity on a handful of issues -- essentially the three G's of God, guns and gays -- and if you stray one iota from the Approved Conservative View (as did the Republican candidate in the election, who doesn't hate teh gheyz enough) -- they'll turn on you.
To which I say, "keep it up!" They're just helping the Democrats more and more. (Especially when the conservative candidate is a complete loser.) MDB 16:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this new spin-off party will unite with the Anti-Constitution Party. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Its not new -- the Conservative Party has been around in New York State for years. They just generally endorse the Republican candidate, and exist mainly to see that the Republican candidate doesn't get too liberal. MDB 17:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thou shalt not...[edit]

... question TK. MDB 16:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No no, he isn't a "block monger", but the truth does sound the same. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OMG: no soap, radio.[edit]

Karajou uses the discredited soap allegation favored by Holocaust denialists, in an anti-abortion propaganda posting. Mmm, skin cream, now with extra aborted fetuses (except that it uses a fetal cell line, not actual fetuses....) Godwin, anyone? - Poor Excuse 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

His source is WND, which is hardly surprising. To their credit though, they do mention that it's a cell line - not babies being minced up for each new batch of cream. There's an irony in Karajou typing that drivel on technology that almost certainly has origins in the work done by those immoral homosexuals. I encourage him to follow his brave stand to its logical conclusion, and ditch that immoral computer! - ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 23:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

all-time favorite[edit]

Kinda bored with CP, so I revisited by all-time favorite pages: the Richard Dawkin's talk archives. With the possible exception of the Lenski Dialog, this has got to be the greatest ever. Anyone have one better? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole Essay and Mystery sections are my favorite when-all-else-fails reading material. "Jesus caused comedy" was fun, of course, and there're various others. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 16:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that "marry a conservative" article is a gem I hadn't seen before - especially its made-up anecdotes high-quality evidence. Thanks for the link. Cantabrigian 16:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, great googaly moogaly... the "no humor before Jesus" debate. When Andy was presented with example after example after example after example after example... of pre-Christian humor, he basically just denied that they were humor, turning it into "there was nothing I thought was appropriate humor before Christ." And then he goes on to site Trading Places as an example of humor, an odd choice for a conservative family friendly type like Andy, considering it stars the notoriously foul-mouthed Eddie Murphy, includes drug use, and has a class warfare theme. MDB 17:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You forgot something (nsfw). — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The Lenski Dialog, to date, has been my personal favorite Andy bugger up. While it did not reach quite the level of point and laugh profile as the CBP has I always imagine Andy going into that one with a pre-emptive smug look, confident he is going to completely discredit or upset the evilutionist only to be utterly and completely smacked down by no less then the Professor himself. Lenski's second response was so well crafted, articulate, AND amusing it should serve as a template for any scientist getting scoffed at by creationist luddites. - Tygrehart
It is really hard to beat the Lenski affair. The severe pwning Lenski gave the assfly was nothing less than epic. EternalCritic 18:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The Lenski affair was great. The old debates were much more fun because there was actually debate- banhammering took a little longer back then. Corry 23:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
this is one of many favourite pages of mine. Andy at his best. AceMcWicked 03:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"We don't allow ideological censorship here. Try Wikipedia if you want to insist on censoring criticism of evolution, though I oppose censorship by Wikipedia also.--Andy Schlafly 21:51, 7 March 2009 (EST)" - classic, and not hard to find. A random section from Ace's link. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it." Oh that is magnificent, it really is. The whole of evolutionary science (I have come to the conclusion there is no theory of evolution, just as their is no theory of physics) come crashing down because Andy finds autumn leaves pretty. It is simply beyond comprehension how he came up with that. - π 03:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I am sure, user "pI" - what a silly name - that you are as equally unconvinced that 2+2=4 as that the LORD made autumn foliage pritty for us to enjoy. Deny that and lose all credibility. PS, I'm sure that not only do you not read the Bible (the most logical book ever written), but also seek to censor prayer on crashing planes. Sully would be embarrassed to have you on his airbarge, I'm sure. Begone, and be hence, and be silent. Goatspeed, - An DyShfly. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
What was that parody page related to counter-examples of evolution? That one was about the only piece of parody I liked, it just took the idea of "EVOLUTION CAN'T EXPLAIN BEAUTIFUL FOLIAGE" and ran with it. Also, this classic gives a whole new level to "crazy moon talk". --GTac 09:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Hardly my favorite, but related to that talk page (and another interesting example of what people were able to say without being instantly banhammered and reverted): Talk:Origin of the Moon --Sid 11:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent) I think Andy easily takes the top ranks for Favorite CP Moments, but there are some non-Andy moments I found noteworthy:
  • JM's definition and example image of a paintingimg was quite interesting indeed, especially when you check the article history (and the revert wars over the Christo installation) and read through the talk pageimg there.
  • TerryH briefly exposes the full WTFitude of his beliefs and suggests that Tiktaalik was possibly "an antediluvian laboratory chimera and hence an out-of-place artifact of a society already known to have been inordinately cruel". This suggestion stands for roughly one hour before he realizesimg that this went even beyond the craziness levels CP had been known for back then. And then he tries to spin this slip-up into some sort of "See? People mocked me for this! This just proves that evolution is indeed more vulnerable than ever!"img
  • "Two meters" by the Grand Master of Stubs.
Probably more, but I'd have to dig through my memory and ancient talk pages. --Sid 11:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I have added captures just in case. If we lost the Tiktaalik one I don't know what I would do. That was golden. - π 11:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe people always over look the liberal denial talkpage, it is hilarious. Every time someone questions Andy they are proving him more right, the trap he set was brilliant. - π 11:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone mentioned the "Counterexamples to evolution" page... here is that classic piece of vandalism made to it. 12:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks BoN! --GTac 16:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thisimg addition to "Homosexual Agenda" was still a classic. Especially the 'Break for lunch' comment. Kapchured for posterior tea. Also, wasn't there some strange discussion involving aliens and UFOs (and Jinx?). I can't remember what it was exactly, it was just very odd. --PsygremlinRunāt! 17:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That pretty much made my morning. May the FSM bless you with his noodly appendage. MDB 11:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The Dawkins talk page archives are amazing! "I'm open to information about the belief system of the discoverers of DNA ... at the time they made the discovery. Personally, I wouldn't rank that discovery as among the greatest scientific discoveries in history, but I'm open to discussing it." - Assfly. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow! This is brilliant! Go to this page (same discussion), and scroll down a bit. This is classic creationist debating. So Roger says that most prominent 20th century scientists who made great discoveries were atheists. Assfly calls him out on it asking for examples. PJR gives the example of Crick and Watson, which assfly dismisses because the discovery of DNA isn't important. 'Graham' comes along and gives 11 (count 'em) examples of great scientists who were athesists. At this point assfly ducks out and PJR goes onto perform the biggest Gish gallop I have ever seen, pages and pages of irrelevant nonsense. Extraordinary. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, come to think about it... there were some interesting Philip-Andy debates. For example the talk pages of "Gun Control" (plus archive), "Obama" featuring "ANDY, I AM NOT A LIBERAL. STOP CALLING ME ONE AND APOLOGISE FOR DOING SO." (plus archives, I guess) and of course two not-quite-mainstream ones: "Catholic views on creation" (a giant trainwreck centered around the "evolution is more than a/one hypothesis" Pope translation question) and "Archaeopteryx" (a.k.a. Andy's hard-on for Fred Hoyle). --Sid 13:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Gay Charity Work[edit]

After reading this I wondered what Andy would do if a bunch of homosexuals turned up on his doorstep asking for a donation to a particular cause or offered to paint his house. AceMcWicked 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you've put the wrong link in. Jammy 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
About to say similar. I am eating Toast& honeychat 20:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
nvm the diff, I'm just curious as to what Andy would do if a bunch of homosexuals turned up on his doorstep heh Fox 20:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Link is fixed. AceMcWicked 21:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That has made my day: "Undermining the resolve of latent homosexuals so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality." Er, is that semi-confessional, Andy? Fox 21:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That's good, but I'm more amused by the "fact" that the "gay lobby" tells "seven- or eight-year-old boys" that if they "only like girls, maybe [they] are lesbian". And fail to recognize the existence of "cooties". - Poor Excuse 22:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Does this look like parody?[edit]

this got GeoffreyW blocked from CP, but it doesn't seem that provocative to me, things like changing bought to read and mentioning that he has a new book out don't seem very parodyesque to me. --Opcn 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I was at a loose end so I blocked him using my Jinxmchue account, just for something to do. Fox 00:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Think of the Children[edit]

Ok, I'm just going to spit this out. None of the news articles I have read have mentioned that Andy is a homeschool teacher. None. I think that if word were to get out that Andy is a homeschool teacher who uses the Bible in class, more people would turn away from the Conservative Bible Project. After all, what better place to indoctrinate people into his ideology than his own class? Their fuckin' parents pay for it and I cannot see Andy using the King James Bible when he has his version ready to be forced upon the students. I would personally like to see Andy confronted by the parents over this kind of issue.

I think that WE could deal a serious blow to Andy if we were publish an article or editorial about this. We know Andy best. No one else is as qualified as we are. I dunno, we have been reporting on the CBP since before it was cool and I feel that we are overlooked when ever someone writes about it. Please someone either join me or talk me down.--Thanatos 02:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh. I hadn't even thought about him using his new bible in class. He often asks for biblical reference in the answers to his questions, so eventually the Conservative Bible could become required reading for his class. That would be interesting. I wonder how he'd react to parents being angry at the idea (if they even got angry, hell, they could be his strongest supporters, I don't know). X Stickman 11:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
He won't use his own Bible, he'll continue to use the KJV. His own Bible will never see print, making it a good thing to reference on occasion (maybe assigning readings from it), but also providing a convenient excuse to avoid the conflict that would come from jettisoning the highly-regarded KJV.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 11:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Assuming that he ever finishes it. --Sid 11:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
His attention span's pretty short. But he's got a few people helping, and the New Testament's not far off. He could just publish that.--Star trooper man 12:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I fear he'll be bloody minded enough to see it through to spite the evil lie-burr-uls who insulted his new baby. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 12:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't predicted that far ahead, but saying he'll use it in his class...? Thing is, I can't think of a lot more RationalWiki could do to get noticed, unless we just go and troll the newspaper sites and tell them about us, which at any rate would be quite sad. SJ Debaser 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the "method" would be to write and submit letters to the editor or even op-ed pieces, not so much to spam RW links as to tell the "whole story" behind the man behind the CBTP. A bit like that crummy email I sent Mike Malloy when he did his 5 minutes on the CBTP - I mentioned Phyllis, CP, BHO, and RW, filling in a whole bunch of missing links, basically. Sound clip is on my talk page. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I work on the assumption that anyone who uses Andy for homeschooling their kids has fully bought in to AndyLand and would, at the very least, be in the know about what he's doing. They might well approve. Bob Soles 13:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
There was some disquiet over the whole giving-girls-easier-exams thing (diffs gone; use the images here - it's at 141) and don't forget just how popular the KJV is. I would imagine that if the parents read the drivel about grape juice and bimbos they'll be pretty upset. You may be right though: if you've done so little research into Andy that you're prepared to have him ruin your kids' brains you're probably happy with whatever he says. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 14:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I would assume (please!) that Andy's only giving part of the education to these poor kids. History & Economics: no sign of the promised Critical Maths lessons yet anyhow. The parents are probably awed by the Son Of Phyllis aura. I am eating Toast& honeychat 14:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not keen of the idea of spamming RW. Sorry if it came out that way. But I think that we should raise concerns about this. If we could get a few media outlets to comment on the homeschooling bit, it could get the CBP harsher commentary. The fear of indoctrination is strong in the US (I need not remind of the Obama song thing from FoxNews) and maybe Andy could be classified as a cult leader. Other Christians are against him, as well as other conservatives. Who else would he preach his false scripture too?--Thanatos 18:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Well, my irony meter just popped after reading this thread - good thing I have the easy-reset model. Given how often Andy references the Bible in his online classes, it wouldn't be surprising if he started directing his students to use his ConservaBible as the approved classroom reference version. Thinking about that after all the CP references to communist leaders indoctrinating their students using their little red books popped the meter, and now my office smells like ozone. --SpinyNorman 19:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine him finishing his bible and then using the KJV still in class. He firmly believes he is making the bible better and more accurate, why the hell wouldn't he use it in class? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine him still going to church with this going on. The way those evil liberal heretics look at him while the preacher spews liberal propaganda. No place for a man who claims to be divinely inspired--Thanatos 23:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The way that that sort of Puritan-descended church works, he just makes a new one - 'The First Church of Andy Magnificent', or something like that. It's inherent to fundamentalism - if you claim to all be very very close to the text, and the true meaning, then natural variations and disagreements will split you up into different congregations. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Before or after he gets excommunicated?--Thanatos 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)