Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive16

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>, <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>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

Freudian slip

...I don't see it. Maybe you meant one of the mother diffs? Lurker 20:34, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I think the reference is to "crucifiction". Pretty damn funny, really. We should have an article on it. Heck, I even red blue-linked it to make it easy! human 20:53, 9 December 2007 (EST)

HA HA HA I completely missed that. HI-larious. Lurker 20:59, 9 December 2007 (EST)

I missed it the first time, too. Found it when trying to answer your question. Awesome neologism. human 21:02, 9 December 2007 (EST)

CP editors fall for parody?

I noticed SSchultz made the following comments about atheists up in arms over a trailer for the Prince Caspian Narnia film: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&diff=349600&oldid=349598 I followed the link and immediately thought "parody", as you probably will too. IMO, it's a satirical reversal of the current controversy over The Golden Compass (I mean, the atheist they quote comes from an organisation whose acronym is DAMNED). I quickly Googled one of the groups mentioned and it doesn't exist, showing up only another article quoting the first one and adding in their own joke acronyms. The story isn't mentioned in the "mainstream media" outlets at all (hmm, librul biazz?)

I may be stating the obvious, but it looks like CP's finest minds have fallen for a blatant parody.

You beat me to it. That link definitely is parody. A genuine question: are SSchultz and Iduan both 'real' CPedians, or is either a RW or not-RW troll? Editor at CP 14:25, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I think we know the answer to that ;) DickTurpis 14:29, 10 December 2007 (EST)

We do? :-O When Schultz burst forth originally on the Main Page talk, I actually labeled him a parodist. Iduan isn't a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but is someone who likes to "do things" and gets little chance to on Wikipedia, what with the competition there, so has turned to CP. I never viewed Issac as a threat, but I doubt Andy sees it that way, as Iduan's earliest posts betray him as far too liberal for Andy's likes. Like poor Greg Larson, who never did anything "wrong" on CP, look for Iduan to be dis-invited at some point soon. --TK_/MyTalk 14:36, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, TK, but you're not a conservapedian now ;) ... -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I thought there was something suspicious about that link, but I didn't really care to check it out. The part that got me was when they went into a description of the movie (though they called the book series a trilogy, then later talked about the 7th book in the series...). I didn't think a parody would be good enough to make itself sound like a real article.

As for Schultz, it's painfully obvious, and has been since he first started editing, that he's a hughe parodist. I don't think Iduan is, though he might (big might) be a troll. Lurker 14:35, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry all for the question, no harm intended, and good luck to both trolls editors. Editor at CP 14:45, 10 December 2007 (EST)

"A genuine question: are SSchultz and Iduan both 'real' CPedians, or is either a RW or not-RW troll?" Are those the only possibilities? Surely it is possible, if not probable, that people who do not even know about RW get accounts at CP from time to time? Oh, and "Hi, TK". human 14:50, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I gave three options: 'real' CPedians (= no trolls), RW trolls, or trolls not from RW... Editor at CP 15:10, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Well, duh, I stand corrected. Sorry! human 15:37, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Hi, Hugh! It is quite possible that Schultz didn't come from RW. Somehow I believe Iduan saying he found CP through WP, and his rationale for wanting to help there. I think he will be another soul unappreciated and left to languish ignored by Andy, or eventually blocked as his anger increases because of that. Before I removed my head from my, errr, well, you know what I mean, I too thought it possible that Andy could be reasoned with, that he was actually who he wants to portray himself as being. Thing is, left or right, many people never want to be reasoned with. Spoils the "lulz", I guess. --TK_/MyTalk 14:58, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Who is "Hugh"? human 15:37, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Isn't it obvious? He called him that because he's a hugh man! A huge man! A man among men! A...hmm...I'd better stop this before Conservative writes another dozen articles about it. --Kels 17:30, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Hugh was the Borg who the crew of the Enterprise nursed back to health in a great Next Generation episode. I don't get the invocation by TK of that auspicious automaton, though.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 15:39, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry, Human...I meant to type Human! Ames, sometimes a cigar is just that. Maybe in your constant, never ending emails to get back into CP, you should step it up, so you can do some real, god-fearing blocking there? --TK_/MyTalk 15:46, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Throwing in my two cents about the original question, I would assume the site is a parody... The name is ComicNexus and even though they do a pretty decent job describing the books, they make a Glaring mistake.... Prince Caspian is not the second book in the series... It's number 3 in the original printing and 4 in the revised (the original 7 gets moved to 1 in reprints, putting the whole story in chronilogical order...Isn't it nice being a lit geek?)

Prince Caspian WAS the second book in the original publication order, but later moved to fourth when the 6th book was moved to first and the 5th book moved to 3rd (with the original first in between them.) I read the first 4 in the original order when I was a kid, but I went ahead and got documentation as well. Narnia ordering systems. Researcher 00:28, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Hmm, am I a troll? Well, I think I can field that one. I do disagree with a bit of what is done on CP - primarily in the breaking news section. I think that using tragedies to prove that your politics are better than someone else's is completely heartless - the type of cold and calculating thing Hillary Clinton would do (sorry, had to throw that in there). However, I also believe there is hope through discussion and compromise - and obviously I also agree with most of what Conservapedia has done - as proven by my contributions towards it.--Iduan 23:44, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Now i know you are a troll. TimoT 00:17, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Lol - well you're an RW member- i don't think I can expect you to think logically about anything ...so don't worry about it lol--Iduan 00:18, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Back to the original question, I would have thought the fact that one of the organisations 'Mothers For United Church & King Eternal Ruling' gives the acronym 'Mother FUCKER' is probably a reasonably good sign the site is a parody. That or Dominionists have more of a sense of humour than I've credited them with. 81.158.157.73 04:07, 11 December 2007 (EST)

One rule for public schools, another for homeskoolers?

If it's homeskoolin' the effects stop @ 18:

“”This story is a mixed bag: the killer is quoted as someone who "hated Christians" and held a grudge against this facility, which threw him out several years ago. At age 24, it's unclear what connection he has to homeschooling, as very few homeschoolers are over 18.--Aschlafly 19:11, 10 December 2007 (EST)

(re colorado springs shooter) Susan^{purrrrr ...} 19:23, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Andy's a fucking intellectually dishonest tool, but we already knew that, didn't we? human 20:59, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Jeez, look how he's twisting and turning to get the focus away from homeschooling. When a guy EVER attended a public school, Andy declares it as the obvious root, no matter how unconnected, and here, schooling background has nothing to do with it, nuh-uh, no sir! --Sid 21:26, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Connected side note: Somebody please invite RossC, if possible. At this rate, he's gonna get The Hammer in a few... --Sid 21:29, 10 December 2007 (EST)

The schadenfreud (sp?) is ripping the moral fabric of my being. This horror is so sad (the shooting) and yet, so sadly, answers the question assfly has begged recently with his young mass killer fetish. I do not want to feel good about that. Is there any way we can drop it? human 21:31, 10 December 2007 (EST)

This from a FoxNews article on the shooting--Maybe Andy could take a lesson: "Some members of the congregation reacted with compassion and forgiveness, in keeping with their faith. Ashley Gibbs was getting into a car with David Harris when they heard the gunshots. They stayed in the vehicle. 'It was obvious that (the shooter) was in some sort of pain and going through a lot...I just prayed God would bring him peace.'"--WJThomas 22:22, 10 December 2007 (EST)

It's "Schadenfreude", but I agree. Heck, one of my friends is in Colorado, so shootings there make me go "WTF" a bit more than other shootings did. It does feel wrong to feel glee about this, even if Andy is forced to dodge more questions than ever because of it. But your wish came true: Andy just sent out his first 90/10 warning and a ban threat, so it's possible that this issue will be swept under the carpet on CP (and thus will tucker out on WIGO, too). --Sid 21:42, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Also look for the rearguard actions by Kookajou and RobS and possibly Edna Poor to commence shortly.21:55, 10 December 2007 (EST) CЯacke®

Taking his statement in it's limited context there, Andy is correct that homeschooling was not necessarily the cause of this person's murderous tendencies. Given his past statements on similar incidents, you COULD (if you were VERY generous) give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's changed his mind and schooling is not a singular cause for violent tendencies. Knowing Andy, he'll blow that chance sure enough. He's never backed down before, why now? As much as anyone's itching to use this shooting as a political plot against Andy, I say it's better to stay quiet and let him hang himself. --97.96.225.254 00:37, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Remember when Andy's first reaction to the Virginia Tech shootings was to blame it all on porn? --Gulik 02:23, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Matthew Murray left behind an online diatribe, copying the Columbine High shooters and only changing wording against Christians, who he felt were the problem of the world [1]. Andy can play dodgeball all day against the homeschool and deeply religious bit, but this gives him ground to blame the intarwebs and liberal-injected media. I'm 98% sure he'll try to hold to the ideal of public school = mass murder influencing and homeskool = never to blame, but he'll slowly ebb to the internet/media as new causes. Norseman^Wassail! 12:38, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Andy, mercury, and chemistry

I'm not a chemist... though I've read enough MSDS for darkroom chemicals to know enough when to be afraid (and to read the MSDS first). There's a couple fun ones that show up in the darkroom. Selenium, for example is a toner. If you spill it, you get out of there immediately, strip naked, take a shower, and destroy the clothes... not sure about the order. But its nasty stuff in the form it is in for darkroom work. And yet you find it in multi vitamins as a trace element.

Another one is potassium ferrocyanide (used in the coloration of Prussian blue, part of what they give you if you happen to eat some thallium or cesium [2]). That last bit threw me too... so I looked up the MSDS and read it. "Health Rating: 1 - Slight" and "Large doses may cause gastrointestinal upset with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and possible cramping." This didn't sound like the cyanide I knew from news stories. So, I looked at it more and asked a chemist I knew. The structure of potassium ferrocyanide is K₄(Fe(CN))₆(H₂O)₃. As I understand it, the potassium forms a barrier around the cyanide making it into something non toxic. Go read the chemical form of vitamin B12 some time.

The point I am trying to make here is something that is toxic in one form can be locked away from the body in another form. Its just a question of if the body can brake it down into the toxic thing or not. There is a significant difference between elemental mercury, inorganic, and organic mercury compounds. One must be sure not to confuse even different forms - ethyl mercury, methyl mercury, and dimethyl mercury.

I will point out that I have not looked deeply into the effects of mercury on the body (I am neither trained as a chemist nor as a physician) and I know its not something I'd want to take a bite out of... but there is a significant amount of things that I wouldn't want to take a bite out of either. If Andy would be so kind as to show his degree in biochemistry rather than his ability to regurgitate material, I might take his arguments a more serious look than what I have already done. --Shagie 20:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

By the same token, harmless, vital elements like H, C, N, and O can be fatal when compounded the wrong way. Just had to add this silliness to your great point. human 20:58, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Let's see... I'm going to take a highly flammable poisonous metal, combine it with a corrosive toxic gas, and SPRINKLE THE RESULTING COMPOUND ON MY FOOD!!!!! BWAHAHAHAH!!!~!!!1!!!one! :D --Gulik 22:20, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Or take two highly flammable gases and DRINK THE PRODUCT every day. --Ζωροάστρης 01:21, 11 December 2007 (EST)

<-- Mercury compounds? Small fish. I think Andy's missing the real problem of dihydrogen monoxide. It's a widely used solvent, its inhalation kills thousands yearly, and 100% of young mass murderers have used it. Yet liberal dihydrogen monoxide-pushers advocate its presence in schools, and provide easy access to it. In fact, many food products (not to mention vaccines) incorporate it. If you think you can censor the truth about dihydrogen monoxide from parents, you're at the wrong place. Find out more here.--Bayes^update 01:45, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Dihydrogen monoxide, eh? Let me see if I can remember...that's one oxygen...and two hydrogen...add them together...carry the one...Sweet Jesus its water! Run for the hills! ---BillOhannity 12:43, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I think that we're all missing the main point; a planetary body is awfully hard to pass through a needle, let alone go through the bloodstream. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:17, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Selenium's toxic? But everyone knows selenium sulphate is the active ingredient in Head & Shoulders (at least according to Evolution, which not only is a great theory, but a great film starring David Duchovny)

Andy's amazing logic skills

It seems that the shooter from Colorado was homeschooled and raised in a deeply religious home. He went and shot several people in a church. Thankfully, one of the people at the church was a deeply religious gunowner- if it weren't for his deep religious upbringing and his gun, this tragedy may ha- *head explodes from logical paradox* Shangrala 21:13, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Someone who attended public school at any point in their life and then commits a horrible crime picked up their negative values/beliefs from public school. Someone who is homeschooled and commits a horrible crime picks up their negative values/beliefs from...you guessed it! Somewhere OTHER than homeschooling! And what's worse, he turns it into a story about why we shouldn't have gun control! I think that this is what angers me more than anything about CP, and in particular Schlafly. Well, this and the fact that he's willing to try and exploit this type of tragedy in the first place in order to make a cheap (and false) political point. This guy is truly a sick and twisted person. I wonder how he would feel if one of his own family members was hurt or killed in a similar incident and someone else tried to cheapen it and turn into a political statement. --BillOhannity 21:36, 10 December 2007 (EST)

I'm afraid that he'd be the first to do so. --88.198.175.78 01:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I wuz gonna say just what 88~ said. human 14:06, 11 December 2007 (EST)

90/10

Um. The rule is that you can't be 90% talk and 10% editing... and the guy's 100% talk. So what's all the anger about? Lurker 01:43, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Erm, it's more about the fact that the rule is used repeatedly by sysops as "you've been doing about 50/50, so we can ban you", which isn't actually breaking the rule. It also ires me that if the very first few edits are talk, they think that this rule can legitimately apply. --Ζωροάστρης 01:49, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Weak. I know you are still pouting about being desysopped, but you can try harder than that, can't you? If you want to complain about the unwritten 50/50 rule, then find an example of that, and say it's an example of that. Instead, you found one of the most civil cases of 90/10 warning ever and then lie and say that Dan doesn't know the rule. And then you get all pissy and make it in all caps. At least you can admit that what you wrote and what you wished you could have written had nothing in common. I'll remove the entry now. Lurker 02:46, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Give it a red arrow and talk about it here before deleting an entry. On a side note, I hadn't had my morning coffee yet and I understood it that DanH was blocking... PJR! THAT would have been an interesting turn of events, wouldn't it? Editor at CP 02:53, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Fine, red arrowed, but Hoji himself said it doesn't belong. That's not really what the arrows are for, though. Lurker 03:07, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I know, but red arrowing lets you express your opinion as well. Let Hoji delete it if he deems it appropriate, isn't it fairer? This is not Conservapedia Wikipedia. Editor at CP 03:45, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Well, Hoji already said himself that what he wrote isn't what he wanted to write, but in general letting the adder decide appropriateness is bad policy (mobocracy and all). When Hoji's done pouting he can take it down, but why wait? Lurker 12:51, 11 December 2007 (EST)

How about we play "every time Lurker posts Cracker comes along with a snide rebuttal, for no reason at all except to show what a prig User:L is being." But why wait? I'll just block and delete you now. CЯacke® 13:20, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Do it. You've already got the first part down anyway; in for a penny in for a pound. Lurker 13:26, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I would like to take a moment to post this... this is from my conversation with TK and his attitude towards the 90/10 Rule

FroKishi (8:44:36 PM): You know, according to your 90/10 rule, two posts for 25 post is acceptable....... just letting you know

Exculpatory1 (8:44:56 PM): lol

Exculpatory1 (8:45:04 PM): i have never blocked anyone for that, i dont think

Exculpatory1 (8:45:11 PM): it is a guideline, you know

FroKishi (8:45:14 PM): or do you admit the rule is subject to change based on personal feelings....?

Exculpatory1 (8:45:34 PM): certainly, like all rules!

SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 14:49, 11 December 2007 (EST)

TK is a weird one in private conversation. I think he blocked me yesterday because I told him that I don't care if Ames follows him around everywhere insulting him....

Even with this... reliable source, I was never doubting that the rule is arbitrarily enforced. Anyone who's been around for a while (like I have) has seen this happen at least once. But look at the example at hand: Dan didn't threaten anyone, he didn't warn anyone, he didn't insult anyone, and he didn't block anyone; he simply reminded an obvious troll (possibly Hoji? You never know nowadays) that CP doesn't want people to discuss non-article related matters ad nauseum. This is exactly how the rule can and should be enforced. But somehow this translates to Dan not knowing his OWN FREAKING RULE! Lurker 15:59, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Small correction: It should be simply "CP doesn't want people to discuss", full stop. And what does User:WHITE POWER have to do with anything? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:04, 11 December 2007 (EST)

No, that's not true for the most part. Granted the rule is can be construed to mean that, but in practice I think it's fair to say that people mostly get 90/10'd for main page or user talk page stuff nowadays. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that they have cut back the 90/10 rule to conform a lot closer to its origonal intent (i.e. limit trolling which isn't trolly enough to ban outright). As for the WP thing, I was being subtle, but apparently too subtle. I've changed the link. Heh, it's actually funnier this way. Lurker 16:29, 11 December 2007 (EST)

TK? Blocked you yesterday? Amazing! Simply amazing! Someone is using my account at CP, even though I have been blocked there? :O Everyone, here and at CP keep getting the 90/10 "Rule" wrong. It is not a rule at all, no matter what Andy says, simply because the language says "may" not "will" get you blocked. --TK_/MyTalk 18:57, 12 December 2007 (EST)

...which is infinitely worse.-αmεσ (heckuva job!) 19:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Eh. It's worse that their rules don't have to be followed? Aren't ... your rules like that? "Guidlines" and whatnot? Lurker 01:20, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Stop Aborting our Heisman Winners!

Umm yeah...I don't really know what to say about this, so I'm just going to copy and paste the whole headline:

“”The mother's physician recommended an abortion. A Christian missionary, the mother refused the abortion. Last weekend the child, Tim Tebow, became the first sophomore ever to win the Heisman Trophy as the top college football player in the U.S.

--BillOhannity 12:02, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I wonder what would happen if Andy found out that a mass murderer's mother narrowly decided against an abortion.Shangrala 12:26, 11 December 2007 (EST)

If only Mr. and Mrs. Hitler had had better access to birth control... --Gulik 12:50, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Pffft, with all those evil abortions every year, statistically speaking we've probably aborted two or three Hitlers and half a dozen Mao Zedongs by now. Another triumph for the liberal medical establishment! --Jeεv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 13:12, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Either way, wouldn't someone else have won if Tim Tebow didn't exist? --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:21, 11 December 2007 (EST)

NO! It's like all those Nobel prizes that weren't awarded because the planned winners were aborted. It's all part of God's plan. --Jeεv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 14:27, 11 December 2007 (EST)

One curious thing is that an arguement can be made that winning the Heisman is a great way to abort an otherwise promising future NFL career. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 14:37, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Wow, gosh, imagine if his mother had aborted him, we'd have one less guy who could throw football really far. Big loss for the planet. DickTurpis 21:50, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Someone sounds like either a non-sports fan or a Darren McFadden fan. Anyway, my point for calling attention to that article was that what he was trying to do with that headline was to equate the idea of potentially having an abortion with killing a 20-whatever year old football player. --BillOhannity 22:26, 11 December 2007 (EST)

My comment was just to point out that of all the people in the world who may have been almost aborted (is that a thing?) I'm sure there are some good examples of people who have done things to make the world better place by advancing science or helping stop world conflict. I've got nothing against football, but I think we can all agree that this guy's contribution to the overall betterment of the world is pretty much zero (as it is for me, I'll admit). DickTurpis 11:50, 13 December 2007 (EST)

• UPDATE Apparently now it has been discovered that Tebow was homeschooled, which we can only assume is how he became smart enough to be a college football player [3], the highest level of academia. --BillOhannity 17:23, 12 December 2007 (EST)

ZOMG!111one"£two Conservapedia causes teh spree killing!

With flawless Schalafly logic, allow me to present a proof that Conservapedia caused the Colorado spree killing. We already have an axiom that the interweb caused the shooting, since everything from assfly is the revealed word. We also know that all things that coincide with the increase in popularity of Conservapedia are caused by the rise in popularity of Conservapedia, again from the word of assfly on wikipedia. Therefore, Conservapedia caused the killings. QED. I know full well that reading Conservapedia makes me intensely angry at Christians.... --Jeεv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 13:02, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Dialogue - what's in it for Schlafly?

It's Andrew Schlafly's blog for christ's sake: why should he allow any contrary opinions. It's quite possible that he'll just let it fill up for another year and then remove everything and everyone he disagrees with and only allows his home schoolers on. He can just vape all the talk pages, debate pages & sysops and hey presto - nice right wing, creationist, christian encyclopædia. That's what I'd do in his place. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 13:10, 11 December 2007 (EST)

His problem is that he also wants it to be this big, popular conservative project that can grow rapidly until it challenges the evil liberal Wikipedia. He has to realize that he can't do that with just a couple dozen homeschoolers. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 13:35, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Doesn't answer the question - why should he allow any dissent - it's his own property Whatever his ultimate aim.
If I wanted to start a wiki detailing the virtues of (eating toenail clippings)* then I wouldn't allow anything disagreeing with it. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 13:54, 11 December 2007 (EST) *(sorry couldn't think of anything as ridiculous as CP without being silly

Clippopedia? Genghis ^Marauding 19:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

He's made reference a few times to the future possibility of "publishing" content (outside of CP, presumably). Perhaps he plans to turn it into a book someday, or some other money-making venture.--WJThomas 13:56, 11 December 2007 (EST)

The phrase "delusions of adequacy" keeps springing to mind for some reason. --Gulik 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I would just love to see the copyright lawyers start going after him for all of the stolen, uncredited and non-commercial (many of the Collective Commons licenses that are being used that he can use on Conservapedia specificaly say "no commercial use"). Oh man... I would not want to be on the receiving end of those copyright suits. --Shagie 19:55, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Roger

Brother Roger came and what is he doing? (no links sorry, I'm heading back there and see what happens) Editor at CP 14:31, 11 December 2007 (EST) Well, first link: [4] Editor at CP 14:33, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Ah, ok, forget all this. I fell for it like an April's Fool... An ashamed Editor at CP 14:34, 11 December 2007 (EST)

And still, the link mentioned in the WIGO article page is sweet. Editor at CP 15:12, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Easy to become confused, but after calling Andy a idiot, Roger was gone for a while, then restored, albeit demoted. He is a Sysop, but doesn't have check user or Site Admin, which allows one to lock the data base. His own brother isn't trusted. Very Christian! --TK_/MyTalk 16:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

If he doesn't believe it when his own brother tells him, what hope do us mere mortals have? --BillOhannity 17:15, 12 December 2007 (EST)

How is this hanging in there?

[5]

Stop the Presses!!!!!!

Check this out [6] Autopsy shows that the Colorado Gunman was not killed by a Magic Bullet, guided by god.... but my a self inflicted wound.... Damn SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 14:58, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Also noted it was a security guard rather than a heroic citizen who shot at the guy... So lets see, guns in the hands of trained professionals help save lives... professionals who trained in the police force... Yet another awesome argument for an armed populace! --Jeεv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 15:06, 11 December 2007 (EST)

No no no no no no no..... She wasn't in uniform or acting as an official security guard, so she was just like any Joe off the street..... Besides, that police trainging probably didn't help anyway... I mean, not like playing Grand Theft Auto would. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 15:13, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Isn't it obvious? The bullet she shot him with was filled with the Holy Spirit, so when Murray was hit by it, he was filled with God's Infinite Love and compelled to kill himself. Read your Bibles, people! GrandSoviet 15:24, 11 December 2007 (EST)

You're right.... Duh, sorry... I was reading Charles Dickens and as his fiction is done so well, I saw no need to branchinto poorly written fiction. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 15:32, 11 December 2007 (EST)

His own reply is better than anything I can come up with

These killers often keep murdering others until they are stopped with armed force. The worshipper stopped him by shooting him, and only then did he give up by shooting himself. Had the worshipper not stopped him, he surely would have continued to kill others. So in every meaningful way the worshipper did end the murder spree.--Aschlafly 18:44, 11 December 2007 (EST) I agree with Andy - this kid would've likely killed tens if not hundreds had it not been for the Christian security guard.--IDuan 21:37, 11 December 2007 (EST) Except, Iduan, she was not a "security guard" as reported by the liberal media. She was an unpaid worshipper who used her own weapon.--Aschlafly 21:40, 11 December 2007 (EST)

How about that America SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:56, 12 December 2007 (EST)

dingleberries - countdown to deletion

Methinks someone is being less than trustworthy: google dingleberries. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 16:02, 11 December 2007 (EST)

HA! Something tells me mead made with dingleberries wouldn't taste very good. Norseman, what say ye?Lurker 16:08, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Although some US army survival guides list dingleberries as a type of fruit (no kidding, anyone watch some old Daily Show episodes regarding the torture at Gitmo...), I've never seen or read about any actual fruit called as such, much less trying it. :P Norseman^Wassail! 19:33, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Addition - The second paragraph is lulz, but the third... ¯\(º_o)/¯ I dunno! Norseman^Wassail! 00:49, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Heh heh I knew we could count on you oh Vikingy one! (Btw I like the little confused man!) Lurker 00:53, 12 December 2007 (EST)

It's still there: I'm feeling neglected now - TK'd never have left it for this length of time. (thought that 3rd para went wivart saying, norsey (A Norse, a Norse, my kingdom for a Norse)Susan^{purrrrr ...} 05:46, 12 December 2007 (EST)

To folk of lesser intelligence (such as myself), I would misconstrue your statement as a come on. :O The third paragraph *might* be true, but I'm sure there's taxation on it nao. 97% sure. Norseman^Wassail! 14:49, 12 December 2007 (EST)

It's never been any different from any alcoholic beverage as far as I've been able to find (after 17 seconds of intensive googling) & the price they charge on Lindisfarne it'd better be duty included now - if not them monks is making a blody packet. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 14:58, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Help jazz reads RW? [7] Susan^{purrrrr ...} 16:53, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Genocide. Sweet Jesus. I Can't Believe He Did That...

So, Schlafly is now a genocide denier. Nice. There's no doubt in any serious scholar of genocide's mind, or in that of any credible international legal body, that Rwanda, Cambodia and Srebrenica (and other episodes in the Yugoslavian wars) constitute genocide. And one of them - Cambodia - was even perpetrated by Communists, so it's a perfect case for Conservapedia. So, in the absence of a forum where I can rationally discuss this point with Schlafly, is there anyone from CP who is willing to either: 1. Talk about the issue here; 2. Go to bat and reverse Schlafly's edit, or 3. Nut up and tell Schlafly that this is beynd the pale and try to convince as many editors/sysops to walk out until he comes to his senses.PFoster 16:21, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Oh, he's done that before. The Serbians are good Christians to a man, after all, so obviously they couldn't ever commit something as un-Christian as genocide. It's all a plot by the liberal media. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:40, 11 December 2007 (EST)

I do not agree with his edit, but I don't approve of your attempts to make the recognition of genocide some sort of political contest. Bohdan 16:43, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Bohdan - this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with simple decency and accuracy. If anyone is being political, it's Schlafly with his selective application of the word genocide. Fot Pete's sake, the world's first conviction for the crime of genocide was the Krstic case re: Srebrenica. And I have no political axe to grind re: Rwanda or Cambodia, both recognised by authorities worldwide as genocide. If RW or any other forum that I know of made the edits that Schlafly made, I would be just as pissed. PFoster 16:53, 11 December 2007 (EST)

What do you suppose his motivation is? The school shooter thing, though bizarre, gives him an outlet to bash atheistic public schools, but what does genocidenial get him? A dig at the U.N., and their definition?--WJThomas 19:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, it's easy to dig at the UN as far as their failures in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia are concerned - though they did set up the ICTR and the ICTY and get some convictions out of them. But that doesn't make those cases "not genocide." The denial of Cambodia is weird for me, as it was perpetrated by Communists - the only thing that could bug Schalfly about including it is the subsequent US support to seat the Khmer Rouge and not the Vietnamese-puppet government of Cambodia at the U.N., but whatever. And I don't know why Schlafly would have a hard time with the definition, at least as far as protected groups are concerned, because "religious groups" are one of the four categories of protected groups (alond with ethnic, national and racial groups). Ofcourse, here's where it gets muddy, is that in the Cambodian case, some argue that the target groups were essentially social and political groups, and not one of the four protected groups - but I think the categories are elastic enough - especially given the scope of the Khmer Rouge's crimes - that one could lawyer themselves around that. PFoster 20:26, 11 December 2007 (EST)

See, I considered the UN as Andy's scapegoat primarily because He nixed all the post-WWII cases; ie, those that would fall under the UN's baliwick. And as for being surprised about choices, I'd think he'd go for Rwanda as a good case for genocide because he could lay some blame on the Clintons.--WJThomas 21:05, 11 December 2007 (EST)

A better notion: Andy is committed to denying the Serbian genocide (Christians killing Muslims is a good thing!), but he can't plausibly do so without also denying other post-WW2 genocides.--WJThomas 21:11, 11 December 2007 (EST)

That's probably pretty close to the truth - I remember something in his world history lecture series that pretty much denied genocide in the Balkans for that reason, and some people tried to take him to task for it. I believe he replied by putting is fingers in his ears and going "LALALA I can't hear you!" The other reason why he might have made the move was to leave the Holocaust and the Soviet cases as the last word on genocide - there are schools of though, especially amongst some Holocaust scholars, that if you broaden the definition of "genocide" too much, it somehow lessens the impact of the Shoah.PFoster 21:19, 11 December 2007 (EST)

UPDATE: Thanks to Ramennoodle, SSchultz and Feebasfactor for doing the right thing. I hope their edits stand. Schlafly and especially Kajagoogoo (who reversed Ramen's reversal of Schlafly) should be effin' ashamed of themselves.PFoster 22:58, 11 December 2007 (EST)

UPDATE REDUX: Learn Together (surprise me) deletes Bosnia. Even though the world's first conviction for the crime of genocide was handed down against Bosnian Serb General Radislav Krstic in August 2001, we should go with Andy Schlafly's definition. Because we all know he practices more international human rights law then most attorneys. PFoster 09:51, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Hey Bohdan, If I'm guilty of playing politics with this thing, what abut this edit? PFoster 13:46, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I've been watching that mini-edit war. If Andy allows it to stay (not sure he will yet) that's certainly one for WiGO. DickTurpis 13:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Further Update: Andy's starting to explain his reasoning (sic). It's part "screw Clinton" and part "the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim".--WJThomas 22:29, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Huckabee, and the difference between homosexuality and AIDS

I don't post because I don't know how to wiki, but I do lurk and love all of you for your efforts. I was surprised this wasn't addressed (either on CP or over here, unless I missed it) but Iduan pointed out many hours ago that in this entry on CP's main page "Republican Mike Huckabee has tied Rudy Giuliani in nationwide polls, [3] and refuses to retract his prior criticism of homosexuality. [4] " the retraction he won't withdraw is the thing about sending everyone with HIV/AIDS to leper colonies, has nothing to do with homosexuality. Sorry I didn't link that, again, I can't wiki. ^{— Unsigned, by: 207.245.75.194 / talk / contribs}

Just stick the complete urls in if you want, someone will clean it up for you. Glad you like us! Oh, and if you can remember, sign your talk page posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks! human 17:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Really, wikicode isn't very complicated. And plain text is dirt-simple, if you don't mind other people spiffing it up for you later. (I can't imagine Huckabee ever being President, just because his name sounds so silly. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton.... Huckabee? One of these things is not like the others! But then again, the last 7 years have been like something out of an especially implausible dystopian satire, so who knows?) --Gulik 18:59, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Woof! woof! See me wag my tail master!

Did anyone else see faithful hound bringing his ball to his master ... and of course he gets the pat on the head and the doggy biscuit. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 06:10, 12 December 2007 (EST)

"speaks in tongues"

Actually, if anyone cares, he just shifted his right hand to the left by one position on the keyboard. Undoing the shift yields "removed silly links". From this we gather that he does touch typing (and that he was in a hurry). --81.169.155.246 06:13, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Thank you, good observation. We are lucky that, even when in a hurry, he finds time for such important edits... Editor at CP 06:31, 12 December 2007 (EST)

"Imposters"

Ah, I think I understand what Andy means by "it enables one to recognize imposters more easily". It goes back to his whole "Liberals don't admit they're Liberals" thing, and the fact that even Conservatives say they're not Liberal, so how do you tell? Well, Andy has the power of Second Sight, y'know, so he can see through the imposters (Liberals pretending to be Conservatives) and know them apart from Real Conservatives (tm). Of course, "imposters" generally refers to anyone who disagrees with him on pretty much anything, because Real Conservatives (tm) don't disagree with him on anything... --Kels 07:14, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Andy is pretty much one himself, I find. So the hard part is finding out who, exactly Andy is. He rarely exhibits the very Christian qualities he constantly touts, therefore he himself might well be an "impostor". --TK_/MyTalk 08:15, 12 December 2007 (EST)

"Takes one to know one", eh?--WJThomas 08:25, 12 December 2007 (EST)

• This entire "conservative benefits essay" seems to be screaming for a point-by-point response/counter essay. --BillOhannity 12:41, 12 December 2007 (EST)

• You know what would be better? A point-by-point counter essay where we just quote Schlafly.Shangrala 14:53, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Bill and Shangrala, I think you both have excellent ideas, and it should be done. If you need any Andy quotes or help, just let me know. Nice bit of hating there, WJThomas, even when someone agrees with RW on something, they get a hateful little snark. Maybe that's why the place doesn't grow? Maybe you should think about that. --TK_/MyTalk 15:57, 12 December 2007 (EST)

No, no, TK--that was a reference to Andy, not you (I was seconding that emotion). This isn't CP; you don't have to be (quite so) paranoid.--WJThomas 17:30, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks, WJT! As for paranoia, yeah, I am a bit too much sometimes, but see my talk page, and you'll see why. Andy is nothing like he pretends to be, which is sad for the kids, and on top of his whacked ideas about medicine, really hurts them. Good news is, I have heard from several of his past and present students, and they aren't really fooled either, they are just biding their time, and pleasing the 'rents. ;-) --TK_/MyTalk 18:32, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Has this already been posted?

Name calling and Hate speech are perfectly legitimate: after all, the Baby Goat used them, according to poor Ed, who was "mixing a bit of serious analysis with one gentle jibe". Where's one and where's the other, asks an Editor at CP 08:24, 12 December 2007 (EST). ('Baby Goat' used in jest. HE won't be angry at it, will you? 'Kid' is the correct term. For a baby goat, that is, not for Him.)

The ranks of the chosen are about to expand

Any bets on who'll be the lucky(?) new sysops? [8]Susan^{purrrrr ...} 11:58, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Me, me, me! Oh please, let it be me! Ajkgordon 15:24, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I reckon the longstanding contributors like Tash, LearnTogether, Greg Larson, BrianCo and Taj will all get overlooked and some dark horse homeskuler will sneak up from behind and pip them at the post. Genghis ^Marauding 15:31, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Should I go for it? Editor at CP 15:39, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Would you change your user name here to "Sysop at CP?" Or would that sort of defeat the purpose? PFoster 15:43, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Ouch, you raise a valid point. I don't think I could bear such a name. Shivers. Editor at CP 16:02, 12 December 2007 (EST)

If you check GregLarson's talk page, you will find he has been un-invited from CP. Taj or Tash seem the most possible to me. BrianCo, like Greg have done too much good to be a possibility, and LearnTogether has become the (phrase dates me terribly!) George Romney of CP! --TK_/MyTalk 16:01, 12 December 2007 (EST)

George Romney who? Forgive us young (?) non-Americans. Editor at CP 16:03, 12 December 2007 (EST)

My money's still on Learn Together. George is Mitt's dad, eh? Not sure exactly what the "George Romney of Conservapedia" means. DickTurpis 16:05, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Aah, Mitt Romney. Sure. Who? (I guess I should just wikisearch them).

And congrats to PFoster and Edgerunner76. I guess there are very few doubles now, shouldn't you also run for CP Sysop? Editor at CP 16:09, 12 December 2007 (EST)

George Romney holds the record, I do believe, for running for President more than anyone. --TK_/MyTalk 16:10, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Place your bets! DickTurpis 16:08, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I thought it was William Jennings Bryan. Stile4aly 17:27, 12 December 2007 (EST)

You are both right and wrong. Romney holds the record for running for the Republican nomination. Bryan was the one who most often was nominated and defeated. --TK_/MyTalk 18:43, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Still crazy, after all these years.

Still at it with Professor Dawkins. But will AS take it? Susan^{purrrrr ...} 13:35, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Short answer? No. Next it will be that the title of "professor" doesn't make someone an expert. --BillOhannity 13:40, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Hrm, will the response be to completely ignore the evidence, or will it be a bizarre new reason why Dawkins isn't a professor but this time involving wormholes and Hitler? Taking all bets, folks. --Jeεv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 13:55, 12 December 2007 (EST)

You're right Bill! Susan^{purrrrr ...} 13:57, 12 December 2007 (EST)

And that would be column a, completely ignore the evidence. I'm absolutely positive now he must just be doing this to fuck with us. No person alive could be that wilfully pigheaded and still not be murdered by people he deals with on a daily basis. --Jeεv☭s^{Your signature uses all my CPU time...} 14:03, 12 December 2007 (EST)

OurMike responded with more points, so I give 40% prediction Aschlafly will just dismiss it all and say something to the amount of "it doesn't prove anything, we've already done this", 30% he'll look for a new reason, 20% he threatens/bullies, and 10% another sysop does it to close up any talking points so he won't have to answer, like Karajou and TK have done before. GOGO PERCENTAGES! Norseman^Wassail! 15:19, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Still at it. (no link - It'll change in the next few minutes - just go look).. Susan^{purrrrr ...} 18:36, 12 December 2007 (EST)

It's just fucking UNBELIEVABLE, isn't it? I mean, how fucking stupid is he? How far up your own arse can you have your head shoved? I'm sorry, rant rant rant rant there are people who have chosen to have HIM educate their CHILDREN?!!! DogP 18:53, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Andy Speaking in Tongues

Just in case you're wondering, Assfly most likely tried to say "Removed Silly Links." I fail at not skipping through text. 190.198.83.203 14:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

You've got to admit, that's kinda impressive. He managed to offset his right hand by exactly one line while keeping his left hand in the right place, and then not notice. Ut's garder ti di tgab tiy wiykd tgubjg. Lurker 16:35, 12 December 2007 (EST)

There he goes again

Again with the Wikipedia. Andy's predicting that Wikipedia won't last the year. Assuming he's right about internal strife being a problem, let's just say the administration collapses next year and editing shuts down (not sure how this would happen, the controversies that exist affect a tiny fraction of the entire project) it would still be the biggest, most complete encyclopedia ever (sure far from perfect, but whatever happens, it's not about to cease to exist). CP, on the other hand, looks like it's about to collapse, and it hasn't done enough to be worthwhile to anyone once it become inactive. "The Ten" is nearly the extent of their active conributors, and even most of them seem to do little. If WP wanted to be a stagnant website, it could exist on a tiny fraction of its current budget (its main expense would be servers) and even if it couldn't raise that much (because, you know, only about 400 people a day are contributing, a number which is many times greater than the entire active editorship of CP) it could be sold for a billion dollars. How much would someone pay for Andy's blog, I wonder? DickTurpis 14:07, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I'll give him five bucks! --Kels 20:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Even if Wikipedia were to collapse due to internal strife it is well mirrored and the GFDL would allow anyone to take the content and continue Wikipedia from where it left off. In comparison Conservapedia's vague and self-contradictory copyright statement[9] makes it difficult for anyone to reuse content with any confidence. Barnaby 16:56, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Andy thinks he is the next Pat Robertson, giving predictions and all. I can not believe that people actualy pay him to teach their children. I am thinking on the lines of David Koresh here. Watch out Andy will be passing out the kool aid and asking for donations to build a compound in the near future.-- ^{I am the Alpha}TimS_{and the Omega!}. 14:55, 12 December 2007 (EST)

It's barely Andy's any more - it's rapidly turning into Kenservatives blog. He's busy attempting to turn it into the World's Greatest Reference Book About Homosexuality. Not that he's, you know, gay himself, or anything. I'm not saying that. That stretches credibility too far, and is unfounded. No, I don't have a cite for it. DogP 18:28, 12 December 2007 (EST)

What the hell is Ashililfy's thought process when it comes to this sort of thing? I can imagine what he must think goes on at Wikimedia board meetings.

• Jimbo: So, folks, what's the outlook this year for Wikipedia?
• Random Guy: Well, sir, the site's come under fire for a few administrative abuses and some perceived bias in contentious articles.
• Jimbo: Oh, shit! We gotta just delete everything now. Go, go! Shut down the hard drives, unplug the servers! Bob! Get Mr. Sclafly on the phone! He'll know what to do.

Conservapedia's come under fire for outrageous administrative abuses and project-crippling bias, but you never hear Schlialfiy mention that.-- Offeep 19:54, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Article of the month

So the article of the month hasn't been updated, and it still sucks. The current image is "France." and the Ukrainian Resistance section is still empty. ^{— Unsigned, by: Shangrala / talk / contribs}

At least it hasn't been overdue for months, unlike the Daily Bible Verse and the Daily Historical Quote. (Been there since 27 July if I'm not mistaken.) NightFlare 17:02, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Fear not, an important mail has been sent! --Sid 17:47, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Uh, oh! The mighty CP machine has problems. Will this have an impact on the next article of the month? A trepidant Editor at CP 04:01, 13 December 2007 (EST)