Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive159

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>, <158>, <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)

Jinx and global warming

His reply made me laugh so hard I almost fell out of my chair. He basically proves global warming with every example and then concludes that it is false. And, of course, he blocked the user so he couldn't answer. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Linky? (+capture) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Vollah!^img --PsygremlinSpeak! 21:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll never get tired of this confederacy of dunces. I never saw these GW deniers in my classes and none of them are my colleagues. But the lady who answers the phone for us has it figured out. The guy at the gas station has it figured out. The obnoxious redneck at the bar has it figured out. Dope smoking friend who can't get a job has it figured out. Amazing. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As always, TK adds a cherry to the cake. This whole global warming thing is a conspiracy to redistribute wealth, bring about socialism, install themselves as the ruling elite and then enslave the blacks. The boy offers a unique perspective. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, god... JDWPianist put his head on the block! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That link is dead. Fuck you, TK, for reading RW and deleting revisions to piss us off. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I gotta remember to start using the capture tag...but I still have the habit of leaving tabs open.... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Neveruse! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What salient arguments you people provide. OncomingStorm 22:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jinx! Corry 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Speak for yourself, "not Jinx." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You make no effort to put anything positive into this world. It's all empty badly-informed liberal arrogance. OncomingStorm 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How 'bout a salient argument rebutting JDW's post? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jinx, I guess we can't all kiss Ray Comfort's ass and write about penisbones. If only I could live up to your example of contributing positively to the world. Corry 22:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I like TK's edit summary "Jinx shows a liberal troll logic:" which leads to an oversighted page. Gosh, guess Jinx didn't afterwards. Btw, how did you manage to quotemine Psalm 108 and get the context so wonderfully wrong? --Psygremlin話しなさい 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I do so love to be lectured on biblical context by you. OncomingStorm 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You should try it sometime, you'd probably learn something, Not Jinx _{Hi NOT Jinx!}. Some of us do read the various holy books and not in an Andy "ooh ooh if you don't know how many copies of the bible sold last year you don't read it way." fancy a debate of the subject at some point? --PsygremlinПоговорите! 22:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. he's run away. Amazing how they do that when faced with a question the can't answer with a banhammer. Any time you're ready Mr Hubred, I'll be waiting. --PsygremlinSpeak! 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

<---Erm, the guy who is most definately not Jinx, could I point out something that I think is actually obvious to most people here (though I could be wrong), but you seem to have missed? Jmccourt pointed out that temperatures are warmer all across Canada. Jinx, who is most definately not you, responded by saying that global warming could muck about with various oceanic currents, which would lead to it actually being cooler in the north-east of the USA, Western Europe, including the UK, and in Hong Kong. I'm not exactly a whiz at geography, but, last time I checked, Canada was none of those places. In addition to this, one of the things that Jinx, who is definately not you, said was, and I quote, 'But the heat gained from higher greenhouse gas concentrations is still in the climate system, just elsewhere.' Well, as I already pointed out, Canada is 'elsewhere'. 92.23.58.2 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

erm, go look at a map again . Pick a spot in the USA, like say Seattle for example. The vast bulk of Canada (including Quebec) is somewhat North and East of there , so Ta-da , Canada is Northeaastof the United States. um Open your mind and Godspeed ;) Hamster 01:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC) (still in shock from moral relativism ? in the relativity article wtf ?

OK, I'm sorry for having a closed mind. Maybe you could help open it for me further by explaining something else - even though you've helped me by correcting me that Canada is north-east of the USA, Jinx _{hi Jinx!} said that the cooling effect due to global warming should take place in the north-east of the USA, which is actually a part of the USA, not someplace that is simply a particular direction from the USA, so what you've said would appear to be irrelevant. I mean, I realise that this is probably an error of mine, due to my liberal, public school indoctrination, so I really would appreciate you explaining to me in what way I'm wrong, purely in the interests of opening my mind. 92.23.58.2 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed, I went back to look JWDpianist 2000 last edits... He was doing good and tireless work since almost a year, never was saying a word. I guess he's an accomplished musician, a lot of admins asking music questions to him... An exceptionnal Wikian. How did he DARED to use logic on CPS?! See how it cost him...

TK! Reverse all JDWpianist's edits. They are tainted by the Devil's touch too... And for lurking RW, go block yourself!

Where is this comment of Andy's about cold nights in New Jersey? I've seen people referring to it, but no one links to it. SoldierInGodsArmy 04:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

For those of you wondering, the proper way of dealing with our good friend Oncoming Storm is to use the {{NotJinx}} tag. That will give you Not Jinx _{Hi NOT Jinx!}. That is all SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 06:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

JWDPianist is a shining example of the utter disdain and contempt TK has for Andy's blog. Long-time editor, actually contributing decent stuff to CP, comments on Jinx's stupidity. TK leaps in, blocks him - using a lie as a reason, and then has the gall to replace his user^img pages^img with "Retired". Why not just delete the pages like you normally do, you cunt? Jinx, of course, spineless cur that his is, will say nothing. Then again, we know Karajou and JPratt read here too and if they choose to do nothing, well, gods peed to them, they deserve what's coming their way. --PsygremlinSiarad! 23:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would you expect other behavior from immoral assclowns who justify their antisocial behavior by "re-translating" millennia-old fairy tales to suit their political a sexual proclivities?Phallus of Satan 00:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Call me an idealist, but I'd like to think that just one of them, just for a moment, would show that they have a shred of decency and integrity, or even a personality outside of Andy's influence. But so far, all I've seen are in-synch shouts of 'Resistance is futile!' --PsygremlinKhuluma! 00:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question Andy...

...is that the parents of normal kids with modern educations aren't obsessed with having an outdated, irrelevant, hateful mythology as the basis of their children's worldview. TheoryOfPractice 22:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, not all homeschooling is about religion (see wp:Homeschooling in the United States), but to answer Andy's point I see no reason why there should be a correlation between homeschooling and intelligence. Obviously there are more homeschoolers going to the event and they have more time to study. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It really has nothing more to do with the fact that their parents are using their time to coach children for spelling bees rather than teaching them maths or physics or something useful or how to think analytically and question assumptions. - π 03:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Pi, it's not a spelling bee--it's a BIBLE BEE--(note, it's approved by Kirk Cameron!!!!)! They're taking up valuable math/physics/history/literature time with memorizing Bible verses. TheoryOfPractice 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right, my sanity chip must have kicked in and filtered out the full extent of its horribleness. - π 04:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe Andy will teach a spelling course next? ("See if you can learn out to spell 'superior' ") Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

On a tangential note: today's WorldNutDaily poll. - π 03:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I love how the majority of the answers mean the same thing. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There is some special crazy on that thread (sorry that is the only way I have found to link to individual comments). - π 03:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL at "jacka[$$]es." What is it about moralizing knobs that makes them find words sooooo offensive? Moreover, why are all swearwords rendered completely indecipherable by the insertion of a couple of wingding characters? I'd call them a bunch of sh*t-eating donkey-f%$king a&&holes, but no one would be able to work out what I meant...-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 04:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I killed a mosquito while reading this. ħuman 04:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I never understand why some people type G*d. Who do they think they are fooling ? gOD? Генгис^evolving 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Jews are silly like that. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one thing I've never understood. I guess it comes from the commandment to "not take the Lord's name in vain"... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I declare...

JacobB to be CP's new resident parodist. For somebody who's 10th edit was to scream "BLOCK THIS USER IMMEDIATELY", straight after almost immediately removing "unnecessary, unhelpful comments that have been made a thousand times before to no affect" (how did he know they'd been made a 1000 times before) from the BHO 'article' to suddenly finding his true place in the CBP and finally almost rattling off the quote generator verbatim (as in: StClaire (see our naming conventions), I see you have two edits to the encyclopedia (both attacking young earth creationism) and seven (7) edits to talk pages, all crating controversies which didn’t exist before and demanding removal of cartoons written by established and respected users. I encourage you to contribute constructively, or leave. JacobB 22:50, 17 November 2009 (EST)) Oh yes, and "quim" is short for Joaquim. Sorry if I've outed anybody here, but we all know it won't matter. Andy will keep him as close as he kept Bugler and TK. --PsygremlinSprich! 23:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

On an aside, when I am in charge people who add the numerals next to the words for numbers will be shot. Evil time Hoover! 17:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If he is, he's not a very funny one. Zelmerszoetrop 01:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless he gets creative and comes up with some clever parody, there's not much for him to do besides block people, which TK does already. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think about it, the Bible Project is a godsend for parodists. "Translating" the Bible is makework: it's easy and it contributes almost nothing of value to CP itself, so it's the perfect way to circumvent the 90/10 rule. Make lots of "translation" edits to balance out your "Give Me A Reason" bullying and banning on talkpages.

Andy himself has all but given up on editing the CBP; I would wager most of the people who are still working on it are parodists whose ulterior motive is bulking up their edit count. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 06:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Did Andy ever complete his Supreme Court project to become the most comprehensive repository of SC verdicts on the web? No, he's just a gadfly. And if the parodists just left off then CBP would stagnate like all his other delusional grand plans. Генгис^evolving 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WTF

Andy is editing the conservative words page again. What the fuck does this even mean? How is an algorithm the opposite of "liberal style?" Minor bonus lulz: It has been clear from the start that Andy is shoehorning words into his "geometric fit." According to this his date is fairly far off this time.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 00:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Facts are also liberal style. - π 00:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Like several "al..." words it comes from the very Christian Arab nations, of course, thus making it opposite of liberal. _& marmite^chat 00:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a close second to "transistor" for the best conservative word. I wonder what life is like in Andy's world. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And on the subject of computer science, how funny would it be if "Turing test" becomes a conservative word? I wouldn't put it past him to do something like that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BUT the fellow was a homosexual! _& marmite^chat 02:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's why it would be funny. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised. See: their love for a homeless, drug-addicted, confirmed bachelor named Paul Erdos.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 03:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Who was that guy, who on a bet, stopped taking methamphetamines for a month, and complained it set mathematics back... also, a "mathematician is a device for turning caffeine [ha ha] into theorems" ħuman 06:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Pi, that site dates algorithm in its current meaning to 1881, so tehassfly isn't far out. CS Miller 06:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely Andy would prefer Alonzo Church over Turing? Fawlty 08:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

When will a sock offer to start up the "Conservative Constitution Project," to propose a U.S. Constitution that is conservative friendly? --Irrational Atheist 13:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@Human: That was Paul Erdos, one of the greatest mathematical minds of our time. The bet was proposed by Ron Graham not for sport, but out of serious concern for his health.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 15:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

@Csmiller: The etymological dictionary gives 1699 as first use of the word "algorithm." It goes on to state that the word "algorithmic" as a description of symbolic rules or language dates to 1881. Either way Andy is wrong, but it seems that 1699 is correct.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 15:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Err, aren't like 80% of editors at CP admins?

They're the only ones who survive. This guy's days are numbered. On a related note, nothing interesting is happening on CP since TK's back blocking everyone. The blocks themselves just sort of make me want to throw up in my mouth a little, which I don't do for giggles. Anyone got some ideas for how to push CP toward another blogrush? 01:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is to insert hilarious parody into the CBP and somehow get it noticed. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can read Greek you might find some of the comments to the CPB interesting. As far as I can tell only 2 people over there actually read Greek. 05:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

RJ really did swing to the left of me on a couple of issues, especially and namely on economics. He keeps on citing one paper that, in my opinion, is nothing but unfounded conjecture on economics from a history professor. ConservapediaEditor 21:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone make a wigo

Yeah, I've been here for like a year and I don't know how to link to images without them getting transcluded or something. Someone please do JDWpianist the honor and make him a good wigo including this gem: File:Jinx_Pwned.png. Thanks, I'll get my coat. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you're still wondering (didn't check WIGOCP yet), it's just like this with a ":" in front of the name. Same as with linking to categories. Easy once you know it, but it's one of the less intuitive MediaWiki formatting things. --Sid 19:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe I'll try and add it into the existing WIGO. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a week...

So it's been a week since Andy's "intense" appearance at the Rutgers Health Care Reform panel, and the news story he was waiting on before commenting further has been out there for almost a week as well. Looks like this is going to be one of those events that will no longer be acknowledged since he's not in total control of how it's spun. --SpinyNorman 15:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All the info I can find regarding Rutgers are articles pertaining to their sports teams losing dismally (google). Though I did find this. Seems Rutgers mostly supports the bill and poor little Andy has neither an article to cite in his favor, nor a mention of his name. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 15:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As a New Jerseyan, I am ashamed of Rutgers. The state poured millions of tax dollars into their athletic facilities, and they aren't even any good. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

He was never at Rutgers, what are you talking about? ^postate 19:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes he was, didn't you see Spiny's essay on it? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Spiny is a gutless lying member of a vandal site, with no credibility here. Godspeed.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"SpinyNorman" (don't get me started on the user name), we don't allow anonymous claims of Aschlafly interaction. Unless you can provide some proof of your interaction with Aschlafly, take your claims elsewhere. Perhaps Wikipedia would be a better fit for you. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. In response, I offer video evidence of the audience reaction to Andy's assertion that abortion leads to higher infant-mortality rates in subsequent pregnancies. The gentleman wearing the glasses is the one who took issue with the use of Schlafly Statistics. --SpinyNorman 21:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just another in a long line of non-events that involve Andy and independent corroboration. And in other news, I was about to enjoy a nice cup of pre-bed tomato soup. Not any more. --PsygremlinHable! 21:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Cue mainpage "death of liberal media" rant in 3... 2...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34147375/ns/business-media_biz/ Make sure to use extra bold and italics and exclamation points, Not Jinx _{Hi NOT Jinx!}. --Irrational Atheist 15:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy and Newton

Come on, I thought it was funnier when Andy was trying to make himself seem like Isaac Newton, rather than Newton's greatest contribution was translating the Bible. It's not funny now, nor is it concise. --Irrational Atheist 17:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I missed the "Andy fancies himself to be Isaac Newton" angle. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. It's back now. No harm, no foul. I just didn't see the humor or fun side in the longer WIGO. --Irrational Atheist 18:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny that he deletes a perfectly good paragraph to write that "I am Newton" screed. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Karajou English all of a sudden?

[1] Telly? East Anglia? WTF? Corry 18:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

He is referring to the so-called "Climategate." Although it is amusing that he should be conflating meteorology with climatology. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, at first I thought it was a self-portrait. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, cartoons. Just what every second rate hack job blog "trustworthy" encyclopadia needs. I do so hope Encyclopaedia Britannica is going to start including cartoons soon, or I'm not renewing my subscription. @Tet - it can't be a self-portrait, the cartoon has opposable thumbs. --PsygremlinSpeak! 19:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All creationists do that. Publications that are ostensibly about serious science have cartoons in them making laughable attempts to lampoon reality. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re "English" - in his first toon he has a character using "by gum" - not an American expression is it? In cognito 19:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when he was "seeing the world" in the US Navy, he caught a mild case of anglophilia? Oh, those tricky Brits... ħuman 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Them SoHo gals'll do that to ya everytime. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 20:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely you mean Soho?. SoHo is quite *quite* different. Charles SubLunar ^(mr) 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Conservapedia is not the only encyclopedia with cartoons - Wikipedia did it too. But they used actual articles from the website as a source. ...wait, so does Karajou. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear, sweet, delusional Andy...

...Tsk, tsk. New Jerseyans are learning from Conservapedia? At no point in that article does it mention Andy, his mum, or Conservapedia. He's really earning that delusions of grandeur award. SJ ^Debaser 21:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And Chris Christie will be sworn in using the Conservative Bible, I'm sure. --SpinyNorman 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point, SJ, although I think people within a close enough range of the glowing "insight machine" absorb conservative logic directly through the aether. ħuman 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Middle child syndrome ... While there are many things I do not agree with his mother or his brother's (Roger) politics, they are at least respectable on an intellectual basis. Andy shows exactly what is wrong with legacy admissions (the opposite of affirmative action one might argue). ConservapediaEditor 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, holding an opinion that a depressingly large amount of america does means that your opinion was directly influenced by Conservapedia. This is simple logic, people. Open your minds. X Stickman 23:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Most people in NJ aren't like Andy. To be fair, though, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage probably would pass here; there's a large population of socially conservative Hispanic Catholics. People in the more conservative Morris County are actually supportive of gay rights. I promise I will fight any proposed amendment as well as NOM's smear tactics very hard. I probably won't win but I'm going to turn some heads. --Crazyswordsman 02:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing how the homophobic ballot initiatives go in the midterm. It's only going to get uglier and uglier, I think. Corry 05:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

New low--Thanatos 02:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"(the opposite of affirmative action one might argue)" It actually epitomizes affirmative-action; unqualified people being admitted to school on account of their patrimony. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

...except with the goal of reproducing social inequality by birthright instead of working toward undoing it. TheoryOfPractice 05:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Say what you want about the Lofty Social Goals of the policy; both policies end up with incompetent people admitted to school. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You're an ass. I think I need to avoid conversations that you're involved in for a while. It's like everything you say is calculated to piss of decent human beings. TheoryOfPractice 05:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Roger slaps Andy around again.

This^img discussion is full of win. Roger "Pioneer anomaly does not disprove relativity and I told you about it in the first place Andy." Bonus lulz - Roger tells Andy to read the Wikipedia article. --Psygremlin講話 00:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time he banned that liberal SOB PITA bro and toss him into a Christian reeducation camp with that other Sodomite brother. Family can be so pesky, especially around the holidays. Phallus of Satan 00:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Total genius. I absolutely love Andy attempting to browbeat physicist Roger with the Pioneer anomaly, only to be bitchslapped by Roger with "I was the one who told you about the Pioneer anomaly". Sotto voce, Roger saying, "...you fucking numpty". In this one dialogue we see crystallised, up close and very personal indeed, how bogus all of Andy's arguments are. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 03:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think they all go to mommy Phyllis's for Thanksgiving? Генгис^evolving 11:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jinx...

Glad to hear you're in better shape, even if you can't bring yourself to acknowledge how many of us--myself included--wished you well....TheoryOfPractice 02:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fat lot of good praying does, I was praying it was bad. - π 02:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the logic behind their accusations that we wish them ill. I mean, ultimately, we're here for the lulz. And if one of them died, then there would be less lulz. Hence making our lives just a little more boring. I suppose that they might believe we wish ill on them because they are spreading the "truth" (what we call conservative propaganda and nonsense). I suppose at one point, that would have made sense, but now I figure that CP is largely harmless since so few people seem to use it as a source. -- JArneal 02:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're out of the woods, Jinx. Now back to business as usual ;) ħuman 04:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're better, Jinx- a pulmonary workup is no easy thing. Hopefully the lesion is benign. If you're reading this, know that lesions too central for bronchoscopy to biopsy may be reachable by a needle through your chest wall with imaging guidance. If you're being seen at Mayo you're in very good hands. Keep in touch with your pulmonologist. Corry 05:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Does Joaquin have a crush?

'Cause he seems to have spent a lot of time on an article about this fine-lookin' but really not all that notable girl. TheoryOfPractice 02:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to break from my normal line here and not complain about him stealing pictures, she is a looker. --Opcn 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That first "sentence" could really use an "is the". I've seen writing like that here, too, it's weird. People seem to the think the "title" is the subject. Come on, Joaquin, you can do better. ħuman 04:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

She is the "junior wife." I guess she's the one that gets stuck cleaning the catbox. Corry 05:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Naw, the "junior wife" doesn't run the kitchen is all. She's the new installment in the bedroom... ħuman 06:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"At present they have a daughter" - that sounds awfully threatening. Генгис^evolving 14:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Jacob versus Jpatt and Geo.plrd

This might be interesting. Check the current RC. Especially the Block Log (re: Jfraatz), the "Theory of relativity" article and Geo's talk page as of right now. Yeah, I'm too lazy to link - it's four in the freaking morning, and I'm about to (finally) go to bed. --Sid 03:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone removes an Andy passage on relativity^img. Jacob^img puts it back. Geoplourde: "Wait, this looks like BS"^img. Jacob: You sure you wanna do that^img? TheoryOfPractice 03:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit! Is Geo.plrd actually defending scientific reasoning, or is the booze effecting my brain? Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 03:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Both, perhaps? ħuman 06:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

More than likely. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 07:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And now the Team Killer steams in^img in typical threatening manner. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 08:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

gOD, he is a first class bastard, isn't he? _& marmite^chat 08:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Geoff is starting to regret his worse-than-feeble efforts as TK's "parole officer" way back when, especially concerning the UCLA incident? He should know by now TK has no friends and owes no allegiances. --Psygremlin話しなさい 09:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well TK's deleting his comments to Jacob & jacob's to him (& oversighting 'em) & geo's gone stumm^img by communicating only via email. _& marmite^chat 09:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No doubt TK dished out a spanking in the Blues Room. --PsygremlinPrata! 12:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The fate of gun control

If the fate of gun control depends on Andy Schlafly, then the NRA might as well pack it in now, and beat their AK-47's into plowshares or something. MDB 18:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

He's writing an amicus curiae brief. They're probably not even going to read it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

For information from WP:

An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court.

An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored.

(my emphasis) In cognito 18:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, isn't an amicus curiae brief the Supreme Court equivalent of a letter to a Congress-critter or the President, albeit with legalese? I can imagine Andy's letter now:

Dear Justices:

There are too many liberals nowadays. Please eliminate three million. I am not a crackpot.

Yours, etc,

Andrew L. Schlafly (Esq) (Mrs.) MDB 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! A python fan! 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but (a) As incomprehensible as Andy is, even poorly written amicus briefs filed at SCOTUS are much more coherent than, say, letters to the editor, and (b) They only get a few (less than 50 or so) briefs per case (c) Every justice has several clerks (d) The briefs are organized, with tables of contents, so readers can skip parts that are redundant.

OTOH, it is hilarious that Andy thinks the court's decision is up to him. This is the best Andinsanity I've ever seen, since it extends beyond the bounds of his wikirealm. Coarb 18:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's at least a close second to the FBI Incident. Maybe Andy will also try to influence the gay marriage bill that is floating around the NJ legislature right now? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Andy's writing is not so good. Here's the AAPS amicus brief from the DC v. Heller case if anyone's interested. His alleged McDonald v. City of Chicago amicus brief isn't posted yet. 21:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I can tell from the writing style that it is Andy. Loved the "gun control = genocide" bit. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) "The Primary Use of Guns Is Defensive, Having a Beneficial Effect." Classic Andy right there. But more to the point, the AAPS, an organization of medical doctors, are filing and amicus brief supporting the propagation of a device that exists only to kill people? WTF? TheoryOfPractice 21:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. The opening bit explaining what the AAPS and why they care about gun control is a bit distressing. I don't know about you, but there seems to be something almost unholy about a group of pistol-packing-physicians (would make a good grindhouse movie, though). Kaalis 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OMFG!!! "Had someone used a gun to avert the 9/11 massacre, it would not have generated anything near the news that did result." You have to be fucking kidding me.... SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 22:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wonder if he ever considers that four times in about 150 years^(?) US Presidents have been killed using the defensive weapon of gun? (not to forget the incident that triggered^(hee) the first World War.) In cognito 22:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The 9/11 bit destroyed my last respect for the man (yes, I still had some left for some reason). DEAR GOD, WHAT THE HELL? --Sid 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think his strangest argument is his idea that children, if armed with a firearm, could overcome a normally more powerful aggressor. Because, you know, it would probably be better if every child had a gun in their backpack just in case a bad guy came after them on the way home from school. No way that could go wrong. Oh. And I loved the reference to Hollywood bias. -- JArneal 23:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just staggeringly funny. There exists an organization crazy enough to have Andy file briefs with the SCOTUS on their behalf, and he drowns the page with the most absurd Andyisms imaginable. Is it too much to expect "Dear Supreme Court. No one denies that autumn leaves are beautiful except evolutionists, and since doctors defend against medical tyranny and the incroachment of relativity with guns, we cannot allow highschoolers to watch Colbert. 2+2=4. I await my appointment as President. - Andy." 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

He is just as wacky a guy outside the wiki as he is inside. ^{Side note: I sent him a (sincere) email once, and he signed his reply "In Christ"} I was (almost) surprised he didn't write "Supreme Court" (please recreate your account with your real first name and last initial)... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

after reading the brief from the link above , my basic reaction was WTF !!! but I did like this bit quote: Gun control makes citizens, particularly children and mentally disabled people, unprotected targets for crime. The right to bear arms enables these targets to obtain protection. Hamster 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Vaccines could be taken as a public health analogy for guns." WTF??? About the only Andyism I haven't found in there is gun control causes breast cancer. I assume this drivel was laughed out of court? Oh yes, and if Anne Frank had a gun, she would have kicked Nazi ass, apparently. --PsygremlinSiarad! 18:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"The AHPA brief claims that the risk of firearm related death is greater in homes with guns than homes without, but again, such data are defective for failure to specify who fired the gun and whether the gun in the home was the one fired. There is much reason to expect that most of their deaths were by criminal assailants and the presence of the gun in the home had nothing to do with the death." Jesus, point missed much, Andy. Where the fuck did the criminal assailants get the gun, you idiot? With tighter gun control, they might not have had one. --PsygremlinSiarad! 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the many contradictions stuck out for me. At first, Andy states Virtually all medical professionals support use of drugs and vaccines that cause serious adverse effects as long as they confer greater benefits, yet that basic analytical approach is missing from Petitioners’ Medical Amici. on page 10. Then, on Pg. 15; By focusing only on harm resultant from an activity, those submissions falsely conclude that gun ownership is itself harmful. With that approach they would conclude that vaccines, heart surgery, and even bathtubs are harmful and could be profitably banned. But all those products and services – like the ownership of guns – confer benefits that far exceed the attendant harm.

I'm not sure if my eyes are filled with liberal deceit, but methinks Andy downed Vaccines in one paragraph then said they were beneficial later. I don't think he did much proofreading after he completed this 'work'. -- CodyH 23:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Pianist

I might have missed something, but what did JDWpianist do to get^img Godspeeded^img? _& marmite^chat 02:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

See the thing about Jinx above. JDW dared to question whether global warming might be true. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost sort of sad to see the pianist get the banhammer. His contributions to the article on Vienna are the reason I'm here. I tried to sign up to Conservapedia so I could correct some of his more egregious factual errors but my IP address was blocked. In fact pretty much my entire island was blocked; not exactly surgical precision seeing how we were roughly half a million people. I mailed the blocking sysop as per the relevant instructions in the Editor's Guide and politely asked to be allowed to register; the sysop replied he wouldn't help me unless I first confessed to the crimes that got me blocked in the first place. The rest, as they say, is history. Mountain Blue 22:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

He rises from the grave^img to tattle on TK. Sadly, Andy says he "investigate" and we all know what that means... --PsygremlinHable! 23:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You Should be Ashamed of yourselves!

Dear Rationalwiki,

You need to look at yourselves and your lives and the amount of time you spend harassing conservapedia and Mr. Schlafly. I have been a faithful reader of conservapedia for several months now, and then I stumbled upon this website and I am disgusted by the content of this page. Why do you feel it necessariy to tear apart everything Mr. Schlafly has worked so hard to build? What is wrong with spreading conservative values and the word of god? Mr. Schlafly is a brilliant man and willing to take on the vast amount of liberal bias that exists in America today. So to question his mental health and resort to name calling is just immature and childish. I suggest you open your minds and read what conservapedia has to say. Godspeed. ^{— Unsigned, by: Seeker / talk / contribs}

Hilarious. Perfect bit of parody--except a true Schlaflyite would have never written "God" with a lower-case "g" as you did. Otherwise, nice bit of parody. TheoryOfPractice 02:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is this? My money is on Neveruse. - π 02:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, I should have capitalized god. How liberal of me. I was actually hoping conservapedians might think they have someone sticking up for them. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Just for the record, I think they are all crazy over at cp. I was actually the one who posted the question about global warming logic, which I was promptly blocked for, only to have them repost it with that ridiculous response. Does anyone else find conservapedia is like crack? You know it rots your brain, but you just keep going back to it.--Seeker 02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it makes me feel terrible about myself, no matter what good I do in the world. --Crazyswordsman 02:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the subtleties you have to master. A REAL Schlaflette wouldn't have even posted on RW. ^postate 10:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on now. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Leisure reading

Now that I have time to read for pleasure (for a little while) I've finally dug into The Greatest Show On Earth. The Lenski discussion is great, and the postscript shoutout to CP is hilarious. That's all. Corry 05:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I bought it a while back but haven't found the time to delve into it yet. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just taken his "Ancestor's Tale" out of the library. hopefully he isn't as shrill in this as in God Delusion. Also got the Dancing WuLi Masters, which looks a promising "physics for teh terminally dumb" book. --PsygremlinKhuluma! 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just finished Terry Eagleton's Reason, Faith and Revolution, in which the distinguished, Marxist, atheist scholar takes "Ditchkins" (Hitchens and Dawkins) to task for their un-nuanced and unsubtle views on religion. Not an awesome book, but an interesting read. TheoryOfPractice 17:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I heard him give a fantastic lecture this past spring from a (then) forthcoming book. Was this one anything about the nature of evil? Junggai 20:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

CP site down?

Is anyone else having trouble getting onto CP? I keep getting when when trying to access any page (even main page)

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access / on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Has CP finally gone totally round the bend and blocked those evil socialist evilutionists in Europe from even seeing CP? Been like this for a good 12 hours -- 11:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's OK for me. Try again. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Your IP might be blocked. No problem for me. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You might have got blocked if you were involved with any pageview bumping. I believe that several people had a similar fate a couple of months ago when the 100 million page views millstone was reached. I haven't really checked my stats but it looks like it's still happening and that's why main page left is stuck at 105m although the stats show 141m. I have a sneaking suspicion that at some point it will all be forgotten and some arse (you know who you are) will just update MPL with the current value. Генгис^evolving 14:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I get that on my work PC as thats where I edited as JJacob from. Ace^McWicked 18:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Think it's my buildings IP, still blocked here but it's fine on campus. -- 22:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, "millstone". ħuman 09:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Geo.plrd's talkpage

Yeah that is exactly how a wiki should be run. - π 12:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also on talkpages what is missing^img? - π 12:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Both events are tied to the stuff that's described in the above "Jacob versus Jpatt and Geo.plrd" section. Summary: Geo removed some of Andy's drivel (overruling Jacob who wanted to keep it), Jacob points it out, TK gets involved, things get potentially messy, Geo realizes that he stepped onto a landmine and locks everybody out so he can likely insult them in private. --Sid 12:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Day by day, Conservapedia really does seem to be sliding further and further into some kind of Soviet dictatorship- you can't even address the admins now. They just shit on everyone the second they create an account and that's that. SJ ^Debaser 12:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Geo's not a big one for talking - it was him who arbitrarily shut down the abuse page too. Luckily we've got his wikepedia page to chat on if we must. --Psygremlin講話 12:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Geo's steps for dealing with abuse reports: (1) "The sysop had good reason to do this." (or: "I know what I'm doing.") (2) "No, I don't know said reason or any details." (or: "So maybe I don't know what I'm doing. I'm still right.") (3) "You know, I think you're right th-... hold on." (4) *picks up phone* "This is Geo. ... Hey TK, how's it going? ... Ah. ... Oh. ... Yes, Master." *click* (5) "Shut the fuck up, you fucking peon! Don't question the sysops! Besides, what do I have to do with this? Fuck off!" --Sid 12:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the body empowered to consider appeals is /dev/null. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it the Student Panel? Given the current status of the Student Panel it is the same as /dev/null, but anyway. - π 01:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I had this handy hand-held deviced that let out a high pitched scream and melted after reading ...I went to another wiki, Conservapedia. There I developed my "people skills" that had been sadly lacking.... My god, what were they like beforehand, if these are the skills you've learned? PsygremlinZungumza! 07:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote mining? Much? Ajkgordon 09:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it's just a typo but...

KAL Bert's new essay project is off to an inauspicious start^img. TheoryOfPractice 17:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll buy a round of internet beer if Andy can get through this tossed salad of run-on sentences, misused comas, and half-baked theology. Needs conservative conciseness. Concise-osity? --Simple 18:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy reads this stuff? I assumed he just goes by the username and skims a half-dozen sentences here and there to make sure there's no sneaky liberalism, and assumes the rest. --Kels 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy reads stuff? --Sid 10:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the proper etiquette for something good on conservapedia?

I found something really good in an article, something that displays the ignorance of someone they like, but like parody I don't want to point it out. Do I just sit quietly and smile? --Opcn 03:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. If you send me an email we can both smile at it. - π 03:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Forward, please. TheoryOfPractice 03:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too! I could use a laugh. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Email all of us! ħuman 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Except whoever is running "TK" this week, of course. ħuman 04:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I was TK last week. Me too, please. Corry 05:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Next time, wait a while before posting. I correlated your post time with the logs for CP article views, and then matched time periods for those ips for against the times that you were online at this vandal site. In short, busted. Bye.^{— Unsigned, by: 76.121.59.123 / talk / contribs}

What a fanciful lie. - π 05:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What can I say, I was watching NCIS, I wish I were that cool.

It could happen though. Heck, once we implement GTS (Google Total Surveillance), its not a matter of what you can know so much as how much you're prepared to pay to know.

Sounds like Science to me. Hot and Rational! Let's start a wiki! ħuman 06:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it has been up for a while, I can't believe no one caught it. I emailed it on to those who asked, not TK Corry, who I do not particularly recognize :) Tracked it down to it's source, Assfly expunged most of the original post by the long ago blocked editor, but left the damning part --Opcn 10:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That is quite funny, although I doubt they would see anything wrong with it. - π 10:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm intrigued... it's not "the cause of birth defects is the will of God" is it? ^postate 10:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody mailed me :( Now I feel all left out and in need of a hug. --PsygremlinPraat! 12:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I sent it to you. You should blog about it. - π 12:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Schweet. Off to have a gander. Anything that saves me blogging about Ken - the stupidity overload from reading his stuff is bordering on dangerous levels. --PsygremlinTal! 12:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Although I'm wondering if I missed the point. Still it was an interesting bit of research. --PsygremlinParla! 17:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thay was awesome. Thanks. TheoryOfPractice 13:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too please, Opcn. Генгис^evolving 14:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Me three? Pietrow 16:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC) — Thanks for the mail Gremlin. Pietrow 17:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

OOooh, that's very nice! Thanks for the email Opcn. Fucking idiots. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please pass it on to me?-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Psy. It is quite funny. I suspect that even if we pointed it out they would defend it rather than remove it...-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 18:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We should do this more often. Генгис^evolving 18:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read this conversation and cannot find out what it is then you belong at cp, kind of misses the point of the quietness, but good blog entry. --Opcn 20:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

<--Well CP have picked this up, and are now defending it by saying

Many liberals ignorant of the history of "under God" have tried to ridicule Palin's remark, even calling her an "idiot" for it. In fact, the origin of the phrase "under God" is the General Orders of George Washington on July 2 and 9, 1776: "The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army" (July 2); "the peace and safety of the Country now depends, under God, solely on the success of our arms" (July 9). George Washington was indeed a Founding Father, and the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the Declaration of Independence and later writings.

I don't now enough about American history to analyse this further. CS Miller 22:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it - "under God" was only added in 1954 to detract from the fact the pledge was written by a socialist and MacCarthyism was rife at the time. (btw adding "under God" makes it a prayer, so if kids are saying it at school, then there is prayer in the classroom, so what's Schlafly's problem?) What CP have done is said "Washington said 'under God'. Washington was a founding father, ergo ALL founding fathers would have said 'under God'". The founding fathers have about as much to do with the Pledge as I do. --PsygremlinSermā! 22:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington also said (wrote) "and bedew no man’s face with your spittle by approaching too near when you speak. " I suggest we amend our pledge to read "I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and bedew no man’s face with your spittle " --Opcn 23:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That. Is. Brilliant. God bless Sarah Palin. (I'd still nail her though) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

CP "Liberal hate speech" articles posted on Craigslist.

So the Ann Arbor Craigslist "Rants and Raves" section is currently peppered with entries titled "Liberal hate speech against persons with disabilities", "Liberal hate speech against women," and several others that are cut-and-pated from the CP "Liberal hate speech" article--right down to the footnote numbers (w/out corresponding references). CP is legion. TheoryOfPractice 15:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I got as far as "extra chromosome" being offensive to people with Down's Syndrome and my palm collided with my head. Is it worth going further? ^postate 17:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It's just nice to know someone is reading/using CP in the liberal bubble. If I wasn't ip blocked I'd post something on Andy's page congratulating him on spreading his message...TheoryOfPractice 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I read most of that article, and found a good portion of their refrences to be either A) Anonomous Comments online B) Comedians (Seriously) or C) things that are completely unrelated to hate-speech against a person (I.E. "Obama called Sarah Palin a Pig")--Passerby25 18:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I love this one: "Democratic Senator Al Franken of Minnesota peddled a book entitled Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Stupid Idiot, viciously ridiculing a person struggling with obesity and hearing disabilities." Now, you can't argue that he wasn't attacking Rushbo's weight.... But I have read that book several times, and he never brings up anything about "hearing" disabilities... and considering all of the ad hom and vicious insults Rush makes about people everyday, I think he can take it. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 23:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's all just part of their tactic of portraying a conservative as the poor, poor victim. Doesn't matter if anybody actually mocked him for it, just list every pity-worthy part and hope that your readers will go "How could anybody attack such a poor guy?" --Sid 00:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

...and again, another CP article on the local Craigslist. TheoryOfPractice 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you figure it was an out-of-state (=NYC) UM student weenie wot posted that, some vile Ypsituckian, or a true-blue redneck Michigander? 68.49.249.43 04:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Where could we find some?

Non-liberal deceit is rare and you may not be able to find any, says Andy. But surely I saw some recently, now where might that have been? Fawlty 07:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at that assholes contribs and wondering exactly where in today he fitted his Thanksgiving dinner. There's a gap from 19:00 to 22:20, is that it? Christ on an easter stick, I didn't even check in before walking over to my lovely neighbors house, and wasn't worried about getting back for the RW party. Andy spent the whole fucking day editing CP...

"Chapter 4: completed verses 25-26; a fantastic way to start the day) (top)
10:40, 26 November 2009 (hist) (diff) Essay:Quantifying Order ‎ (marriage brings greater order and can be understood as beneficial for that reason.)"

Moron. And loser. ħuman 09:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He brought marriage into his Order essay? Damn, sounds like I'll have to read the updated version this weekend, I seem to be missing out good quality lulz. --Sid 10:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm amused that the addition of marriage to the article is not much more than the edit summary says. I think there's another five words. This edit amuses me more, since we know that growth rates aren't consistent even today. So his "argument" means nothing. --Kels 14:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if CP has it set up so that "no edit comment" is "replaced" with xx characters of what one typed? Or is Andy just an idiot who copies and pastes what he wrote into the box before saving? ħuman 21:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not able to find any non-liberal deceit, Andy? Make sure you have the pages for Ted Haggard, Mark Sanford, Kent Hovind, Ralph Reed and Sarah "Going Rogue with the facts" Palin recategorized to label them as liberals, then. --SpinyNorman 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, rebranding as liberal is only necessary as a last resort, and only when the person is no longer useful to the movement (see Jack Abramoff, for example). First step when confronted with conservative deceit is to classify said deceit as something not-exactly-deceit. Haggard, for example, is guilty of hypocrisy, not deceit. And it has to be embraced deceit, which (near as I can figure) means that Andy has looked into their soul and deduced that they really really really meant to be naughty. Conservatives might sometimes be deceitful, but they don't ever really mean it, so it doesn't count.--WJThomas 23:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

JDWPianist

Why was he blocked? I thought he was one of CPs best contributors.

Also, if you get blocked by Karajou, and he labels you a sock of someone who wasn't you, what does that mean?--Star trooper man 09:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked because he was one of CP's best contributors. --Fawlty 10:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He got into a minor spat betweeen GeoPlrd & TK & the inevitable happened. See several past entries on this page. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 10:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

On Kajagoo: who knows? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 10:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re. Kara: It means he can't think of any valid reason and just has to make one up to have an excuse. Either that, or the user's IP happened to be in the same IP-block/city/state/country as another one Kara "knows". See also Conservapedia:Blocking the planet --Sid 10:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he blocked someone once claiming it was me, solely because it was a Canadian IP. After all, only a half-dozen people live in Canada, right? Only wikis I've ever contributed to have been here, WP and Rice Boy. --Kels 14:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume that TK's unblocking of him merely indicates his subjugation. Professor Moriarty 21:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He blocked an IP in Salt Lake City claiming it was me. I live in the Denver/Metro area of Colorado. He's only off by about a three hour car trip. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 03:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

New Conservative Words Thanksgiving Weekend Edition

"patriotically incorrect hate speech": "Speech attacking America, Americans as a people, or American interests."
"anti-choice": "the position of opposing school vouchers"
"values deniers": "people who do not believe in natural law"
An epic WTF to Jfraatz. --Irrational Atheist 00:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Send it to him yerself.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 02:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

YOU'VE BEEN MEMESHOCKED BOYEEEE!!!!1!! 02:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me who agrees that the religious right/tea party people are so stupid that you can reduce their talking points to a science? 03:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

== Andy pulls a Ken

==

I really thought that vague announcements of upcoming media events was Conservative's domain, not Andrew Layton's....TheoryOfPractice 18:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, what he means is either he was asked about something and they're quoting him and makes mention that he runs Conservapedia, or someone used Conservapedia in a Christian/Conservative post and let him know they're posting it soon. --Irrational Atheist 21:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Mebbe AS will be a guest on Feces the Nation? 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC) CЯacke®

Maybe he is finally going to address the health care debate debacle.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 23:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If a tripod site counts as "newstands" then Andy is being totally honest. If he's going to hit something bigger then perhaps he's planning on going postal? --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So I go to google again to find evidence of "Another big news story about Conservapedia is due to hit the newsstands and internet as early as this weekend" happening. First amusement is in their description of the site: "An encyclopaedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint" (emphasis added). I click on "news" next (that's how you do it, right?) and nada yet. :( ħuman 00:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Memeboy gets in hot water with Andy

I dunno if RW has covered Jfraatz before, but check out his facebook group:

Due to the fact that we have had limited success tampering with Wikipedia I have developed a new strategy. Conservapedia is of little use trying to DIRECTLY infect the public, since only small subsections of conservatives visit it.

However I have decided that this is useful for another purpose. We can model Conservapedia readers as the memetic equivalent of BIOLOGICAL VECTORS. The idea being that Conservapedia users will readily take in our language (because it is compatible with their worldview) and propagate it indirectly to the general public once they have sufficiently absorbed it.

However to do this we must saturate Conservapedia with our memes. To be effective with this we must not only on pages for specific terms but also on other pages mixed into the language of the other articles. Fortunately Conservapedia encourages this sort of thing -inventing new conservative language that is. Only in our case we are doing it scientifically.

He is a horrible little Straussian twerp, eh? (he actually name-drops Strauss and Kristol constantly). The guy is one degree removed from sociopathy. Even his fellow movement-conservatives aren't people, they are bugs, THINGS, to manipulate, psy-ops, infiltrate, lie to at will, play mind games on, etc.

That's why it's so satisfying to see him try to play his mind games on the Internet's Stupidest Man - and lose.

When all the neoconservatives go to hell, I think the best punishment would be if they were locked up in one room each - with only a paleoconservative for company. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a chat with him on my talk, talk, talk page the last time his antics surfaced here. MemeShock is a highly cynical and deliberate form of Unspeak. Johann 09:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page is... disturbing. He is past sociopathy, he even admits that he prefers winning to being right. That's far worse imo than the usual neocon because usually they tend to convice themselves they are fighting with sinful means that are justified by for the worthy cause. This memetic creature (see I can do it too) just takes pleasure in the manipulation itself. Pietrow 10:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he is a whole lot worse than Andy, in the same way that Paul Wolfowitz is a whole lot worse than Pat Buchanan.

He parrots Straussian memes like: "Without a spectacular state to fear, people have a propensity towards anarchy", we need a priestly philosopher class to guide authoritarian rulers, "the masses" need to believe comforting falsehoods or else people will descend into anarchy, frame yourself as a "moderate" and use doublespeak to convince them to give you what you want, we need an authoritarian revolution, "any law restricting executive power makes no sense" because "all of the authority to enforce laws ultimately flows from the president"; there is nothing inherently valuable about democracy so the CIA is "morally justified" in overthrowing democratic governments that don't fall in line with the West, corporate power should be coopted by the state to achieve political ends, and finally, Rawlsian liberalism is at fault for the Darfur genocide. Why? Who knows, except Rawlsian liberalism (aka "democracy the way they taught you in civics class") is the boogeyman for these guys, the same way "secularists" are hiding under Glenn Beck's bed and "statists" are hiding in Ron Paul's closet.

Look, obviously he is just a pimply undergrad with delusions of grandeur, he talks about "my allies in the pro-life movement" and how "I can leverage corporate power to get what I want out of the political process". Like he's the next Peter Wiggin. On that level it's funny, yes. It's a bit like all those teenagers who get seduced into Randroidism.

The difference is... Leo Strauss is so palpably, sick-makingly evil that there really does have to be something pre-existing, something inherently WRONG with you for you to pick it up and say "Wow, this guy has the answers!" Democracy depends on believing that your fellow citizen is a human being just like you and when you two disagree, the best way to achieve the public good is for you each to try to convince the other with calm and reasonable arguments.

When you believe instead that your neighbor is weak-minded, you know what's best for him, and it's best to manipulate his subconscious rather than argue or debate, then all that talk about "God-given human rights" is a load of shit - another noble lie for weak-minded people like you and me who need comforting myths. To Jraatz we are no longer subjects but objects - "memetic vectors." After he rationalized "the masses" as a means to his ends it was only a short hop to believing they don't have minds. The next step in this chain of thought is to start building crowd-sized ovens.

Watching stupid, dogmatic authoritarian followers like Andy or Ken generates a lot more lulz than watching the cunning sociopath who will be leading their homeschooled kids into a brave new tomorrow.

I wish I weren't a Rawlsian liberal, otherwise I would ban his ass into the next century.

Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 12:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's like I am reading the Democrat play book or Alinskys radicals. I mean that word speak, control the masses, use the people.. Straussmeiser must be secular-progressive must reads. --Lipps ^{— Unsigned, by: 208.54.7.167 / talk / contribs}

Ahahaha, even Fraatz' memepals on his Facebook group complain about not being able to create accounts on CP. 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a great little CP project. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that somebody on CP is a parodist who actively edits here on RW

Since we, of course, do not want our CP administrator friends to know who this parodist is, of course, I'm going to be sneaky little sysop myself here. My next edit I will show proof of who the editor is here, who he (or she) is on Conservapedia, and why I'm damn sure of this connection. I will then delete this edit from our logs for obvious reason. If this editor then gets banned from CP for being a parodist, this will prove that a CP Administrator is an Administrator here. Now this hypothetical CP administrator who then would would want to block this editor would have to contend with the fact that he (or she) outs himself or herself as a parodist as well. Win-win situation here. Please be discrete in subsequent comments. ConservapediaEditor 11:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Several CP sysops are sysops here as well, they can see it too.

• RobS
• Geo.plrd
• Conservative
• TK has about three socks that are sysop.

Do you want me to continue? - π 11:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't understand this idea on a whole series of levels. While I'm not sure that I approve of the idea of inserting parody into CP, it seems to me that spotting parodists is their problem and not ours. I don't think that creating and hiding comments realy fits our ethos. Your plan rests on the assumption that any CP sysop would react instantly and not, say, in a month's time. It also rests on the assumption that CP sysops do not read RW and will not have read your post and will be too dim to react in a more subtle manner. Finally, as Pi points out we know that some CP sysops are sysops here and we don't care that much.--Bob^{Not Jim} 11:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I haven't done it yet. I'll back off on this. ConservapediaEditor 11:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect those who lurk have figured many of them out already, even disregarding the occasional slipups. MaxAlex 12:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See, even the lurker agrees and he knows all about lurking. - π 12:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't do this. Outing parodists destroys all the fun. Etc 14:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to seem retarded, but WTF? I don't get it... -- 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad, pointless idea, please don't. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia WIGO

"Wikipedia could sink faster than the Titanic." It could, but it won't will it? It's not going to. Everyone uses it, whereas the only people who use Conservapedia are retards or trolls. SJ ^Debaser 18:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

... of which there are a whole lot, hence Conservapedia isn't going to sink anytime soon either. --127․0․0․1 18:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but it's still not much of a ship. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Atheism is the antithesis of learning and charity", says the guy who runs a site that a) routinely deletes stuff they don't agree with and b) have copyright terms and site license that is ripe for abuse... as opposed to Wikipedia's reliability requirements and, um, their license which was actually constructed by a real IP lawyer to specifically allow "charitable" use of material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to Andy, I can see why he's all giddy about this. If one out of every hundred or so of these guys goes on to sign up to Conservapedia, his site will have grown by two orders of magnitude. Mountain Blue 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What I find funny is that it took him/them so long to jump on this. Hasn't our discussion of it at the SB been archived by now? ħuman 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Reeling in the minions

Any reason why Team Killer^img and Geoff Plourde^img are telling people to lay off the ideological blocks? Recipients so far include Kal-Bert, DeniseM, Taj, JacobB, Jinx _{hi Jinx!} and Foxtrot...TheoryOfPractice 01:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Because blocking for any reason other than vandalism is only for the "senior administrators" i.e, them. Once Andy gives newbies block rights the only means the rust-ons have of extending authority over them is by creating arbitrary hierarchies and rules. - π 02:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That much is pretty clear--I'm just wondering if there's a specific incident that triggered the move. TheoryOfPractice 02:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably worked themselves up into a lather in their google group. TK must have got another one of his vague orders from Andy ("do what you think is best") and took the chance to wave his mighty authority around. - π 02:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Need pictures

I need a pair of portraits for an article about two successful and influential legal thinkers I'm working on: Andy Schlafly and Mike Nifong. Google finds several metric fucktons of Nifong pictures but the free ones tend to be crap and the nonfree ones tend not to come with any licensing information to speak of. Many don't have copyright statements. Others have copyright statements so terse they do not, as practical matter, actually identify any copyright holder. Can anybody here tell me who I should talk to? Are there searchable databases for media personality portraits, like there are for stock photos? Is there some kind of syndication service somewhere?

Google also finds some Schlafly portraits but they are all of them guano; one is a lo-res scan of a really bad photo booth mugshot and the rest are blurry lo-res camera phone jobs. Is there any Schlafly portrait at all that looks halfway professional and has a reasonable resolution? I don't care how favorable or unfavorable it is and it doesn't necessarily have to be cheap. Any hints would be sincerely appreciated. Mountain Blue 02:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The standard andy photo can be found here. TheoryOfPractice 02:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Check the mediawiki commons for Nifong? ħuman 03:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? You are going to criticise Wikipedia for losing editors, Andy?

Needs link to CP user block log or something to make it funny on its own. IMHO. ħuman 04:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

PZ pwns Andy

Yes, I know we did it first, but I liked his line "the only reason scientists huff and puff about what's actually out there is to get you to stop reading your Bibles." --PsygremlinSnakk! 18:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy must feel like The Omega Man.--Thanatos 19:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how much PZ got when he pawned Andy. Can't imagine he has much resale value. --Kels 19:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh come now gentleman kels, have pity on an old man - I can't keep up with you young 'uns and your terminology. I'm still getting used to 'groovy' and 'daddy-o'. --PsygremlinZungumza! 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "a" in PWN (pronounced Pown, memetically the offspring of "Own" and a qwerty keyboard) --Opcn 20:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, in my brain I've always pronounced it 'poon', because I learned the word cwm first. Thus I try not to say it out loud for fear of mockery.--Martin Arrowsmith 21:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My own embarrassing pronunciation story lies with "fuck". At primary school, my friends and I had only ever seen it written down so we said it as (and excuse my pron guide here) "phewk" rather than "fuk". Yeah... we were all a bit middle class. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 21:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah! PZ pwns Andy on a blog. Dawkins pwned him in a bestselling book.Toffeeman 22:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Replicant, we should get sound sample of you saying "phewk orf"? It'd be handy addition to the unwelcome template. That's assuming you're not busy hunting foxes or something. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely he isn't out hoonting phooxes. --Fawlty 10:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nah, Phookz hasn't been here since his last freakout. Probably still drying out after that one. --Kels 14:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy continues

Oh, the gift that keeps on giving... Andy argues that he doesn't need to produce any references to back up his claims that relativity leads people to atheism (Cue Roger, again...), and that if someone doesn't believe him, they only need to go to a physics department and see for themselves. Good work, parody boy. --Irrational Atheist 18:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He also wrote "In addition, I've seen at least one survey indicating that the level of atheism is higher among physicists than, say, mathematics..." which is an oddly structured sentence that seems to claim that there are more physicists who are atheists than there are physicists who use math. Unless he meant "mathematicians" instead of "mathematics", which is of course impossible as Andy is infallible and never makes mistakes. X Stickman 01:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is a Conservapedia value...

...unless, you know, we disagree with you. TheoryOfPractice 01:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

They must love the ACLU then--Thanatos 02:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't stand CP anymore. The hypocrisy is unreal. Isn't the very First Amendment of the Constitution the right to freedom of speech? And they're shitting all over it by saying get anti-Christian stuff off YouTube. They make me sick. SJ ^Debaser 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember, on CP, it's God, then Country, then Mama Schlafly, then Andy's ego, then TK's power trip. Everything else is negotiable. --Irrational Atheist 03:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought Andy's ego always came first--Thanatos 03:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Right to free speech only applies to stuff that the government does. Youtube is a private company, and can censor all it wants from its own site. However, that doesen't mean they should, free speech is still inherently valuable, and shouldn't be thrown out of the window because they think something is offensive. They are anti-free speech, but that doesen't necessarily make them anti-first amendment. --Passerby25 03:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I watched the video on the xtian site linked from the CP "news" entry - that's clearly not a host biscuit. It looks more like a Ritz cracker, all thick, golden, buttery, and delicious. 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I googled host desecration when I saw the notice. I had no idea about that french Canadian kid. Making false allegations of firearm possession and intention to shoot up a school, another sterling example of Christian librul deceit.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 03:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Link --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I used the Petition to send a nice message encouraging Google to uphold Free Speech and keep the videos there. Hopefully they will wrap my message up in some nice HTML mail Jesusy packaging. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

IT'S A FUCKING CRACKER! Some people need to get a grip on reality. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a year-old cracker. - Poor Excuse 05:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not just a cracker to a certain group of christians (I can't even remember which group to be honest. All catholics or only a subsect of catholics?) which I assume Andy belongs to. While a lot of christian groups view the bread and wine of communion as a purely symbolical thing (i.e. the bread and wine represent flesh and blood, they aren't actually flesh and blood), some groups honestly believe that after the priest has done his thing, the cracker actually literally and really becomes a part of Jesus. Then they eat it. Of course, if you actually believe this fully, mistreating a consecrated cracker is like punching jesus in the balls.

People like Bill Donahue and Andy expect us to accept this "bread literally turns into the body of christ and then we eat it" thing as something that is perfectly normal and respectful and they really blow their top when people don't (it is an inherently odd thing to believe) X Stickman 10:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Catholics are certainly in that group. But in terms of Quebec boy, I am under the impression that the object(s) in the videos were actual crackers - Ritz, Hi-Hos, Keebler Town-House, Wheat Thins, Triscuits, etc. No actual hosts, consecrated or otherwise were involved; this was playacting, not actual desecration. If I'm wrong, please someone disabuse me. But my point was that the videos are a year old, why all this new activity? - Poor Excuse 17:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

An interesting point is that not only do they believe that the host becomes the actual flesh of Jesus, they believe that when the priest consecrates it he ever so briefly becomes Jesus. Or something like that. Corry 03:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. First part is essentially correct, second part is bizarrely wrong.--WJThomas 03:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That was my understanding, that the priest somehow assumes the persona of Jesus. If that's not the case, isn't there something of that sort? I believe it's one of the arguments against the ordination of women. Corry 17:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

At the moment of consecration, the priest speaks the words of Jesus, "this is my body", "this is my blood", with the pronouns intact. So if you're casting a male role, you usually opt for a male actor. At least that's how the theory goes. But no one (at least no mainstream someone) believes the priest becomes Jesus: he just play acts the rôle. - Poor Excuse 03:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, Andy is a cannibal? --Fawlty 13:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Watergate, Shmatergate...

Lame WIGO is lame. Andrew Layton clearly wrote "biggest scandal in the history of modern science," not "politics." TheoryOfPractice 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Irredeemably lame. 03:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It looked very promising; conservapedoheads defending watergate, but then I clicked on it. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The WIGO was Andy calling it "ClimateGate" as though it were as big of a scandal as Watergate (the whole -gate thing being of a huge, important scandal in politics). It's leaked emails from one place that are being quote mined, and nothing political, nor anything of relevance for what Andy thinks it is. --Irrational Atheist 12:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy is using NewsMax? They make WND look practically sane... tragic... just, tragic -- 18:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Newsmax really all that far out there? Always seemed to me to be a "regular" news source, albeit heavily right wing. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the "-gate" thing is sort of apt, not because of any empire-shattering magnitude, but because the Watergate incident started with a black bag operation breaking into the opposition's offices to find usable dirt. Back then the only hackable network in existence carried voice conversations 3 kHz wide, and belonged to the telephone monopoly that was Ma Bell.

The Watergate on the Potomac had a bandshell barge in those days that hosted free concerts, not bad if you didn't mind a roaring departure from National Airport (now named for R. Reagan) every few minutes when the wind was right. Sprocket J Cogswell 08:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Relativity and Arabic

I love that according to Andy, all Arabic speakers are Muslim. There are no Arabic speaking Christians, Jews, Druze, Bahai, Zoroastrians, Yazidist, etc. Stile4aly 04:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Following the links from there is just hilarious. Parodists and sexually frustrated brothers ftw! ħuman 04:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows that 1+1>2 for large values of 1 and small values of 2.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 04:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, $\lim _{1\to 7}1+1=14$. --127․0․0․1 08:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The point seems to be that Andy can't name an Arabic speaking non-muslim. Ignorance thy name is Andrew. Internetmoniker 16:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad WIGO

The protected Help desk one's not really right. It's a redirect page to cp:Conservapedia:Desk which claims to be the place to "...notify the Administration of matters that require attention." Not that that'll do any good, of course. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 10:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I assumed that after Geoff locked his talk page, his next step was to lock the help desk. TheoryOfPractice 14:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Counter examples of Relativity

Andy's counter examples for relativity seems to be a list of misrepresentations and outright false statements. for e.g pioneer anomaly is most likely to other factors including measurement error, internal heating etc., Action-at-a distance has been solved by general relativity, Gravitons have nothing to do with relativity but were predicted by quantum theory... I may be wrong. Can someone who knows better please list the counter arguments.

thanks --Buscombe 14:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

KSorenson went through a lot of those things in CP:Talk:Essay:Quantifying_Order. I can't say much about the science, but logic-wise...#2 is Andy assuming the measurements will be wrong if Mercury's measurements become more exact (they're accurate so far), #4 is just a question, #6 isn't even a fully formed statement, #8 is a wild tangent, #9 is an insult, and #10 looks like another tangent. Fun. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I especially like how his first example, the Pioneer anomaly, isn't explained anywhere in CP. I had to go to Wikipedia to find out what he was talking about. Thanks, Andy, for once again steering me to that haven of atheism. DickTurpis 17:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's better even than that. The reaction of (most of) the scientific community to the Pioneer anomaly has been "Cool! Get us more data so we can try to fix everything up!" Andy can't get his head around that. He thinks that because there's something new, everything old goes out in the trash. Scientists think that because there's something new, there's new shit to learn.

When the 22nd century equivalent of CP gets started, I'm sure there will be people who make comments like "Your unquestioning acceptance of Zog's 3rd theory ignores the long-established proofs associated with Relativity. You will be blocked for your continued empathy, empathy, empathy." –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 17:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching all the recent goings on about Andy and relativity. He just goes farther and farther off the deep end. The recent (last few months) upsurge is quite noteworthy -- so much so that I think it deserves another full-length article. Perhaps "Andrew Schlafly and Relativity -- late 2009". I will write same; I know where all the bodies are buried in this round. (They're in somewhat different places from earlier rounds -- quantifying order, new conservative words, etc.) We already have two articles -- Conservapedia:Conservapedian_relativity and Conservapedia:Einstein_and_Relativity,_Censorship_of. But I think a third one is warranted. This stuff just keeps coming. The notion that the study of certain fields of science should be suppressed if, in Andy's statistically-challenged mindset, they can be correlated with a decline in Bible reading, seems to be new. Or, at least, not expressed quite so stridently before this.

I have received a calculation about the Pioneer anomaly. (Got this from a rather circuitous route; suffice it to say that not all sysops are as loyal to Andy as they appear to be in public. I'm working on more direct contact. The private goings-on are fascinating.) This calculation says that the relativistic correction for the Pioneer motion (that is, the difference between the devout Christian Isaac Newton's formula and the leftist Jew Albert Einstein's formula) is about 0.75E-12 m / s^2, while the anomaly itself is about 1.0E-9 m / s^2. That is, 1000 times greater. That is, the Pioneer anomaly is an anomaly in gravity; it doesn't matter whether it's classical or relativistic. That's why the Wikipedia page refers to it as an anomaly in gravity. Duh.

Andy's other stuff is equally batshit-insane. I had no idea that Jesus' curing of the Centurion's gay lover slave traveled faster than the speed of light. I had no idea that people in Jesus' day could measure faith healing to the microsecond, and I had no idea that the Bible said that they had done so. I'll be looking for the conservative translation that explains this. This certainly puts Michelson and Morley (and Romer, and Fizeau) to shame. They had to use rotating mirrors and spinning disks. Gauss 18:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I admit I don't know much about relativity, but it does seem to me that most of these "counterexamples" deal with either weird ideas that crept from his brain or general unsettled questions of science as a whole, not with relativity specifically. Anyway, I think his war on relativity has a lot to do with the starlight problem, and relativity's role in striking down the idea that light once traveled millions of times faster than its current snail's pace. I do have to wonder what percent of Andy's batshit crazy ideas are stupidity and what percent are a bona fide insanity. I really do believe he has some rather serious mental issues. DickTurpis 18:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Relativity is one of those things that I know enough about to bullshit most people, but not enough to even think about going toe-to-toe with a serious physicist. At the level of the recent and current CP debates, I'd say "Sorry - I don't know". Andy, of course, can't say that. He knows all and so defaults to arguments about classroom prayer and other irrelevant bullshit. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone directly demanded sources for Andy's assertions that merely being taught relativity results in people no longer reading the Bible? I went to Georgia Tech, and relativity was covered as part of the Physics III class that was required of all engineering and science students, and I know for a fact that many of them were quite devoutly Christian both before and after. I admit that this is just anecdotal, but I would imagine that a similar pattern is seen at most universities. I would really love to see Andy pinned down on where this assertion comes from. Has anyone, for that matter, pointed out that there are Jesuits who study relativity? I know this is Andy, so logic and reason don't apply, but this vendetta against relativity and bizarre, unsupported assertions about its effects is weirder than usual. Kaalis 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the real reason Andy started Conservapedia in the first place: to create sources for the stuff he pulls out of his rear-end. Andy got heavily criticised over his views on relativity in the Quantifying Order article, and instead of learning from it he went around looking for evidence of his BS claims. He didn't find any, so he created this essay, with some time and edits by lackeys/parodists it's proof! It's funny to watch the article and see him creating wiki-links to articles he edited to reflect his new proof, to make it "well-founded".

The Quantifying Order thing was essentially the same thing, no-one thought the translation of logos to "perfect order" was sound, so he created the page to prove it. And it's grounded look: Interesting! "Devil" is a translation of chaos!^img

So at the devil article: "simplified, clarified, improved!^img

Internetmoniker 20:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Where does he get this shit? Devil is a bastardization of diabolos (διάβολος) in Attic Greek. It means accuser, slanderer. I can't even imagine where he got disorder out of that. 21:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As usual, when I dig deeper I find convoluted nonsense - the roots of diabolos are to "throw across." That's where Andy's getting this "chaos" and "throwing around" stuff. I need to log off. This shit drives me crazy. 22:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Faith healing to the nanosecond

In the relativity debate, Andy argues that Jesus healed the nobleman's son, and the healing travelled instantaneously (not just at the speed of light), thereby disproving relativity. But have a look at the Bible verse (John 4:52). The Bible says that the healing happened within the hour. Andy says in a talk page that this is inaccurate, it happened instantly, with no delay whatsoever. So he wants to rewrite the Bible, to insert this bit of evidence against relativity. That's ok, because the Bible is only the word of God, but this new stuff is the word of Andy, who is above God. --Fawlty 18:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well that meaning's not supported by the bible or the LSJ. Hora(ὥρα) refers to anything but an instantaneous (or lack of) duration. 19:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

On further reflection I think it just means "time of day" so Andy's drawing an action-at-a-distance meaning out of the verse that I doubt was intended, but is nonetheless a plausible though unsupported inference. 19:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So...when God created the earth, his actions couldn't be explained by such mundane ideas as physics, but when he came to earth as Jesus, his miracles had to fit within Andy's concept of physics? --Kels 21:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be daft, obviously the "within the hour" translation reflects liberal bias. Andy is already working on a new, conservative translation of the Bible to remedy all these obvious errors. Frummidge 22:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

December First...or mid-December...or possibly much later, if at all

I wonder if Ken's big event in some vaguely indeterminate time in December-ish is anything like what he was bragging about for this past February when, well...nothing at all happened. --Kels 21:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, "the evolutionists won't be very happy!" I love that they think anything they could say or do could make me unhappy. Just steaming in my chair at the crocoduck! Z? 21:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

maybe there is a low possibility of something happening

I asked Ken for some clarification of what might happen on 1st December and got a stock standard Ken response. Ace^{Of Spades} 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Ken in love with planes or something? The pictures he links to are grass and planes. He is an unusual man. And that's saying something coming from a man who still has trouble remembering how to tie his shoes. SJ ^Debaser 21:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude is on a deletion spree right now. TheoryOfPractice 22:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

He is an international man of mystery but I think I decoded his message. Once Ken shows the "Pink Lady" his "afterburners," she will have no choice but to maximize his search ranking? Is that what this is? He does know every single pageview of his articles is by an amused liberal, right? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone probably told him once that in order to exert dominance over others, you have to act as if you'd already won, and if possible disorient your enemies. Unfortunately he's so incompetent, all he ends up looking like is a buffoon, not a master manipulator. Fortunately, that perception is accurate. --Kels 01:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I love him quoting Sun Tsu. It's almost exactly the opposite of what he actually does. --Kels 01:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't it Chairman Mao's favourite book of pre-communist times? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"creation science paradigm artillery engineers are presently hard at work developing their heavy artillery so it may rain down on the evolutionary paradigm within your airspace"? That's some serious shit, right there. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 04:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A new quote machine string?

X is so prevalent among Y that Z.

• X: lack of Bible reading; homosexuality; depression and suicide; moral relativism; misunderstanding of elementary proofs; breast cancer; etc.
• Y: atheists; relativists; abortionists; university professors; evolutionists; the mainstream media; etc
• Z: I hardly think a citation is needed to demonstrate it; only liberal deceivers deny the connection; no further talk-page debates are necessary or will be tolerated; I wonder why you spend so much time disputing this insight; Wikipedia has gone to great lengths to bury the connection; etc.

Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That quote (or the whole thing behind it) is a pretty good example of the way andy operates. It's even quite scary. A few days ago he's asking if it's possible that belief in relativity leads to less people reading the bible. Then he's using it as a counter point in "discussions" about relativity. Then he's citing it as a fact (with no source) and now he's throwing it into sentences as if it's a completely undeniable fact of life, something that everybody knows. He's gone from "this sounds interestingly plausible" to "this is complete undeniable fact, so much so that I don't even need a source" within a few days, without doing any research into it whatsoever. What a strange man. I wonder if he actually believes it or if he's just saying it. X Stickman 01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well put. ħuman 01:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And that's a lawyer! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I especially like that his source is a user who's only been around for about a month. --Kels 01:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

He did the same thing with "undeniable flooding." And of course all of his "mystery" essays go from "Did comedy exist before Christianity?" to "Nobody credibly denies that Jesus invented standup!" Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 02:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's things like this that always give me that creepy feeling when I remember he teaches kids.Internetmoniker 10:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>Now you've gone and done it. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So much phail...

...in so small a space.^img TheoryOfPractice 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The notion that "moral relativity" is somehow linked to Einstein's relativity; is this something Andy just cooked up all on his very own, or is it a common meme out there in the conservative world? --Simple 03:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

He has failed to provide any links to back his assertions up. Ace^McWicked 03:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Andy, a special Thanksgiving present for us! You never fail to please. ħuman 03:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest casualty of Andy's unhealthy "action at a distance" obsession? The Bible. Oh sure John may use "the word for hour," but only liberals would deny that Jesus cured him INSTANTLY with "action at a distance." Can someone burn a sock to ask Andy how the centurion's servants measured the difference between "action at a distance" and Jesus's blessing travelling at the speed of light (20 miles from Galilee to Capernaum = 0.1 milliseconds). Were they sitting there with an atomic clock waiting for Christ to break Einsteinian spacetime? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My head is about to explode if this guy writes anymore. "Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible." The Tribe article he cites also uses Quantum Mechanics as analogy just like Relativity, wonder why Andy doesn't mention that? I just cannot understand how anyone who went to college and especially the Harvard Law Review can make an unfounded assertion like that and be completely fine with it in an "encyclopedia". Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 05:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish I lived in the same world as Andy, where you can just make shit up and assert it as fact. I have a degree in psychology, which most people regard as a soft (or even a bunk) science, and even we need hard evidence before asserting something as fact. X Stickman 12:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually (speaking as somebody in a mathematical science), psychology is gradually gaining credibility as a harder science. The reason this is happening is just what you said: psychology researchers give hard evidence before asserting conclusions. --Fawlty 12:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy seems to go for the weakest bogus arguments to support his prejudices. He doesn't like abortion, so he argues that abortion causes breast cancer. It doesn't, but even if it did it wouldn't support his conclusion that abortion is wrong. Andy doesn't like atheism, so he argues that Dawkins isn't (wasn't) a professor at Oxford. Dawkins was, but even if he hadn't been, that wouldn't support Andy's conclusion that Dawkin's views are wrong. Andy doesn't like relativism, so he argues til he's blue in the face about relativity, giving one piece of made up evidence after another. But even if relativity were wrong (which it isn't) it wouldn't support Andy's belief that relativism is wrong. Andy is the most illogical person I've ever encountered. --Fawlty 12:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

He also always - always - argues the "appeal to consequences" fallacy. Relativity makes people stop reading the Bible therefore it must be false! It's like the part of his brain that distinguishes between the utility of ideas and their truthfulness just isn't there. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 15:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

please email me I beg of you

If you want to experience the medieval rituals of faith, the candle light, the incense, music, important-sounding dead languages, nobody does it better than the Catholics 15:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A misreading of the Conservapedia article's title made me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to reality" article yet... Internetmoniker 16:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Counterexamples to reality, a better name for Conservapedia! Fawlty 18:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Did anybody else notice the "Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury" bit? It really makes me wonder whether Andy just chose to ignore this whole epic thing or whether he just didn't understand it. --4perf 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered the same. It's almost as if he ignores everything he hears or reads, except for quote-mining snippets to bend to his own purposes. Is he deceiving himself? Doesn't he understand how dishonest he is? I just can't understand the man. --Fawlty 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New Block Rules

JacobB blocks some guy for a 90/10 and then remembers that only the grown-ups are allowed to do that. Won't be the first time one of the minor sysops oversteps his bounds, I think... TheoryOfPractice 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Jinx already tried to resign his block rights after getting warned about this policy by TK. --Retwa 21:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I love how Andy sees blocking as an important and desirable activity. --Kels 21:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I love the smell of a fresh, concise, block of a liberal in the morning... Try it, you'll like it. Hell, we do it all day here, so obviously it is universally fun. ħuman 00:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well of course. Surely you've sussed out by now that the single underlying message of Conservapedia is "stop saying that." Whatever Andy doesn't like, you should stop saying it. Blocking is the purest expression of Andy's "stop saying that!" ethic. --4perf 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All Things Considered

Not sure if this was already posted somewhere, but here Andy talks to Robert Siegel on NPR. --Retwa 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That is what indirectly alerted me to CP I beleive. I've the impression that the NPR story was sort of CP's coming out party. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 22:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I imagined Andy's voice to sound, but his actual voice is nothing like it. MDB 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I added it to Conservapedia:In the media. ħuman 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as I'm linking ancient media stories about CP (sorry, didn't notice just how old that other one was), this article comes with a nice illustration of the CBP. --Retwa 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy commenting on the Swiss's anti-minaret stance

All I can say is, he's such an asshole. He is far more Islamophopic than the writers of that policy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where's the link? 03:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The WIGO reads: "We here at CP want respect for religions..." but they don't. They want respect for a particular reading of Christianity with the occasional bone thrown to the Jews. Not for "religionS" at all. TheoryOfPractice 03:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

They're for most Christian branches (even a respectful link for Scientology) and Judaism. So yes, respect for religionS, plural. --Irrational Atheist 04:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, they like both kinds of music: Country and western!--4perf 16:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Scientology thing is weird, and the Moonies and the Mormons are there by dint of the association of prominent goons with those religions. But liberal Christianity is out, and seeing as how that might be loosely defined as anybody who believes "forgive them Father for they know not what they do" is part of Christian dogma, you might argue that they see MOST CHRISTIANS as ideological foes. and the only reason they need to throw a bone to Judaism (without doing to much to make actual Jews happy) is because of the place of Israel in their eschatology. So, yeah, it's "religions," you got me there--but I still thing the term excludes WAY more than it includes. TheoryOfPractice 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering Andy once even referred to the Southern Baptists as "apostate", I'd say he has a very small list of denominations he considers to be real Christians. MDB 12:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a point about that WIGO; the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU Institution. Rather, it is the judicial arm of the Council of Europe, of which Swizerland is a member (and therefore legally required to observe the Convention). 81.137.227.129 13:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - it's important to distinguish between the various European bodies. Switzerland's also party to the ICCPR (specifically Article 18) and ICESCR, which both could apply in this case. Of course, we all know how well those are adhered to. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡^䷶䷀䷵䷥

(unindent)The quote provided by CP - does it not occur to them that if, 'the minaret is a sign of political power and demand', as it claims, logically, that must also be true of Christian churches, and, as such, if you ban minarets because of this, you must also ban Christian churches? Oh, wait, I forgot, having a Christian theocracy is perfectly OK, according to CP. 92.23.203.226 14:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Has there ever been a constitutional ban on a form of architecture in a democratic country before? How bizarre. Corry 15:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The US has had occasional cases where residents of neighborhoods complained about the noise from church bells, and there's zoning fights when large churches want to get even bigger or similar matters, but this seems to be a pretty new concept. And an ugly one. MDB 15:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly disappointing that Switzerland seems to be turning to the right. This is on top of the "black sheep" controversy a couple of years ago. Despite some leftist policies Switzerland is quite conservative and predominantly Christian (percentages for atheist/agnostic seem to range between 13% and 27%). I also had the same thought about churches and those Swiss do have some pretty tall spires. Генгис^evolving 19:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, should my equal rights for all triumph over my desire to see religion disappear slowly but surely? 19:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Karl Popper writes on Conservapedia?

Ken should learn how to properly construct his sentences. --Irrational Atheist 14:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

High hopes

Oh wow!^img "Perhaps next year the Conservative Bible will be included in the accepted translations for the contest". Umm, or not. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That will undoubtedly happen the same year Conservapedia overtakes Wikipedia (and I get my three-way with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck). MDB 15:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, when they're done with the CBP, we'll just have to submit a pristine copy of the completed work to the folks running the Bible Bee for their consideration, and make sure to publish the response. --SpinyNorman 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh good call. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I love how he says note the nasty comments by anti bible types... or something like that. At the time of me writing this, there are 4 comments on the article. 2 that are undeniably positive, 1 that says a sarcastic good job, but you'd probably be better off with a career in anything else and 1 that happens to mention that it's funny that the kid could know the bible so well, but keep all the money and not spend it on the poor, as the bible intructs one to do repeatedly..... Good read comprehension Andy. You're making us all proud. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 16:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To Andy, and many other extremist Christians, anything other than heaping praise on the kid is massive persecution. MDB 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(unDent)ooooo, now Andy wants CP to sponsor contestants^img for the next Bible Bee. MDB 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How funny would it be for somebody to get up there and say "bimbo." Corry 17:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the evangelical Christian community has widely criticized the CBP, an attempt by CP to sponsor a Bible Bee contestant would probably go over about as well as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (sp?) attempting to sponsor an entry in a (to my knowledge, non-existent) Judaica Bowl or a Liberty University team at the Gay Games. MDB 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but that's where you're wrong! No real Christian has criticized the Codex Schlafliticus, only closet libruls like the World Net Daily. Corry 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy on Illiteracy

Andy stresses his point that illiteracy is the result of bad public schooling, which is the result of liberals running public schools. If I apply some superficial correlation by matching up the 2003 Illiteracy Rates by States list (including D.C.) against the CP list of Bible Belt states, it's interesting to note that 64% of the 25 states with the highest illiteracy rates are wholly or partially in the Bible Belt. Only 19% of the remaining 26 most literate states are in the Bible Belt. Another conservative triumph? --SpinyNorman 15:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Burn a sock and let him know. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In Andy's mind, liberals, as ubiquitous as they are, are a small, but vocal minority. They leverage themselves into positions of power in education through deceit and impose their atheistic worldview on the children of conservatives who are not fortunate enough to be homeschooled. High illiteracy rates in the Bible belt are, just like everything everywhere else, liberals' fault. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound lazy, but CP isn't worth the effort of creating socks so one can point things out to folks who only take their fingers out of their ears long enough to click on the "block" button. Once TK banhammered my DinsdaleP account on CP I was done there, unless Andy wants to hear from "a former high-volume Conservapedia contributor" again by unblocking it. I'll attend any in-person appearance by the CP leadership I can make, though, so if folks hear about upcoming NJ/NYC events they'll be at please let me know. --SpinyNorman 16:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Debate

Holy crap, how did I miss this^img? The comments at the top are incredible. Obvious parody, but undeleted. Only spotted it because of this new gem^img Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure sign of multiple parodism: most of the signature links are red... ħuman 21:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Poe's law

I'm struggling with this one. Do you think this person is a parodist or just a severe nutjob? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nutjob. an experienced parodist would know how to make his userboxen line up properly.^img TheoryOfPractice 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Banhammered. Corry 17:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Counterexamples to Andy

This post of Andy's and its classic line, "Indeed, it's difficult to imagine any theory other than relativity that so sours an impressionable student on the Bible", got me to wondering just what kind of topics they cover in Physics classes at Christian universities. Well, here's the official catalog for Patrick Henry College, "For Christ and Liberty", which sponsors the Bible Bee among other things. The description of their Physics class, required as a core component for just about every major there, is at the top of page 67:

"This course will introduce students to the classical physics topics of Newtonian mechanics and electricity/magnetism as well as the modern physics topics of relativity and quantum physics."

I guess "professor values" have infiltrated even the most trustworthy of institutions. --SpinyNorman 17:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This guy is just off the charts. Soon he's going to start arguing for geocentrism. Corry 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Relativity is also explicitly taught in at least three physics courses at Wheaton College, which also has a course covering "big bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy". I guess the students have to check their Bibles into lockers outside the classroom before entering that one. --SpinyNorman 18:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh, Wheaton College "is an increasingly liberal institution of higher education" which "espouses liberal beliefs to Christian students, marketing itself heavily to the evangelical community but then indoctrinating them to believe in abortion and the theory of evolution" "Wheaton College has perhaps the smartest student body among evangelical colleges". Генгис^evolving 19:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was probably one of my all-time favorite backpedals by Schlafly. My imagined scenario was that he forgot that one of his former homeschoolers was going there, and he didn't want to lose the homeschool tuition for the younger siblings. --SpinyNorman 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfair dismissal of a christian

I'm surprised CP haven't jumped on this story yet. Do they not read the horrible librul BBC news site? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've put it here I'm sure one of them will read it and post it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

They don't want to draw attention to the recently discovered real reason for Christ's death, so they're trying to keep their heads down.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 04:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh there you go. Nice to see TK is still reading WIGO. Hi TK! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Double WIGO?

Was has that chump ListenerX made two WIGO's from one link? Seems kinda superfluous does it not? Ace^{of Spades} 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly made two completely unrelated giggle-points in a single diff. I thought it best to have separate voting on each one. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fucking stupid. But that's just my opinion. Ace^{of Spades} 21:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Surprise me. TheoryOfPractice 00:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

TK

I don't think this is WIGO-worthy, but I got a few laughs from this: If it goes against a Reagan quote, it must be wrong!^img Silly TK. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Conservatives don't "worship" Ronald Reagan, they're just very fond of the ground upon which he walked. --Gulik 06:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

At least the Titanic floated before it sank

Lovely^img. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To quote mine Andy from the post above that one: "He wasn't an expert...so his opinion was irrelevant." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I hear "Nearer my God to thee" whenever I visit CP. Got to get that processor checked--Thanatos 03:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Andy and the Titanic...The subject brings back memories of one of my favorite Andy assertions, in which everyone who died that night did so voluntarily...--WJThomas 12:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockworthy??

I almost feel like burning a sock to let Andy know that Larry "banned for life" Johnson started for the Bengals on Sunday. He ran the ball 22 times for over 100 yards. If Andy let himself get down every time he was wrong about something, he wouldn't be able to leave his house. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 07:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For all we know, he might use the term "home school" much more literally than the average person - emerging only at night to give the odd rant to keep his mother happy. -Redback^G'day 07:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It was against the Browns, I could go out there and rush for 107 yards on 22 carries. - π 08:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't wait for Andy's Writing Course

When he's the source of "improved" translations like this^img from the CBP:

"And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink."

becomes:

"They wave over their partners, who were in the other boat, for them to join and help. Those came and filled both boats with the fish, so much so they began to sink."

If someone has the inclination as well as the free time, this latest edit of his just inspired a new concept: the Schlafly Heuristically-Interpreted Translator. Feed in a bit of text, which is then run through a search-and-replace loop against a reference list of words/phrases and their "improved" substitutes per Andy (maiden = bimbo, Satan = chaos, "that they" = "they", etc.), followed by a few random changes of tense between past & present. Want to know what the Gettysburg Address would look like if Andy was Lincoln's proofreader? Run it through, and see what conservative insights his brain would have S.H.I.T. out. --SpinyNorman

Well, we do have a close equivalent: "Ann Coulter" live-blogging the Gettysburg Address. MDB 15:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I love this assignment from his old writing class[2]. I love how he characterizes the public school kid as a petulant idiot. Such an asshole, that guy. Corry 15:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If I might interject, my favourite thing on that page is the essay title choice "New Jersey is my favourite state because..." Now I'm not American, and I don't want to cause any offence to any Jersey-ites out there, but isn't that state one of the ones which is ridiculed for being a shithole? SJ ^Debaser 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but mostly by people who either don't live there, or have only seen/lived in the industrial hellholes like Newark or Jersey City. I'm from the more suburban part of NJ, which is rather nice aside from the horrible humidity in the summer. --Gulik 21:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sweet merciful crap. If you look around some of the other homework assignments for the class, you'll see that the "textbook" for the class is a book called The Supremacists, a book on "judicial tyranny" written by none other than.... Phyllis Schlafly. God, Andy, have you no shame? MDB 15:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Got to keep up those book sales for Mommy. Shameless indeed, and worth noting that Andy's never published anything original of his own, unlike his mother, or his former Editor in Chief at the Harvard Law Review. Also worth noting that you could just as easily use some of the highly-graded homework submissions from his history classes instead of the "public school" example in his writing homework above, and there'd be just as much to clean up. I'd provide examples but that would be picking on the kids, who are the victims here after all. --SpinyNorman 15:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as this page was created in 2008, no one credibly denies that Obama's books were written by ghostwriters. I hardly think a citation is needed to demonstrate it.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 16:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Andy has published two (IIRC) legit scientific papers. I'd call that publishing something original. Though I haven't read the papers, I'd bet that they're more worth reading that his mom's book. Coarb 16:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have cites on those papers? I just searched ISI for papers with him listed as author. Only one came up, and it was an editorial in, of all places, "Surgical Neurology", and it was neither serious, nor surgical, nor neurological. Indeed, it seemed rather out of place to my eyes. I would be interested to read what passes in his mind for science writing. Kaalis 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Control logic and cell design for a 4K NVRAM" Coarb 17:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Kaalis 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Which journals are those articles in?-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 20:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The article Coarb mentiones is in the IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 18(5): 525-532 (October 1983). Andy is listed as third author. The paper also includes one of the worst pictures of Andy I have seen. He looks a little like a young Bill Gates on crack. Kaalis 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kaalis. I searched for any other publications and came up with a total of 6. They are listed on the serious Andy page. We could probably use some commentary as well. I will leave it to anyone who actually works in those fields. As far as I know the IEEE journals are a bit of a joke, for anyone outside engineering, due to poor peer-review (and content). The law journals don't look any better.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 23:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. IEEE journals are not, broadly speaking, a joke. Some may be jokes, but in general they are not. See [3] or [4] or [5]. We should not assume that everything Andy does is shit. He might be a very good engineer or squash player or cook.Coarb 23:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Engineer? Nah, his math and logic skills are much too weak for that. Squash? He doesn't strike me as the quick-reflex athletic type. Golf, maybe. Cooking? Nope--that's women's work. I'll bet that Andy is a very safe driver, and a skilled bridge player.--WJThomas 01:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think another issue should be taken into account. Namely, the time factor. Those engineering papers of his were published quite a while ago, with the most recent being 26 years old. He might have been competent once upon a time, but that doesn't mean he is now. I have only been watching him since the Lenski affair, and his work on Conservapedia over that time betrays quite a degradation. I think he can pull together some semblance of reason and rationality when it is absolutely required, but I think he is in more than a bit of a delusional spiral. Yes, not everything he has ever done is garbage,but the garbage is making a greater and greater proportion of his work as time goes by (and the garbage is getting more and more rancid). Kaalis 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(UI) @Coarb. As I said, I don't work in those fields, so I am happy to accept your correction. Although your second citation gives the top ranked Electrical Engineering Journal a rank of 293, which doesn't seem brilliant. Also, the rankings seem to be based on "impact" which can be problematic. I don't know if Andy is a good engineer or not, and it doesn't really matter one way or the other. This conversation started because you claimed that he had published two legitimate scientific papers. I would question how scientific those papers actually are.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That rank of 293 is out of all journals. The page I linked to is a ranking of only EE journals, and nine of the top ten have "IEEE" in their title. That is, 292 of the top ranked journals are not related to Andy's field. Andy published in #6 of the EE journals on that list.

Impact is a fine way to measure journals, as it measures what other scientists think.

I don't think you can credibly question how scientific those papers are until you are qualified to be a reviewer for a top-ten EE journal. Coarb 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It would seem he was part of a team that worked on a 4K NVRAM, and staked a claim to that ground in an IEEE journal, most probably without revealing too much of the really proprietary stuff. That's nice. Around the time I was getting my BSEE, the half-life of an engineering education was said to be about 5 years, IIRC. So unless someone has really kept their chops up, after 26 years about 2^-5 or say 3% of their education in that field remains relevant.

IEEE journals are not noted for the jewel-like flame that is rhetorical exposition at its crystalline best. Good for what they are, but pretty much TL;DR at its dreariest. I can think of way better things to put on a writing teacher's CV. Sprocket J Cogswell 02:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits has a very good reputation in its field. Pietrow 14:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

@Coarb: I'm aware that 292 of the top journals are not related to electrical engineering. Perhaps you misunderstood me when I opined that IEEE journals are not very good. I meant that the journals are not very good, not that the IEEE journals in the field of electrical engineering are not as good as other journals in that field.

Impact does not measure "what other scientists think." It measures the number of citations to a particular journal. It's probably the best way to quantify the quality of a journal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have problems.

You are right, I have wandered outside my field of expertise. I withdraw my query as to whether or not Andy has really done any science, I will leave that to people with more engineering experience. I also withdraw my judgement of IEEE journals, as from your remarks and the remarks of others, it is clear that they have a better reputation than I was given to believe.

However, I don't accept your last admonition to the letter. It is ridiculous to require that someone be qualified to referee a top 10 journal in any field in order for their criticisms to be taken seriously.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 16:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My language was not as clear as I meant it to be. I think anyone who can speak the language of EE is qualified to criticize a paper as a bad paper or of dubious validity. I expect a critic to pass a much higher bar to call something "not scientific" after it was deemed scientific, interesting, well-written, and plausible by some of the best scientists in that field.

I would set a lower bar if you were criticizing the peer review process ("Results aren't independently experimentally confirmed before they're published!" does not even require EE-specific knowledge to discuss) or EE in general ("Electrons are just angels!" is an argument I disagree with, but clearly one a layperson can understand). To call Andy's paper "not scientific", though, is almost like calling something that was at the Cannes Film Festival "not a film", rather than just "a bad film". Coarb 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As just another blind guy feeling my way around this "elephant" that some claim to have seen, I'll go ahead and say that I bet there wasn't a whole lot of science involved. They found some jigsaw puzzle pieces, put them together, and announced that they had done so. The main theme probably went like, "work up a different way to get 4096 bits to hold still when the power goes away, package it, and tell the part of the world that cares what diligent fellows we are." Sprocket J Cogswell 18:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, if one's argument is "Engineering is not science," I would not expect one to be an expert just to say so. Coarb 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Editorial

For those interested, the following is the complete text of his little editorial (Note that he lists New York as one of his associated institutions):

Editorial Ten things trial lawyers hope you don't learn

Andrew Schlafly Esq (a, b), E-mail The Corresponding Author

(a) New York, NY, USA

(b) Association of American Physicians, and Surgeons, Inc., 1601 N. Tucson, AZ 85716

Available online 27 July 2006.

Over the past 30 years, the number of lawyers in our country has risen sharply. And while Medicare cuts its payments, physicians suffer even bigger losses because of lawyers distorting, fabricating, and outright lying in their attempts to fleece doctors.

Trial lawyers have their seminars and trade groups teaching them how to game the system. To fight back effectively, physicians need to learn the lawyers' tricks. Here are 10 things they hope that doctors won't find out (or do):

10. Physicians cannot rely on insurance company lawyers for a full defense. Insurance companies impose limits on the lawyers they provide, and neither the insurer nor the lawyer cares if you are slapped with a huge judgment.

The insurance company will just raise its rates to cover its losses. But when you pay off a malpractice claim, you will be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. A single report can damage all future applications for a job or hospital privileges.

Successful physicians take affirmative steps both before and after being sued. They do not just rely on the malpractice carrier.

9. It often helps to attend the deposition of the plaintiff's medical expert. In litigation, a party has the right to attend all depositions.

The plaintiff's expert will not lie as much about someone who is sitting across the table. Also, physicians can strengthen their case by feeding questions to their attorney during depositions of their opposing expert.

8. Beware when seeing patients who were mistreated by other physicians. In malpractice lawsuits, all the doctors are sued, even the ones who tried to help.

Before seeing a problem patient who might bring a lawsuit, a physician should consider obtaining a fully informed release from the patient first.

(less o' tehh "darlin", sweety. )

7. Most malpractice lawsuits are for “failure to diagnose,” so your advice to obtain diagnostic tests should be documented. If a patient still refuses to have a test despite your warning, then consider having the patient sign an acknowledgment.

6. Special laws allow trial attorneys to pay for successful referrals. The public is unaware of this practice, which is prohibited as “fee-splitting” in the medical profession.

The malpractice crisis would end overnight if a referendum or statute prohibited compensation for referrals among attorneys.

5. Screening techniques can greatly reduce the odds that a physician will be sued. Office waiver forms, even if not fully enforceable, are useful in screening out litigious patients from a practice.

4. Develop a list of good defense experts in your specialty. Malpractice cases are won or lost based on expert testimony. Having a good expert means you will win; struggling to find one at the last minute means you may lose.

3. Make sure you depose everyone who might be called as a witness against you. Even the billion-dollar pharmaceutical giant Merck recently made the fatal mistake of not deposing a potential plaintiff's witness in the Vioxx trial. That $5000 economy cost Merck $253.4 million in the end, as the never-deposed witness sank Merck at trial.

2. Protect your assets beforehand so your exposure is limited. Although malpractice insurance covers you (up to a limit), you will handle the stress of litigation far better knowing your assets are secure no matter what happens in court.

1. Read AAPS's monthly newsletter and quarterly journal. Malpractice attorneys are forever developing new stratagems to ensnare physicians and so are medical boards and hospital peer review panels. Physicians need the latest information for self-defense.

Pamphlet No. 1097, December 2005. Reprinted with permission Kaalis 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting. To be fair to Andy, the above isn't a big load of crazy. Screening possibly litigious patients out of your practice brings up some ethical issues, and JPandS is a joke, but a lot of this seems like good advice. Corry 17:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I really meant non-serious for a scientific publication, especially for a very niche journal. Yes, it does look like decent advice, but much of it doctors should have been given long before. I have a feeling, though, that a doctor who turns away a patient for seeming potentially litigious would soon face a lawsuit. Kaalis 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, they'd be more likely to face a law suit the more accurately they detect litigious patients. 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

When I read the subhead I always read it as "Andy's writing coarse" ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think doctors have any obligation to treat someone any more than a lawyer does to serve him. As they say, the practice of law is not like driving a bus; you don't have to stop for everyone. Do we have any docs here other than PalMD (who is not presently active on RW)? 23:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so sure about that, what's the Oath de Hippo say? I suspect in an emergency their "options" are limited, at least. ħuman 23:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think doctors are bound by the Oath de Hippo. They don't even recite the Oath de Hippo in schools in the US. Doctor's certainly aren't obliged to treat anyone, regardless of circumstance. Just think of how far you would get walking into a doctor's office without money or insurance, in any part of the world.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you do recite the hippocratic oath upon graduation from most US medical schools, though slightly modified from the original. Also, as a physician in the US, in an emergency, you are required by law to treat a patient. So certainly,a physician working in an ER or ICU would be required to treat.

In the UK you'd get treated first then asked afterwards: that's why there's immigration control on e.g some countries. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A bit more googlin': "A UK High Court ruling on April 11 has brought some welcome and long-awaited clarification to the rules about migrants' eligibility for health care in the National Health Service (NHS). 1 In this landmark decision the judge ruled that it is not reasonable to expect UK health professionals to assess patients' immigration status and entitlement to free health care, and that care should be provided on the basis of clinical needs." [6] ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see your cite. What it seems to be addressing is insurance fraud, and yes it is entirely infeasible to expect doctors to verify a potential patient's immigration status. But if I walk into a UK doctor's office and say "Hi, I'm not a citizen, but I have a strange rash on my ass," I'm betting that they are going to ask either for some proof of travel insurance, or money. Of course, doctors are people too, and if I walked in and said, "Hi, I'm not a citizen, but I have just been shot in the ass," then they may apply bandages first and ask insurance-related questions later. The only point I'm making is that doctors are not legally bound to help people.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 00:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: "... care should be provided on the basis of clinical needs." The doc'd probably examine the patient & either refer for treatment (if it's urgent or life threatening or similar) or tell them to see their own doctor when they got home. A GP is NEVER going to ask for money! Although if the person asked for private treatment then they would be able to get it wherever they came from if they could pony up the readies. If they refused treatment, or at least examination I think they'd be up against the GMC in short time. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Toast, I'm a bit too tired and emotional, but you're being a tad simplistic there. It is not a trivial matter to sign up with a GP these days. If you can't provide your NHS number you need to provide details of your previous registration with another GP. Even when attending an A&E department you have to say who you are registered with. You are extremely unlikely to be refused treatment for anything acute, but you are not likely to get access to the NHS treatment for a lot of stuff unless you can prove you are entitled to it. My late partner worked with asylum seekers and getting them into the system was not a trivial matter. Sorry for any in coherence Sphincter 03:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal: for about three years I wasn't registered with a GP (my old one packed up & I never re-registered). During that time I was travelling around in a RV. Several times I went to various (GP) surgeries without any paperwork or any ID & was seen & given prescriptions by GPs. Chiefly in Scotland but twice in England. Eventually I settled @ my present address & had enormous difficulty getting registered - but the first (insurance paid for, for pension reasons) examination detected a malignancy & I was treated (NHS: free) without question. I've never proved my entitlement to anyone - my current GP hasn't even got my records past 5 years as they apparently went AWOL when the old one packed up. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)