Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive157

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>, <155>, <156>, <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)

They just don't get it do they?

Religionists - they really don't understand the whole burden of proof or not possible to prove a negative thing do they? The latest WIGO is brilliant. A religionist aggressively and toy-throwing-out-of-pramly demands that a rationalist checks every square foot of land to disprove the existence of Noah's ark before he can 'carry on with your opinion in this website' - whatever the fuck that means. Argh. This shit really annoys me. They just don't get it! THEY make the incredible assertion and and yet the incredible assertion MUST be true unless someone can actively disprove it. And these are the pricks who don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I might even rewrite the WIGO as I think their idiotic logic is far more noteworthy than the 'writing assignment' line... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

ROFL, Karajou's suggestion is completely inane. He seems to think that Noah's Arc is sitting on a mountain somewhere, and no one has bothered to point it out yet. How readily would he give up his belief if someone carried this survey out, I wonder?-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 23:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see it now: "Dig deeper. I know it's there, my ancient book says so." --Sid 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's just it, you can't prove a negative! I've searched all over for Yahweh, and I've not spotted him - ergo; fuck right off you fundie loons. (Sorry, they just get to me sometimes.) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's all to be expected from that bunch of nutters. What I particularly love is way back up at the top of the conversation. Terry H begins his authoritative response to JMcK with the declaration that people lived to be 900 years old back then. What a fucking bunch of numbnuts. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I love that debate. Thing I love most is the incredible display of grasping at straws throughout the discussion. "Lack of food? Well, erm... well some animals like cows give milk, so they could just feed themselves! Or hibernating, there are like 3 animals who do that! Lack of space? Errr.. Perhaps the animals were in infant and egg form, that should save space! Impossible construction? Well, perhaps Noah had futuristic engineering knowledge.. and lived for 900 years! Impossible difference in environmental requirements for different animals? There are penguins who live in warm climates, surely all animals can tough it out! Impossible to keep a variety of animals in a constraint space for a year? Well.. perhaps the non-hibernating animals move around the Ark in a circle following a rigid schedule as to keep the carnivores away from any weaker animals? LIKE THE ARK, IT'S WATERPROOF! PBS! --GTac 09:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Occam's Razor, now with triple blades for a closer shave *the best a prick can get*. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Where time becomes a loop?

Seems somebody new has signed up specifically to argue with Andy about relativity. What's the result? I'm afraid your math is simply flawed. This is either going to be hilarious, or a total flash in the pan and a waste of everyone's time. But for me, the bit where new guy teaches Andy how to do algebra is worth the price of admission. ^{— Unsigned, by: 12.17.54.50 / talk / contribs}

These talk pages are fun right now. _& marmite^chat 22:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel a bit sorry for them actually - it's some sort of mighty combined arms attack on many different fronts. You've got common-and-garden name trolls 'boyiloveboys', etc., the rednamed science, specifically, relativity brigade, 'Beatricerosado' (clearly not your real name) marauding about saying s/he's disappointed in Joaquin's bigotry, etc, all while Andy's busy writing about labour relations. Poor Andy. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

I'm not so sure, I think he maybe thrives on the attacks. Everyone of them is a test of his faith, and everytime he successfully ignores it, he grows stronger.

Really? I see what you mean, but isn't the victory of faith for him when he demonstrates the deceit and liberal style of his opponents? --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

I think both of those points of view are predicated on the assumption that Andy gives a damn about, or is even vaguely aware of, the world around him. This doesn't seem to be supported by the facts at hand.--12.17.54.50 23:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I know I've gotten a little obsessive about this, but I can't stop. The same person from my above link did a major (and pretty good, not perfect but pretty solid) rewrite of the world-famous black hole article. Andy reverts, citing a misleading edit summary. Ksorenson apologizes, and changes the edit summary. Time to "liberal" slander? 25 minutes. Ksorenson gets snippy, puts Andy's bullshit back in. Will the article be allowed to stand? Is adding 6 KB of quality information and leaving in two nonsense sentences a net win or a loss? I can't decide!

I'm vaguely disappointed

It's been a while since we've last had charts here; apparently larron is getting old and soft. I had some time to kill waiting for my daily horse porn download so I fixed an update for the pair of diagrams I posted in August. I had expected to see some major resurgence here, what with the crazy publicity their translation project got them; with Colbert and the Huffington Post and newspapers from Toronto to NY to London to Auckland they should have easily exceeded their January 07 popularity, right? Sadly, no:

There is some uptick, to be sure, but they haven't even reached the levels of one year ago - not in terms of edits, not in terms of users, not along any other dimension I can see from here. Seems like the average Colbert viewer is a lot less wandalistically active than the average LA Times reader. Mountain Blue 07:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess the law of diminishing returns is at work here. Back in 2007, CP was a new concept, and people lingered longer. Nowadays, people know CP and that they're a crazy bunch, so they're not going to spend that much time exploring and going wild. They've had their lulz back then, so the CBP is basically just a silly update that gives the Colbert viewers something to do until next day's episode airs. At least that's my quick theory. --Sid 11:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

<- In my twilight days, I shifted my interest towards W. Dembski and friends. But here are at least two pics on the number of "active editors" (all vs. not-blocked) at CP:

The Bible Disfiguration Project - and Colbert's report on it - gave CP a short-lived boost. Some traffic is garnered by the economy class, too.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder...

I wonder how much of Andy's (and many other CP editors') delusions of grandeur and paranoia are influenced by the existence of RW. Now, I'm not trying to defend Andy or detract from how crazy he and his acolytes goon squad are, but I think RW's existence is a least a minor influence on their psyches. First, I think that the fact that there is a website devoted to destroying, infiltrating, (at least in Andy's mind) and monitoring Andy's little pet encyclopedia probably gives him a conflated opinion of his significance. Second, I think it is related to the CP sysops' paranoia (especially in the case of people like Ken) because it heightens their sense of a good vs. evil dichotomy: "we have our (good) Christian encyclopedia project, the libruls have their evil seekrit cesspit from which to wage war against us." Also, RW has been the source of many of CP's most effective parodists, which is what causes them to associate parody with RW (and, indirectly, focus their paranoia on us). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The website goes off-line for a few seconds with a MySQL connection error and they think it is us. Karajou^{Hi sailor!} monitors us for subversive activity. Ken thinks we are every liberal on the net. They are paranoid of us to the hilt. It is sad really, as most of us don't touch the place. - π 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If we were in hiding and didn't have this place, it would be much worse.--Thanatos 03:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd buy the theory except for one thing - CP was a lot like that before RW went public (2.0). ħuman 03:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Truth is, you guys are just a pain in the ass. No ideas, no creativity, all you can do is destroy (kinda like Hitler). Don't you have any lives? any of you? What, pray tell, do you hope to accomplish by being obnoxious, rude, and disresptful to other who do not share your enlightened view of the world? Do you hope to convince or convert someone to be just another iconoclastic idiot like yourselves? Nuff said. Go screw yourselves, all of you. Rob Smith ^{— Unsigned, by: 129.24.163.24 / talk / contribs}

My first reading of this I thought was referring to CP until I saw Rob's name underneath. I guess all the disrespect shown to the fairly elected president of the USA or the condemnation of everything that CP doesn't like which is then caled "liberal". Give me a break Rob, and you were pretty quick with the Godwin; which shows real creativity of thought! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite charming, really. But that isn't at all RobSmith worthy. Oh, and RobSmith is also a user and sysop here.. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 06:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Karajou is wonderfully paranoid. He still thinks every so-called vandal (i.e. somebody who posts something sensible) is Ames or Icewedge. There was a wonderful moment last year when he tracked somebody's IP address to a Chicago (?) library and he was going to phone them and get them to arrest the person using that monitor. --PsygremlinParlez! 09:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh!

When one reaches the end of his life, hopefully later rather than sooner, does he regret spending a little extra time understanding the Bible? No, the regrets are typically on wasting so much time on trivialities outside the Bible. So I'm fine with spending a bit more time to get the Bible right.^img my emphasis otherwise no comment. _& marmite^chat 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That whole exchange between Andy, Bert, and the other editor was hilarious. Bert mentioned KAL 007, Andy got to throw around his favorite expressions, and nobody realized the irony of the whole thing. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See also^img. _& marmite^chat 21:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I've been following that one. ^{Isn't everyone?} Denialism at its best. I personally liked Karajou demanding the user to search "every square foot" of the Middle East for evidence of the flood. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It was Andy's use of the Assquote template that amused me, not to mention totally dodging the question. _& marmite^chat 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of using the Assquote: check out this one^img. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Add the evolutionists part to the template. it's gold. I'd do it but I'm on my fone. 19:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Added. This has got to be one of the funniest debates in a while. I wish I could figure out what it is about a random user's post that makes Andy want to reply to it; then we'd have lots of fun and lots of things to add to the Assquote. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's all a joke

Sorry, you've all been taken in. This is a piss take, I just can't take this shit, I really can't.

I've read a lot of CP. I've read a lot of so-called 'creationist' pages on t'internet. I am British, and I refuse to accept that so many citizens of the most powerful country in the world believe that the bible is literally true. My brain just can't handle it. my hands can't type how my poor little brain feels. Please PLEASE tell me this is not the case. No NO NO. No.

No.

DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Breathe man breathe. ~Ttony21^{(talk, contribs)} 00:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the US, belief in evolution is 50/50. It's just that the more fundamentalist ones, usually on the side of creationism, that make the loudest comments. There is a silent, rational majority, but they are too busy shaking their heads in disbelief.--Thanatos 01:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't believe it because you're possessed by the Devil himself and live in a Godless country. SoldierInGodsArmy 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thus my point is proved--Thanatos 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DeltaStar: take a deep breath in. Remember that the fundies are several thousand miles away from you. Exhale. Realize that some people do believe that the Bible is literally true, but that they are mostly harmless and unimportant people. Try to laugh at them rather than being afraid. (After all, we are here for the lulz.) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

They might be that, but they are a powerful political force in the country with more nukes than any other. Yes, they are insane, but their agenda gets into schoolbooks - seriously - and their more recent strategy is to take over local school boards (local is how we do schools here, mostly), much to the embarrassment of Dover, PA. But they are legion and dogged in their persistence (no offence, DogP!). They want to to 1. inflict our schools with YECism; 2. Ban all birth control/abortion, and 3; (joke) enforce the gun ownership requirement in the 2nd amendment. OK, actually, they might not like it if they realize "we" are as well-armed as "they" are. These people are insane and they are fairly close to the levers of power in the most powerful country in the world. They held them for the last eight years - hence Obama's Peace Prize. He got it for not being insane. Folks, the rest of the world is seriously scared of what the Palin/Beck/Limbaugh party would do if it gained power. ħuman 05:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignore them at your peril. ħuman 05:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I can support what Hooman reckons. I watched the coverage of the US elections, silently wondering how long the world would last if Obama didn't win. Not that I thought Obama was gonna save the world or anything, more along the lines of 4 more years of Bible-bashin' stupid would destroy it. -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 07:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As mad as some 'mainstream' US Republican views seem from the British perspective, you also have to remember that Conservapedia isn't really representative. It only has about six regular contributors, and I've often seen more normal Republicans coming on there and being disgusted by it (some of 'em must have been for real).--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) (Dentarthurdent) I'm with Human here - yes, the Conversatives are a minority, but there is a bigger "mostly conservative" group that are with them on most of their principles, maybe not the Reagan-worship or anti-ERA stuff. To put it another way, they are as close to Schlafly's lot as matters (especially in re: US economic imperialism and the mechanisms to enforce it, and the war on terror). The "movement" lot are shouty and vocal and have the "mostly" majority cheering them on in the face of Obamunism's leftist commie pinko leadership. They may have a quibble over prayer in school, but that's small beans compared to defeating the liberals. Steve Kay 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, recent polls suggest that only 39% accept evolution, which is directly correlated with education level, church attendance (inversely), and age (again, inversely). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I am so happy to see the 3rd. When the crazies get us down, demographic trends can give us hope. 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Viva la Revolution!

There has been a coup attempt at CP^img, but it was quickly squashed^img by forces loyal to the regime. MDB 18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A parodist who had been reading altogether too much WIGO:CP, it would seem. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even say that it qualifies as parody. Besides, did the person really think that Karajou would actually listen? If they read that much WIGO:CP, they would know better. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, not only did K "listen", he offered up a helpful reply! ħuman 20:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

His response is actually quite funny! Made me smile. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 00:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Stevie Fry and Chris Hitchens vs Catholics

I've posted it here, as although it isn't CP based, it is god-bother based. Here's the youtube link. As you can imagine Fry and Hitch embarrass them, and I'd also forgotten just how annoying Anne Widdecombe's voice is. I particularly like the way the cracker-lovers are called out for moaning about people always "going on about the condom thing"... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This was mentioned already on the Saloon bar, where non-CP discussion is suppose to rake place. - π 21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's me telt. Move along please. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr Kettle? I have a message from Mr Pot

I never noticed this page before, but apparently, Bush Derangement Syndrome is "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."

This from the site that gives us:

Obama Obama's pastor Obama's religion Obama's transition team Obama,_Barack Obama,_Barack H. Obama,_Barack Hussein Obama-isms ObamaCare Obama Obama Administration Obama Administration/Executive Orders Obama Administration/Presidential Memoranda Obama Administration/Proclamations Obama Administration lobbyists

Obama Care Obama Nation Obama administration Obama administration corporate bailouts Obama administration deficit spending Obama administration fiscal policy Obama administration monetary policy Obama admistration deficit spending Obama admistration monetary policy Obama birth certificate controversy Obama birth certificate lawsuits Obama care Obama doublespeak Obama inauguration Obama on rifles

Obama syndrome Obama transition team Obamacan Obamacare Obamageddon Obamaism Obamaisms Obamanomics Obamas religion Obamaspeak Obamessiah Obamination Obamonation Obamunism

With all due respect to those who commented on the overuse of the term "Irony Meter" recently, I think mine just emitted a loud whistling noise and then exploded. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 09:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, more than I expected, and I suspect that there may even be a few Obama essays you could add to the list (though then it wouldn't be a pure "encyclopedia article" list anymore, I guess). Almost rivals the "Nope, Ken is not obsessed about homosexuality" list, I think... --Sid 10:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Very nice idea - may I add:

Barack Hussein Obama Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign Barack Obama and liberal elitism Barack Obama and uncharitableness Barack Obama birthplace controversy Biased journalists of the Obama administration Birthplace of Barack Obama Catholics for Obama Debate:If Obama Was Conservative Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?

Debate:Is Obama an Atheist? Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president? Debate:Obama's preacher. Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election? Debate: Is Obama's recent opposition to the Fairness Doctrine good or bad? Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim? Essay:The Obama Manifesto Essay:The lie that we are safer under Obama George Obama Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration

Michelle Obama Michelle Obama and liberal elitism Muslim agenda of the Obama administration Mystery:Who Ghostwrote Obama's Books? Political positions of Barack Obama Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama Progressives for Obama Religion of Barack Hussein Obama Religion of Barack Obama Republicans for Obama

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. I just grabbed the ones starting with "Obama" from the page list. I had no idea there were so many others. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 11:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I took all articles in the main-space (without redirects) which include the phrase "obam" ;-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 11:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Really gives you a good idea of the way the think doesn't it? "Mystery:Who Ghostwrote Obama's Books?" because it's been widely accepted that he didn't write them himself. There aren't numerous article on "George W Bush walking into doors," "George W Bush making stupid statements" etc are there? SJ ^Debaser 14:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, no "George W Bush walking into doors", but loads of family:

Barbara Bush Boumediene v. Bush Bush Bush-hater Bush Administration Bush Derangement Syndrome Bush Doctrine Bush v. Gore

Bushism Debate:Is President Bush good for America? Debate:Is President Bush right NOT to condemn the Armenian genocide? Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare? Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991? Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? George Bush George H. W. Bush

George H .W. Bush Address Before a Joint Session of Congress on the End of the Gulf War George W. Bush Jenna Bush John Ellis Bush Laura Bush Prescott Bush Previous Breaking News/George W. Bush Timothy Bush

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You guys missed a couple of juicy redirects:

Jr. Senator Barack Obama Junior Senator Obama

Liberal Senator Barack Obama Democrat Obama Chairman Obama

Senator B. Hussein Obama "Professor" Barack Obama

(Of course these things are easier to see if you have a local mirror you can find and grep on.) Incidentally, only just yesterday I had a discussion with one of my tweener nieces about how being petty makes you look weak and small. Mountain Blue 04:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought you guys were talking about me again. Google deceived me. Udon 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

MarkGall

He sure knows how to keep the in-fighting going. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoever is MarkGall is doing a much better job of parody than when they first started. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't he start with the automated liberal detector? That's hard to beat. MDB 15:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

He started way before that with some pretty obvious parody. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading this shite about the need for a bible-bashing twitter, I suddenly had a thought; what if nearly everyone writing on CP is actually a parodist? Does a suitably annoying 'interwebs' type phrase exist to describe such a situation? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Parodist Event Horizon. Mindless time Hoover! 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I have it on good information that we're most of the contributors and students. Not sure if there's a word for it, but maybe there should be. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We were talking about the same phenomenon in other areas at work just the other day. Look at the various "troublemaker" groups that converge on events like the G20 to protest. Once you take out the undercover journalists and infiltrators from the security services there's probably just one person who really wants to protest. In the case of CP, it's Andy. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 17:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As, so CP is like NAMBLA -- a few die hard actual members, and the rest are infiltrators. MDB 18:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's like a middle-aged paedo pretending to be a 14 year old girl, arranging to meet another 14 year old girl, only to find another middle-aged paedo there to meet him! Incidentally, I only recently discovered that NAMBLA was a real organisation - I thought someone had just bought the domain name after watching South Park... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is real, but most people feel it only barely exists, and that much of the membership are actually undercover law enforcement officers. Whether or not that's true is hard to determine, of course -- its not a group people are likely to openly discuss their membership in, even if it is as benign as they claim it is. You don't expect to hear thus conversation around the water cooler at work: "Yeah, so after my NAMBLA meeting, I went to the grocery story and picked up a really nice porterhouse for dinner. How was your weekend, Bob?" Its been a stalking horse for anti-gay groups for years, but if it wasn't for their constant mentions of it, most people would have never heard of it. MDB 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(UI) So, when the day comes that we realize that we are all of the CP editors, we should have an uprising and overthrow the site. Hmm, I wonder what that reminds me of... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember RobS trying to smear Obama or someone for having some connection to Harry Hay, who he smeared in turn by claiming he was an avid supporter of NAMBLA. Of course, on looking up some facts, the "connection" was that he argued that being embarrassing wasn't sufficient cause to bar them from Pride parades, in much the same way the ACLU has argued on behalf of free speech for KKK members and others. But then, why let reality get in the way of a good homophobic smear, right? --Kels 02:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why mention NAMBLA? Was it not enough for RobS that Mr. Hay was a Red? ListenerX^TalkerX 02:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Double redundancy, just in case the main smear failed? I dunno. --Kels 03:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

MOAR ^{Queue people getting on my case for using "moar"} The fun just never ends! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Never trust your nearest and dearest http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8357454.stm 82.23.209.253 02:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the "moar" so much as I think you mean "cue", not "queue". ħuman 21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy-BmCP WIGO

What a classic Andy WIGO. I hate that fucking stupid wanker. SJ ^Debaser 22:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult not to get angry when he displays such relentless stupidity. Maybe we shouldn't mock them quite so much; I will paraphrase what I was told by a police officer who had been dealing with people suffering from mental-health issues: It is real to them. It is as real to them as this is to us ('It' in this circumstances being the little right-wing bible-world they live in) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he has a mental disorder, he's just an idiot. I was a bit drunk earlier, explaining my comment, although it was 100% true. He's literally a terrible human being. He thinks he's the dogs fucking bollocks, he goes around saying liberals don't care about massacres, dancing on Ted Kennedy's grave, denouncing everyone that doesn't believe in his exact line of thought as "liberal", and using quite literally any thing that is physically fucking possible for his own selfish ends. He is an awful, awful man. SJ ^Debaser 00:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think SJ has nailed it. Although we've pretty much known it for some time now... ħuman 06:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

SJ FTW. Steve Kay 12:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What always gets me and I'm sure I'm not alone is the number of times he tells other people to be "open minded". ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? And for the record I actually do think he is mentally ill and this isn't me just poking fun at him, I really do think he has some sort of disorder. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 01:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think he might have a chemical imbalance. And yes, the "open mind" thing is freaking crazy. ħuman 03:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The black hole falsifiability WIGO is @ 126 now. Such a perfect example of Andy idiocy. He gets spanked and then it's "Open your mind! Look over there!" This spite is flowing rapidly! SJ ^Debaser 12:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I like

... this

I'm sorry for butting in here, but something caught my eye:

• "Do you think it impossible that General Relativity is not correct?"

As physicists, we rarely talk about theories in terms of "correct" or "incorrect," simply because there's more nuance to it than that. Theories are tools, so we tend to judge them not in terms of absolute right and wrong, but rather in terms of degrees of usefulness.

Consider the Newtonian formulation of gravity. Under certain conditions, like the motions of planetary bodies in the solar system farther from the sun than the Earth is, the Newton equations provide very accurate predictions. That is, if you put known values into the equations and get answers out, the answers will very closely match your observations. But under other conditions, like the motion of Mercury, the Newton equations give answers that don't match observations. Does that mean the equations are absolutely incorrect? Well, no. It just means that those equations aren't a complete formulation of gravitation. They're an approximation. Which is why today physicists typically refer to the "Newtonian approximation," rather than the Newtonian theory.

For hundreds of years, Newton's formulation of gravity was believed to be correct. Later, we made observations that showed Newton's formulation was an approximation, not a complete description of how bodies behave in gravitational fields. Does that mean that Newton's formulation is now incorrect? No, it just means we better understand the limits of Newton's approximation.

Which brings me back to my point: As of today, we have no understanding whatsoever of the limits of general relativity. So far, every observation we've made about the universe, from falling apples to the motions of the most distant galaxies, fit perfectly into general relativity. Does that mean general relativity is correct? Of course not! It just means that general relativity appears to be a very good approximation. If we later discover the limits of that approximation — say for example, observations of certain astronomical objects can't be explained within the math of general relativity — does that mean general relativity is incorrect? No, that would just mean we better understand the limits of the approximation.

If we want to talk about the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of a theory, we need to understand (in my opinion) that we're operating on a spectrum. At one end, we have "this theory makes no predictions at all that agree with observations." At the other, we have "every prediction this theory makes agrees with observations." Most theories in physics lie somewhere to the right of the middle of that spectrum: most predictions made by theory X are supported by observations, but not all of them. Only a few theories are on the far right edge of the spectrum, where no observations have yet been made that contradict the theory. These theories are, for obvious reasons, generally the youngest of all theories, simply because we're not motivated to come up with new theories until existing theories have been called into question by observation.

Right now, special and general relativity, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and the Standard Model are all on the far right edge of the spectrum. To date, none of those theories has been contradicted by experimental evidence. Of those, my personal opinion is that the Standard Model is the closest to being contradicted. Under that theory, given certain circumstances X there's a 95% confidence that we'll detect the Higgs. So far, we haven't detected the Higgs at that energy level, or some significantly higher energy levels. Does that mean the Higgs doesn't exist? No, it just means we failed to find it in places where the theory says it could have been found. So we keep looking. If it doesn't appear after a good, long search, then the Standard Model will need revising. In that case, will the Standard Model be declared "incorrect?" No, we won't just toss it in the bin and start over. We'll say "Okay, the Standard Model is incomplete, let's improve it."

Theories like the various quantum gravity and electrostrong proposals aren't anywhere on that spectrum yet, because we've yet to refine them to the point where they make unique testable predictions. A theory that doesn't predict anything that isn't predicted by another theory isn't really a theory at all; it doesn't go "out on a limb." Once quantum gravity and electrostrong theories are mature enough to go out on that limb, then we'll be able to judge whether their predictions match up with observations.

Part of the challenge, of course, is that theoretical physics has very nearly explained everything that's ever been observed. In order to come up with new, better theories, we need new observations, and for that we're going to need better telescopes and colliders. Right now, the theoreticians are a couple of steps ahead of the engineers, and believe me when I say it's a frustrating time to be a physicist.

Anyway, getting back to the point: Is it possible that general relativity is not complete? Of course it is. I'll even go one step further and say that it's practically guaranteed that general relativity is incomplete, just like Newton's theory before it was incomplete, and Galileo's theory before that was incomplete. But in order to call general relativity (or any other theory in physics) incorrect, it seems to me that we'd have to put it all the way at the end of that spectrum where none of the predictions made by the theory match up with observations. That's simply not true, so in that interpretation, no, it's not possible that general relativity is "not correct."

So if you want to think of it this way, the question can be answered truthfully with either a yes or no, depending on what "incorrect" means when we apply it to a theory in physics.

Science in general, and physics in particular, concerns itself with objective truth, the observed versus the unobserved, seen versus unseen. But a theory is not a statement of objective truth. It's just a tool for making predictions, and as such it's neither correct nor incorrect, but instead is described as being more useful or less useful.

Anyway, I suppose that's neither here nor there, but I saw this discussion here and felt like chiming in with my perspective.--[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 17:17, 12 November 2009 (EST)

Could we put it somewhere? Someone ought to recruit KSorenson. _& marmite^chat 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh, quite epic. I like! And any recruiting should be done soon - the Death Star is slowly moving into position... --Sid 23:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Snap! Oh no you di'in't! 23:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah! Haven't seen a fine example of pawnage like that in a while. Sadly, countdown to banhammer in 3...2...1... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to the banhammer: "I contributed to that experiment when I was at Stanford" - Countdown to Andy being all "Call me, mail me your credentials, prove your ID" creepy-like in 3... 2... 1... --Sid 23:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I did some googling around, and I didn't find any reference to a K Sorenson working on Gravity Probe B. Doesn't necessarily mean anything; Wiki says the whole Stanford physics department worked on it. But maybe KSorenson is a parodianismist? Crap, I forgot to sign again. Your wiki ways are strange and frightening to me.--12.17.54.50 23:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Man, I hope he didn't really work on it - otherwise, someone is going to punch a hole in their monitor^img when faced with such an anti-epic dismissal. --Sid 23:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. I prefer to think he's enjoying his trip into the rabbit hole. --Robledo 23:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

She, actually. At least I think so, based on some more googling around. I sent an email to an address I found that seems plausible, just to see if that's the same person.--12.17.54.50 00:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope recruitment works, this one is a gem. I'd go in (assuming email is enabled) but mine is blocked. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 00:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for not going off at me for copying the whole thing here. I thought it was worth much more than a link and it seems you agree. Suck that Andy! Has he ever admitted he's wrong? (Don't all shout at once) _& marmite^chat 00:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

Yeah, confirmed. KSorenson is a she. I told her via email about this site, and that her efforts are appreciated. I hope I didn't step out of line.--12.17.54.50 01:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Another good one... the ban is near^img --Ace^McWicked 04:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I don't think she cares. -Senator Harrison 04:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked her via email if I could share her address here. She said sure. kate (dot) l (dot) sorenson at the Gmail. (That's a lowercase ell in the middle.)--Ace^McWicked 04:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please note those above comments weren't mine - some fucked the formatting. Ace^McWicked 04:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We really need this gal here. ħuman 05:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

She will probably join up when Mr. Schlafly banhammers her. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"You [aschlafly] make it so difficult to be succinct when there's so much you don't know." Best line ever! Cantabrigian 10:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

She is incisive and an expert on the subject. See how Andy is in a very small corner, and reduced to mutter vague allusions to 'open your mind' and 'connect the dots', without any substance to his posts? She is great. Also, kudos for the time it must have taken to write her posts. I feel bad about the way Andy dismisses them.--Ireon 11:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And he attacks he for writing too many words. He is the most pathetic human I have ever encountered. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 11:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. What galls me the most is that the point is - as far as I can see - tangential to his world. This isn't arguing against some core value of Conservatism (like Bugler, PJR, and gun control - http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=597188&oldid=596902 - still one of my favourites ...) which his belief system demands he defend, this is simply Andy being a fucking bully. Sometimes, I watch the WIGOs and feel a tiny bit of pity for him. Then he does stuff like this and I remember that when it comes to Andy, "pity" is not registered in my vocabulary bank. Steve Kay 12:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel sorry for people who pop up on CP, with knowledge and a wish to contribute, only to be pathetically put-down by Assfly. As Steve has just said, this subject isn't even counter to right-wing bible-bashing, but he still gets his knickers in a twist and starts saying things like 'liberal science'. It's especially pitiful when a conservative christian appears on there, only to be called a liberal-commie-atheist if they disagree ever so slightly with Assfly on anything! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I hereby nominate the following quote to receive a special, last-minute write-in CP Day award:

""You [aschlafly] make it so difficult to be succinct when there's so much you don't know."

She just Lenski'd him in under 20 words - a truly noteworthy accomplishment. --SpinyNorman 14:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I also enjoy how Andy rails on about her "verbosity", whereas he has the longest edit summaries on the site, except for maybe Ken. Aren't edit summaries supposed to be succinct and to the point? Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 14:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to know what Andy thinks the gravitational ramifications of super-massive bodies are. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously such things could never exist, because God's Holy Angels will keep the atoms apart by sheer force of moral superiority. This is undeniable. God's peed.--12.17.54.50 14:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I really like that explanation. I part-wrote an essay that basically said the same thing but not as well. We have a small section on "only a theory" that could do with expansion. With permission to get that description under CC it'd make a very good addition. ^bomination 15:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Author's email is kate (dot) l (dot) sorenson at the Gmail. (That's a lowercase ell in the middle.) --12.17.54.50 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy: "If BMcP proposes an alternative definition of science, then let's hear it, but I doubt he'll do better than Karl Popper in making falsifiability part of the definition." Meet Andy: "People can teach Popper all they like, but it's clear that physics majors are not learning fully about falsifiability." ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Assfly is such a twat: "You don't understand falsifiability because physics majors aren't taught it", "Actually I did two semesters of HPST (including falsifiability)", "It's clear that physics majors are not learning fully about falsifiability". Dickhead. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

MORE: This is just run-of-the-mill mundane parody, but I found it funny because it is essentially what Andy is asserting. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Massive! Undeniable! FLOODING!

Andy's new tip about no one denying the great flood is an interesting new development. He has always stated that its the liberals, evolutionists and athiests (all one group according to Andy) that denied it. Now NO-ONE DENIES IT! MASSIVE AND UNDENIABLE! Fucking idiot. Ace^McWicked 04:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The only massive undeniable flooding happening around here is the torrent gushing out of Mr. Schlafly's keyboard. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a beautiful new species of Andyism. What the hell is he even going on about when he brings it up though? Someone please burn socks to discover if he means a) a rapid flood covering all land, b) a rapid flood of a region, or c) slow flooding of large regions. In any case, what the hell is the evidence that no one denies? 04:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The section name sounds a bit like my night. Thanks for the nerd-gasm. Udon 04:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I do love his 'logic'; can evolution explain how species survived a world-wide flood? No! That proves it's a lie!. Brilliant. This is what happens when anyone with even a bit of common sense (regardless of their religious or political views) is blocked, there's no one to keep the uber-nutters in check.., DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And DeltaStar just sumbled on the entire reason that CP exists. Andy got tired of being kept in check and figured out how to be his own man so to speak. --Opcn 09:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hillbuzz?

Has anyone ever heard of the site "Hillbuzz" that JPatt is referencing? http://hillbuzz.org/ He claims it is a liberal blogger, but a brief look around the site leads me to believe they are very conservative (or, at least, very Anti-Obama, which may be more likely, since they seem to like the Clinton's) Is it a previously liberal, conservative convert? I don't know what it is that makes him think it is a liberal blog (despite their own claimed liberalness, that doesen't seem to manifest itself in their blog). --Passerby25 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I followed it during the election. Its a "puma" site, Clinton supporters that went anti-obama. Though if you google around there is evidence that the whole puma things was funded and encouraged by right-wing sources. tmtoulouse 19:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was looking around, and the overuse of the phrase "Liberal media" the comparisons of Obama to Hitler, and (this is what finally got me decided that it was a person who was faking the whole "Liberal" thing) was the use of the term "Democrat party" (which, in case some don't know, it is used as a subtle insult to the Democratic Party) --Passerby25 01:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

How to determine the truth about black holes

Continuing the above discussion... "I asked you a simple question, 'if promoting black holes cause people to read the Bible less, would you want to promote them?' Not only do you refuse to answer, you rant on and on. Please, please open your mind, for your sake." [1] One wonders where Andy pulls this weird comparison shit from. It's far worse than PJR's awful analogies. ħuman 20:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading the Bible less isn't a logical conclusion of believing in black holes, but it seems like that's one of the reasons Andy denies them. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just read this dialog between Andy and Sorenson. Her brutal responses were extremely well-written, rightfully portraying him as a petulant little fellow more interested in his personal view than in constructive work. Her departure from the discussion on the black holes page is the most cutting and effective I have seen in almost all the conversations Andy has ever entered into. Usually, he is the one who ends up fleeing the dialog, or else he manages to turn the entire conversation into a single-minded and absurd interrogation about whatever concept enters into his head at the moment (like the current "simple question"), so to see an editor so adeptly shunt him aside like a nattering child was very satisfying. He's going to have to pursue her and try to cut her down to his size; his Procrustean way of approaching others won't tolerate any defeat.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I blame her. She appears to have bigger fish to fry. Check out the timestamps and compare. --12.17.54.50 21:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I'm impressed by what she's writing. I can't confirm the validity of a lot of it, since I'm just a simple techie monkey, but it's a great writing style she has there. This isn't the first time that Andy's been totally out of his depth yet willing to hang on for dear life, but not many people are this eloquent, and helpful towards other editors. Her being banhammered is going to leave a nasty taste in the mouth. I mostly derive pleasure from seeing the optimism of new editors being crushed by the moronic and aggressive reality of CP, but this just leaves me disappointed that she'd waste any time at all contributing there. I wonder if one of Andy's white knights is sitting ready to sweep in and take the hit for the glorious and perpetually bewildered leader? --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering how long before Sorenson gets banhammered and all her work is undone. That'll be an interesting one to happen, we could be basically seeing Lenski MkII here. ^bomination 15:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy's Physics hate-on

He's had a long-standing hatred of the Theory of Relativity and black holes, for reasons I honestly can't comprehend (didn't somebody suggest he links the Theory of Relativity to Moral Relativism?) I know. But didn't his daughter say she had an interest in physics? Related? ENorman 21:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's really very simple. As physics and the rest of the sciences expand our understanding of the universe and everything in it wider and wider, there's less and less room for people like Andy to declare that goddidit. Those aren't supposed to be black holes; they're supposed to be miracles in the firmament. Andy thinks the end goal of science is to render god unnecessary, or even impossible. That's why he has such a hardon for turns of phrase "do you deny that it's impossible," or whatever foul nonsense he likes to spew. Andy thinks that as long as there is doubt in the hearts of men, as long as there's fear of the dark corners where the mysteries lie, that we'll still need god (duh-duh-duh-DUH!) to come rushing in to hug us and there-there us and put us to bed and tell us gentle, warm-voiced nighttime stories of eternal, unending torment and damnation. --12.17.54.50 21:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's mostly reactionism, or however you want to call it. I'm guessing that at some point in history, Andy made an off-hand comment saying that relativity is wrong cause moral relativism is wrong, merely because he's Andy and just throws out any insane thing that pops into his head. Since then though, leagues of people tried to show him how incredibly retarded and wrong he was on that, so that activated the Christian Warrior Against Liberals in him. What I'm saying is, it's more about fighting against anyone who says you're wrong.. And man is he digging himself a hole! --GTac 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't hate physics (he loooves Newton, for instance), he just hates modern physics. The more I watch Andy, the more I think that he likes feeling persecuted. He wants to be the one voice of "truth" pushing against the entire establishment, be it scientific, philosophical, mathematical, political, economical... He simply gets off on righteousness. The paradox is that he also claims that his positions are supported by the overwhelming majority. The "common folk" who are simply living their lives day-to-day. If they were exposed to the overwhelming "logic" of "conservative principals," then they, like Reagan, would flock to his side. He claims popular support for his "common sense" ideas, all the while crying "help I'm being oppressed." At least it's entertaining...-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 22:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that he considers the thin veneer of physics that was applied to his brain during his undergrad EE degree days lead him to consider himself an expert in physics. The problem is that he probably only had 2-3 stodgy old men teaching the low level physics classes he took, so he probably didn't get the kind of education he needed in order for that to be true. The prof's relegated to teaching the low levels and non-majors tend to be inadequate to begin with (hence they get the crappy task) so Andy has intellectually inherited his failure to grasp even the most basic of concepts in the philosophy of physics. Either that or he has so much lawyerly information in his head (because he is such a great lawyer) that he had to get rid off all the rest of it, that's why he is so high powered as a lawyer isn't it? --Opcn 09:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As for myself, I suspect that Andy is dead afraid of the slippery slope of modern physics. If you delve into it, it is not long before nothing makes sense anymore and you have to totally forsake the simple understanding of the common man. For example, I consider myself well-educated in physics -by no way an expert, but I can follow non-technical discussion and I have the math background necessary to understand the equations. I read 'the trouble with physics' (it's a book critical of String Theory) and 'The emperor's new mind' (a book basically summarizing the human knowledge of physics). Well, I was pretty fast way out of my depth, trying to come to terms with concepts totally counter-intuitive, with mind-boggling philosophical ramifications. And the thing was, I knew I could not understand it all, and worse, the big 'Truth' would be even more complicated.

Take Andy, now. He firmly believes God created the whole thing. And to him, that means the whole of the universe should somehow be understandable by Man! That's why he likes Newtonian physics so much: no funny business, everything makes perfect sense. If modern physics were right, he would have to come to terms with the fact that he can not understand the physics involved. That, in turn, would mean that he has to defer to 'experts', which is something he can simply not do (they are liberals! And they believe the Earth is old!). --Ireon 11:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Ireon has a point there. Andy's arrogance won't allow him to admit that something is outside his field of expertise, hence all "experts" are just dirty liberals. --GTac 11:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I talk to the boss? (not worth a WIGO)

Only if you're a sysop. TheoryOfPractice 23:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, just fifteen hours, most of which will fall into the Night Lockdown. What is weird in my eyes is that he keeps labeling these timed protections "test" or "experiment". Uhuh, sure, Andy, we believe that you have to "test" this old feature over and over again with your talk page... --Sid 02:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the definition of madness doing the same thing and expecting different results? EddyP 11:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, that's science. Etc 11:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

He's done it again. What on earth is he thinking? ħuman 22:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

More Goat!

I see "goat" tops the list of CP's wanted pages. Subliminal advertising much? --PsygremlinFale! 18:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the highest is - Invalid title in result set; - I think I could guess what that is. - π 23:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The weakly Toon

It is funny. They really DO feel persecuted. --Ireon 16:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What the FUCK? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

..Why do the liberals talk in southerner accents?.. --GTac 17:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is Kels??? Can't she make a response to this? KELS!!!! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Other than some elements suffering from serious Fridge Logic (the atheists should better look for land since they don't believe the flood was global, the Ark was supposedly fairly eco-friendly and back-to-nature, and God apparently missed all those people in his kill-them-all flood), this made me laugh in a good way. Kudos for that, Kara. Further approval because several people will hopefully go "Wait... DINOSAURS ON THE ARK?" at this, making them aware of just how weird The Biblical Worldview is. --Sid 17:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That was one of the funniest thing I have seen from CP in a very, very long time. I love the artwork. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I like how they assume that if atheists came across the global flood and the ark in real life, we'd still be screaming for evidence of the global flood and the ark. They really don't get it do they? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Karajou, and people like him, don't understand the idea of physical or even probable evidence. He thinks that scientists have made up their mind and no amount of evidence will change thier minds. The irony is that, if the evidnece really supported the idea, scientists would accept it. That being said, I love how the "e" looks like a "z" dzny dzny dzny SirChuckB^{That is all} 20:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Deny deny deny!" I'm glad Kara made it clear that it's a boat full of atheists, because you could be forgiven for thinking that the CP sysops had gone on a cruise. EddyP 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope he keeps it up and it becomes a weekly thing. We should compliment him on his art and to tell him to start a webcomic. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: It is going to be a weekly thing. Also, MarkGall has clearly outdone himself there. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Freakin' awesome. Conservapedia - the webcomic. I can't wait. Will he discuss vidja games as well? --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

Wow, what a drop in quality from last week. Conservapedian's really don't understand humour (which is odd seeing as Christ invented it...). I do like that implied by Karajou's "if libruls were around" hypothesis is the fact that we seem to have built sleek modern metal mechanically-driven ships, whereas Noah only managed to knock a few boards together.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 00:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Great point! That's those science-embracing lib-urr-ul idiots for you. It has made me think though; when the world flooded (undeniable), did no one else, at all, have a boat? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope it really is a weekly thing; it will be like watching a car wreck. I assume Karajou tried to open strong by using his "best" ideas already. Seeing his second and third tier efforts are bound to be downright painful. Though I imagine this will be a "weekly" comic in the way they have a "daily" bible verse. DickTurpis 02:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Forget weekly on CP.... Lets burn socks and get Karajou to submit his work to the syndicates. I wanna see this shit in my local paper. SirChuckB^{That is all} 04:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

By far the best bit is the first panel.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

EXCELLENT. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

My opinion of MarkGall is becoming clearer and clearer. --Ireon 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

He is particularly skilled at making people feel good about themselves and, as a result, trust him more for it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out Karajou's tacit admission that liberals, atheists, and environmentalists were spared death, thus making them worthy and righteous. Corry 23:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. They also seem to have nice hi-tech tug boats, perhaps this is his subconscious speaking. But personally, I quite like the comic, it's quite funny if you don't let ideology get in the way. ^bomination 15:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a nice comment here, but I hit the wrong button and wikEd ate it. Quick summary: Art: The lettering is pretty illegible. Comic Sans must be annihilated. Lines must be antialiased, because this isn't 1990s any more. The artwork is reasonably clear and straightforward and suffers only from a slight does-its-jobbiness. Writing: The message it tries to send is very confusing to me at 2 AM with no coffee. <shamelessplug>Only really commenting here because the name "Kara" rang the wrong bell for me the whole time. I was thinking of my own webcomic.</shamelessplug> --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Fresh droppings observed

I'm not much of a CP-chaser, but it's raining and dark... Andy's given us a new toy to play with! ħuman 22:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

*shudder* - π 22:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly feeling the need for affirmation after the spanking he received from Ms Sorenson. And I see it didn't take long before the New Bastardised English version became the basis of his warblings. Still, at least it means somebody reads it. --Psygremlin말하십시오 22:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well whatcha know.--4perf 22:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Lovely. Once again she bends Andy over her knee. Actually, that analogy is conjuring up horrible images, so I'm not going to say anymore. Surely a blocking is looming... Andy can't let a girl show him up. We get another non-answer in reply. --PsygremlinSprich! 22:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is blossoming into something beautiful. Andy pulled a value out of his ass, got called on it, and is flailing wildly. Banhammer soon? Corry 23:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know what's up with this. She's been all up in Andy's shit since Wednesday and still she lives. I've basically been hitting reload on her history page for three days now, waiting for the moment to come. Also? Reading this hurts my brain now, but I think I like it. --4perf 23:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is where Andy's dark void, both the one behind him and the one in his head, got the 43 arc-seconds. Careful observations of Mercury showed that the actual value of the precession disagreed with that calculated from Newton's theory by 43 arc seconds per century. Also, is it me or is "The theory of relativity developed to explain the then-observed shift in Mercury's perihelion of 43 arc-seconds per century." not even a sentence. Great scholarship Andy. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak Intellectual Cripple, what does this whole "5599.7 Mercury" nonsense mean? --Kels 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Did I mention I've basically been stalking Ksorenson? All is made clear.--4perf 00:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I call shenanigans. Something is very very fishy about KSorenson.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 00:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Mah. Gah. "Their position is uncertain until observed, for example." Isn't the position of everything uncertain until it's observed? --4perf 00:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Also, Andy gives us an insight into his "scholarship:" The physics journals all seem to require payment for access... Google returns fragments from limited-access journals. He seems to be admitting that he simply Googles phrases, then gleans what he can from the bits and pieces of limited-access journal articles. It's like quote-mining; except instead of twisting the meaning of the whole by quoting an extract, he is inventing the meaning of the whole from knowledge of an extract.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he's used that excuse before. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 01:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't he know about Google Scholar? It's great for snagging a pdf of an article from a journal that your uni is too cheap to subscribe to. Also, I would like to reiterate how amazing this convo is. "I have no ax to grind, but I am digging in my heels and grinding my ax. Free will, blah blah." Corry 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the protocol on adding new elements to an existing WIGO? [2] --4perf 02:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free. Add an UPDATE or something similar. Lolspeak seems to be falling out of fashion, but fashion is cyclical, so we might just be ripe for some moar, oh hai, and the like. Corry 02:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with 4perf, with the not understanding why Andy hasn't banhammered, reverted and oversighted this stuff yet. I guess he can't do it now because it would be running away from a losing discussion even more obviously than he usually does it, but I don't get why she has been able to get this far. Anyone else would've been talk-talk-talk'd or "no substansive edits"ed out of there way, way before this point. 'Cos she really is hammering him, and is being pretty blunt about it. X Stickman 03:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how far the "no substantive edits" thing would go, even in that place. Since signing up for the site on Wednesday she's totally rewritten the articles on gravitation and black hole (provoking fight #1 with Andy) and … I don't even know what to say about this. Didn't she even scold Andy once for not being substantive himself? Lemme look… Yeah, twice. Maybe those aren't substantive articles about how the Bible predicted the remote control, or how homosexuals are ten times as likely to get the hiccups, but … oh. Never mind. I see now exactly how he's going to banninate her. She's way too liberal for him. --4perf 03:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

He won't do any of that. When Andy is truly and utterly bodyslammed like this and made to look like the rank amateur he truly is, he will apply the Schlafly Slip and just walk away from the dialogue claiming he's got better things to be doing, like proving the existence of the Ark or something. He might try and catch her out with a quick accusation of her desire to ban classroom prayer though, she needs to watch out for that one, it tends to come from out of left field very rapidly when you weren't expecting it, and there can be a terrible tendency to try and respond, which means instant death. Beware the Schlafly Reversal, Kate! DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 03:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I stick with my opinion. Since she has been there Kate has engaged Andy several times, calling him a liar more than once. Not only has Andy not said a peep, she has not been banned or harassed by the rearguard. Also odd is that she is staying there at all. Most reasonable people quickly realize how batshit insane the whole site is, and move on. The fact that she is staying put, and that Andy is putting up with her, suggest that Kate isn't all she seems.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 03:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

She is obviously either a parodist playing dangerously, or has a real-life connection to Andy in some way. Etc 04:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Or Kate is the type who after being slighted like Andy saying she's closed-minded and only believes what she does to suck up to professors to get her degree, refuses to back down. However, she hasn't realized that Andy's mind is so warped reason doesn't work anymore. ENorman 04:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I vote lonely unemployed middle-aged guy with too much free time on his hands, a compulsive need for human contact and a Rain Man-like understanding of theoretical physics and google-fu. --4perf 04:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Or maybe A's had an attack of conscience, and done some reading, and Ksorensen is his own sockpuppet! Think about it. This way he gets to atone for his crimes against intellectual humanity, AND save face at the same time! Oh, Andy! You devious devil! --4perf 04:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am warm and wet that I actually started a decent thread on talk wigo cp. I am so happy now. And reading many new links.... 04:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I love this - she's pointed out in so many ways why Andy is wrong and exactly where he's making his mistake and he's still bleating on - and not changing his mind. Wonderful display of just how closed his mind is and what a deceitful little prick he is. Sadly, she's been silenced by night editing. --PsygremlinFale! 07:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The way Andy keeps saying that it's typical of liberals to stick up for relativity is just... beautiful. KSorenson comes out with facts that demolish Andy's statements; all he does is bleat on about relativity reducing interest in the bible; but it's her sticking up for an indefensible point of view?

I'm not sure there's a Real World connection between the two: Andy's "or may I call you Kate?" would be out of place if they knew each other off-site. That just makes the absence of a banhammer even more odd though. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 08:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume the "may I call you Kate" comes from Andy reading TWIGO. Hi Andy! --PsygremlinSermā! 09:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My favorite part of the whole discussion is when Andy says "antifying_Order&diff=next&oldid=720273 It chills progress by intimidating people against criticizing it. which is Andy in a nut shell. --Opcn 12:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

She must know Andy in real life. Perhaps she's a "true believer" who happens to like physics and dislike cheap lies?-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 17:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is the end times of conservapedia. They're finally going to come out and admit they were trolls all along. There are only 3 people there at all, two parodists and JPatt who thinks everything is real, and the two parodists are playing all the other roles, including KSorenson. Of course, for all this to make sense, Rationalwiki must also be part of the conspiracy. All of you except me are in on it. This is how conspiracy theories work. I'm onto you. I'm onto all of you. X Stickman 18:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Was surprised to realise that KSorenson has not been blocked yet after going through the conversation. Usually one of the cronies would banhammer her by this time. Are they also enjoying it... or does she have some privilege or status unknown to us? Also how did he start calling her by first name?^{— Unsigned, by: Buscombe / talk / contribs}

See here.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 20:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rear guard be damned, Koward is encouraging her. --Kels 19:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I like her articles and explanations. I'm actually learning something on CP... ħuman 22:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oooo, it burns the eyes. "This disorder may be what underlies an interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the impossibility perpetual motion machines. The disorder is not well-quantified." You dipshit, Andy. Take a book and look up "statistical mechanics." Sterile barfbag 23:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This post (best part was copypasted into the edit summary) made me facepalm in real life. Also some groantastic stuff added to the essay itself ("order could be quantified as roughly proportional to the inverse of the surface area of the smallest sphere that encloses the objects"). --Sid 23:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Very subtle, but I think that was the Schlafly Slip. 23:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"I don't want to perpetuate this debate" - that's yer Schalfly Sip right there folks. Show's over, shutters about to be rolled down, sorry, no, we're finished serving, time now gentlemen please, have you no homes to go to? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And finally, the "moron edit comment that has nothing to do with the topic": "(If empirically the promotion of relativity leads people away from the Bible, would you still support promoting relativity?)" And if it doesn't? Andy, do you even know what "empirically" means? ħuman 03:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if one thing that bothers Andy is that Relativity, created by some atheist Jew, is "crowding out" the theory put forward by that Godly Christian creationist, Newton. It sounds like the sort of bizarrely strained logic Andy would find reasonable. --Kels 04:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's that, but there's also the really big deal: Andy understands Newtonian mechanics, and he learned it in high school [from a good Christian teacher]. Andy, on the other hand, does not understand Relativity, special or general, at all. Note how a few minutes ago he called them "relativists", also (I think). So it's a perfect storm: he doesn't understand it, he conflates it with "moral relativism", he doesn't understand it, it was an atheist Jew, and he doesn't understand it; also, he thinks it's a religion - and he still doesn't understand it. ħuman 04:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wildly off the topic, but I'm really not sure Einstein was an atheist. I only know a little about him, but he's always struck me as sort of a modern-day deist. Sort of an "everything before the universe was created is none of my business, believe what you want" kind of guy. Anyway, have you guys been watching this? It's gone completely off the topic of Mercury and turned into a late-night stoned bull-session between college freshmen. --4perf 04:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Einstein was an atheist" is in comparison to "Einstein was a creationist". And, yes, we are all reloading the last diff of that talk page with bated breath. ħuman 06:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, sure. By Andy's standards, Jesus was an atheist. Or at least a liberal, which is close enough. --4perf 06:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is practically begging for the banhammer. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A Less Vain Andy?

It's been a long time since we have seen one of these.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 16:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to remember him studiously avoiding mention of The Numbers when Operation Moist Pages successfully pushed it over the hundred million mark first time 'round. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the Sabbath safe and warm and dry

Doesn't Andy live in Bergen County? ħuman 19:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This might not be the best place to ask this question, but what's with all the bans of car sales on Sunday? Is it to prevent car salesmen from telling porkies on the Day of the Lord? Strelok 22:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he actually lives in Chester, which is in Morris County, and close to where I grew up. I apologize for growing up in the same county as Andy. Not everyone in that county is like that. Hell, from what my boss told me, Chester is pretty liberal for a Morris County town (I think because of its historic nature; neighboring Mendham is Republican McMansion subdivision city). --Crazyswordsman 22:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Strelok, the modern argument is generally in order to give people a sure day off each week without worrying about their competition being open. Car salespeople tend to work from open to close seven days a week, since they depend on commissions, and if you're not there, someone else sells the car. Of course the old reason was to keep god's day nice and shiny. I like the exploration of the conflict this creates for those whose Sabbath is observed on Saturday living in such regions... And CSM, thanks, oh well, I was wrong. ħuman 22:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Negative, he lives in Far Hills, Somerset County. Up 206 about 30 minutes from me. Senator Harrison 01:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Holes

On a related note, What is the current evidence for black holes? I thought their presence have been confirmed already.. through indirect evidence like gravitational lensing and other evidence. can someone with the knowledge comment please?

Black holes have all but been "seen". Read here plus there are many more evidence's. Ace^McWicked 20:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course NASA is your source. Please, please open your mind, Ace McWicked, for your sake. I think you must have been taught that black holes exist by your liberal science teachers as a child and taken that load of liberal claptrap hook, line, and sinker, but we're going to tell the truth here and won't censor criticism of the Theory of Relativity, which may have been exciting almost 100 years ago, but fails to provide any data that's accurate within the margin of error. Godspeed. Aschlafly

If you knew that asking people to open their minds would distract them from reading the Bible, would you still do it? Are you unwilling to deny that black holes aren't impossible, despite the billions of dollars spent on starships and the men to crew them? That sounds like liberal deceit to me. --4perf 20:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

'It flew like a spear'

Nothing, and I mean nothing, could be more awesome than this. --4perf 02:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fucking hell, that's good. No fins, thick at the top?! Really? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Safety's contribution list is just solid gold from one end to the other. I particularly like this one, added on Nov. 2 and untouched since. --4perf 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed. A work of art, complete art. Every word a brilliang. In other news, that led me to one of Andy's many abandoned brilliangasms. We should try to compile these ADDisms one day. ħuman 04:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Safety has solved the deficit problem! Safety for President! Stile4aly 05:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Did he go to the Mugabe school of economics or something? - π 08:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but wouldn't minting a $500 trillion not do something really, really special with inflation. ^bomination 13:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Safety is pulling ideas from C.H. Douglas's ideas. Of course, its ok to do something proposed by a liberal Canadian as long as a conservative is doing it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

quotegen

"If empirically the promotion of relativity leads people away from the Bible, would you still support the promotion of relativity?" deserves a place somewhere, can one of you professionals work it in somehow? ħuman 03:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And so ends the saga of James and the Giant Peach Ark.

I regret that have but one down vote to give for my countries. I can't even follow where to click on that lame wigo. The first link is a block log - who cares. The others are all to the same article's talk page, if I recall correctly. The header is the wigo text, which does not tell a story so much as make me think "and who cares?" ħuman 06:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with Human's opinions on the WIGO itself, I must say that page is some of the best entertainment on the intertubes. You have this guy trying to wade through the massive amounts of stupid Karajou dropped at his feet when Andy comes in babbling some crazy shit about mammals fleeing to high ground and nobody denying there was a global flood. Just when it looks like he could fight back, the parodists swoop in like buzzards on a lame Zebra and pick the carcus clean. It all ends with Karajou asserting that mother's milk fed all the animals (my favorite quote:"apparently he forgets that people get milk from cows. That's cows, Dan; it means you tie Bessie to the hitching post, grab a small stool, and sit for an hour filling a wooden bucket. It's where milk came from in the days before people went Krogering." Cause God knows 8 cows would easily feed the entire world population of animals.... and then, in the end, the ban is handed down, as we all knew it must. The cycle is complete once again. SirChuckB^{That is all} 07:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chuck - this nonsense about the flood is some of the funniest stuff I've ever seen at CP. Though some WIGOs are not well-written, it doesn't detract too much from the hilarity of what's happening at CP. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like how it's written, rewrite it. Sometimes people have a nice idea for how to word it that doesn't come across that well in practice. ^bomination 14:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second here...

If Jpatt is just now getting Check User, what is the meaning of his prior references to "IP of blocked vandal/troll/troublemaker" in block messages? 14:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Either someone else (TK) tipped him off, or else he was just taking random potshots at IPs. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Simply put he's either a lying little weasel, or incapable of original thought and can only function in a 'See TK do, Do Jpratt do' manner. Actually, it's probably both. --PsygremlinRunāt! 15:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep trying Ken

Two spellings. Both wrong. Although strangely appropriate for your grasp of the English language. StarFish 15:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Typical Ken. Although that reminds me: WHERE THE hELL IS FLYING FORTRESS?? We've been waiting for it forever. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't encourage him. For his own good, ignore. Broccoli 16:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama bowing

I don't understand, why are CP bitching about Obama bowing to the japanese emperor? It is custom to bow in the orient, and I would expect the president of the united states to honor that custom. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

They're just up to their usual tricks: anything that could possibly be interpreted as Obama doing something un-American gets put up on the main page. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama bowed to the Emperor of Japan. George Bush the Elder barfed on him (or was it his predecessor?). I think Obama wins in that regard. MDB 16:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A head of stated shouldn't bow to another head of state. Neither to the tenno nor to Elisabeth II. or to the President of the United States. Just my opinion. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama continues his IRL trolling of conservatives. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what the big deal is. Bowing is a custom, like shaking hands or waving or saying "Hi." Maybe those things had some meaning long ago, but clearly none of them do today. Of course, we're talking about people who went apeshit when Obama and his wife bumped fists a couple years ago, so really, whatever. It's just conservative pareidolia; they see significance where absolutely none exists, then try to assert that others are blind because they don't see it too. He's Richard Dreyfus with the mashed potatoes. "This means something! This is important!" --4perf 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I like to imagine that there is a conservative Japanese blog complaining about Akihito's handshake with Obama. The bow is nothing no more significant than Bush kissing Saudi royalty on the lips. --^{Ask me about your mother} 17:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, admittedly that was pretty fruity. --4perf 17:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

More

I am still laughing at the wording of this. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ken's source is even more amusing. I wondered who this mysterious academic would be? Andy has taught us that credentials mean nothing, and that liberal deceit is rife - particularly among those so called professors.. The source described them as being "an academic with expertise about the Japanese Empire, and in general a supporter of President Obama". They're obviously a liberal academic, so I don't know who to trust? Is this liberal deceit, or is a liberal really saying bad things about their Lord Jesus Obama? Andy, help! --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This basically settles it: Conservapedia is the most ridiculous crock of steaming horseshit in the history of the world. Hilarious. Even the rest of the American right-wing can't be fooled by that ridiculous post. SJ ^Debaser 19:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Ken was trying to make a joke, but I fail to see how he (or anyone) could find it funny. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well no, not the joke part of it, the general tone of it just saying how Obama bowed "too low" and as such is an embarrassed the USA. Even the rest of the American right can't possibly think that's a serious thing. That single post embodies how Conservapedia has failed miserably at exposing liberal bias and Obama's supposed belief in Islam/Socialism. SJ ^Debaser 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

28 year blocks?

Take a look at recent changes on CP's block log... since when are there bans for 28 years? What a weird time frame too. Would 30 years be considered too much? --Composure1 01:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's MarkGall who is doing those blocks; I assume he is pointing out the absurdity of CP's long blocks by picking an arbitrary number. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I proclaim that in 28 years from now, not even The Great Wikipedia will remain in any way similar to its current form. Also, we still won't have flying cars. Etc 09:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Bowing WIGO

Is a bit ignorant. Truth be told, the conservatives and Andy have a good point on this. Different levels of bows mean very different things, and according to Japanese protocol Obama's bow was deeper than would be appropriate for equals, and implies inferiority on the part of Obama. Now, I'm sure they didn't take it that way and Obama didn't mean it that way, but this is a stupid WIGO.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 04:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The WIGO is bad because it is poorly written with a bad chose of links and misses any humour of the pigeon incident. As for the bow, Obama is 6'1", the Emperor 5'5", it was always going to be an awkward bow. - π 05:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

scientology (the study of truth)

Why did no one call me to tell me that this was the featured article, I was surfing on the kindle just now and found it, holy cow! At least someone managed to tack a pseudoscience tag on that sucker, but the blurb reads like the Scientology brochure that I am sure it was plagiarized from. Sorry if this has been discussed at length and I just missed it. I have a hard spot in my heart for Scientology (Want to know why? Look at the reviews for Dianetics on Amazon). --Opcn 12:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why they wouldn't hate Scientology. Broccoli 16:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ed is wanking all over the page again. Why does he have a hardon for scientologists all of a sudden? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Beat it, Satan, as it is written, one shall worship the Lord, and only Him shall one serve."

He's managed to get more undignified language into a Bible translation than any parodist. This guy's a gem. 23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I was about to castigate you for exposing parody, but then I saw that it was Andy's doing, and I felt a pang of Poe. --Opcn 23:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Where, if anywhere, then can parody be exposed? These Satan-worshiping sinners need to have their evil works exposed! SoldierInGodsArmy 21:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(Assf)lies makes baby Jesus cry. MDB 23:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he just is memorializing Michael Jackson. Sterile barfbag 23:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn, Sterile beat me to it. I was gonna say "who knew Jesus was a huge M.J. Fan." SirChuckB^{That is all} 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Conservapedia Bible Retranslation Project: Transforming Ancient Literature Into Crispy Word Salad For Under A Buck! DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is the second bit of the quote barely altered? If you preserve the tone he starts out with, you end up with:

"Beat it Satan. Jesus is the fucking daddy. He makes all different styles of drum n' bass."

And I approve this. --Mei II 02:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the good, traditional translation, "Hey Satan, GTFO!"? --Kels 03:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody with an active sock over there have a look at this? I want so badly to ask him how anyone can set out rewriting the bible with "humility." --4perf 03:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We should put together a comparison of the Joseph Smith Bible (the last large scale rewrite by someone with no linguistic expertise) with the Andy Schlafley Bible. For example:

• Andy's rewrite of John 1:1 "In the beginning was perfect order, and this perfection was with God, and this perfection was God."
• Smith's rewrite of John 1:1: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God."

You'd hardly imagine they were "translating" the same document. Or rather, you'd think people would realize they're not "translating" any document, but riffing on one. - Poor Excuse 13:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Street Bible FTW! ^bomination 14:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, though, isn't that the problem you run into when you're translating any ancient work? I'd imagine that it wouldn't be too difficult to find two radically different English language versions of The Iliad or Beowulf, either. MDB 14:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the problem. That's why translators tend to work in groups, have some training in the languages they're translating and sometimes put forewords to describe their philosophy on translation. I read one for The Prince which was quite interesting and revealed a lot with respect to how a translation works; it was stuff like "the original author used word x here, but in context it means y, which is why the translation is different in this other context and I translated it as word z". But lets face it, 90% of this isn't coming from an ancient language but by these guys taking the KJV and fucking with the thees and thous. ^bomination 14:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

More like fucking with the language in general. When the CBP is finished, the end result is going to be an incoherent word-salad. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye, and calling for a liberal sprinkling of WTF. One tiny example is JacobB's seemingly unwarranted change of tense in verse 19 of that same chapter, from saying Gabriel "stands" to "has stood" in the presence, bla bla... how is it possible to depart from the presence of an omnipresent entity? I can only say "good morning" in modern Greek, and my Hebrew only extends to a few coarse phrases and an apology for not speaking the language; hell, I can't even read the alephbet, so no original text for you, but in high school literature class, I picked up another Greek word, which is ὕβρις. That's hubris in a modern English rendering, and it is famous for getting folks into trouble. Sprocket J Cogswell 01:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So, Andy....

... if referring to people with homophobic slurs is actually "criticizing homosexuality", I suppose that if referred to you as a "cock-sucking ass-riding faggot", that would be "critcizing homosexuality", and just fine and dandy on CP, right? Right? MDB 14:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, nice idea. ^bomination 14:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The part I find most amusing is that, once again, he writes a distorted summary, yet links to an article that obviously gives a different picture of the situation. It's as if he's expecting people to never click his links. Andy should spend less time gargling the semen of strangers in bars and more time trying to link to something that'd actually support his interpretation. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

God, I love it. Cut for insolence = banned from NFL. Somebody please burn a sock and mention the fact that he's not banned. I want to see Andy squirm in deceit. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Andy is being challenged on this, by someone who knows a lot more about the players history than I do. (I know next to nothing about pro football.) Apparently, he's got a history of problems. Of course, being a screaming queen, Andy's main knowledge of the NFL is his interest in tight ends and wide receivers. MDB 15:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy is just scraping now. Come on Schlafly. DO BETTER OR YOUR CUT FROM THE TEAM.--Thanatos 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Aww...DWiggins is playing along that Johnson is banned. I really want someone to tell Andy he's not, then we get to see the "effectively banned!" tripe. Star running back for the 1-7 Chiefs who is averaging 2.7 YPC. This one is pretty good. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(unDent) DWiggins isn't going to last much longer, anyway. He just criticized CP in general. MDB 15:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone mentioned it before my sock could get there, but it looks like Johnson will either be going to Cleveland or Cinci. To the best of my knowledge, no player has ever received a lifetime ban from the NFL. High profile cases, like Vick, recieve indefinite suspensions, but those are lifted when certain conditions are met. Someone should tell Andy to stop chiming on subjects he knows nothing about. I also love how Andy keeps phrasing this as a criticism of homosexuality. This was an ignorant thug insulting a critic with vulgar language.... Conservapedia: Supporting Gay Bashing since 2001 SirChuckB^{That is all} 20:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sorry ur a cornball n ur mom birthed u broke. But I'm cakn patna. While u work or school for 5 dollas n hour. Ha! think bout a clever diss then that wit ur fag pic. Christopher street boy. Is what us east coast cats call u." That is clearly commentary on homosexuality in America. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And poverty too, and the plight of the working man.... I support Larry Johnson for Senate. SirChuckB^{That is all} 20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

On Conservatives and Free Speech

This is one thing I've noticed about the American right -- they seem to think free speech means you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, without repercussions from anyone. And that's not the case. The First Amendment is a protection against the government taking action against someone because of what they say, not private concerns.

When you speak in public, or do anything publicly, as a representative of your employer, your actions reflect on your employer. If I went to a technical conference, wearing a nametag that said "MDB of MDB's Company", and started speaking ill of my company, I'd probably be reprimanded if not fired... and rightly so. And if you're an NFL player of any notability, essentially everything you do in the public eye is representative of your team and the NFL as a whole. (That may not be fair, but its reality.) They have the right to take action if you do something that reflects negatively on them.

Similarly, Carrie Prejean faced no government action after her remarks about "opposite marriage". She faced action from her employer, the Miss USA Pageant.

(And as an aside, was Prejean really harmed (until her sex tape came out)? She's become a right-wing darling since then. (Palin-Prejean in.... uummmm...what year is the next election? 2012!) . What's the actual pageant winner doing now? Can anyone even name her without looking it up?)

Conservatives treat "personal responsibility" as a great virtue (which it is). But when it comes to holding people responsible for the things they say, they don't want to do it. MDB 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not overthink this. In contexts like the one we're talking about here, "free speech" is just a meaningless arrangement of syllables. They're trying to make a matter of civility and courtesy into a political issue. I've noticed this is a common tactic not just of conservatives but of political extremists of all stripes. They want to use "free speech!" as a blanket excuse to be a dick whenever they want.

The fundamental conflict here between these people and normal people like us is that they think it's okay to be dicks, and that their being dicks shouldn't detract from their credibility. "Why aren't you listening to me, I'm screaming way louder than anybody else!?"

Of course, none of that has to do with Larry Johnson. He called somebody a fag or something (apparently; I haven't seen a primary source on that) and Andy thinks that qualifies as thoughtful public debate, so Andy's clearly just a moron. --4perf 16:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that almost all of the most notable conservative voices in America are dicks, and that they achieved notoriety by being dicks, is it any surprise that conservatives defend dickitude so forcefully? MDB 18:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

People should stop selling these people megaphones. The more crazed, the more megaphones they are yelling through--Thanatos 02:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with what's been said above, I have a nit to pick with the esteemed member from MDB. It's "dickotry," not "dickitude." Sprocket J Cogswell 09:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just read through the 'discussion' over there, I have never head of Larry Johnson and I think American Football is a ridiculous game (rugby for girls). However, it appears to me that a player was released by his team for being a prick, Assfly says he's been banned for 'criticising homosexuality' and goes on to invoke the bible, Assfly is then shown that the player's release was nothing to do with homosexuality and that the 'banned' player has signed for another fucking team yet still refuses to back down from his entirely fictitious position! What an idiot. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I hereby declare...

...that Andy and Kendoll, beyond reasonable doubt, are either parodying themselves or have true mental problems. Ken's inability to spell 'pidgeon' after TWO tries and Andy's defense of a completely, utterly indefensible point (the NFL issue) - he hasn't even got some poorly constructed sandbags to hide behind and a waterpistol to use, he's just wandering around in an open field shouting out his delusions while more stable people shoot at him - are the worst examples yet and, IMO, the clincher. The question is, what do we do about it? EddyP 17:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy has tacitly admitted that Larry Johnson is not banned from the NFL. Small steps for a big man. I've said repeatedly that both Ken and Andy almost certainly have serious mental problems. We've built up a tolerance to teh crazy. As for what to do about it, unfortunately, everyone in a position to help is either also crazy (the Phy's) or missing in action (dad, wife, John). ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Other than the religion and the obvious idiocy, quite probably yes. Also, you have a Poe in your eye, don't blink or it'll fly away. And quite honestly, we really have nothing to do other than what we have always done. Frummidge 17:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ken seems to have real problems. Andy, however, is an apparently normal guy from a real-life perspective (a guy who teaches kids, lawyers for quacks and is involved with the American conservative movement - nutty, but not a mental health problem). Broccoli 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from his many other problems, he's seeing things that aren't there. Larry Johnson wasn't banned from anything. He's not a star running back. He wasn't criticizing homosexuality. He will play in the NFL again. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Eddy, I regret to inform you that there are people who are far crazier than Andy and Ken. They may or may not be mental cases, but that question is just academic. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone figure out what exactly he's talking about here? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

He's talking about why the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes did not follow the trajectories they were supposed to. There are many reasonable explanations (as described in the WP article here.) Andy, however, thinks that it disproves relativity. For some reason he also mentions alternative theories to gravity (by which I assume he means MOND) although I'm not sure why he brings it up. I haven't read his "Quantifying Bullshit Order" essay yet though. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Did they actually call out the Newtonian model of gravity or did he imagine that? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was being considered for a few years when the existence of dark matter was not yet totally proven. Some scientists figured that it was more plausible that Newtonian gravity was slightly off than the possibility of there being this invisible "stuff" out there. But now MOND is mostly bunk. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

MOND is just the sort of theory Andy would get wet for. The guy who thought it up, a crank from Israel (NOT ANTISEMITIC JUST SAYING), described it as being "pure," because he tried to make his equations fit observations without considering whether they actually made any sense. He basically said "okay, everything we think we know about physics is just assumption, so I'll ignore all of it." And just for the record, the so-called Pioneer anomaly is so small that it can easily be explained by noise in the data. It's a very interesting measurement, but it doesn't mean anything until we repeat it. (Voyager, presumably?) --4perf 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy would only care about it if it opposes relativity, that evil librul plot by that naughty atheist Einstein. Newton was a Christian, so his theories are automatically correct. I notice that on the "Bias in WP" page he doesn't elaborate on MOND, he just whines that WP doesn't mention relativity. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I just found this quote from Karajerk. Free speech contains responsibility. Just as you don't claim a right to free speech when you walk into that theater and scream "FIRE" when there is no fire, you don't claim it by name-calling here (or worse) anytime you please. I also bring this up because I forgot about Andy's "critique" of the Virginia Tech poem. The one thing that truly shows how little a human being that man is.Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 04:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the humanity!

Oh, the horror!!. I bet Andy will drool all over this one. Five bucks (or whatever you non-'Merkins use for money) says it makes it to the mainpage within an hour. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah of course it will, Jpatt's online. He just blocked an account I'd opened before I'd even done anything that snivelling little cunt. Yes, I'm talking to you Jpatt, you uneducated fuck. SJ ^Debaser 22:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

He has checkuser now, so he can block indiscriminately and make it look like he is blocking potential vandals. Although in your case he may have taken the time to see where you live and then blocked you. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The comments on that story are incredible; quite an eye-opener for us non-'Merkins... You poor bastards. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you get used to it after a while. It's not so bad. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Most. Ironic. Andyism. EVAR.

[3]

"I accept your challenge. Having decided that I, and only I, am fit to translate God's Holy Word, and that I need no actual education in Bible exegesis to do so, I will make sure that when I speak for God, I do so with proper humility."

He's a parodist. He has to be a parodist. There's not enough stupid in the world. --Phentari 22:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe." --Al Einstein

I would have to disagree.Frummidge 23:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your irony and raise you Super Irony. According to Andy, "the right to free speech is not merely for people we like. To mean anything at all, it should be defended for people we do not like". If only there was a device for measuring irony, it would surely be experiencing some kind of shattering.--^{Ask me about your mother} 23:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "if only?" For the past several years the authors of WIGOs have mentioned their near-death experiences with exploding irony meters. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That was a bit of bonus irony, but I think it had some sarcasm from its mother's side.--^{Ask me about your mother} 23:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

*sarcasm makes wooshing sound as it flies over my head* Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Back to the opening post, I've wondered before now whether or not Andy his whole blog encyclopaedia is, in fact, one epic piece of parody, following in the footsteps of Landover Baptist. On balance I've decided it isn't, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it turned out it's all for lulz. -- 23:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be blown away if it was. That would make us all look like some of the stupidest people on Earth, thinking a parody website was real for several years. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy was pulling this shit long before CP even existed. If he were some sort of parodist, he'd certainly be taking it the extra mile, making radio and TV appearances in character just to further the joke. That's Kaufman-esque. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 01:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If CP really turned out to be Andy having lulz at our expense, the "Bunch of morons at some site fall for most epic parody ever" headline would be insignificant next to the gigantic "Andy Schlafly trolls his own mother into thinking he's as ultra-conservative as she is" banners that would go up everywhere. ;) --Sid 01:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(unDent)The one thing that keeps me from believing the entirety of CP is a hoax is the homeschooling part. If its a hoax, I can only hope:

• The "homeschoolers" are actually in on it and are all adults.

-or-

• Andy someday pays horribly for fucking around with those poor kids' education.

MDB 01:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is this shit? My drawing of my irony meter plans just went kablammo ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ whats up? 01:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Himmel Gott! CP mentioned in our news!

Local Sunday rag published an article on the 40th birthday of the 'net. Conservapedia even gets a mention! Under a heading describing WikiPedia, it says "It has been accused of bias (the thinking behind its unintentionally hilarious counterpart "Conservapedia")" Good to that even out in the sticks people can see CP for what it is. --PsygremlinTala! 05:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, "local rag". That's funny. ħuman 19:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy needs to stop trying to talk sports.

Andy is a fucking idiot. My proof He really thinks that gay political groups can push an NFL into action. Micheal Vick was the target of dozens of Animal Rights groups and the Eagles still hired him and he's doing fine. Should any gay groups attack the Bengals, they would likely be ignored. Not to sterotype, but not many homosexuals care about football. Not to mention that I haven't heard any groups really calling for his termination for the slur. The people who wanted him fired were Cheifs fans who didn't want this jackass in the team record books because of all his problems... But hey, it's Andy, why let reality get in the way of a good Gay Bash. SirChuckB^{That is all} 06:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as one of RW's resident homosexuals, yeah, not a lot of us care about football (since the football players were the ones who picked on us in high school...), or team sports in general. However, many of the more activist types (I'm not especially activist myself) will pay attention if someone makes a homophobic remark, whether or not the field they are in is one of interest to them.

That being said, this player's case got no attention in the gay world yesterday. The big news was the shutdown of Windows Media, the publisher of numerous gay newspapers. More on that in a bit... MDB 12:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow that post really does show how little he knows. Johnson is fourth on the depth chart as a running back and a team is only allowed to have three active running backs, meaning he can't play kick off or anything for that matter. Nice job Andy. Humiliating league minimum? Seven years pro that is $750,000. My heart bleeds for poor Johnson. - π 03:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

CBP write up

CBP gets a bit of a write up / skewering here http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religionandtheology/1918/the_conservative_bible_project:_looking_for_conservative_diamonds_in_a_liberal_dung-hill?page=entire Steve Kay 11:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A rather good write up too. It's quite remarkable how something quite factually and neutrally written like that still shows up Schlafly as a buffoon. That'd be reality and its well-known liberal bias, then. ^bomination 11:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn that reality (said Smedley). The reality being that Andrew Schlafly is most definitely a buffoon. There's quite a nice article in re: the politicisation of the Fort Hood massacre as well - http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/2039/words_matter%3A_the_linguistic_damage_of_%22going_muslim%22_/. Basically states that regardless of Hasan's faith/ideology/worldview, he was a homicidal cunt, so it doesn't matter whether he shouted "Allahu Akbar", "Admiral Ackbar", or "Welcome to the Groovie Goolies Show", a homicidal cunt is still a homicidal cunt. Steve Kay 12:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Both of those articles were pretty good. I wouldn't call the first one "neutral," but it was pretty close. And I like that they included the "bimbo" thing. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I added this and the Times one mentioned above to conservapedia:in the media ħuman 20:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, no mention of him being a homeschool teacher...dammit. The article makes Andy look bad, but it does not make him look like the potential cult leader that he is--Thanatos 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

On the shutdown of Window Media

JPatt points out that Window Media, the nation's largest publisher of gay newspapers, including DC's Washington Blade, abruptly shut down yesterday.

JPatt, being an asshole, says "When just a fraction of your American audience embraces the gay lifestyle, it's hard to make money." Because, of course, there's no such thing as a special interest publication. Everything has to appeal to a general audience or its doomed, right? Feh.

Print media, of course, is hurting in general. That's true across the board, from the most general interest daily newspaper to the most specialized. Plus, according to my partner last night (I don't have a source for this), Window Media had made some poor business decisions. Basically, they had been on a series of acquisitions of gay papers, including some of debatable financial stability. (The Washington Blade was apparently not one of the financially unstable ones.)

So, it really has nothing to do with the fact Window Media targeted us icky hoe-moe-seck-shew-ulls; it was a bad economy and bad business decisions.

For what its worth, the Washington Blade's staffers are already trying to restart it an employee-owned publication. And DC, at least, has a second gay weekly, the Metro Weekly, but that's more of a social/events type thing, rather than the news coverage the Blade focused on.

MDB 12:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"When just a fraction of your American audience embraces you, it's hard to make money" Steve Kay 13:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC, bugger ya (but not literally)) All I can say is: Thank IPU that my favorite homosecksyooal rag (oh how dirty that sounds) is still around - the link isn't porn, but still NSFW by my reckoning. Print media is quickly becoming obsolete as you say, that's all there is to it. Once the baby boomers have all gone, I doubt there will be many hard-copies of the news getting around.
Now, all the gay men and straight women enjoy the eye candy at that link I provided - everyone else please turn around, face the back of the room and chat quietly amongst yourselves. -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 13:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Homosecksyooal Rag" is one of the best of Scott Joplin's later works. - Poor Excuse 20:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"The web site http://www.dnamagazine.com.au is classified under a restricted category of Nudity and breaches the company's IT Acceptable Use Policy. Your access has been blocked and logged." Steve Kay 13:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. I believe I've read an issue of DNA mag (a friend sent me a copy that had the "oh dear sweet Lord he's gorgeous" gay Aussie diver from the Olympics on the cover), and I think its more comparable to the Advocate or Out in the states, both glossy monthlies, and not the free weeklies that Window Media published. MDB 13:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Another EC, oh noes!)That surprises me to no end; the site isn't porn (PG, maybe M at worst), it's just a gay interest mag. Hope I didn't get you in trouble. Still, us queers are used to being censored, I mean for fuck's sake, this wonderful film (it's not a porn link, I swear!) was rated R in America, which I just don't understand. -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 13:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that surf blocking software generally determines if something it nudity by determinining the pixels that are flesh colored, and determining what percentage of the image is represented by those colors. If its greater than some value, it assumes its nudity and blocks it. MDB 14:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Not so much these days, although flesh tone analysis was once considered to be the wave of the future, then someone wag pointed out that not all humans are the same colour. Nearly all smurf-management tools today use category lists. I'm still trying to get CP classified as "Hate Speech"... Steve Kay 14:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Who you calling flesh-colored, pink boy? - Poor Excuse 20:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no CABAL. Steve Kay 22:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(back on topic) Here in Canada, we all know about special interest publications not doing well financially. I wonder when JPratt is going to post about that one? --Kels 15:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy's Next Class...

... will be on (a drumroll please)... writing?

Oh, that should be good for laughs.

Homework 1:

• Non-fiction: Explain how Ronald Reagan was the greatest President in US History, and the greatest leader (except for Jesus) in world history.
• Fiction: Create an alternate history story where Jimmy Carter was re-elected in 1980. Some ideas might include:
  • Invasion by the Russians (see also Red Dawn)
  • A gallon of gas costs more than an ounce of gold
  • Ayatollah Khomeini's face on the dollar bill
• Extra Credit:
  • For boys: Write a story including sports, chivalry and going out and earning a living
  • For girls: Write a story including cooking, sewing, being a mommy, doing exactly what your husband says, and serving as a prominent conservative activist while raising several children, one of which grews up to be perfect, but one other questions the correct mathematical viewpoints and another slips into a hideous lifestyle. Fictional, of course.

MDB 14:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy's teaching writing?? *ducks to avoid shrapnel from exploding irony meter* Wow. I can't believe it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Argh, foiled again. Why don't they just oversight the Critical Thinking in Math page and be done with it?-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 14:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember, all assignments can be completed with just one or two phrases; complete sentences are not necessary. We don't want to teach liberal wordiness. --4perf 15:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's right, I forgot about that. Maybe Andy will use the liberal style bot to grade papers? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

NONONONO they'd left English and writing pretty much alone before now I don't want them to do this!--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 17:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the big deal? The lulz that will result from this will be incredible. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am much more comfortable with him mocking biology and history and other areas not of my expertise. This is going to be painful.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 17:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually looking forward to it. I don't know enough about american history, economics etc... to properly criticise his teaching (without relying on someone else to tell me what he's doing wrong), but this I can do. If only he'd start a psychology class I'd be well within my area. X Stickman 18:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Only Tom Cruise is qualified to teach that class.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 18:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Tom Moore on this one - it's going to be appalling watching Andy teach this. "Write an essay on why the Bible is the most logical book ever written. Use bullet points." --PsygremlinHable! 18:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

His campaign against liberal wordiness will probably lead him to assign tasks like summarising To Kill A Mockingbird (or whatever he deems unliberal enough to teach) in 500 words or less. That would be interesting. X Stickman 18:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if he makes his students read Atlas Shrugged in all its 1400 page glory suckiness. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hur, what are you all rambling about? Andy taught this course early last year. - π 22:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I went and looked at the homeworks, and all I can say is, "Holy shit. Why would anyone hire this man??" Thank you very much for remembering this Pi. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Never knew about that before. Reading through those homework tasks, they're not as funny as I hoped they'd be. They're just depressing. X Stickman 00:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mark Gall...

...parodist or not, has thrown^img in^img the towel. And left it to Andy to explain^img why Kate went. Not that he will, of course. See.^img --PsygremlinParla! 19:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Excitement. Were we wrong about him being a parodist, or is this just the riskiest gambit yet? EddyP 19:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he wasn't actually a parodist. If he was one, I would think he would want to go out with a bang. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. cp:Essay:Quantifying_Liberal_Style. It has my vote for greatest parody ever. 19:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you have a point there. But Mark may not have intended it as parody the way we mean it - he might have just thought of Andy's fixation as silly but decided to humor him anyway. In any case, I wonder why his parthian shot was serious? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just glad that we don't use irony meters anymore: after Andy's last comment, none of those is left in our galaxy:

Mark, we'll miss you if you don't reconsider. Hope you can return.

This comes on the heels of:

• a discussion of data contrary to relativity
• the news of retaliation against the Kansas City Chiefs football star for comments he made on the internet
• several liberals saying it's just fine to retaliate against people for what they say, on their own time, on the internet.

Free speech -- and free thought -- are disappearing my friends. But not on this site. This site will remain a beacon of free and productive thought and speech.--Andy Schlafly 14:09, 17 November 2009 (EST)

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those moments, people. Soak it in. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ghod, its getting too be like a parody of a dictatorship over there. "Free speech is absolutely guaranteed in Conservistan!" cries the dictatorBeloved Leader from the balcony of the palace before the cheering throngs... about seven seconds after signing the orders to "re-educate" fifteen dissidents. MDB 19:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I love it. Directly below Andy saying free speech is alive and well on CP, there's JPratt saying she said something we didn't like, so we "moved her along for good^img". --PsygremlinPraat! 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, charming. I wonder if the liberal-style bot will still get used, or will it rust away? Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 20:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I love that you suckers continue referring to the existence of the liberal-style bot without irony. 20:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

He's a parodist. This is a risky gambit, but if it works, there will be no doubt in Andy's mind that he's for real. Zelmerszoetrop 20:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Note Jpatt's "defense" is basically "yes, we practice censorship, but only because its necessary to stop the evil liberals." MDB 20:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but you see there's the rub, technically Andy is correct. Conservapedia doesn't "censor" free speech or thought. People are more than welcome to say and think what they please...so long as it is "productive." Removing unproductive posts (like...say things that refute creationist hogwash, promote tolerance for certain religions or lifestyle or basically disagree with anything Andy has ever said) is not censorship, its ensuring that only the most accurate and up to date information is available for the many who use Conservapedia an educational resource. -Tygrehart

More still

This.^img It's not exactly monumental, but the poor guy does mention RW and admit to Andy that he reads WIGO:CP. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

EvanW is established enough to get away with that. Zelmerszoetrop 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that neither Mark nor Katie left Conservapedia and contribute to this spider hole. Could be another good article. - Lupis ^{— Unsigned, by: 208.54.7.137 / talk / contribs}

How do you know they haven't been here for ages? ħuman 01:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a confession: Mark and Katie are both my socks. Oh, and Andy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My faith is shaken

I've been engrossed by CP ever since I saw the Digg on the Bible Project, and, well, it was really comforting to later discover RW and learn that so many of the loonies on that site are actually just pulling Andy's chain. But MarkGall, not a parodist? I can't believe it. :( Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He's still a parodist; just a parodist who got bored. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 05:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

More criticism

Someone else expresses concern about the recent departures, and is quickly reverted and blocked. They've completely lost it over there. The block log has completely lit up the last couple of days. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that user was created specifically to write that one post. I mean hardly indicative of anyone losing it, surely. Ajkgordon 10:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Slightly confused

Does anyone know who this might be referring to? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy will be debating health care at Rutgers on behalf of the AAPS. 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

More info is at the saloon bar, and it's not a "debate" per se - a handful of presenters will state their positions, then comes the free for all. They are providing food to throw at Andy. I so wish I could be there... ħuman 22:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, I live really close to Rutgers but I can't go, I'm going to be busy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ed Poor's still got it

His most encyclopedic article yet! Zelmerszoetrop 22:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My favorite part is the reference. Zelmerszoetrop 22:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I crazy, or is that an oblique comment on Ksorenson? It seems to me like he's saying that people like her just give up trying to argue with Andy, so Andy's wild assertions become "truth." That would be way out of character for Ed, but who knows? --4perf 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more likely a dig at the science that they don't like on Conservapedia. He's saying that they're not accepted because they have convincing evidence of their truth, just because they were pushed on the younger generation while the critics died out. QNTN 23:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, that does sound more plausible. More sickening, because it requires imagining that there are people out there who are literally incapable of distinguishing truth from bullshit. But more plausible. --4perf 00:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement dates back to what it took for QM to gain full respect - all the old relativists (or whatever) had to die off, leaving behind people who had learned QM while young and flexible to build their careers on it. But I may be wrong. ħuman 00:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Classical physicists, I think you mean. Although relativity is considered an extension of classical physics. - π 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that's right. Quantum physics has always sucked; I don't think anybody ever looked at it and said "Wow, what an elegant structure the universe has!" The more common response is probably "God's just fucking with us now, right?" But the experiments were so unequivocal that quantum physics HAD to be accepted as true. No other proposed explanation ever came close to covering the experimental results. Mostly I think Ed's just a fucking moron who fails to comprehend the "I have stood on the shoulders of giants" side of science. --4perf 01:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, what little I learnded made me think "oh, the universe is bouncy-bouncy, that's so cool!" I can almost imagine/contain the idea of the quantum model on an atom in my brain, for a few seconds, before it asplodes. ħuman 04:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that's pretty much what quantum physics tells us about actual atoms: You can contain them for a brief amount of time, but then they asplode into little clouds of probability. --4perf 04:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Tole ya I unnerstoud itt! They'ze bouncy-bouncy. They wibble and they wobble and they won't settle down. They vibrate. ħuman 04:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there goes another irony meter!

"Free speech -- and free thought -- are disappearing my friends. But not on this site. This site will remain a beacon of free and productive thought and speech". Yes, of course free speech is welcome at CP. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

See item above. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Missed that. Move along people, nothing to see here. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Right! RIGHT! RIIIIIGHT!! What's all this then?! SJ ^Debaser 11:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

KSorenson has...

Left the building:

(Block log); 10:39 . . Jpatt (Talk | contribs) blocked KSorenson (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) (Negative personal comments: childish parthian shot)

I didn't manage to get a screen shot before it was nuked, but it was the Larry Johnson main page article that pushed her over the edge. PenguinLust^{Give me herring or give me death}

Please tell me someone managed to get a screenshot, I must know what was said, in the eloquence that only she can provide. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 15:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fuck! Jpratt deleted her user page too. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I get for eating that extra piece of herring before snapping it. In a nutshell, she said she couldn't live with herself if she continued contributing to a site that is ostensibly geared to school children, based on the article. PenguinLust^{Give me herring or give me death}

Gahhh! What a shame. I'm sure it was a very lovely parthian. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Via email from KSorenson:

I dunno, maybe it was childish. But I'd been collaborating with a few other people on some pages, and didn't want them to think I'd just gotten bored and wandered off. So I left some notes about what I'd been planning to work on, then said something like (I'm doing this from memory), "After sleeping on it, I can't in good conscience associate with a site that characterizes 'think bout a clever diss than that wit your fag pic' as 'criticisms of homosexuality.'" And then I said that I can't continue to contribute and respect myself at the same time. Something like that. I used exact quotes of both what Larry Johnson said and what Andy said about what Larry Johnson said … if that makes any sense.

I've been in email contact with one person who'd been writing articles with me, and we talked last night, so he knows what's up. All I did this morning was to say "I can't do this any more, here's why, here's what was going to happen in the immediate future if anybody wants to pick up the ball."

In the end, I guess they blocked me for the same reason the Chiefs cut Larry Johnson: I publicly went off the reservation. Of course, in this case it was more like a "You can't quit, you're fired!" as I was walking out the door, but whatever. Some people just thrive on drama, I guess.

Write back any time,

Kate

(That was all a copy-paste of her email, in case it wasn't clear. I wrote back to ask permission to share it here and she said sure.) --4perf 16:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Now she knows how we all feel, but it took her less time to realize. She is more than welcome here, of course. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 16:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's how most us feel who used to try and edit there seriously. Just before I was blocked I felt exactly the same way. Once you begin to feel that, I think you begin to deliberately push your luck, to invite a fight and give you some reason to go. Looking back over my own contrib log at CP that much comes across clear as day. -- 16:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Echo KingTut's comments above. And as per usual, Andy hasn't got the balls to block her himself, which he was probably itching to do from the moment she showed him up. Still, at least little Johnny boy is around to ensure CP's continued slide into insanity and stupidity continues unabated. --Psygremlin話しなさい 17:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an article in this. I just know it. Suwikicide by sysop, perhaps? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I second the need for an article. If no-one else wants to do it, I'll roll up my sleeves. There is so much win it hurts: KSorenson leaving being shown the door, MarkGall slamming the door behind, and Andy's last comment 'see how it goes when you debate them and they see they're wrong'.--Ireon 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Delinked; apparently there's now something at Conservapedia:The Great Disenchantment. ħuman 05:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ireon, please so it. I'd do it myself but I don't feel up to it. I haven't been following too closely the past two or so months and I probably missed a lot of subtleties. Thank you. Mountain Blue 03:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, this is so depressing. The last couple days I have sat and work and pondered what kind of ass-kicking Kate was going to lay on the fearless leader. I didn't even want to eat my Chinese food dinner when I came home, fired up my computer and saw no new material. Conservapedia has been fun to laugh at and all, but damnit, this was the most interesting thing that's happened there in a while. I hope to contribute greatly to this site, I love finding crank crap. TimmyT 23:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've gotten so bored of the same old trash from Andy and the rest, but this was something great that I hadn't seen in a long time. Certainly it was common before the Night of Blunt Knives, but after that it got rarer and rarer as the sysops embraced their inner (and outer) censor. I had high hopes there'd be more discussions like that on aSK, but alas. --Kels 01:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Now there's a surprise I couldn't have predicted... NOT! ^bomination 17:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the feeling Andy is going to have to do some coverying up. Looking at my blog's stats there's an awful lot of Google searches going on for various permutations of ksorenson. And "5599.7 Mercury", which has me at no 1 on Google on my machine (so take it wence it comes). Eat your heart out Ken. --PsygremlinFale! 18:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(UD) Did anyone get her userpage before it was burned? 00:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)