Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive158

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>, <157>, <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)

"bowing is a Japanese custom of greeting"

This is true for Japanese citizens, but not for foreign leaders greeting Japan's leaders. SoldierInGodsArmy 15:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This was a lose-lose situation for Obama. If he didn't bow then people would be bitching saying that he did not observe their customs and came across as arrogant. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The "conservatives" are saying that an American President should never bow to any foreign head of state, especially a monarch. There was a previous discussion on Ken

's prior criticism of Obama for bowing to (I think) the King of Saudi Arabia, which is apparently worse than kissing him on the mouth. 16:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

@Crundy: There is no such thing as a win-win situation for Obama according to Andy et al. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is. Obama walks up to and headbutts the emperor, and while the emperor is on the floor, he plants an American flag on his chest and starts singing the national anthem, only edited to make far more reference to god. Then he walks back to his plane while pumping a giant foam finger with "AMERICA #1" on it in the air repeatedly. X Stickman 18:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, whilst it was a nice gesture by Obama, the Japanese are pretty tolerant of the uncouth habits of the roundeye foreign devils, and will submit to having their hands clasped between a stranger's sweaty palms. The fact that he only bowed says something. The Japanese PM probably kneels in front of the Emperor. --PsygremlinSiarad! 18:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they also shook hands made me call it all even, in terms of "submitting to foreign dictators" or whatever the problem is. Not that there's a huge amount of precedent for that greeting anyway. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Protocol is nonsense anyway. Exactly what you do matters not one whit compared to whether your intent was to be respectful of another person. If Obama's intent was to be respectful, then yay for him, and let's move on with our lives. --4perf 18:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Shutup and listen to the Gremlin, he knows those Japs! SJ ^Debaser 00:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really... but I wish I knew these Japs. :) --PsygremlinSnakk! 07:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I know you do mate ;) SJ ^Debaser 20:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)To basically echo 4perf, at the end of the day, the President tried to be polite, but made an error due to being unfamiliar with Japanese customs. If I were in Obama's position, I would have quite possibly made exactly the same error, as would, if they were honest, a lot of the people criticising Obama (or, at least, a lot of those in the US and other western countries who were criticising him). Does anyone know what the Emperor actually thought of Obama's bow? If not, until we do, what's the big fucking deal? 92.3.9.93 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This usually gets ignored in history... But does anyone else remember the incident with Bush the elder and the Japanese something or other over the hand bowl? Basically, they were at a dinner and a bowl of hot water was served to rinse hands off between courses. The Japanese guy, not knowing what to do, raised his bowl and drank the water (something totally acceptable in his culture). Rather than make a big deal of it, Bush simply raised his bowl and drank the water as well..... That really has nothing to do with anything, but it was very polite. If Obama did the same thing, the Conservatives would be all over him for not mocking the Japanese ignorance with frat boy techniques.</cranky old man telling stories from his youth> SirChuckB^{That is all} 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There was also an incident where Bush the Elder was visiting Australia (I think) and his motorcade came upon some protesters. He waved at them, basically to say "I see you but I'm ignoring you", but... the manner in which he waved at them is an obscene gesture in that part of the world, equivalent to what we Yanks call "flipping the bird". (Bush said he didn't realize that; I'll take him at his word.) It generated a little commentary and a few jokes, but blew over quickly. It was no big deal. But if that had been Obama, the American right with their philosophy of "everything Obama does is massively wrong", the Republican Noise Machine would have flogged it for months.

Somewhat similarly, during the Presidential campaign, McCain's standard stump speech included calling for the US to make more use of nuclear power, and pointed out that the French get something like 80% of their electricity from nuclear plants. (I may have the number wrong, but they do use much more nuclear power than the US.) He's then throw in a joke to the effect of "now, I know everyone wants us to be more like the French," and it would get a few laughs. (And its not a bad joke, especially considering the target audience.)

Consider, though, if Obama made the exact same fuckin' joke. Every right wing talk show would play the one line, out of context, repeatedly. The blogosphere would be abuzz with outrage about Obama's supposed Francophone sympathies. He'd be deemed a "cheese eating surrender monkey." Some of the real crackpots would try to prove he was born in some part of Africa that was once a French colony. CP would have an entire page analyzing Obama's "mysterious ties" to France. Etc etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseam. MDB 13:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That'd be something interesting to try. Take a few quotes from some republican politicians, claim they're from Obama, and see how Andy reacts (like create a fake news page using that line about France). It wouldn't last long, but unless Andy immediately recognised it as a McCain quote, I bet he'd comment on it. X Stickman 18:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Quim

Are we sure Kinkajou's not some kind of parodist? Beastiepaws 01:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that quim reference too, if he is a parodist he's a bloody good one! (If he's not then he's a total quim) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

They're getting their knickers in a twist about it now! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This^img is just hilarious. "If you're going to look for controversy, you'll find it!" First the word "fag" is legitimate criticism that shouldn't be silenced, now "quim" is non-controversial and people who complain about it are troublemakers. This is beyond surreal. Are we absolutely certain there are human beings out there writing this stuff, and that it's not some kind of super-sophisticated computer program that's just assembling meaningful-looking bullshit? --4perf 02:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If so, then who ever invented it should get the Nobel Prize. Also, I notice that Karajou has not yet commented on the objections. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well no, "they" are not getting their knickers in a twist. Two new users apparently created for this purpose are. ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.80 / talk / contribs}

You mean those two users created in October? Beastiepaws 02:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this even an argument??? Obviously Karibou is a sheltered twat who doesn't recognize profanity when he stumbles across it while randomly putting letters together and chortling to himself through a haze of cheetoh dust. But the million-monkey principle kicked in and he said a wurdy durd. Why isn't the response "Oh crackers, we made a potty error, so sorry?" Why must they circle the wagons at any hint of criticism, no matter what? TWATS, THE LOT OF EM! --4perf 02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He was in the navy, I would expect him to know a list of dirty words about 10 times as long as any I could write. - π 03:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I'm hitting my own face with my own palm right now is because JacobB isn't here^img. --4perf 02:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My only objection is that he uploaded that as a jpg. He should know better. And 4perf, how do you know he isn't? ħuman 03:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How do I know he isn't here, like in this room with me right now? BRB, hitting everything just in case. --4perf 03:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, this is cracking me up. I'm hoping the people who noticed "quim" get banned. Zelmerszoetrop 03:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone help me translate this^img from Andy to English? It seems to me he's saying that liberals don't believe in shame, so … he doesn't have any shame either? I'm confused and my head hurts. --4perf 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He's saying only conservatives believe in shame, and that by using the word, a liberal is pretending to be conservative. To prove this, he claims that yelling "shame on you" at democrats does not result in them turning their lives to Christ and abandoning the healthcare bill. Geez, man, L2 Andy. Zelmerszoetrop 03:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Andy-English, English-Andy dictionary is way better than mine. Thanks for that. Lemme see if I get this straight.

• Only a liberal (or worse, a feminist) would be offended by the word "quim."
• Therefore, the people complaining about the word must be liberals or feminists (or worse, both).
• Liberals (and feminists) have no moral code, being atheistic monsters, so they can't possibly know what shame is.
• Therefore the people complaining must be trying to mock conservatives by claiming that they should be ashamed.

Did I get the gist of it? If so, please fucking shoot me in the fucking face, because I don't want to understand how these reptiles think. --4perf 04:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Carefully planned trolling could get Andy to defend licking the devil's ass, as long as he thought he was pwning liberals. This is an example of such. The "Quim" ref in the cartoon is utterly useless, all I thought was "is that some Hollywood person?" and "Hmmm, I've heard that word before". But now that Andy has taken a stand, he will defend it to the glorious end. ħuman 04:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not. Karibou has deleted his own toon.--4perf 04:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Without first fixing mainpageleft. Very "professional". ħuman 05:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me that SOMEONE saved it. The WIGO'd capture seems to be post-deletion. --Sid 10:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! The capture hasn't worked! (It's only one pixel wide!) Does anyone else have a capture of it? Can it be retreived from the google cache? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Check your browser cache -- Nx / talk 11:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(ud) I've got the 'cartoon'. How do I upload it?82.23.209.253 12:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

alt-shift-u - π 12:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to create an account. Then click here (ignore the warning telling you that you are overwriting an existing image) -- Nx / talk 12:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My advice is awesome, how dare you claim your explicit instructions is some how more "useful"! What units do you measure useful in? - π 12:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt-shift-u only works in Firefox. -- Nx / talk 12:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You and your technicalities. You would think you were some kind of technical admin or something. - π 12:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, it's uploaded, but I don't know where. Sphincter 12:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's here, but I uploaded a png version to make the little img link on this page work. -- Nx / talk 12:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Phew! Sphincter 12:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Quim tangent: "We don't fall for that here"

Does anyone else love when Andy says that? e.g. "we don't fall for that here" His method is thus. Set up some really bizarre strawman. "Demonstrate" his mastery over said strawman. Then say "we don't fall for that here." The irony is delicious in that of course while failing to fall for some made up liberal trick Andy falls for his own "apply the lessons of bizarro world to the real world" trick. I always read it as "We don't fall for that here. We fall for this here." The "we" is a pretty hilarious affection too. Who is this "we," the borg? Some collective? ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 15:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Him and the mouse in his pocket? (sorry if that was too obvious... but not that sorry) Sprocket J Cogswell 16:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it was so obvious I don't have a clue what you are saying. Yorick^{Is Joe Biden Eva Braun?} 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's a New England regionalism, but that would surprise me. Standard response to someone saying "we" where "I" would be more appropriate: "Who is this 'we', you and the mouse in your pocket?" Sprocket J Cogswell 13:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A distant and nonsensical second to the "mouse" quip is "'we', are you French?" ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

PatrickD

OK, so how many of the intelligent Conservapedians have left today? MarkGall, KSorenson, and now PatrickD^img - who's next? Zelmerszoetrop 05:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Better question: are there any left, save RJJensen? Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 05:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

RW was entirely populated by an intelligent exodus from CP once. List = huge. -- =w= 05:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think today deserves its own page on RW. Three respected users, one with elevated rights, ditch in one day? Been a while since that happened. Zelmerszoetrop 05:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I can concur with that notion. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 05:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia:The Great Disenchantment. -- =w= 05:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Good one, Mei!Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 05:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Goonie! -- =w= 06:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The real mystery is what motivates someone like PatrickD to START editing CP... after taking just a quick look at the top articles, 900kb of "Atheism and prostitution," "Atheism and USA IQ decline," "Atheism and acne", etc, what exactly was he expecting? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can truly prepare themselves for how crazy CP really is. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Holes - Proof at last!

Andy: Black Holes lack falsifiability^img.
Karibou: If you cannot falsify this subject, then it must be true^img.

Has anybody told Hawking that we now have proof from CP? –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 06:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy thinks you're wrong.^img He's starting to salt the earth over KSorenson's grave. Taking a shit on the Relativity articles is next, just as soon as he can figure out what they say. 15:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

CP Image Copyright Violations

I've been wondering whether to post something like this for a while. Has anybody ever contacted the copyright holders for the images that CP keep adding under "fair use"? The latest one from RJJ is a case in point: he uploads it with the comment "photo of homeless person fair use for commentary or parody source"... and then just uses it to illustrate an article. My understanding of Fair Use is that you can copy an image or text if you are commenting on that image or text: the Dembski thing is a good example - a detailed commentary has been added, which justifies the copying. Simply taking an image for illustration purposes violates the Fair Use provision.

Is this a bit wiki-stalky or do people think it's worth doing? –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 07:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been done before a few times, I think the general response was that people didn't care that some backwater fundie blog was using their images. There were some deletions by Andy which we assume were because he got a letter from the copyright holder. We have an article about it too: Conservapedia:Conservapiracy (maybe not the best title) -- Nx / talk 09:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Those were nice images. Fuck copyright. --194.197.235.240 09:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I should have known there was a page. Maybe I won't bother then. It's a lot of work to create a minor bother for CP. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 09:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Toast and I have both tried it in different ways. I'm working on getting some major museums interested in the problem. 15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had some success with this in the past, too. The trickiest part is figuring out whom to let know they've been violated.--WJThomas 16:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

At least with artwork, it's probably not that hard to figure out which museum owns the object, and then see if it was one of their images (as opposed to a tourist photo?) that was used. ħuman 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We're bigger than ever

I'll just leave that here^img. Three good users gone in a single day, barely a handful of active editors...We are gloriously marching forward! --Ireon 07:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, they do have 197 active editors, which is up from the 40-odd they had not so long ago. Of course, 190 of those only made one edit before being blocked. The site is growing rapidly! Ole! Ole! Ole! --PsygremlinKhuluma! 08:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think pretty soon CP will go the way of ASK. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It would have, were it not for the CBP, which caused a large flock to the site (mainly of parodists and people complaining, but still). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Are they bigger than Jesus? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 16:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

They're more popular than Jesus now. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

CP has an advantage over AWK in that Andy has the abused kiddies home-scholars to help out (although how many of them actually do?), plus even in the days of less than 50 editors (when is TK coming back to cull the herd again?) he had his loyal band of wingnuts (and RJJensen) to carry on copy-pasting articles for him. CP will only stop a) once Andy has alienated everybody around him, including JPratt (and that'll take some doing); b) Andy admits he's been having us along all the time; c) the bunch of quacks he represents drop him as a liability and due to lack of funds he shuts it down; or d) he's elected as Sarah Palin's VP. --PsygremlinSpeak! 17:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I always thought mom paid for Andy's blog. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

d sounds petty horrifying. If there's even a hint that this would happen we will certainly have to revoke the independence of the United States. ^moral 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Brown25

Bites the dust. haha. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

CPE, did you really make the "Nigger Obama" page? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As a joke, yes. I was one other sock before that today. ConservapediaEditor 18:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You had a pretty prolific career (as far as CP users go) to throw it away on something like that. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I really wasn't a parodist and I didn't get pissed off until today when Andy changed my header. I did call Andy a closeted faggot today and then I played with BarackO. I probably wasn't thinking, but I guess I really wanted to be done with that site, so I did what I did. I never intended to be a "parodist", though I do like to joke around and have always found this site to be funny, even if we do disagree on some political points. ConservapediaEditor 18:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't expect that they would tie me to my IP, I was using this thing called HotSpot Shield. ConservapediaEditor 18:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that helps explain. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dope, I know how I screwed up. I forgot to delete my cookies. ConservapediaEditor 18:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But that wouldn't hide your IP. You have to connect in from somewhere and if that gets blocked (or, likely, rangeblocked) you won't be able to use that service again to register with Conservapedia. ^moral 19:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Next!

BMcP puts his head on the block^img.

There's no one who's going to be left there with any bit of intelligence after tonight. ConservapediaEditor 19:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Except for whatever parodists have managed to dodge Terry Koeckritz all this time. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Deep down, I believe TK and Conservative are parodists. They're way too obvious. ConservapediaEditor 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt TK is playing his own power games and is using CP as his play pen. Conservative however has a long history on wikipedia and other sites so he is genuine. Ace^McWicked 20:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ace is right; we've been watching them both for a long time (damn that sounds creepy) and the evidence for them actually being that crazy is overwhelming. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia day awards

Okay, I had loads of fun organising this last year and being the sad, lonely person I am, I have decided to kick this off again. So here we have The 2009 Conservapedia day awards. Please fight amongst yourselves. - π 11:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the arguing is going to take place on talk page again. - π 13:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting is open on the on the debate page, show your support for you favourite candidates on the talk page. - π 04:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to? ħuman 05:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No you don't have to, but you have free will to reject it. Do so and you will be discredited. Godspeed. - π 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So I have a question

You guys say that your site is a spin-off of CP, yet your politics seems to be diametrically opposed from CP overall. I do sympathize with some of your highlights of CP and especially with this whole football thing, Andy is not making himself look good. However, if you in fact did edit at Conservapedia in good faith, you probably felt there was a systemic liberal bias at Wikipedia, which I still feel, and you leaned at least to the center if not slighly right of center. I agree with some of your points here on WIGO, but I am a conservative at heart. What about you all? ConservapediaEditor 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about my block BTW. I am Brown25. Let's talk. You may not believe me, but I did not start off as a parodist, honestly. ConservapediaEditor 17:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know...You'd have to ask more specific questions to get answers from me. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC)A few of the very original members of RW (known as RW 1.0) were members of CP. Although their motives for editing were because of the censorship and falsehoods presented in some of the science articles. PalMD, for instance, was involved in trying to add some sources to the abortion article showing the "increased breast cancer" thing was bollocks. It may well be that a lot of the original RW founders were politically conservative and hence attracted to Conservapedia, but overall they were rational ones and very much interested in the project reflecting reality. To describe RW as "a spin-off" is probably too simplistic. ^moral 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly say we are a "spin-off" from CP in the same way that CP is a spin-off from WP. You can read about our history as in-depth as you want at our various articles about ourselves and our relation to CP. But our original core editors were removed from CP due to our "liberal" bias. The goal of this site is very different from CP or from any encyclopedia project. But I would say that the majority of our members would be considered more than a little left of center. Does some one have the link to the political compass image that we did of site members handy? tmtoulouse 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The majority of people here are what a member of the Bush the Elder administration termed "pinko McGoverniks". MDB 18:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Moral Matrix potentially interesting reading. tmtoulouse 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I usually agreed with the minor rantings and ravings of the sysops that you would point out and I would vote that up, but if it were a substantive policy point brought up, like over the stimulus plan, I would vote that down. You guys need to secure your site, though, I did have fun with HotspotShield on one of your voting things that I didn't agree with. Don't worry, it wasn't one that was going to make the Best of CP. ConservapediaEditor 18:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Apart from the fact that some of these can push people towards certain ideologies, which skews the results. The basic political compass and the "worlds smallest political quiz" do that quite openly. ^moral 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC x 3 bastards!) In simplest terms (i.e. so Andy can understand without us having to draw pictures) we're all Liberals. With CP there is no "centre" to be right or (god forbid!) left of - you either agree 100% with every insane uttering of Andy, in which case you become a sysop, or you're a Liberal and JPatt and TK have the freedom of speech to call you an atheistic baby-eater and drive you off. That said, many of here did try to edit non-controversial articles over there, but sooner or later you will step on Andy, Ed, or Karajou's crazy toes, no matter what. Some of us just last longer than others. --PsygremlinKhuluma! 18:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I have, over the course of my time on the Wiki, removed certain statements that the Conservapedians would probably label "liberal bias," but that I label "erroneous conflation of rationality with left-wing political views." ListenerX^TalkerX 18:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to think that "erroneous conflation of rationality with any political views" wouldn't happen on RW, but I suppose that's why its collaborative and we have several principles in place for it. ^moral 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see much of a bias in Wikipedia, other than minor things here and there, which is probably due to the fact that it is people world-wide rather then just American's editing it, nothing really systematic. I originally went to Conservapedia because I was bored, had heard about it, and was curious. I was promptly banned for very minor things (no, no vandalism for me) and found this site while googling things about Conservapedia. I have been checking on it regularly ever since.--Passerby25 19:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Reminder for folks near the Rutgers, NJ campus tonight

Andy will be one of the panelists during a debate on health care reform at 8:00 PM tonight. Info here. --SpinyNorman 23:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I managed to make it there, and will post my full recap of the evening later today in the Saloon Bar. I regret that I wasn't able to tape it, but the sponsors had a video camera set up and I'll see if they will be able to share any clips of Andy speaking. Andy treated the audience to some Schlafly Statistics, some statements of misogynist stupidity that brought gasps from the crowd not once, but twice, and unlike any of the other panelists, was called out in the middle of his presentation to cite credible references for some of the B.S. he was spouting.

When the Q&A opened up, I got to go first and told him it was disrespectful to the audience to present pseudo-statistics in such an obviously misleading way, and asked him to show more respect for the attendees' intelligence when he answered my question. His first statement in response was that "he felt threatened", and that "people are trying to censor me". I went up at the end and shook his hand, pointing out that disagreement is not threatening, and criticizing bad statistics (as several others did last night) is not censorship. I also let him know I was Dinsdale, and he smiled and said, "Oh hey, I remember you!" (Ugh). More to come later. --SpinyNorman 16:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, Spiny! So he's being censored while talking at an open debate? Good to see he's as big a jerk in rl as on CP. --PsygremlinSnakk! 17:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yay, Spiny! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have loved to be present at the debate! I'm not sure how I'd react to seeing Andy face to face, it would be surreal. Any possibility of any other CPians there? Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 17:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Where on the doll did Uncle Ed touch you? 75px ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So what is your take on hcr Spiny? The left and right give psuedo-stats or is it just the right? BHO IS THE MASTER MANIPULATOR of hcr stats. If the USA goes broke implimenting hcr would it be fair to say you were being disrespctful to fellow Americans by your partisan rhetoric?--Lupis

<unindent> Thanks for the report, Dins. I'm 95 percent sure that I'm looking forward to reading your recap, and that's all that science requires. Corry 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Falsifiability is easy like ABC

Except at Conservapedia, where they move from one poor definition to the next. Now "it is impossible to prove that no black hole exists anywhere" means black holes are unfalsifiable and therefore liberal. Swap "black hole" for absolutely anything you like and wahey. I just found out that the belief that trees exist is unfalsifiable. I'd start looking for those responsible for the deceit of "tree theory", but then it's impossible to prove that they don't exist anywhere so I guess I better not waste my time. Bil08 12:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap! You just blew my mind. -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 13:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"I just found out that the belief that Pokémons exist is unfalsifiable. I'd start looking for those responsible for the deceit of "Pokémon theory", but then it's impossible to prove that they don't exist anywhere so I guess I better not waste my time." Taking advantage of the "parse once only" feature to improve your premises. ħuman 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Luke 4:15, I am your father!

For a moment, I doubted my own reading comprehension (of KJV English, which can be confusing, especially for someone who isn't a native English speaker):

Luke 4, KJV:

¹² And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

¹³ And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.

¹⁴ And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.

¹⁵ And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.

So far, so good. Now I noticed Andy's "translation" of 4:15: "Jesus taught in the synagogues, with the unique glory of God."

What? I read that more as "Jesus was glorified by all the people for his awesomeness". So I checked a comparison page that gives several Bible versions of the same verse, and apparently my intuition was correct. So WTH, Andy, what did Jesus do to you that you have to deny him praise from the people?

And then he wonders if the word "unique" is fitting there AND brags about using that word in his "Word Analysis of the Bible" essay Trusworthy Encyclopedia Article? GAH. --Sid 13:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, only liberals deify their leaders and seeing as Jesus (and by implication, the whole Holy Land, except the Pharisees) was conservative... they they... wouldn't... deify... him... oh snap. Was Paul a *gasp* liberal? --Psygremlin講話 15:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You know what a more accurate term for Paul is? Hussein! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ohm's Law WIGO

Come on, Bmarshall was obviously blocked for this edit. Suggesting that the Ohm's Law contribution was the "moronic vandalism" is disingenuous. alt 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - I did notice that after I'd put the WIGO up, but I have deceitfully left it up there. What do you think we should do with it? Bin the whole WIGO, or do you think it's worth WIGOing that they delete factual information? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC)The Ohm's Law edit was a bit inaccurate, claiming that R needs to be constant, but certainly did not sink to the level of wandalism.

But, along with alt, I missed the part where it says that the e=i/r edit was the "moronic vandalism" though. It was just the most recent in a short spate of edits, one of which is still on top of the history as of this timestamp. Post hoc =/= propter hoc.

Bit of trivia for you: Light bulbs make good mains current limiters. Even in the bad old days, an idling amplifier would barely draw enough current to cause a dim glow, and still see nearly full line voltage. You could choose the bulb wattage to keep things cool if god forbid there was a shorted output device. Try that with a coiled fluorescent lamp-- hah. Sprocket J Cogswell 20:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, in this newb's opinion, the whole WIGO ought to be binned. Do with it what you will... Sprocket J Cogswell 20:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the OLe link is the one you meant it to be. Incandescent lights have been used in loudspeakers as current-limiting devices for decades - as they heat up, their resistance rises. It's funny seeing old boxes of small lamps painted black. ħuman 20:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Right you are, of course. It's fixed now. Learn something every day; cool! How many decades? Never saw such a thing, and in the 1970s I pulled an awful lot of speakers from their cabinets to be sent to the old guy who re-coned them in his garage, and did a fine job of it. Sprocket J Cogswell 20:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I clarified the WIGO. They look stupid enough without our help. - Cuckoo 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Terry is up to his old tricks

The latest news item^img, citing an "overwhelming" (read: 53%) number of "American voters" (read: Fox viewers) disapprove of "most of Obama's policies" (read: healthcare legislation). He couldn't have been more deceitful if he tried....oh, wait. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know that whatever his 6-hour operation was for, it still left him a complete cunt. --PsygremlinSnakk! 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it was gender reallignment. From a being a real prick to being a total cunt. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 00:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Block till you drop

I know it's puerile, but <capture>this guy's comment^img did make me chuckle...</capture> DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a little funny. Probably not WIGO-worthy though. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's not WIGO material as it's an obvious piss-take. A funny piss-take though! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he's glad TK is back to show him how to block the internet properly, because by blocking "64.185.237.134/32", the little moron clearly hasn't got a clue. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Some days I wish TK would just block the entire internet and get it over with. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of block based fun; I can see why JacobB blocked this guy for edits like this, but it's quite amusing if you only look at the block log, as the reason given for the block is simply 'mentioning Colbert'. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!}

Eh?

I see on Jinx's userpage he has an infobox, which reads, "This user knows committers of genocide hate gun control." Did somebody make a mistake, or does Jinx know something about the Republican Party we don't? --PsygremlinПоговорите! 23:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you Psy. Jinxie thinks that gun control prevents genocide because people with guns can stop authoritarian governments. The Republican Party is anti-gun control. In his world, it makes perfect sense. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

But surely they'd be in favour of gun control, because there'd be less guns to (allegedly) stop them? It should read "love gun control" surely? (Although it is 2am here, so maybe not.) --PsygremlinSprich! 23:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is some "Totalitarians love gun control" box Jinx has on his page, I think. The "hate gun control" box^img was created by Wikinterpreter^img WAYYYYY back as balance, apparently. --Sid 23:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

@Psy: Oh, I see your point. In that case, it is kind of funny. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This user knows that Jinx can't complete a basic syllogism.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's just too funny by half. Just shows how stupid Jinx is. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 00:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that takes me back. Uploading images to Conservapedia? Man. Oh, and hi TK! --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

Safety clarifies things for us

Thanks, Safety! I was confused. Zelmerszoetrop 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would never have known that "sold" was a verb. Now the meaning of the passage is clear! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the same person who wrote this beautiful 'essay' about NASA using nuclear explosions to get back from the moon. Is he a (rather poor) parodist, or a real conservative conspiracy nut? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading that "essay," I think he is a parodist. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientology

Wikipedia may have banned scientologists I'm not sure if the Huffington Post is serious or like the Onion. It that's true we know why scientologists are now at Conservapedia. ^{— Unsigned, by: Proxima Centauri / talk / contribs}

I thought it was just topic bans, not entire bans. Not sure. Either way, I don't think there are any scientologists at CP, are there? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article is "featured", although its utter crap and not as damning as, say, our article on it, it doesn't seem as if some pro-Scientology peeps have been writing it. ^moral 17:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If there aren't, I'm sure they'd be more than welcome alongside Dean "Ding Dong!" Slade, Ed "Rama-lama-ting-ting" Poor and Andy "I wanna be Jim Jones" Schlafly. --PsygremlinSpeak! 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Creepy Ed is a hardcore Moonie, not scientologist. Joaquin is Mexican so I always assumed he was Catholic. Those are the principal authors. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What's interesting is that nowhere in the article does CP denounce it as a cult. (I just searched for the word, couldn't actually read it). You would have thought a site passing itself off a Christian would have lots to say about a religion that thinks we're all descended from space men. But then, they give the Mormons and Moonies free reign too. --PsygremlinParlez! 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Conservapedians have demonstrated that they are conservatives first and Christians second, and been criticized for it (e.g., Joseph Farah's CBP criticism). ListenerX^TalkerX 18:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dirty Lie-bur-uls hate Scientology ergo Scientology is good in Andyland. Makes you wonder what they would write about satanism if we wrote an article condemning it... –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 01:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If I remember my Satanic Bible correctly, probably something like, "Although Satanists have given us excellent insights into conservative principles such as initiative, self-reliance and competitiveness, critics cite the fact that they worship the mortal enemy of God." ListenerX^TalkerX 16:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So I started reading 1984

I'm 15% of the way through it (kindle doesn't have page numbers) and just hit the section where the protagonist is doing his work, and the parallels with how CP runs things are eerie.

Winston did not know why Withers had been disgraced. Perhaps it was for corruption or incompetence. Perhaps Big Brother was merely getting rid of a too-popular subordinate. Perhaps Withers or someone close to him had been suspected of heretical tendencies. Or perhaps — what was likeliest of all — the thing had simply happened because purges and vaporizations were a necessary part of the mechanics of government. The only real clue lay in the words ‘refs unpersons’, which indicated that Withers was already dead. You could not invariably assume this to be the case when people were arrested. Sometimes they were released and allowed to remain at liberty for as much as a year or two years before being executed. Very occasionally some person whom you had believed dead long since would make a ghostly reappearance at some public trial where he would implicate hundreds of others by his testimony before vanishing, this time for ever. Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed. Winston decided that it would not be enough simply to reverse the tendency of Big Brother's speech. It was better to make it deal with something totally unconnected with its original subject.

George Orwell, 1984, Ch. IV

It looks like the CP article is mostly Creepy Eddy and Addison's doing but at some point Assfly gave it a stamp of approval in the talk section. None the less creepy --Opcn 00:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

While I don't really enjoy plugging my own work ^{*cough*bullshit*cough*}, you might be interested in this essay I wrote on the topic of Conservapedia and 1984 - it's hideously outdated, but still relevant. The book is a very fascinating read and I hope you enjoy it; just try not to get too creeped out by how accurate some of Orwell's insights were. -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 02:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like that should be in mainspace on this wiki, many articles seem to be narratives about what (is going/has gone) on at CP. --Opcn 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, you need to look around more than, read some of the ~3,660 article in the mainspace. Seeing as your only mainspace edit is to the CP article, it seems to me you are only finding what you are looking for. - π 02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I sorta agree with the tricky-math-thing on this one. While I appreciate you saying that it's worthy of the mainspace (well, that's what I inferred at any rate), I don't think that it really belongs in the mainspace. I've thought of replacing Essay: with Conservapedia: however someone would have to update it first, and I have far too short an attention span to do that at the moment. Besides, the less CP we have in the mainspace the better, as while CP used to be the central focus of this site, we've since moved on. -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 03:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you move it to CP space someone can update it for you, or we can leave it, maybe nominate for best of CP or something even though it is an essay. - π 03:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought that CP was considered a subset of mainspace, that is what I meant, sorry. I thought what went into mainspace was being an article (not a discussion) that was represented as a work by the community. I am not an avid wiki-er. --Opcn 06:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Opcn, I read Animal Farm and 1984 in the last month, and as you progress, the similarities will frighten you. Although the constant re-writing of history is something eerily like the constant oversight and blocking by the sysops. SJ ^Debaser 12:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course they're similar, they're written by the same damn author dude. (j/k) Zelmerszoetrop 02:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu

Since swine flu has been mentioned on this page, here is a link to a report on the Australian experience. We have now passed out of our flu season.RagTop^{Gone sailing} 07:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well, most of us Aussies (who could be bothered getting it done) are vaccinated. I know I am. -Redback^{on the toilet seat} 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Winter's rolling on here in the UK, which means it's flu season (I assume HA!) and as I'm on a university campus and surrounded by students, I'm hoping I don't get it... SJ ^Debaser 12:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just had it. To be honest I don't see what all the fuss is about. It made me very tired, blocked up and unable to think very clearly, but I've had much worse 'flu before this. Yes, it can be fatal to the young, old, and people with prior conditions, but then so can almost anything else. The big deal seems to be the degree to which it spreads. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 13:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

From the experience here in Ottawa (my roommate had it, and I had a pretty minor case that didn't amount to too much), it does lead to nasty complications on a regular basis. Serious sinus infections as a result have become common, and apparently the risk of pneumonia goes way up. Not so much a problem with the flu itself as much as the side effects. --Kels 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Kinda like AIDS, but not, um... not quite as bad... SJ ^Debaser 19:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I found this on the BBC website about an invention to dispense holy water and avoid cross contamination of swine flu. However, if holy water is supposed to be so powerful why doesn't it kill swine flu in the first place? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

They're citing PrisonPlanet now?

One of CP's latest "In the News" items is some mumbo-jumbo about Al Gore's new book using PhotoShop. No real big deal there.... except the source is prisonplanet.com, a whacked out conspiracy loon site.

Perhaps they needed to find something even nuttier than WorldNuetDaily since they criticized the CBP.^{— Unsigned, by: user:MDB / talk / contribs}

OM-friggin-Gawd. Isn't this the same mob who publish all David Icke's stuff? Ah, at least they see Icke as a credible source. Then again, it does explain why Andy's cry of 'The Truth Shall Set You Free' is the same as an Icke book. He-e-ey! I think I've just hit on a whole new conspiracy theory here. --PsygremlinParlez! 18:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Two ads off the site: SilverLungs, a system for breathing colloidal silver to cure what ails ya, and Understanding And Surviving Martial Law: How To Survive And Even Prosper During The coming Police State, a book with a self-explanatory title. Hilarious. Corry 20:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Next they'll be citing Metapedia. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

prisonplanet and infowars are both part of the Alex Jones 'media machine', as well as his radio network. Alex Jones, for those who may not have picked it up, is completely nuts. -- CodyH 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a month out of date, but...

Andy to TK: "Welcome back! Your appearance and block have made my day!" Loser. SJ ^Debaser 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

and here I was thinking Terry made Andy's hole weak. --PsygremlinSpeak! 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC) yes, I've used it before, but it's that good

That is a bad mental image and it's not going away! -- 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

*shudder* Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You dirty sod, PsyGremlin... SJ ^Debaser 16:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

SpinyNorman is Famous! Gone but not forgotten

Well... SpinyNorman is cryptically alluded to! I wonder why Andy is "waiting" to read the official account of the "intense" debate. Spin control? Poor memory? We all know that if there is one thing Andy isn't short on it's opinion, so what's with the silence?-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 02:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Andy's waiting to see if the coverage is a superficial mention of the event and the speakers, or if there's any mention of the exchanges that led to his interesting use of the adjective "intense". I'm putting my recap together for a posting on the Saloon Bar now, and it should be up shortly.

Also, I wanted to mention for the record that when I told Andy I was Dinsdale, I wasn't looking for a shout-out from CP. I just wanted him to connect the pen name to a human face, and realize that while we vehemently disagree on many things it's ideological, not personal. I don't believe anyone else from CP was there (or RW for that matter), but if the opportunity ever comes up again I'd be glad to join any of them in a beer summit afterward. --SpinyNorman 04:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the Rutger's paper, the Daily Targum, and while there's an article it doesn't mention Andy at all, and there's just a passing reference to "a few verbal jabs". I'll get back to my recap, and we'll see if Andy has anything to say. --SpinyNorman 05:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone with a CP account might want to pass the Targum link above on to Andy, who said he was waiting to see any news report before he posted his own thoughts about the evening. --SpinyNorman 21:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So called Enlightenment

They couldn't resist it could they? I also noticed that the first few paragraphs (I didn't get any further) of their deism article are typical fundamentalist speak. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 04:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The light burns them. Their flashes of stupidity blind them--Thanatos 05:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It is ironic that they should condemn in such terms a movement that brought forth the Most Holy God-Ordained American Revolution. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Psalm109:8

This reminded me of a news story I read recently of a pastor who said he was praying that Obama would die. To me that's just rhetoric, but suppose you genuinely believe in the power of prayer; then you must also believe that your prayers have some chance of having effect, and that your actions could actually result in Obama's death. Should that make you guilty of Treason? In practice no court is ever going to convict you, because despite Christianity being almost a requirement of political office, no one believes in it that deeply when the chips are down. Would make a good debate topic for Conservapedia maybe.76.121.59.123 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I know, I heard about that earlier tonight on Mike Malloy's show. Talk about a bunch of fucked up bastards that promote tha kind of shit! AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 05:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell, that one passed me by. here's the story, from Fox no less. What a disgusting human being. I hope that God strikes Barack Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy and I hope it happens today DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't find it, but that's the guy. Now if his faith is genuine, then he is making a genuine attempt on Obama's life. I think most juries would agree that he had no chance of success, but if I planned to kill Obama with a sharpened pencil say, but was too inept to have any realistic chance of success, would that let me off?

No, that is just as illegal as the people who leave threats on Obama's message line. Oh, and can you sign you posts with four tiles like this: ~~~~ The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, threatening him with a sharp pencil is illegal, but praying for his death isn't. Because despite what Schafly would like to believe, the official policy of the USA is that prayer is a load of hocus pocus and claims of Christian belief on the part of Bush, Obama et al are just a political necessity.76.121.59.123 06:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you completely. Goddamn, I may not have like Bush AT ALL, but I never wished for his death like these rabid right-wing nutcases have and do. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 06:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is really incredible. According to this story, the man who showed up at Obama's Arizona rally with an AK-47 goes to this church. How then, is this any different from the mosques that the CIA has been infiltrating? Junggai 09:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Because they're good God-fearing American Christians, of course, not evil moon-worshipping Ay-rab Muslims. MDB 15:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette mentioned this in his latest column. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 15:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

TK's Convalesence Continues

Judging by the number of recent blocks he's obviously feeling a lot better. He also deleted MarkGall's user and talk pages ("Vandalism / lies" and "User/Talkpage of infinitely blocked user and/or vandal") rather than using the Retired template. Good to see that he's still an asshole. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 15:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Block by block, lie by lie, he'll get back to his old self. 16:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It just gets better. MarkGall unblocks himself (hey TKunt - if you check the block log Mark blocked himself), just in time for Andy to revoke his rights and then TK jumps in and reblocks him, claiming "You have self-retired, therefore you lack standing to undo the block of a senior administrator. If you wish to return, simply email the request to me." Good to see that he's making up for lost time... and gone back to the bullshit of calling himself a senior admin. Hey TK - saved Nancy Reagan from any assassins lately? --PsygremlinTal! 17:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And "Crème brûlée" bites the dust because it's Pop Culture, while Biryani and Jamón ibérico go because they're unauthorized. I know I could WIGO this stuff, but since we all know by now that TK is a parodist, there isn't much point. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 23:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Shorter WIGO

TK: Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia.^img-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 18:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think someone should tell Ed Poor what TK's been saying; In my judgment, creation of dozens of stubs on such examples is non-encyclopedic DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised you lot aren't making much more of this, it really is a stick to beat them to death with. Sphincter 03:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, we're allowed to beat people? I think its really just par for the course with TK, everyone is immune to his nonsense by now. I was simply rebelling against the librul wordiness, and not-to-the-point-ness of the WIGO entry.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 03:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Liberal style bot...

...is go!!1!!1^img TheoryOfPractice 19:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I bet 100 internets TK blocks him for running an unauthorised bot. Actually, TK is fucked - remember it counts talk page edits negatively and that's all he does. --PsygremlinParlez! 19:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Either that or Andy suppresses the results. Recall: JPatt is more conservative than the dear leader, and "conservative" means virtuous in CP land.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 20:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it just downloads stuff, blocking JacobB wouldn't make much of a difference, except that he couldn't post any results. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 20:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it fair to suggest then that MarkGall and JacobB are either the same person or at least close allies? Why would anyone actually write a liberal style bot? 20:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Publius (what a silly name), somebody would obviously write such a bot to quantify liberal style. Conservatives realize everything can quantified - liberals reject this notion, as they do all logic. That you think nobody would want to write a liberal style bot tells me you also are against school prayer, and support baby killing abortionists. I encourage you to open your mind to the possibility of robots detecting liberals and hopefully, someday, getting the power to auto-ban them. Zelmerszoetrop 20:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

YES!!! CP is now closer than ever to blocking the entire planet. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What I would not give to see the source of that bot. Time stupid Hoover! 21:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

10 PRINT "Andy Schlafly: 2.1"
20 PRINT "JPatt: 2.2"
30 PRINT "MarkGall: 1000000000"
etc
–SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 21:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. I actually LOLed when I read this^img! Hi TK! Glad to see you're still reading us, you Total Kunt. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 00:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

JacobB spanks and TK comes back. This one could run and run! –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 01:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, I should learn to type and read faster XD Didn't see your post until now! --Sid 01:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we're all hitting F5 pretty fast at the moment... –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 01:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if at least Jacob read the Sixth CP Commandment ("no unauthorized bots") completely: "Search engine and read only bots are exempt from this Commandment." Then again, people get hammered all the time for following the Commandments, so yeah, he's as good as dead, Jim. If he's still around tomorrow this time, I'll be genuinely surprised. --Sid 01:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, things get more interesting than I had imagined: "It's Andy-approved" - "Prove it." --Sid 01:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fucking hell, TK is such an arrogant arsepiece! The way he speaks to other genuine CP users is unbelievable! I can't see them having any contributors if he carries on like that. What a fucking cock. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well he has been away blowing sailors for money having an op, and CP almost returned to a sense of normality in his absence. TK's going to be a busy little beaver getting it back to its ghost town status. How long do you think Ms Sorenson would have lasted if he'd been around? --PsygremlinPraat! 03:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The guy makes a decent suggestion to run it on other media - they may well get shocked to find that WP scores "better", maybe not, but it would be hIIIIlarious if it did. ^moral 10:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There goes another one

JLauttamus calls it quits^img. And only half a year after his puppeteer (not)! Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 19:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sniped by less than a minute :( EddyP 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Eddy! Funny we happened to notice at the same time. At least you got it on the main WIGO page before I had a chance. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 20:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Go, baby, go! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So either everyone is having the same revelation at once, or whoever was Mark, Kate, Patrick, and JLattamus is getting lazy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Was ANY one person Patrick or JLattamus? Zelmerszoetrop 20:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think so... JLatt really didn't contribute the way all these others did. 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

JLauttamus is a friend of mine on Facebook, pretty sure he acted alone. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 03:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that Mark and Kate were probably different people. --Opcn 21:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The timing was coincidental. I'm suprised I lasted as long as I did ... -- 71.61.139.153 21:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Who were you, mystery IP number? Zelmerszoetrop 21:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Say, I don't really pay attention to the block logs over there any more, have I been blocked as anyone lately? I know I was blamed for a couple of socks a while back that weren't mind (nor were any others, ever). --Kels 00:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

RJJ WIGO

Ur... someone mind checking into why there is no screenie for this one, or is it just me? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone used the wrong tag... –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it has been a long time since I put anything on WIGO CP. - π 23:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mystery Ban!

Safety gets banned, with a citation to read his talk page to learn why. Unfortunately, nobody will ever know why, because then TK changes the ban and deletes the talk page, leaving us wondering - what did Safety do wrong? link Zelmerszoetrop 00:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

He kept adding the liberal and non-canonical "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do" line to the relevant verse in the Bibble translation. TheoryOfPractice 00:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(E/C) I know. I *almost* WIGOd that one but without a grab of the talk post it didn't make much sense. The real WIGO is that he was blocked by JacobB with the reason "suspected parodist - see users talk page. if you feel this is in error, email me"... then Terry Kockring reblocks for "Inserting liberal multiculturalism / world view into articles: Adding email block, and extending block for obvious insertion of lies.". That was for 5 years, but the user and talk page were deleted for "User/Talkpage of infinitely blocked user and/or vandal". Then again, since YECcers believe 6000 years = 14.5 billion years, I suppose 5 years can equal infinite. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 00:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This^img is a strange bit of work from that guy--I don't know what the hell he's on about, but it's worth getting a screencap of for the sheer weirdness of it. TheoryOfPractice 02:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye, we discussed that a few sections up. He probably was a parodist, but the blocking shenanigans are still quite amusing. TK really thinks he's got power over his minions doesn't he? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

TK is pissing his knickers

"Please email me the results so I can 'distribute' them to other admins."

It's like a scene in a horror film:

• A: ...and I think one of US is the serial killer!
• B: Have you told anyone else?
• A: Not yet.
• B (drawing a steak knife): Goooooood...

Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it may just be a continuation of his power games. This would be a threat to his ability to block indiscriminately. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Jinx is having a rough go.

Take care, and good luck, man. TheoryOfPractice 01:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My heart goes out. I can only imagine how afraid he must be. --4perf 01:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck Jinx. I hope it all works out. I have had several friends already have the swine flu, and their experience I'd not wish on anyone. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 01:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Get well soon Jinx. We all mean it as fellow human beings. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ current location: between the round possibility 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes for a speedy recovery. I hope it's nothing serious. ħuman 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When the twat makes a good recovery (which I genuinely hope he does - I wouldn't wish illness on (nearly) anyone), do you think he will thank the Doctors who treated him, the wealth of medical knowledge gained through science that has tripled life expectancy over a few hundred years, or his god? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Deltastar. Try not to be a dick, mmmkay? TheoryOfPractice 02:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

How exactly am I being a dick? I think Jinx is a twat. I hope he gets better. I questioned whether he will thank the people who treat him or his sky-pixie. I don't find any of that dicklike. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Response on your talkpage. TheoryOfPractice 02:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny, coming from you. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

One should never wish anyone ill lest the wish come true. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jinx - get well soon. Pop in sometime and yell at us. -- =w= 02:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I miss ol' Jinx "penis-bone stuffed bum" McHue, hope all works out. We didn't get hit so bad here in NZ but I hear the US is getting it badly. Ace^McWicked 02:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a dick at all to Jinx personally, but will Conservapedia now admit that H1N1 is a national emergency and not just some scare perpetuated by Obama. Nah, doubt it. ConservapediaEditor 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

One can start to call it a national emergency when it infects 1% of the population... ListenerX^TalkerX 03:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

All the best Jinx, sorry to hear about your whole family getting it, and now you being ill too, totally sucks. Get well. SJ ^Debaser 12:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Delta, I agree that he was a dick and remains a dick. His change in personal circumstances doesn't make him any less of a dick unless he has some kind of epiphany. It'd be in poor in poor taste to go around his house and toss stones at him, knowing that he's probably unable to chase you, but there's no evidence to suggest that he's any less of a dick than he was last week. I too hope he makes a quick recovery since he's done nothing that would warrant death. That seems the honest approach, even if it's not the polite thing to do. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you and your family are better soon, Jinx. --SpinyNorman 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll reserve the snappy comments and other criticisms until I know what is wrong. I wish you a speedy recovery, and hope that whatever you have now isn't life-threatening -- CodyH 22:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont see why some jerk from the internet should get special treatment: if it was one of his perceieved "enemies" who was ill, you can be sure he would be dancing around gleefully. He's a nasty, hateful fuck and if he has something incurable and he dies I could care less. I probably wont even notice. 66.45.240.66 22:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, MC. Nice to see you're still an immature little bastard jealous of all the grown up men with a penis. As for Jinx, and this is coming from someone who is first and foremost an enemy, sorry to hear about your troubles. I sincerly hope you get well and feel like your old self again. SirChuckB^{That is all} 22:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, Jinx. Flare^Talk 21:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

God's judging you, Mr. McHue!!! Repent now!!! SoldierInGodsArmy 05:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to vote down (almost) every stimulus-related WIGO

If Andy and company actually stuck to making fun of the stimulus bill, and specifically the piss-poor reporting and fuzzy statistics that are posted on recovery.gov, instead of the extremist crap, they might actually have an interesting site to go to. You want to spend almost a trillion dollars on a bill advertised to create or save, (whatever the hell that means ... I guess you could say 100 million jobs are saved every month), 4 million jobs, then you damn well better have a transparent accounting and statistical analysis for how you arrive at your numbers, starting with not making up Congressional districts because you're too lazy to research with congressional district, say a few billion dollars, are supposed to go to. If Bush did this, liberal satirists would have a field day with this. ConservapediaEditor 05:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Biden claims that if the stimulus did not pass, we would have faced a depression, not recession. While it is hard to prove, it does give ya something to think about. Though you are right, it should be a somewhat spotless when the bill is 1 trillion--Thanatos 05:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I think we should stick to pointing out the errors, absurdities, straw men and non sequiturs at Conservapedia, rather than hammering them for opposing a certain political program. (Disclosure: I think these stimuli were just a foolish attempt to throw money at the problem.) ListenerX^TalkerX 05:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

People would have hoarded their money, making the economy worse.--Thanatos 05:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There are other ways to get people to spend their money than to send the government $1 trillion further into debt. Clinton managed to turn a recession around and reduce the national debt at the same time. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Clinton wasn't faced with a financial collapse and Bush era record deficits. While we all have our objections to the carrying out of the bailouts and stimulus, I'm not sure anyone seriously doubts it was necessary or had positive effect. The question is of degree. 05:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The deficits were fairly bad in the early 1990s as well, and like Obama, Clinton had to deal with a financial crisis that started before his term began (the stock market crash of 1987 and subsequent financial events). ListenerX^TalkerX 06:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a problem where throwing money is a viable solution, Obama was willing to commit political suicide to do it. Shows he cares for his people rather than his backers.--Thanatos 06:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We shall see, but all the State can hope to do with regard to the economy is to cushion a bad blow or keep a boom from wheeling out of control. That is all that they have done here: made a deficit-spending-induced bubble.

One specific problem with the current round of bailouts is that they kept some highly incompetent firms (I am thinking GM here) in business, which rather defeats the entire point of the market. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If the stimulus forced the CEOs of said companies to commit seppuku, would you support it more or less?--Thanatos 06:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not conflate (a) the stimulus, (b) the bailout of the financials, (c) the bailout of the auto companies. You can find folks who support any combination of these 3 and oppose the rest, or support them all, or oppose all of them. What really interests me is how little criticism there is on the Right of the financial bailout given that there is MUCH more money involved and a clearer moral hazard (rewarding the bad actors). For me the stimulus was necessary, the auto bailout I'm ambivalent about, but the financial bailout is almost a Bush-level betrayal of the taxpayer's interest. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 06:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see that as a "moral hazard," merely bad economic policy.

Thanatos, the honor-suicide provision would have made the bailouts unconstitutional; less. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A majority of the congressional Republicans voted against all 3, and conservatives, as evidenced by much of the postings on Free Republic etc., practically disowned Bush after TARP. ConservapediaEditor 09:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The seppuku thing was a joke. Stimulus=bandage at best. I hereby shut up--Thanatos 01:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to vote up everything CPed votes down

I am a uniformitarian. -- =w= 06:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to vote neutral everything Mei votes up

Creating all those little yellow slivers makes me feel special. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 07:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia Day, eh?

In case I've missed this, or am otherwise inserting my foot into my mouth for bringing it up at WIGO CP thus tipping off the Conservapedians, when are we awarding the Conservapedians? Or has everyone forgotten in the light of a small bout of HCM? We can't let things like that stand in the way of tradition... SJ ^Debaser 12:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Hoover to do the honours. - Pi

Don't worry Josh, we still have 12 hours left. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, they remembered!!

And BTW Josh, I just did some awards. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are some very nice awards. Are they being distributed individually to editor's talk pages as well? In absentia 20:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Both myself and Hoover did so earlier today, but, as expected, the edits were reverted pretty quickly. Feel free to put them on the CP user pages again if you have socks on CP. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you took screencaps when they were posted. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I did, but the revisions are not deep-burned anyway. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My secretary posted awards on CP a few minutes ago but TerryH revered them within a minute. 20:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been watching ever since Hoover and I first posted them this morning; he knows what to expect. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you worried your secretary will be reported to his/her boss by TK?-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 22:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Or to the FBI? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

All the awards have been vaped. It was fun. Time stupid Hoover! 23:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think my secretary's boss would enjoy getting a call from TK or the FBI. 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

TK can suck me in Hell. Phallus of Satan 23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the edits were all oversighted. Javasca₧ mragh braaargh BARHA bruh mragh! 01:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Say what you will about RobS...

...dude has a sense of humour^img. TheoryOfPractice 22:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Robby boy, why did you leave us?! We're glad you enjoyed your award, congratulations, you 50s-style xenophobe. SJ ^Debaser 00:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

He's probably the only one who appreciates it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If rich people visit CP...

...doesn't that mean they are elitist?--Thanatos 01:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

When I called Andy out on being an Ivy-League elitist, his answer was that elitism wasn't a question of social standing/wealth but of attitude. TheoryOfPractice 01:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, but if he admitted he was elitist, that would further him from being an average American. Lose alot of potential followers if he admitted he ate caviar.--Thanatos 01:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the exchange in question--note how he never denies that he enjoyed all the trappings of being an American elite TheoryOfPractice 02:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC):

I'm not an economist, so I'm not really bothered "to no end" about who gets the prize. I am, however, bemused to no end at the idea of a man with degrees from Princeton and Harvard, the son of a prominent attorney and political commentator/activist, a man who has dined with Supreme Court justices and who rubbed shoulders with a future President while working for what is arguably the nation's most prestigious legal publication railing against "elites," be they intellectual or otherwise. What are the heating bills like for that glass house? PeterF 11:26, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

After you struck out with logic, Peter, you've resorted to a personal rant. The answer to your silly question is this: "elitism" is an attitude, not a credential.--Andy Schlafly 11:40, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Even though I am not a member of any educated elite, I am aware that there is a difference between "elite" and "elitism." But I never said "elitism," and, more to the point, neither did you: "A similar process of selection by a small group of the educated elite..." was your original statement. And it is, you must admit, amusing to see someone who is clearly a member of the elite rail against it--and then try to backpedal by pulling a grammatical fast one. PeterF 17:55, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

Those statistics are skewed - it's obviously due to George Soros visiting the site multiple times a day to vandalize it. Röstigraben 08:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A Theory of Everything

Andy explains his. Zelmerszoetrop 04:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit. I'm staggered...

Just, wow...-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 04:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My favorite quote: "The miracle of walking on water is more fully understood under a physical theory based on order/disorder than than a traditional view of gravity.". Does the man ever get tired of outdoing himself? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course just like "liberal" is "anyone who disagrees with me," "disordered" is "anything whose order I don't understand." Faith is more ordered than other forms of thought! The eye is more ordered than other organs! Deny this only if you want to lose credibility. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That whole page is Andy's Timecube. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 04:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The man is insane. It would be hilarious if he wasn't pedalling this shite as 'educational'. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I like how walking on water is an example of increased order, when later in the same article he argues that a closer arrangement of objects has greater order than a distant scattering. So wouldn't Peter up to his forehead in the Sea of Galilee have greater order than Peter separated from the Sea of Galilee? After all, the surface area of the smallest sphere that encloses both is larger in the latter case.--Martin Arrowsmith 05:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe other people feel the same way, but Andy's crap about how order is established on consciousness and thus if we think about things the right way we can walk on water makes me think that Andy's watched "Being There" again and (as usual) has derived a grand theory from the first thought that came in to his head. Bil08 11:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I must echo Antifly. Just, wow.... Then again is this any different from ID? Grab one "big idea" (Order/Complexity) misapply it all round, attack current science by rigorously misunderstanding it and bring in some moral dimension necessitating teaching it to students. Anytime now he'll be putting all of societies ills at the door of "chaos-ism". Just look at the chaos Hitler caused, and we're teaching this to our kids in public school! Toffeeman 12:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy's solution to healthcare reform would be less government spending and more faith healing, I'd suppose. Maybe he fell asleep reading a Green Lantern comic before he came up with his willpower-versus-disorder theory. (Perhaps when no one's looking he puts his hand on a Bible and recites a version of the G.L. oath to get a 24 hour charge of righteousness before editing). This is truly his closest orbit yet around planet timecube. --SpinyNorman 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(Because I can't resist):

"In brightest day,
In blackest night
No liberal shall escape my sight
Let those who worship reason's might
Beware my power - Oversight!"

(Still waiting on your recap of the Rutgers panel, Andy) --SpinyNorman 17:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"Epaaaaaaaa!"

- Green Lantern being thrown into a vat of acid by Sinestro. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 13:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a nice bit of moronic yet accurate^img vandalism. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That made me chuckle. I wonder if DouglasA appreciates the humor. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That was mine. Happy to be appreciated Ace-o-aces 15:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with that, it seemed a very weed induced thing to claim. ^moral 15:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

'Christian children'

This story on their mainpage really annoys me. It's about a secular advert using pictures of 'christian' kids. When you see the picture in question (on the Times article), you can see that the kids are no older than 3 or 4. A 4 year old is NOT a christian, any more than a 4 year old is a conservative or a liberal. This kind of shit from religionists really really pisses me of. Bastards. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

How much do ya want to bet that the parents will run their kids lives, possibly homeschool?--Thanatos 02:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A five minute block? I like how Ken put "The atheist community has a higher rate of suicide compared to the theist community" at the end. Nice little rant about the happiness of Christians compared to atheists... psst... atheists kill themselves more than theists! What crappy wording for the front page. SJ ^Debaser 03:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The headline is unbelievably ironic. "Hey Dawkins! Know how you don't want to label kids as Christian or Atheist?! The kids on your advert are Christian, not atheist!" The cognitive disconnect is enormous. 04:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No one seriously denies that atheist children are a different species from Christian children. --Kels 04:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I hear of "Christian children" I'm reminded of this quote:

“”it is my opinion that the correction of children should start as soon as the need for that correction is made manifest. Every discerning parent who has been blessed with a little child in his home realizes that his initial impression of the sweetness and the innocence of the child is in reality an illusion. A child very quickly demonstrates his fallen, depraved nature and reveals himself to be a selfish little beast in manifold ways. As soon as the child begins to express his own self-will (and this occurs early in life) that child needs to receive correction. My wife and I have a general goal of making sure that each of our children has his will broken by the time he reaches the age of one year. To do this, a child must receive correction when he is a small infant.

--Psygremlin話しなさい 05:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

@SuperJosh: But the theist suicide rate has a higher body count.. you know, cause they tend to want to bring others along with them, with the means of strapped on dynamite or hijacked planes... --GTac 10:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad taste, but probably quite true. But seriously, this is a whole "how much can you possibly miss the damn point" job. As Publius, the disconnect is extreme, I assume they didn't even read the big friendly letters. ^moral 15:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the disconnect here is huge. Bible-bashers think it's ironic that a campaign not to label kids is using 'christian' kids, whilst ignoring completely the irony of them labelling the kids as christian. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 02:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again the knuckle heads at CP prove the point by missing it --Opcn 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Weakly Toon

...appears deeper than probably intended. Conservatives see this as a display of weakness from Obama. Democrats/liberal, on the other hand, can enjoy the scathing attack on the international results of the Bush era!--Ireon 09:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Being Conservative means never having to say you're sorry. If (according to Andy) Jesus wasn't into forgiveness, why should they be? But you're right, there is a lovely double meaning hidden in that cartoon. --PsygremlinPraat! 09:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The humor makes a whooshing sound as it flies over his head. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too. It appears some American conservatives don't even know what other continents look like, even when it's necessary to prove a conservative point. Junggai 15:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Junggai, I hardly think Kajagoogoo's knowledge of geography is representative of "conservatives" in general. He's his own idiot. TheoryOfPractice 15:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. I think not even Sarah Palin would be dumb enough to have Obama apologizing to the people of Hawaii. Junggai 15:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I like how he has Obama saying "oops my bad" to what appears to be the Northeastern United States.... and the Yukon territory of Canada. SirChuckB^{That is all} 20:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I like how he has Obama giving out apologies in deep waters off the continental shelf, as if he had offended the angler fish --Opcn 10:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The last four WIGOs...

...I like how each one is about the antics of an individual editor. Short and sweet. Ken: We're rich! Jpatt: I'm hardcore! RobS: I can't debate! Ed Poor: I can't be within 200 yards of a school! Nice. SJ ^Debaser 16:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

as the author of two of those bad boys, thanks. TheoryOfPractice 17:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

So in reverting a source that says "consevative ideology is very much the same as the ideology of Adolph Hitler," I'll just put "Godwin" in the edit summary and not bother debating the user on the the talk page. [2] Thanks the tip. RobSmith 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Josh, your Ed comment came close to showering my keyboard. Sir, I salute you. We should check Revelation for references to the three dumb-arses of the apocalypse. --^{Ask me about your mother} 17:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I authored the Jpatt one. I like the consistency in them. I'm unusual. You are quite welcome CR, three dumbarses are a paedo, a delusional prat, and a closet gay. And maybe a McCarthyite if there is room for a fourth... SJ ^Debaser 17:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Those were good WIGOs, short and to the point. They should be an example for people to follow. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

They could, of course, be the Other Four HorseMen of the Apocalypse. Lemme see, Ed = Grievous Bodily Harm (possibly to little girls? just JAQing...), JPratt = All Foreigners, Especially the French, Ken = Really Cool People and Rob = Cruelty to Animals (altho we're not sure if he's for or against it). --PsygremlinSnakk! 19:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor lulz

Ok, so which one of us did this?^img Whoever did gets a hearty handshake from me. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cancel that offer, the person isn't that smart after all, as proven here^img. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If'n youse nEeds another go at it I'll log in a CP oversighter to help you out with a clean slate. 18:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Old hat

Came upon this while browsing:

"==External Links==

• Pharyngula Non-family-friendly content warning."

It made me smile. In cognito 19:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

They could look closer to home to find non-family friendly content. --PsygremlinPraat! 19:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That one always makes me laugh. In fact, I wrote a poem about it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Stitch75

I'm surprised he's lasted so long - he's been popping up and passing comments then vanishing again for ages, especially given this^img reply to Andy. It's been over a year since he tangled with my sock. Maybe I should have blocked him then. Still, I'm sure Terry will soon sort that oversight out. Amazed to see JWDPianist still pottering along too. Terry! Terry! You missed one! --PsygremlinFale! 19:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, Terry, sweetheart. --PsygremlinKhuluma! 04:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There goes another one (encore)

I will be taking an indefinite leave of absence. I have decided that it is not cost-effective to attempt to work here. The cost is too high—I, and my colleagues KSorenson and MarkGall, have to deal with too many distractions and obstructions in the form irrelevant philosophical/political/religious controversies. And the benefit is too low—I (we) had hoped that Conservapedia would live up to its mission of providing a useful educational resource for pre-college students, and therefore that our work would have a significant audience. But Conservapedia has increasingly had its mission diluted with activities that harm its reputation, to the point where it has essentially no respect anywhere on the internet. [1]^img In cognito 23:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This was bought up a few days ago here. SJ ^Debaser 23:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. It was the removal that brought it up to my notice. In cognito 23:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

TK, you asshole

You just couldn't resist, could you? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy on Relativity Redux Redux Redux....

Two things here: 1. Does Andy realise that churches, while they "spend their own money" get a free ride re: taxes that enables them to do so? 2. Is this the closest he's come to stating that Einsteinian Relativity = moral relativity? TheoryOfPractice 23:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, he used to state it explicitly in the relativity articles. Looks like he might be getting back to that. I think Andy's objections to relativity stem from poor reading comprehension. Ace-o-aces 23:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"People who believe in relativity should spend their own money on their activities, not ours, just as religions do."^img How about the slight^(!) tax break that religions get Andy? In cognito 23:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy supports non-Christian churches being taxed? That might be worth burning a sock to ask. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

James Madison at one point opined that it was a breach of the separation of Church and State to exempt churches from taxation. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wonder if Andy will soon start saying he should get tax-exempt status? He does not believe in relativity, he is a man of some kind of faith.--Thanatos 05:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He is already immune to copyright law, I'm sure he will eventually call CP a 501(c)3 --Opcn 10:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be so funny. It would be the next FBI Incident. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course there was also that state funding thing that Andy applied for and never got. I'm sure someone whose brain isn't addled by alcohol can find an appropriate link. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Bible Bump

Active Editors at CP
whole period	last ninety days
Active Unblocked Editors at CP
whole period	last ninety days

The CBP increased the number of active editors, after the dismal performance of CP in August/September. But many of the active contributors were subsequently blocked, so the community didn't grow... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

larron, your charts never cease to amaze me. But the result doesn't really surprise me: since when has CP even allowed the majority of editors to stay? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Are Andy's homeskollars...

...straying from their path? EddyP 12:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Although he still has the worst ones up there "Abortion is murder", "homosexuality is wrong." As neither a woman or gay (supposedly) he has no business saying they're wrong. SJ ^Debaser 12:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Still, it's good to see that Andy isn't totally brainwashing them. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of his talk page for some classic Bugler. Corry 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That is classic. Damn, I miss the epic parody that used to be able to fly under the radar at CP. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad TK's back

It's been getting too easy to vandalise CP in his absence. Although could you unblock my IP address please TK? Jpatt took it out last week. Cheers! SJ ^Debaser 12:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not much interesting goes on when he's around though, because he just blocks everyone after their first edit. We had an awesome time last week with all the relativity stuff which wouldn't have happened with TK about because he would have just blocked the 'offenders' straight away. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what I missed - TK's creepy^img mentioning of his checkuser abilities, whenever he can. --PsygremlinRunāt! 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention his constant mentioning^img of the unmentionable site. Psst! Terry92270, your spam probably has more to do with you visiting sites like this than us. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 22:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I've asked before

but does Andy actually go to church? Does his priest know about all his shit? How does Andy keep from piping up and telling the Priest what God really said? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I'd love to see him screaming at the priest. "Liberal lies!!! Open your mind!" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what church he goes to. I would think that he would believe most churches in NJ have liberal bias. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone want to burn a sock and ask which church he frequents? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought he was Roman Catholic, but much of his views seem well outside of Catholicism and more in line with hard core Protestant fundamentalism. (With the great exception of sexuality matters, a lot of Catholic social teaching is quite liberal.) On the other paw, he does not seem to be obsessive about the Rapture or the "End Times", which is very closely tied with American fundamentalism. (I believe Catholic doctrine is that the Book of Revelation is historical allegory and not prophecy.)

At this point, Andy has essetially turned conservatism into a religion. I half expect the CBP to include apostles named Rush, Sean, Bill, and Glenn, and Conserva-Jesus to hang out with Doctor Laura Magdalene. MDB 14:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy obviously thinks he can do better at Christianity than anyone, I don't know why he'd sit there and listen to liberal bias. I might ask. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I might be (probably am) pulling this out of my butt, but I thought he was "Catholic" because he "had to be" when he got married. If so, would his current theological ideas verses his "Catholicism" be deceit? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 15:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would he have to be Catholic to get married? I could be wrong, but I believe the Catholic church only requires one of the couple to be Catholic to allow a Catholic wedding. I know a couple that had a Catholic wedding; he's quite the devout Catholic, but she's not much of any religion. MDB 15:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Kettlewicket told us that Andy goes to church. But the biggest clue from an outsider's viewpoint is his Sunday essays which to my mind seem to be inspired by the sermon he has heard. Also there is definitely a couple of hours on Sunday mornings when he doesn't edit. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I do think Andy once made some reference to how strong his faith was by how long he could wait in church to eat. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Strangely there's no mention of religious persuasion on mommy's bio page. At a cursory glance, anyhow. In cognito 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia says her religion is Roman Catholic (but we all know that's full of liberal bias). Perhaps her Eagle Forum bio doesn't get into specifics about her own faith to avoid driving off Protestant supporters, since American Protestant conservatives really don't like Catholics (and will sometimes insist they're not Christians.) MDB 16:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh Andy must have said something to the priest. We're talking about a guy who reacted to the priest's use of "it" rather than "he" by rewriting the fucking bible. My bet is that a few years ago the priest got sick and tired of Andy yelling about liberals during every sermon about peace and tolerance, and so started going all out conservative (along with the congregation), desperate to avoid inticing the idiot in the back row leering over everybody else. But then one day like in some comedy show, at the end of another flawlessly fundementalist service, he made the slightest slip-up causing Andy to explode with a speech about how people only listen to the priest because of his liberal bible, and he'll sure as hell show them. Or something like that. Bil08 18:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A while ago he said he was involved in handing out those red letters they were sending to the White House. Somehow, I can't see a highbrow Catholic Church doing that. --PsygremlinPraat! 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a non sequitur?

Consistency CP style: it's horrendous censorship when a 2 bit sportsman gets dropped after a gay slur, but wonderful newsimg when a senator gets denied communion for his views

I don't see how one follows the other, heathens. SoldierInGodsArmy 14:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you were to forget all the nonsense you were taught in public school and open your mind you'd see. Godspeed. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Public schools are Satan's playground! The only proper way to educate kids is to homeschooling. SoldierInGodsArmy 17:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"The only proper way to educate kids is to homeschooling" And what a shining example you are, Sir. By the way, I didn't know there were sane people who still used the word "heathen". Oh and I'm sure Jinx will be thrilled to see that you were calling down gOD's wrath on him - very Christian of you. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think god ever planned for the internet? Because, damn. X Stickman 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"SoldierInGodsArmy" (you can't even post in your own real name), suicide is so prevalent among Democrats that I wonder why you spend so much time disputing this insight. I've managed to read your rants and you list yourself as an "agnostic" here, yet 100% of your edits here have been of an atheistic nature. An agnostic, if fair-minded, should be at least 50% Bible-based and 50% atheistic-based, so anyone with an open mind can see that you're hearing this for the first time. Like all liberals, you deny that feudalism stops gun control. Got news for you: most books (other than the Bible) are liberal claptrap. You need to listen to the classic rock song entitled, "I fought the law, and the law won." You need to listen to it 80 times, in fact. Please, please abide by the rules or blocking will result.--aschlafly 03:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

MainPageLeft

I haven't bothered scrolling down CP's mainpage for a while but I noticed that Karajou mashed Joaquin's Masterpieces into one section to make way for his Weakly Toon. I guess he felt obliged to gave JM front page billing to keep him happy. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

This. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, suddenly Andy's "mystery" about "was Mark a child" has suddenly become fact in his mind. And he's clearly clueless, there's no reason at all why a child wouldn't be helping out on a boat - except to support Andy's "argument". Hell, what defines as "child" would have finished schooling, be working and in all likelihood married by 14. If, in our enlightened times, 6-year olds can be working down the mines, children would be helping out on the family boat in those days. As for the rest, it's just more word salad, supporting Andy's belief that science stopped with Newton. --PsygremlinTal! 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just found the edit summary funny when taken out of context: "Mark was a young boy, and young boys shouldn't be in the middle of lakes at night." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Which was also the view of the courts when a 13-year old Dutch girl wanted to sail round the world. Yet we had 14-year olds joining the army in WWI (not legally of course). As always it's Andy trying to impose his own 20th-century, urban-American viewpoint/values on not only the rest of the world but also the rest of world's history. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC^2) Aside from the general oddity, it made me notice how often he says "I have an open mind about this" these days. Five times about the Gospel of Mark...and once, "this (and all other issues)." ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You gotta admire the shear depths of that guy's delusion to think that he actually has an open mind on anything and then to tell others to open theirs. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I also loved "Science is a part of truth." Gee, I wonder what the other part is. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Relativity weirdity

Just above the latest argument about whether relativity is liberal, Andy makes this bizarre comment: [3] He's saying that if the photon has an infinitesimal mass then there will be an infinitesimal gravitational force in Newtonian mechanics (that much is correct), and then he seems to be saying that this would lead to a discontinuity if the photon had zero mass and zero gravitational force. He completely misunderstands basic limits! When is the mathematics course going to take place...? Fawlty 22:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The mathematics course will begin once Andy figures out a way to praise God using equations. (But his recent "Quantifying Order" efforts might eventually work towards this goal...) --Sid 23:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy's confusion is actually valid, believe it or not. Newton's theory says that anything with zero mass will have zero gravitational force on it; that is, it'll be unaffected by gravity. But relativity says light will be affected by gravity. Surely this is absurd, no? Well, no. As anybody would understand if they even read the title — not the whole thing, not the abstract, just the flippin' title — of Einstein's first paper on special relativity: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." The whole paper was about the seemingly bizarro fact that light is massless and yet is affected by gravity. It's not like that's some side-prediction of relativity (or worse, some assumption). It's that Einstein said "Woah, hey, gravity isn't supposed to affect light and yet we see that it does, how can this be?" And then came the science. So Andy's question is a very astute one, actually. It's just that he's unaware that (a) he's not the first person to ask, and (b) the answer was worked out and put down on paper a hundred years ago. It's just a classic case of Andy knowing a little and thinking he knows more. --4perf 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, 4perf. Light is affected by the warping of spacetime caused by gravitational bodies. Basically (from what I understand) photons themselves are not being influenced by gravitation, but rather they trace a straight line throw now-curved spacetime, which observably alters their trajectory. 67.213.71.134 04:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is actually the way acceleration effects space. Usual trick to understanding these things is a thought experiment. A person is in an accelerating elevator (going up say) and sets up a laser that goes across the elevator. How does the path of light appear to the person in the elevator? How does it appear to a person outside? - π 05:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think BoN is right: light is going the shortest distance (i.e. straight) through curved spacetime. (Is Ksorenson around to weigh in on this?) But Andy is certainly wrong: he says "The Newtonian force equation applies to objects having at least an infinitesimal mass". Actually it holds for all objects: $F=ma$, and if $m=0$ then $F=0$. Then Andy implies that there is a discontinuity, which there isn't. I think what he means is that (1) $F>0$ when $m>0$, and (2) there would be a discontinuity if ever $F=0$. If that is what he means, it's rubbish. Good thing he writes so poorly you can't figure out exactly what he means! Fawlty 10:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is another possibility: maybe Andy means, regarding the gravitational force $F$ on a photon, that (1) the limit of $F$ as $m\rightarrow 0$ is $0$ (in Newtonian mechanics), and (2) $F>0$ in curved spacetime (in relativity), so there's a discontinuity. But (1) you can't take the limit of $m$, because $m$ is a constant (it's the rest mass), and (2) this is mixing together Newtonian and relativistic mechanics within one equation. Not even Andy could be that confused. Could he? Fawlty 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job

Very effective five year block, Terry. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

ORLY?

Does anyone else think teh assfly and Orly Taitz should have a love child? If we can't pull that off, maybe we could at least find a way to get her to be a contributor at CP.Phallus of Satan 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

She already is. Conservapederast 23:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think phallus meant "a more active contributor", like the level of insights FOIA is adding to CP's certain articles. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this is old news...

But doesn't teh stoopid give you headaches? I mean, for example, this:

evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation

.I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but do they really think that our subjective assessment of beauty is "eternally" relevant? Arghh!Phallus of Satan 23:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy does. That's all that matters over there, remember? -- JArneal 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not just "old news," it's so infamous that it has become a RW meme. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Phallus, I have an open mind about this, but I urge you to look beyond what you've been taught by liberal professors. What you haven't been taught is more important. Do you deny that autumn foliage is beautiful? Of course not, it is undeniable. So-called "evolution" is at a complete loss to explain how it might be advantageous for trees to turn beautiful every autumn as they so obviously do. In fact, the evolutionists have spent literally billions of taxpayer dollars trying to prove that autumn foliage was beautiful even before there were people around to enjoy it! This is a site where logic prevails, and trying to censor the obvious fact that God made beautiful fish for us to appreciate via his blessed servant Jacques Cousteau and through the National Geographic magazine and public-funded aquariums won't fly here. You can go to Wikipedia for that kind of thing. Finally, I found your comment to be needlessly verbose. In the future, please try to be as concise and unequivocally right as I am. Do you know what a provocateur is, Phallus? Because I don't, but the word sounds so cool I want to believe it's something politically acceptable, not one of those ugly, deceitful, liberal lie-words. God's peed. --4perf 00:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"4perf" (sounds like another self-centered liberal, like Obama), looks like we've stumbled into another example of the liberal double standard: call something subjective when you don't like it, but call something objective when you do. I looked at many of your edits before reverting them and found a serious of insertions of the form ^{[citation needed]} or more obnoxious banners, so admit it, you're a non-substantive editor. Furthermore, you deny that women knowing their place prevents video games. Whatever the mainstream media might say, the defining view of an evolutionist is his disdain for the Bible, despite its indisputable role as the most influential book, both in history and today. Take our World History Final Exam and then learn the truth. Your fight is with logic here, not us.--Andy Schlafly Phallus of Satan 00:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC).

HOORAY!

Let's have a big vandal site cheer for everybody's favorite currently-active parodist, MarkGall, who has returned! Zelmerszoetrop 02:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The liberal detector is pretty awesome, but no one has topped the Bugler for the little clues he dropped. I cant resist re-posting my favorite: [4]76.121.59.123 06:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We can expect great things now that he has wiled his way into a higher echelon of Andy-trust than even TK. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 12:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting permission to use irony meter. PLease!

Just thought the juxtaposition of the two main page entries (either of which could be WIGO worthy) was rather fun. In cognito 03:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG Geometric Growth !!1!11! The triumph of Andy's conservative homeschooling methods is inevitable!!1!!!-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 03:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that "performed at college level on our midterm exam" means passed the CP midterm with a 65 or something like that, but it's vague enough to mean whatever Andy wants it to. So now 60% of your students can pass your own midterm, Andy, instead of 60% failing the last time around? That's great, but seeing how they'd do on a standardized test like the TUCE would be a bit more meaningful. --SpinyNorman 04:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Liberals

Here's what I don't get. Liberals control the media, schools, the courts, science, the government. Liberals control everything. They're clearly inferior people to conservatives so how do they do it? (That and I cant get out of my head this image of gun toting physicians patrolling their offices at night - I mean seriously, are the judges legally compelled to read the rest of Schlafly's crap after they pick themselves up off the floor?) ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.121.59.123 / talk / contribs}

It is just old anti-communist propaganda, which did not make much sense in the first place, taken out of context so as to make no sense at all. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Um... Ken..

WTF^img? The meds wear off and your head keeps bouncing off the padded wall keyboard? Still, I'm glad to see Dec 1st "might" be a big day... or then again, it might not. --PsygremlinTal! 06:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

FLYING FORTRESS!!!! Ace^McWicked 06:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The servers went down for a bit, he probably wasn't sure his edits were getting through so he kept hitting refresh, which kept submitting the "add section" edit he'd made. Zelmerszoetrop 06:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually seen that user's talk page? It's just Ken masturbating all over it^img because the user made the mistake of making a "good" edit to the atheism article. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That WIGO was funny before it was modified. Now it's freaking hilarious. I love how the user has a total of 4 contributions, all of which took place within less than 10 minutes of each other a year and a half ago. And Ken just can't get over him. The entirety of his talk page is still Ken's weird messages. Capturebot rules, by the way. -- JArneal 09:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how he's going to kill evolution this time. Is he going to pay Nephilim Free to put on his giant headphones and cry in a Youtube video? Is some random fundie webpage that nobody reads because it spews Hitler yelling going to post a link? Is Ken going to challenge Dawkins to debate Boteach, although neither person will notice? We'll just have to wait and see! Ole ole ole! Corry 13:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what on Earth is going on. He's just deleted it and restored it AGAIN. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

He is truly crazy. More so than any other CP editor, I think. Although I would like to see what Flying Fortress is, we've been waiting like two years. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a revelation. Ken is actually Herr Lipp. Does that make TK Tubbs? "This is a local wiki, for local people... there's nothing for you here." --PsygremlinSpeak! 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

More to the point on Psalm 109

If you read the verse in context (which illiterate, prooftext-loving fundies never do) it says something completely different. It is a psalm of David (you know? One the Bible's big heroes?) in which King David is complaining about the teabaggers of his day. (see liberal Bible translation at right ->)

Some bible quotin'
1 O God, whom I praise, don’t stand silent and aloof 2 while the wicked slander me and tell lies about me. 3 They surround me with hateful words and fight against me for no reason. 4 I love them, but they try to destroy me with accusations even as I am praying for them! 5 They repay evil for good, and hatred for my love. David continues, reporting the horrible prayers they have been praying, asking God to curse him: 6 “Get an evil person to turn against him. Send an accuser to bring him to trial. 7 When his case comes up for judgment, let him be pronounced guilty. Count his prayers as sins. 8 Let his years be few; let someone else take his position. 9 May his children become fatherless, and his wife a widow. 10 May his children wander as beggars and be driven from their ruined homes. 11 May creditors seize his entire estate, and strangers take all he has earned. 12 Let no one be kind to him; let no one pity his fatherless children. 13 May all his offspring die. May his family name be blotted out in a single generation. 14 May the Lord never forget the sins of his fathers; may his mother’s sins never be erased from the record. 15 May the Lord always remember these sins, and may his name disappear from human memory. 16 For he refused all kindness to others; he persecuted the poor and needy, and he hounded the brokenhearted to death. 17 He loved to curse others; now you curse him. He never blessed others; now don’t you bless him. 18 Cursing is as natural to him as his clothing, or the water he drinks, or the rich food he eats. 19 Now may his curses return and cling to him like clothing; may they be tied around him like a belt.” Finally David asks God to turn the prayers around on his critics: 20 May those curses become the Lord’s punishment for my accusers who speak evil of me. 21 But deal well with me, O Sovereign Lord, for the sake of your own reputation! Rescue me because you are so faithful and good. 22 For I am poor and needy, and my heart is full of pain. 23 I am fading like a shadow at dusk; I am brushed off like a locust. 24 My knees are weak from fasting, and I am skin and bones. 25 I am a joke to people everywhere; when they see me, they shake their heads in scorn. 26 Help me, O Lord my God! Save me because of your unfailing love. 27 Let them see that this is your doing, that you yourself have done it, Lord. 28 Then let them curse me if they like, but you will bless me! When they attack me, they will be disgraced! But I, your servant, will go right on rejoicing! 29 May my accusers be clothed with disgrace; may their humiliation cover them like a cloak. 30 But I will give repeated thanks to the Lord, praising him to everyone. 31 For he stands beside the needy, ready to save them from those who condemn them.

I know that was a lot of Bible readin', but the upshot is: the Bible predicted Glenn Beck! Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Man, that's awesome. --Martin Arrowsmith 15:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jinx's cherry picking is pretty epic. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am not surprised that Jinx is (a) continuing to obliquely suggest someone should harm the President, as he's one on his own website, (b) quotemining the bible, and (c) lying about what he's doing. He's an artless twit, though predictable. 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever spoiler'd my quote, I'm new to wikis. :D Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Gun control in England 1997

From the court document linked in the gun control section above, Andy once again makes arguments about gun control in England in 1997 that just don't make sense to me, as someone who lived in England until 1995 at least. My understanding was that the only hand guns remaining at the time of that ban were kept at sporting clubs and used for sport shooting only. They couldnt possibly have been used for home defense. Can anyone confirm? I can honestly say that I personally knew of no one that kept a gun at home, and I'm pretty sure it would have been illegal.^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.104 / talk / contribs}

I was a friends with a guy who owned a hand gun, and his definitely had to remain locked-up at the club. This would have been in the early to mid 90s --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

About the only hand guns you could use outside gun club premises were .22 rimfire jobs. I'm not sure, but I think you could keep competition guns at home, but they had to be kept in a double-locked steel cabinet which was subject to inspection by police at any time. People using any gun for 'home defence' are not smiled on by the police, the judiciary or rather a lot of the GBP. Despite what you may read in some UK newspapers. Sphincter 20:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a good summary at WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Dunblane_massacre).

The Dunblane massacre was the one time I voted against gun control in a situation that might have made a little bit of difference. At the time I was on the Liberal Democrats' Federal Policy Committee (FPC). The party conference (the sovereign body of the Lib Dems) had passed a resolution against gun control about a month before the Dunblane shootings. At the FPC meeting, everybody jumped on the bandwagon of gun control and I was the only one pointing out that it was being done for political reasons rather than out of beliefs.

My personal belief is that there's no need for private citizens to own guns; it was the shocking political opportunism that led me to vote the other way in that discussion. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 21:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all WIGO-worthy, but...

It was great to hear someone tell it like it is.^img And I loved the humor in the first sentence, too. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Capturebot is quick, TK. What sense is there in oversighting something that's already been memorialized for all of the internet to see? Oh, and someone naming their CP account after a man who has been dead for nearly 73 years isn't "impersonation" worthy of a permaban with account recreation disabled and an email block, it's a simple homage. Your deceit is showing, dude. 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but TK claims that we forge screen captures. So by incinerating the edit it never happened, and TK can lie about it to his heart's content. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 23:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Too bad the insanity over there has been proven to the extent that we don't need to make up screen caps for lulz. Okay, well I guess someone did it once... -- JArneal 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd get a quick cap of this^img too. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear TK and Jacob

Blocking somebody is not the same as winning a battle of snarks^img you dumb fucks. --Psygremlin講話 22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt TK even knows what "snark" means. And WTF is up with him deep-burning revisions today?Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What?! TK would never do that - the would be conservative deceit and it's us naughty libs who manage to create all these hundred of fake screencaps. But he is on a rampage today - lots of stuff needs to be swept under the carpet. And I see he's blocked CharlesN, who last edited 31 Oct. Keep going TK, the site is shrinking rapidly!! !! Dance for me little man! Dance!! --PsygremlinTala! 22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In CP-Bizarro world it is! Victory to CP! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Worth a WIGO

Strength through Unity! Unity through Faith!-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 02:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I had to read it twice to understand it. I wonder what Andy's reaction will be - I'm not sure if he will drool all over it for legitimizing his viewpoint or just ignore it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

National Bible Bee

Why am I not surprised? Beastiepaws 03:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

See "The_answer_to_your_question_Andy..." above. _& marmite^chat 03:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We are the reason for all the spam in the world

TK thinks so, anyway. Cunt. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 06:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but if he never sees then, how does he know? Idiot. Not mention - lying swine. He'll surely burn in hell. Ace^McWicked 06:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

TK thinks he's John Lennon. [5] ħuman 06:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

TK's silly! Teeheehee! El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 13:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

what's going on?

here? Zelmerszoetrop 06:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Its simple whats happening....something might happen that may cause conservapedias traffic to jump, possibly in a big way. Perhaps you might have heard of it? Ace^McWicked 06:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ken [heart] Rob, but doesn't realize Rob hasn't been around for months. Ken wants to cuddle over pet articles with any friends he can find. Poor Ken. ħuman 06:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Operation Flying Fortress is a go! The chair is against the wall, John has a long mustache. PUT ON YOUR GOGGLES NOW. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 06:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The green badger flies at midnight! It's Dead Kennedy looking for attention again. Actually, he was probably hoping that THIS ACT of pointing it out to Rob would cause a jump in his Evolution article views. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 14:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy

It is often proclaimed in WIGO's and on this page that Andy has reached a new level of stupidity, or is becoming insane. Do you people think this is really the case, or is it just rhetorical? In my opinion (browsing Andys page) he seems to maintain a fairly constant level of idiocy. Pietrow 14:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For the last couple months, I've been holding fast to the idea that Andy has real delusions and is not at all mentally healthy. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

After a certain level of fucktardery, there is little difference. It becomes asymptotic, as it were.Phallus of Satan 14:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's like living with a furry. Sure it's creepy at first, but after a while you'd probably get used to seeing anthropomorphized badgers banging away on the kitchen floor. By an odd coincidence this probably leads us in to a discussion of Ed.--^{Ask me about your mother} 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You need saturated arithmetic to describe Andy's stupidity. His degree of stupidity may be consistent, but everything he says seems impossibly stupid, so it seems like a new record. Fawlty 15:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh? *goes to check his kitchen and comes back disappointed* Vulpius 15:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It really appears that Roger cannot stand the ignorance Andy ejaculates all over the relativity pages. This week's gathering at the Schlafly house should be videotaped like a CMT reality show. --Irrational Atheist 18:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody actually emailed Roger and asked him whether his brother is nuts? Now I don't expect him to reply that he's a fucking nutter but I am half tempted to "out" my CP account just for his response.Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 19:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I recall something along this lines happening at a previous thanksgiving. Don't you want to be a fly on the wall at the Thanksgiving dinner at the Schaflayalays so you can hear Andy say "Mommy... Roger is still a relativist!" --Shagie 20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't overestimate Roger's sanity. Yes, he's saner than Andy but that's like saying the LHC is warmer than absolute zero. Read his blog for a while. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 21:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a chuckle at his review of 2012, although he does kinda nail his colours to the mast, when the opening line of the "review" is "The USA President and chief scientist are black." Obviously for Rog this is an issue. --Psygremlin말하십시오 21:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget his absolutely terrifying dating advice blog. That's ... whoa, man. 'Creepy' does not do it justice. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

Sheesh, at least he dates. 01:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

HOLY FUCK, that is one of the strangest and weirdest things I have ever seen. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I've come to the conclusion that it's Aspberger's. It all fits - think about it. Which makes the whole thing a lot less fun, frankly. --Too tired to log in 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In equal seriousness, I've known a couple of fairly clear Asperger's cases and some borderline types who may have been, and none of them really resemble what I'm seeing with Andy. That's just my experience, though, so not actual data. Ken

might be, or at least something close, but again that's rank speculation. --Kels 04:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that his upbringing with mommy screwed him up, leaving him without coping skills, inadequate problem solving skills, a skewered view of the world and a need to attract attention--Thanatos 04:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, he's got that smart-but-not thing going on. He really really can't deal when information contradicts what he learned as a child. Aspie spectrum + fundie upbringing = Andy, IMHO. Even if not Aspberger's per se, something is not quite right, and it's not just being a little thick. It's that persistance, that "I'm not going to deal" when things contradict deep-seated beliefs, that arrogance (re-write the Bible? Hello?), that inability to process information when issues are not binary. Also, that monotone voice. I stopped enjoying poking the caged bear a while back. (And I was *good* at it!) Of course, the problem is that people like this can really make a difference if they are not contained. Sigh... --Too tired to log in 15:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

TK and proxies wigo

"Close but no cigar. You should learn to use anonymous proxies for your subterfuge. More than one, I might add." That's not how I read his comment - to me it seems like TK is accusing the user of actually editing via several anon proxies, whether true or not. In absentia 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That how I took it too - I think he just phrased it wrong. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, "In absentia," that's what I was doing. I performed a routine checkuser, skip trace, and credit report pull on the new user and confirmed that he was editing via several anonymous proxies. I went to his home address and sat in a tree in his back yard watching his family have dinner and watch a movie in order to confirm that he and his attractive young wife are deceitful liberals, childless because they prioritize elevating their "selfish quotient" over anything that advances the interests of society at large. --TK_/MyTalk 19:45, 24 November 2009 (EST)

*shudder* Man, that just made me get up and pull my curtains. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Oh! Pick me! Puleeeze sit in my back yard, TK. Mind the nice doggy; hardly ever bites. Simple 20:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• (It should be noted for posterity that the above comment by "TK" was liberal deceit posted by User:Nutty Roux.) In absentia 20:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No! Never! The horror. --PsygremlinSnakk! 20:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wigo, but the moron who wrote it changed it back. Zelmerszoetrop 20:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the WIGO was to point out that Terry Koeckritz had made an error, a Freudian slip, perhaps. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

But it doesn't, really. It just makes it look like we have poor reading comprehension. In absentia 20:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a nearly-direct quote of what Terry Koeckritz said. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Still, it is misleading. Perhaps it should be annotated so that the message is clearer? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if it said something like "is TK recommending or warning against using proxies?" In absentia 20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Who gives a flying fuck what that sociopath says about proxies? Hell, RW'ians have been using proxies since 1.0---I think maybe it was TimS who published a guide to using them? There's nothing "illegal" about a little librul deceit!Phallus of Satan 21:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy won't ever come to understand that, though, as we already know. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the new version much better. ħuman 20:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)