Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive161

This is an archive page, last updated 3 April 2012. 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>, <159>, <160>, <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)

Conservapedia itself on Andy's trip into the lion's den

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that there absolutely no talk at CP about Andy's upcoming appearance on the Colbert Report -- no advice to Andy, no "are you sure you want to do this?", no "do you appreciate what you're getting yourself into?", zero, nada, zilch. It seems... strange. MDB (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that to them this can only be a win situation. Andy gets national TV coverage for CP and the CBP. If Andy comes out on top then Olé Olé Olé. If Andy gets pwned then cue rehashes of all the cliched anti-liberal, anti-MSM rants. Fundies have cognitive dissonance coming out of all their orifices so if Andy ends up looking like a chump then it will only be in liberal eyes which can easily be dismissed. Ultimately he gets massive publicity and I expect some serious viewing spikes. Many will be vandals, so TK gets to banhammer a whole new bunch of victims. While many here seem to relish Andy being sent up by Colbert, failure has never stopped him before and he will milk it for all that he can. In my opinion this is a calamity as it gives CP some sort of main-stream presence, it would be far better if it disappeared into obscurity. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Most likely they are talking about it, but in the hidden SDG we can't see (as far as they know, anyway). EddyP (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I would expect anyone close enough to Andy to be able to communicate with him other than on his talk page to know that offering anything but the most cursory advice unsolicited is pointless. "Be humble""Be affable." What else can you say to a guy who thinks the Theory of Relativity is problematic because it allegedly causes people to read the bible less? 15:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just hope the Colbert writers did their research and found some gold. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. From a purely selfish perspective I look forward to Colbert goofing on Andy. Also CP is bound to receive an influx of parodists because of it. Perhaps some of them will be funny. Hopefully, Colbert will encourage his veiwers towards wandalism. I'd love it for Andy to threaten Colbert with the FBI. However, the appearance will undoubtedly lend Andy and his projects an undeserved air of credibility. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 16:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

conservatives are not afraid of criticism. Liberals run from unflattering news sources- wimpy like BO Hillary Edwards refusing to debate on Fox News. ---stinky pits

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA . . . oh wait, are you serious? You didn't use you're first name and last initial, unless stinky pits is your real name. 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a good thing. More publicity for CP means more people reading and editing. They then find out how crazy the place is, spreading much-needed laughter further around the world. Broccoli (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Colbert will not give CP any credibility, he will only make it (temporarily) rise out of obscurity so that everyone can vandalize and parody it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually against this. Giving Andy any sort of media attention is fucking suicide. He will gloat about his imaginary win, increased pageviews and new users. And Colbert will not, in all likely hood, address stuff like Andy's views on relativity. The focus will be on the CBP, so that is 90% off limits. We will not hear about his sexist views on teaching. Liberals get a laugh, and Andy becomes a martyr. Now, if Bill O'Reilly was to tear Andy a new one, then that would really hurt.--Thanatos (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but think of the opportunities for parody that will be created as a result of this. With the influx of new editors, Andy will be unable to sort out the parodists. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

TK will though. Even if they're not parodists. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Appearing on Colbert didn't give Mike Huckabee any increased legitimacy with Stephen's audience, and Gov. Huckabee was a lot better at covering up the crazy than Andy will be.

No one will ever be able to cure or stop Andy's insanity so expecting Colbert's inevitable smackdown to cause Andy to humbly reevaluate his life is a lost cause. A smackdown from fundie right wingers wouldn't do it either: look how easily Andy shrugged off WND's excommunication. Drop any expectation of "humbling" Andy. The man is as unselfconscious, and as incapable of being shamed, as a clam.

Instead Colbert will accomplish some good, the publicity will cause lots of people to come gawk at the stupidity and become parodists and wandals.

As far as I can see CP is in its final state. Page creation has slowed to a trickle. During 2008 I think parodists were useful as they caused conflict, pushed the site further into the crazy zone, fed sysop paranoia, and banned most of the constructive editors. Now, people like Bugler are no longer needed as Conservapedia barely gets 10 constructive major edits a day.

Frankly, I think the vast majority of people who have seen Conservapedia and wanted to edit it constructively have been IP banned until 2013 by TK and Bugler. The project is more or less dead, good for only lulz from Andy himself. And Andy's "martyrdom" on Colbert won't lead to a resurgence, it will lead to a wave of vandalism that will even further legitimize hair-trigger banning of anyone who hasn't been editing since 2008. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 20:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Predictions of CP being in its "final state" have been posted here on an almost weekly basis since I joined RWin 2007. I don't think it's ever going away. Andy will keep the lights on there for as long as he can type and pay an internet bill, thankfully. What would we all do without it? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I doubt TK will get them all, though. If someone kisses up to Andy fast, TK won't be able to get them. And even if he does, like Wodewick says, thebn we are just one step closer to "blocking the planet." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Methinks Colbert will very likely "play along" with Andy - that is, agree with all the crazy, congratulate him, etc. It's a style he often uses and is good at. Part of why it works is it encourages the crazy person to say more, when they feel comfortable. The art is in getting the loon to think he really does agree with them without tipping his hand. Considering Stephen is a deeply observant Catholic and teaches Sunday School, he might be able to pull it off. If Colbert takes a confrontational stance at all, all we'll get are AS' canned talking points. ħuman 21:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

...which Colbert will shatter into a thousand pieces. I think we're all underestimating Colbert here: remember that he is a professional broadcaster and comedian, and Andy's not exactly hard to make fun of. Thus, the interview should be absolute pawnage. Regardless, though, Andy knows that Colbert is a liberal and I'm pretty sure he will realized that Colbert is mocking him if he gives him praise. Although we can always hope for his judgement to lapse for one precious second... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

To me, the greatest win would having Andy's homeschool class shut down by the parents. Colbert is not going to address Andy giving different tests to girls, nor is he going to ask Andy if he will use the Conservative Bible in class. If the right-wing media shuns Andy, there is a better chance that the parents will too.--Thanatos (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Though I don't want the poor guy to starve for lack of a job, you are right. The students would almost certainly be better off in public school, especially here in NJ where the public schools are good. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

He works as a legal consultant for quack doctors as well as his quack mom. He might have to put off buying that boat for awhile, but he wouldn't starve.--Thanatos (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, not only that, but isn't Mr "Girls Can't Excel in Science As Well As Boys" married to an MD? I'd daresay she makes enough money on her own to keep Andy in a lifestyle to which I'd like to become accustomed for some time. MDB (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a B.S.E. in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton University also heavy in the sciences and maths? CS Miller (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we all need to take a deep breath or two. It's going to be predictable. We've seen Andy in the media before. He will be calm and look polished. Colbert will engage him on CBP and give Andy enough rope. Andy may or may not hang himself. CP will enjoy a brief spike. TK will ban a large portion of the internet. Fin.

Bonus points to Colbert for every Schalfly statistic he coaxes out of Andy. One million bonus points if he can get Andy to say "I am the next Newton." As for fallout, sunshine is the best disinfectant. Sit back and enjoy the show...-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 22:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A hundred internets to everyone if Stephen wishes Andy "Godspeed" in closing the interview. ħuman 22:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your 100 internets and raise you a thousand if either of them uses "you're clueless." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a drinking game is all of this. I hope Andy tells Colbert to keep an open mind. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 23:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me, though it may be too late, that there may be some small potential in sending Colbert's staff some of our material on Andy. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 23:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We're the Number 2 search for A.S. on a search engine that begins with G. Ole, ole, ole! 23:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but how far in advance is the colbert report filmed? If andy can get home and talk about his experience on CP before the episode actually airs, it'd be interesting to see if/how his attitude towards how well it went changes before and after it airs. Then again, it could be live for all I know. Or filmed a couple of hours before it's edited together and aired. I'm not good with TV shows. X Stickman (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's filmed evening-ish (I forget the exact time) and airs at 11:30 that night. He has enough time to post something, if he wants. I'd be curious to see if he does. DickTurpis (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I went to a Colbert taping last year. They start the actual taping around 7pm if I recall correctly It'll be like 9pm by the time Andy gets back to Jersey, assuming he doesn't go out for drinks with Stephen after the show. --Composure1 (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's unlikely there will be any major humiliation - or, at least, none that Andy would actually acknowledge. If he's so arrogant and so impressed with himself that he won't listen to his own brother (Roger's an actual physicist, IIRC?) on the matter or Relativity, I don't expect Andy to change his colours on anything in the face of Colbert's ridicule. Despite all claims to open-minedednes, there's no-one more close-minded than him, and no amount of evidence could convince him that he's wrong. But he always comes across less crazy in the flesh than online, so he'll probably do OK. Instead, all we can hope for is some excellent laughs at his expense. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Conservapedia braces itself for a barrage of liberal claptrap by Stephen Colbert during our appearance on his Report Tuesday night. "

oh dear^img. Andy's expecting a debate or a challenge, not someone who's going to pretend to agree with him in order to bring out Teh Stupid. Is it possible he's NEVER actually watched Colbert and has no idea what Colbert's persona's M.O. is? 'Cause,from what little I've seen, he doesn't spout any "liberal claptrap" at all. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is very possible he has never seen it.

But more importantly: "Our appearance"?? What the fuck is Andy trying to say? It's only him on the show, so he sounds like he is speaking collectively for all of CP, like its some kind of cult. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The old L'État, c'est moi shtick, I suppose. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Either way it's really odd. Not only is Andy the physical manifestation of CP, he's also all of the editors combined. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be quite excellent if Andy has never seen Colbert, quite excellent indeed. He may not be aware of the 'fake conservative' concept. This might be a little more interesting than I'd expected.... DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 04:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@Tetronian: "By your powers combined - I am Captain Schlafly!" --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 04:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of my (award winning) haiku:

I'm Andy Schlafly.

I'm Conservapedia.

You're a liberal.

^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He's at least got to be familiar with the CP article on Colbert, which clearly states that he plays a character on his show. SoldierInGodsArmy (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that only Reagan and Andy are proper conservatives. Everyone else in the whole world spouts "liberal claptrap". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yossarian beat me to it. The problem with Andy's 'conservatism' is that it doesn't allow any kind of dissent. Even Reagan, promoting his 'Big Tent' ideal, would welcome in other viewpoints. But can someone explain to me why conservatives view the guy as the fourth member of the holy trinity? From what I've seen, he wasn't the perfect president by any stretch. -- CodyH (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservatives take a view of Reagan that's opposite the line from Marc Antony's eulogy for Julius Caesar -- "the good that men do lives on after them; the evil is oft interred with their bones." Of course, Ronald Reagan would be run out of today's Republican Party for allowed amnesty for illegal immigrants. MDB (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it's because he's the best they got. Take a look at the other Republican presidents of late:

• GWB: a disaster
• Bush the Elder: too liberal
• Ford: utterly forgettable (didn't have time to do much anyway)
• Nixon: need I say more?
• Eisenhower: too liberal
• Hoover: ancient history/too much associated with the Great Depression
• Coolidge: maybe their best bet, but who the hell remembers Coolidge? Also, he predates all the conservative hot-button issues.

So the "Obama is going to bankrupt us with his deficits" teabaggers are stuck idolizing the guy who made enormous deficits the foundation of economic policy. Funny, if it weren't so sad. DickTurpis (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed a shame. But notice that they are quick to throw their own leaders under the bus when they do wrong and then remember them years later for the few things they did right. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Heck, Nixon would be considered a liberal by today's standards. He

• Implemented wage and price controls
• Increased government benefits to citizens
• Took the US off the gold standard
• Signed the Clean Air Act, and the laws authorizing the EPA and OSHA
• Created the Consumer Products Safety Commission
• Opened relations with communist China
• Signed the ABM and SALT I treaties

And that was his first term.

Now, tell me, if I just listed those policies, without saying they were Richard Nixon's actions, would you think, that by today's standards, a Republican was behind them?

And if you go back to before the two parties largely flip-flopped on a great many issues, consider Teddy Roosevelt. He was a great conservationist (an environmentalist by today's terminology) and loathed big corporations. (And yeah, he was a war-monger.)

Since Reagan, the history of the Republican Party has been a steady progression to the right. They're reaching the point, if they're not there already, of being in the same place the Democrats were in the Eighties -- so completely beholden to the core of their party that they've alienated almost every moderate. MDB (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember Andy stating several times that he doesn't watch teh televizion. Someone who never watches TV is more than likely not a subscriber to cable or satellite, thus he never watched The Colbert Report unless he browsed the show's website. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Even so, if you were appearing on a chat show and had the internets available you'd do as much research on the show as possible, no? Assfly still thinks Colbert knows nothing about the Bible. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

True, very true... which will be funny if Colbert pegs him with that little fact. I'm not necessarily anticipating the Colbert Report having him as a guest host, but the aftermath. He'll no doubt retreat into his blog cave and make rancid statements on the mainpage, then make scathing edits to the Colbert articles like he did with Lenski (or anyone else who owned him). As for Sunday school teacher bit, in Andy's mind it's just another liberal trying to indoctrinate youth into the wrong ways of life. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 02:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Show finished?

So hasn't the Colbert episode aired yet? Anyone watch it live? What happened? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Helloooo? Tuesday evening, in America. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap! For some reason I thought it was Wednesday morning. I really need to get some more sleep and/or drugs. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Or less... SoldierInGodsArmy (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Time zones are a bugger! I'm about 15 hours ahead of NY (here in Australian Eastern Standard Time - not even daylight saving) and have been hanging out for when there might be some posts about the broadcast. The timestamps on these posts are UTC, correct? RagTop^{Gone sailing} 11:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(I have just answered that question (yes) by comparing the time stamp with local time. Slightly embarrased shrug. No-one need answer. RagTop^{Gone sailing} 11:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC) )

If you use Firefox, may I recommend this addon? You can keep track of time everywhere at a glance. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 11:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd give my back teeth to see this, but I can't get it on my TV package. Is there anywhere you can catch Colbert Report online from a UK IP address? I suspect this one will be too good to miss -- 11:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See here. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 12:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I demand that someone liveblog it & post a transcript within 75 seconds of it finishing. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 12:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can all do the trans-transcript of Andy's part in the show. It consists of two words: "f**kwittery" and "major". I'll leave the discerning viewer to determine the exact order those two words should be used.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The lunacy of it all is that Colbert is the ORIGINAL Parodist. He's essentially Bugler, MexMax etc rolled into one entity designed to poke fun at ridiculous right wing lunacy, on national television. Andy has no idea.

I think the show will consist of Andy walking on to the set, then dramatically tearing his face off, revealing that he was Colbert all along, wearing a mask. Phyllis Schlafly is Jon Stewart. X Stickman (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What is this Bert essay?

WTF?^img I understand not one sentence of this. What's it all about fafuxake? Apart from being totally opaque it's written like a stream of thought ramble; going from nowhere to nowhere and stopping off at nowhere on the way. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 10:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh good! It's not just me that finds this incomprehensible! Mick McT (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

All it takes is a little imagination. (You have to fill in an imaginary Professor and Doctor for one) Internetmoniker (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that, I still don't know what it's all about. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 11:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I can understand small sections of it, but there's a lot of highly-stylised writing that's easily seen as obfuscation. It seems to me that he's proposing that truth is relative and situational, and that scriptural literalism isn't a great idea. I'm certain he could have saved himself a lot of words when writing his essay. Here's the original version: The Doctine of the Last Laugh. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Err.. thanks Cr, I think. (I must be really thick but that reads much like Bert's stuff. Are all theologians like this : Can't beat 'em with brains so baffle 'em with bullshit? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 12:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understood all the details, but apparently when God returns, there is a tree somewhere that is going to stand up and clap its hands. I missed the reason that this is important; I never knew before that trees even have hands. --Fawlty (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk about high word-to-substance ratio! Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. Should I be worried? The only notion about it I might seek to alter (not in webspace, but heart-to-heart space, which requires proximity in RL) is the intro, which neglects to mention that it is unwise (and usually ineffective) to "Grab him where he is, how he is, give him what he needs, get past his excuses, his noble defenses." without the invitation and consent of the grabbed party.

Along these lines, my advice to the whole world is: less advertising, more action. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between a "need for" and a "need of"?

Anyway, Bert's just saying that the stuff in the bible is true, it all happened and the people in it really existed and when the reckoning comes all of us skeptics are going to be really sorry and God and his worshippers will laugh at us. So standard evangelicism really, except Bert has to dress it up with some crap about clapping trees. Bil08 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As someone who plays a resto druid in World of Warcraft, I heartily endorse the idea of clapping (and dancing) trees. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Hopefully we won't have to explain what the Bible is! "

To a sunday school teacher? Aside from that, who does he think really needs an explanation on what the Bible is? It makes me think about the chick-tracts were the sinners are all: "Jesus? Who is that? Never heard of him..." Internetmoniker (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Andy confusing him with Jon Stewart? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Andy really is going into it thinking Colbert does fit his stereotype of a liberal. MDB (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still mulling over the chances that Assfly has never seen an episode (or inverviews) by Colbert. The deer in headlights interviews are the best. Do you think we had any Colbert writers lurking? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A part of me thinks Andy is preparing to go into denial mode in case it does go wrong. Like the Lenski, FBI incidents e.t.c. He'll make out like Colbert was this über-liberal guy who knew absolutely nothing about the Bible. Andy won, now don't mention it or you'll be blocked. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If anyone needs to be given an explanation of what the Bible is, it's Andy and other fundamentalist maniacs. It's incredible to me how these people go on and on about the Bible this and Bible that, while lacking even a basic understanding of where the Bible came from and what it actually is.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be at a D&D session tonight, so I won't be watching it live. Anybody know what times on Wednesday they repeat Tuesday's episode? On topic, Andy clearly has never watched Colbert once in his life, and is about to get the whooping of his life. ENorman (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

8:30 EST.^{Apparently this is incorrect, see below} That's when I'll be watching it too. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[4] EST: 2 AM, 9:30 AM, 2 PM, 7:30 PM. ħuman 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks Human. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Good WIGO"

The way Andy's worded it makes it sound like he's grateful as he doesn't know what the Bible is himself. [5] SJ ^Debaser 20:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, I never noticed that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(prev. two comments copied from below) That is a riot! ħuman 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I not looking in the right place, or is CP being entirely silent on the topic of the Colbert Report interview? Or is anyone who brings it up being reverted and banned? http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page doesn't have any comments at all, on any topic, since December 3. - Cuckoo (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

FERPA and Andy

How is it that Andy can post grades on a public wiki? It would seem to be against FERPA, a law that indicates, "schools must have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a student's education record." I suppose it's possible Andy's gotten the parents' consent, but I doubt it. Why would you want your kid's grade posted to the internet? Sterile rollerblade 16:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

First, you must understand why they would want Andy Schlafly teaching their children. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading comprehension fail; according to the first paragraph, it only applies to educators or schools recieving government funds. No way Andy is taking socialist government money to teach homeschool. Z3ro^talk 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He did apply for.... oh, I can't remember the name, but some New Jersey program that would set him up as a tutor or something, and use gov't facilities. MDB (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But obviously he didn't get it, since he does publish the grades. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but my point was that he wouldn't refuse government funds. He might change his grading policy if he did start suckling at the government teat. MDB (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can be convinced that Andy teaching your kids is a good idea, you can be convinced that publishing your child's grades online is also a good idea (if there is some consent option in the first place). ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement from Schlafly beer

I'm a fan of Colbert on Facebook, and was browsing through the comments when Stephen announced he was interviewing Andy. Somebody asked if there was a connection between Andy and Schlafly beer, the owner of the Schlafly Beer facebook page responded in the comments section with such

"Schlafly Beer brewed in St.Louis, MO is in no way, whatsoever, connected in any way to Andy or Phyllis Schlafly or their "politics." Schlafly Beer is in every way, whatsoever, a huge fan of Stephen Colbert and a proud member of the Colbert Nation!

Our President and Co-Founder, Tom Schlafly, is a cousin of Andy and Phyllis (she is a Schlafly by marriage and when asked about Andy's Bible project in a local paper, Tom stated that "He never discussed it with me, and I've never seen it. There are probably few things in the world I know less about than this project."

With the sale of Anheuser Busch to Belgian/Brazilian owned InBev, Schlafly Beer is now the largest American owned brewery in the wonderful City of St.Louis, MO. Stephen...send us your shipping address and we would be honored to send along a large sampling of our 100% American Made and American Owned Craft Beers. Perhaps this calls for a new "Colbert Ale"? about an hour ago · Report"

Interesting if I do say so myself. ENorman (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There has always been a blurb on the schlafly beer site about not being affiliated with Phyllis. Good stuff (the beer and the posts). ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn. Now I really want some Schlafly beer while I watch the show tonight. I don't think it's available in these parts, though. DickTurpis (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I can't get it here. I've tried. As for the blurb from Tom Schlafly, that is in-fucking-credible. Way to throw yer cuz under the bus! Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 21:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is good stuff. One of the benefits of living near Kansas City is access to it. I got coasters, too, from when I went to a concert in KC -- CodyH (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think he's doing exactly what he needs to do. People are fucking crazy. Look what happened to French's mustard when American decided they didn't like France anymore. Their sales tanked and they had to add a blurb stated they had nothing to do with the country of France. The list goes on and on.... Snapple is owned by the KKK, Starbucks charged 9/11 workers (this one was true, but many reasons for it). Having your business associated with anything unpopular or controversial can kill your sales in an instant. Add to that the speed with which information travels in this age. Schlafly did exactly what he needed to do: seperate himself from his lunatic cousin and save his profit margain. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 23:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

French's mustard is owned by Reckitt Benckiser formerly Reckitt & Colman, manufacturer's of Colman's Mustard from Norwich, (England). I think it was in the 80s that Porsche ran an ad campaign with the tag-line "German Mustard". In reply, Lotus cars (based in Norwich) ran their own campaign "English Mustard is hotter". One of Lotus's car colours was "mustard yellow". On top of this, French's mustard is just yellow ketchup. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Colbert Ale? Would that be a flat and uninteresting drink except if you've just gotten high? SoldierInGodsArmy (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I voulunteer my Talk Page as the Colbert Party Section for tonight.

Rather than spamming Huw's house, I would be happy to let y'all use my porch as a the Party Place for the Colbert Report tonight. Let me just sweeep up some dust and apply some wood finishing. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ Over 2700 edits! Thats over 582! 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I'll be watching, not liveblogging, but I'll pop in to chat and discuss my bingo card results! ħuman 20:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly/Colbert Drinking Game - Yes, it's HERE!

Schlafly/Colbert Quaffing Pastime

Fun for your entire nuclear family

Rules:

• 1. Take one drink and cross out IP block a square when Schlafly says the word therein.
• 2. Take TWO drinks and block a square if Colbert says it first!
• 3. If you complete a "range block" (row, diagonal or column) down the rest of your drink.
• 4. The startling insight in the center square is provided at no charge.

Yours in comedy, Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 20:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Supreme bonus for us if Colbert looks at the camera and says "A Conservative Bible can provide geometric increases in insight if you keep an open mind and engage in classroom prayer. Now drink nation!" HumanisticJones (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh that would be so epic. That reminds me, filming probably starts soon! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we rearrange the sayings to make our own personalized bingo cards? I've copied the image, will mix them up and print for my viewing pleasure. Thanks! ħuman 20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Typical liberal. I bet you do the same thing with your Bible. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's unfair - on some you only need him to say four, on others five. To sort it out replace the Andy/Colbert picture with 'liberal professors/experts'. It's practically guaranteed to come up anyway. EddyP (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfair? But that's how all bingo boards are. Also, does anyone here have any skills with the random generator who would be willing to make another version of this image that is randomized? That way we could all have our own, and when the show comes on we could take a screenshot of our current board and then use that for the duration. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The only way I could think of with the random generator is to have each table in a choice option. The Serious Cabal would shit a brick. A javascript solution would be needed, but I don't touch the stuff. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You can use this utility. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I like this, but we have to keep in mind that it appears Andy is not the main guest, meaning he'll have about 2 minutes, most of which will be taken up by Colbert. Additionally, it is extremely unlikely that he will use any of those words, save a handful: Conservative Bible, logic, values, insight, learn, deny, classroom prayer (still unlikely, but it is Andy, we're talking about), homeschooling, deceit, open mind, and Bible reading (okay, more than a handful), and I doubt it'll be more than 2 or 3 even of those. I think the chances of anyone Bingoing on this are tiny, but let's give it a try. I just can't seeing him bringing up Lenski or Obama's religion; he's not going to tell Colbert "I'm 95% certain you're a parodist" or accuse him of last-wordism on his own show. Wikipedia will definitely be mentioned by at least one of them, and probably atheism too. Maybe those should be on there? DickTurpis (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that Andy is a side-guest. At first I thought maybe they were advertising Andy first because he was quicker to agree to appear on the show, but there is still not a word of advertising for Sen. Sanders on colbertnation.com. I think Andy is the main guest. It's possible that Sen. Sanders used to be, but he had to cancel for some reason, which explains why a TV guide would list him. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 21:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This TV guide also lists Senator Sanders. I guess we'll see! At this point, I would bet that Bernie is actually the side interview and Andy is the main guest. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 21:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That link on the colbert site has Sanders listed first, and since he's obviously the bigger celebrity I'd wager a hearty sum that Andy will get a couple minutes at the desk with Colbert in the first part of the show. I've noticed in the past that the early, minor guest was the one listed as The Guest instead of the main interviewee at the end of the show. Not sure why, but it does happen. While Colbert does have plenty of unheard of people as his main guests, they're people who have at least accomplished something. Andy is just there to be laughed at. It'll be brief, but hopefully entertaining. DickTurpis (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd bet on it being an off-site interview a la "Better know a district", which is good, cuz those get cut the hell up and are hilarious. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that, but I think those interviewees aren't billed as guests. Shame, as those are always entertaining, where his mini-interviews before the break are sometimes pretty dry. Of course, if it is a highly-edited off-site interview, we'll get to hear all about Colbert's Liberal Deceit. Actually, Andy might have a point in such a case.

Actually, it can't be one of those, as they have to be taped well ahead of time. DickTurpis (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This link says that Wednesday's guest is Andy Schlafly. Looks to me like he's the main guest. Stile4aly (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Secondary guests (when they have them) often seem to receive billing there for some reason. Not sure why. If Senator Sanders is on the show, and two sources, including the Colbert site, say he is, then there is no way Andy is trumping him. I'm 95% certain that Andy will get a very quick chat with Colbert early in the show, and that's it. DickTurpis (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are people seeing this Sen. Sanders stuff? I know someone's onscreen guide says it, but the official ColbertNation site, in the left hand column where they mention upcomming guests, only has Andy Schlafly. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 23:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I should have said this sooner but if Colbert makes a mention of RationalWiki I will donate $50 to his US speed-skating sponsorship campaign. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good God man, think about the enormous increase in traffic we would get if that happened! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, RW was 404 for me all afternoon yesterday, I assume just from the people who googled "Andy Schlafly" and came here. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Which reminds me: CP is going to be 404 for the next few weeks because of the "Colbert bump." Ah well. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that not a good thing?--Thanatos (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well of course it is, mostly because of the vandalism and parody that are going to run rampant. But it will be annoying when looking for WIGOs. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please let powerful people see this. Powerful people in NJ who care about children.--Thanatos (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There are none anymore. Not after Chris Christie got elected. Btw, LESS THAN AN HOUR!! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(UI)Andy must be happy with how it went, since he's home pimping it "COUNTDOWN: LESS THAN 45 MINUTES TO THE APPEARANCE BY CONSERVAPEDIA ON THE COLBERT REPORT!!!" ħuman 03:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy clears out his talk page without archiving it, lest any Colbertistas see him at his worst^img Coarb (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

'If you complete a "range block"...' Wodewick, my good sir, you are fucken awesome. Mountain Blue 05:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did conservapedia 'break' climategate?

I was reading the soundbites and it says conservapedia broke the climate gate story, didn't they link to another resource?

Nope, TK hacked the mail from Andy's study. Ace^{of Spades} 04:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[6] ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Colbert12345 block

They still have night-mode turned off? If I were them I would have turned it on several hours before the start of the show. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again

Andy has just hit his highest profile appearance to date. A lot of attention will be on him for awhile We have to get something published in the media that shows Andy for the sad little man we all know he is. He mentioned health effects of abortion on Colbert. Colbert never mentioned that Andy worked as a lawyer who tried to get women to sue their doctors afterwords and would not listen to experts about the non-existent link between abortion and breast cancer. He talked about being a teacher. Colbert never called him on his piss-poor grading standards, sexist classroom behavior, or putting students homework on the intertubes. CP is going to have a bubble. Some of those folks will mosey on over here and some will leave thinking Andy is a nut. We can tell the world how big of a nut he is.--Thanatos (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he did enough of that already. With that stupid grin, and just the way he handled himself... I mean, I saw pictures of the guy, but I never knew he could come across THAT awkward/creepy/potential sex offender. The first thing he tried to say was that abortion-breast cancer crap. He got owned. TKEtoolshed (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually say potential cult-leader. Anyway, this is a rehash of my last rant on this where I suggested that Andy might use the cp bible in his classes to promote its use.--Thanatos (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Post-interview discussion

Andy sounds like Bert when he laughs. Overall, it was nothing new. The radio interview with Colmes was far better IMO. We did see Abortion/Breast Cancer come back into the light, and got an "As obvious as the fact that 2+2=4" out of him. Colbert was on him the whole time, and smacked him around pretty hard. However, since it sounded like he was agreeing with Andy, and we know how easily he falls for parodists, I bet he believes he converted Stephen to conservatism or something ENorman (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Andy laughs when he needs a second to think--Thanatos (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I disagree with Thanatos (above), I'm pretty sure Andy lost tonight. Colbert didn't need to tear down each one of Andy's numerous claims of credentials and expertise, or mention numerous instances of dumbassery documented on RW (like his homeskollar grading), to succeed in making him look like a fool.

Rather than constantly being on the offensive, I think Colbert giving Andy "enough rope" was the right move on his part, Andy talked quite a bit and aired a lot of his crazypants notions... and I'm sure almost everyone who was watching who wasn't already in his camp came away with the impression "what a nut."

For what it's worth, Twitter seemed to like the interview. DailyKos liked it too:

"A hunh hunh hunh hunh." I am a robot. This is my laugh.

Lulz. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

GOOD LORD I forgot how weird his voice is! 05:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Im not saying he didn't make an as out of himself. I just want to get the kids away from Andy--Thanatos (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephen tweets: "according to conservapedia, andy schafly is also an astronaut and the inventor of mufflers" Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

HOJI!!1!!1TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I sorely hate being on the west coast. Is the interview worth sacrificing sleep for? --Hoji^{ni hao} 05:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you, I am torrenting here here. Ace^{of Spades} 06:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall consider. I also just realized that I wasted a perfectly good IP which could've been used to cause much more mayhem and ASCII porn. Sigh... I won't forget next time. --Hoji^{ni hao} 06:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Time to fire up TOR and get at it? TKEtoolshed (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No need. CP is getting absolutely assraped by new users at the moment. Stile4aly (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought JacobB was a parodist, but his comments on this page confirm it, right? Keegscee (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

2+2=4 ruled, we were such losers for not putting it on the bingo chart. Andy ran one ahead of us. ħuman 06:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I transcribed it on my talk page for those who are interested.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Should have its own article--Thanatos (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to strip it off of there and throw it up somewhere else can feel free to do so.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Extra points awarded for transcribing Andy's robotic laughter. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 09:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I rather enjoyed seeing Andy flail like that. Colbert let Schlafly satirize himself. I vaguely hoped that Colbert would have addressed some of his other nutty concepts head-on, but in retrospect, this will do, especially seeing as the site has already started to deal with the... aftereffects already. While we're in the wishful thinking department, I also kind of hoped they would have let Schlafly barge in Colbert's mini-interview with Bernie Sanders so the good senator could run circles around Andy. Alas! Photovoltaic Array (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I too would have liked a Colbert/Schlafly/Sanders three-way to have occured--Thanatos (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I watched the interview through, since the preshow circlejerking made it sound like it would be the epic lol to end all. I don't think Colbert "won", tho.. it's a funny conversation but Andy doesn't come off wingnut. Colbert whining about being demoted from Moses-status actually makes Andy sound reasonable. On the flip side, I still don't see why Andy did it. I don't think he fell on his ass, but then, I can't see he's gained anything at all. Poor. MaxAlex (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He's gained bragging rights and publicity. Even if most of the audience was liberal it enhances his profile among the religious right. In the last couple of months he's had three radio interviews and a TV slot to advertise his site. It matters nought that some people were laughing at him, they can be ignored, but there's still millions of fundies who haven't been reached yet. To CP, any publicity is good publicity. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did we have Newton on the bingo cards? If not we missed out on that one as well. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the interview was a lost opportunity to get some real funnies out of the Assfly. The Assfly didn't really come over as mega nutjob, just common or ordinary garden nutjob, nothing to write home about. Colbert was more interested grooming his ego by whinging about why he didn't get to be Moses in the Bible translation. The Assfly's response would have seemed fairly reasonable to anyone unaware of the real nuttiness that goes on at CP behind the scenes (Reverts,Talk pages and block logs etc.). Auld Nick (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy made a significant effort to rein in his claims. He didn't come across as nutty as he could have, but I think we tend to define him by his most absurd moments. However, he did come across very, very strange. His appearance reminds me of a turtle, and he has no charisma. His laugh - if natural - comes across as a disingenuous attempt to sound human. -Lardashe

I thought he didn't come off that badly. He certainly seemed to approach it with a sense of humor (though I agree his laugh is very grating.) And he didn't spout some of his wilder ideas, like denying relativity or imaginary numbers. Heck, he didn't even mention that he though the Adulteress Story was a liberal addition to the Bible, and there was a perfect opportunity for him to do so. MDB (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A win for andy--the man's an attention whore, just like his mommy, and there's no such thing as bad publicity for him--and a loss for CP, as they'll struggle with even more vandals and parodyists (not that andy cares...). And a potential win for RW, at least insofar as more Andy/CP exposure guides folks here.--WJThomas (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Andy benefited from this in that CP got mentioned, thus bringing more attention to the site and potentially a new editor or two. But to me his nervous giggling jut made him seem clueless, not that he had a sense of humor---like he is one of those annoying people who laugh at everything. Colbert did score some minor points for the good guys (that's us!) by tacitly calling out the hypocrisy between an inerrant bible and the truth by committee lie Schlafly sold as the method CP and CBP use. Along the same lines Andy really waffled on the exchange about objective reality. All in all the interview wasn't one of Colbert's best or even all that funny. I was sort of disappointed, but I assume it is because I'm an insider and know how "good" it could have been. I agree that Andy really dialed back his nuttiness. He did the same thing on the recent radio appearance. This has got to be the inverse of minor asshat+anonymity+internet connection=total jerk off ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This was definitely a win for Andy. That Colbert interviewed him at all makes him look legitimate; that he didn't come off looking like a total loon means that some people will be attracted to his cause. The only real negative about the whole thing is that a lot of people will be coming to Conservapedia who have not heard of it before, and who might make well-meaning edits of which the admins might not approve, and so they'll have to decide whether to be lenient or lay down the law - and their decision will really set the tone for Conservapedia in the coming months. - Cuckoo (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside, last night was one of the best Daily Shows. Gretchen Carlson got slaughtered. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim that the Bible is a work of economics alone was enough to expose Andy as a lunatic. That and his weird arm gestures. Rational Ed^think!

Oh yeah the five cow, two cow, one cow story was odd. Not being familiar with it I wonder how God expected the poor one cow guy to make new cows? Details, details, off to hell with that guy. I've the impression it takes two cows to make a calf. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 15:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, that parable isn't about cows, it's about "talents," which was a monetary measurement. Junggai (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The only way to know that for sure is to ask Phillip J. Rayment. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was right about one thing: it wasn't the epic lulz some predicted, and Andy didn't come off like a total batshit crazy mental patient. I gotta say, he had much more of a sense of humor about it than I thought possible, or at least he pretended to, taking a light-hearted approach to it. That certainly helped his cause. Based on his quite vocal animosity towards Colbert specifically, I half expected him to go on the offensive, which would have made much better television. I wonder if he sort of planned to, but when the first thing your opponent says to you is "I think it's great what you're doing", it's rather disarming. It is a shame the absolute craziness of much of CP was not brought out, but I knew the interview would be largely confined to the CBP, so we wouldn't hear about relativity, the FBI, Obama's Muslimness, etc (though Andy did sneak breast cancer in there; awesome). Besides "gotcha journalism" isn't really Colbert's style.

Now, did we really leave 2+2=4, Newton, and breast cancer off the bingo matrix? Man, we are dropping the ball. DickTurpis (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

₳::My take on the interview was initial disappointment that very little of the "real" Andy Schlafly was drawn out, but after thinking about it overnight I can see why. First off, he knew he was heading into a minefield be doing Colbert's show in the first place, and he's had enough training as a lawyer to know when to play defense by not offering material for his opponent to pounce on. His defensiveness really came out in his laughter - that nervous, robotic Elmer Fudd stutter that screamed "I should laugh to show I can go along with this, nowpleasedonthurtmeStephen!".

Colbert had to walk a fine line, which is the real reason I suspect he was relatively easy on Andy. He was aware that Schlafly was expecting to be pounced on, and a good interviewer knows that you have to get the subject to open up and talk if you're going to have an interview at all. So he kept it light, made some jokes, and when he took a jab at Andy it was subtle. His best poke at Andy was when he highlighted the ridiculousness of "the best of the common folk being better than experts" B.S. There really isn't any difference in principle between Colbert fans inserting his name into the CBP and Andy inserting his wingnut bias into the CBP. The difference, as Colbert managed to point out, is that in the end the opinions of some of the "common folk" count more than others - it's not a collaboration based on merit when Andy has the final say.

What I'd hope to come from this is two things. First, any attention Conservapedia gets will inevitably lead to more ridicule of the site, and that's a long-term good. Second, Andy may have realized that Colbert's an entertainer and not an attack dog, especially after reading Andy's comments about talking with Colbert when he was out of character. If he got a subsequent invitation to come back on the show I'd think he'd consider it favorably, and one never knows where that may lead. --SpinyNorman (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Friend of the show": Andy Schlafly Internetmoniker (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish Colbert had brought up that none (few) of the people who are doing the "translation" can speak greek or hebrew, beyond half a dozen words they learned in bible study. --Opcn (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For those of you who didn't get to see it....

It's on hulu. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of it going on Youtube or something accessible down under? RyanC (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. I'll try to find out. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think someone said you can add the X-Forwarded-For header using some firefox addon to get it working. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just watched it on Hulu. Where did Andy get that creepy crypt-keeper laugh? --Simple (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He developed it playing "Edgar" in "Men in Black" MaxAlex (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The video can be seen only inside the United States. What a discrimination... --Earthland (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about that and I bet it's because the sponsors are American companies who have no interest in paying for ads shown to foreigners. Did you try modifying your headers? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Where in the Bible is that parable? I want to check Andy's work. There could be a loophole. --Crazyswordsman (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see it here on his website. - π 23:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

the parable of the talents is in Matthew. It's very funny, cause that's the only parable right wingers ever point to, cause it's the only one that fits the supply side economics theory they buy into. They never mention the Prodigal Son, or the Sheep and Goats one. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 01:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Prodigal Son is one of andy's favorites; he mentions it frequently. Of course, he screws it all up when he talks about it, but still....--WJThomas (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a "free market" parable. It's more of a parable encouraging people to do what I'm doing now: pumping money into the economy. But things can be interpreted differently, I guess. --Crazyswordsman (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lot of fresh new faces

The red names are running rampant in the RC at CP today. I wonder why there is such a spike? duh Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 20:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor funny

I just ran into the phrase "Welcome Banner" used "innocently" on CP and chuckled, isn't that TK's job? ħuman 21:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, it took me a minute to get the joke but now I understand it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Favorite moments/quotes from Colbert

So what were everyone's favorites parts of last night's show? I'm curious to hear. Personally I just loved Andy's euphemism of being, I believe the term is "politely removed from the site". I think we need to banhammer the term "banhammer" and use the term "politely removed" from now on. DickTurpis (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

'Conservapedia is like the Olympics...' TKEtoolshed (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was fond of "Conservapedia is like the Olympics" simply because I saw it coming a mile off. My wife was more than a little surprised when I said it two seconds before Andy. --Phentari (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How many times did he use the word "insights"? At least five, I think, which I found pretty funny. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

When he almost quoted "I Fought the Law" - "...the race is run." I loved him trying to shoehorn his weird Olympics analogy into the interview. ħuman 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That whole "games" metaphor puts bile in my mouth. Does no one remember the CP editing contests when his team lost and he kept challenging the results? Of course I doubt that was actually Andy Schlafly on the program, to me it looked more like a Spitting Image puppet. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Hey, someone who's feeling less lazy than me right now, go to all the past CP contests and see if Andy's team won any of them. I think I recall he didn't (though he was probably the personal points leader for some). DickTurpis (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just watched the rerun of Colbert. Definitely the "politely removed from the site" remark is the highlight of the show, at least for those of us who are in the know. The layperson watching who had never been to the site have no idea how "politely" is in reality replaced with "vigorously and with great force". Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 01:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My favourite moment was the entire piece. Seeing that fucking dope sitting there in his fact-proof ivory tower with his smug dorkface and that fantastic nerd gurgle was totally priceless. He's a shining example of everything that's great about idealogues. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 06:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed no one else has mentioned "No gossip"="I don't let people talk about my gay brother."--Mustex (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one of the funnier moments. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(ui)I love how, when talking about all of the free-market economic parables, he says, deadpan, "The one who had one (talent) didn't make any more, and he was sent to hell." Corry (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bingo results

I have the following terms coming up positive in our Colbert Bingo, as presented in template:Bingospace, being spoken by Andy during the interview:

• Wikipedia = gossip (obviously not those exact words, but they weren't intended to be)
• Wikipedia
• liberal (obviously)
• insight
• Hell
• abortion
• Bible-reading ("Reading the Bible" in this case)
• deny

Not too bad, I guess, seeing as how it was not a long interview, but I don't think anyone could have feasibly bingoed on that one. There are about 6 or so terms we really should have had but didn't, including his pre-announced talking points about the Olympics and best of the public. Next time we'll have to prepare better. DickTurpis (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Next time"? Damn, how great would it be if there is a next time? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He'll make some appearance somewhere, though it won't be Colbert. The game can still hold though. DickTurpis (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I had some ideas on how to improve the interface, including a way to send in a "bingoed" form via email so the "winner" gets a timestamped evidence. But I doubt I'll bother. Doing half of it, though - tick boxes in each frame - would at least make it readily interactive. ħuman 01:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think simpler is better: 25 blank boxes we post on our pages and fill in any way we want from a list of words/phrases decided beforehand. As they come up we strike out the text. The randomness, while a nice idea, didn't work too well. Too many repetitions, as well as phrases I was sure wouldn't come up, and wouldn't want on my card. I also favor getting rid of the traditional "Free Space" to be replaced with any word we choose from the list. Anyone with half a brain would put "liberal" in the center; it's a gimme. DickTurpis (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure, you're right. Got a perl script to run it yet? ħuman 06:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to strikeout or otherwise mark a word/phrase "quickly"? I think the tick box idea is a good one, what do you think? ħuman 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I suck at templates, programming, and anything very techy. But I'm good at stealing other people's shit and adapting it to my needs. Here's what a good bingo card could look like, stealing a template and picking a bunch my favorites, including ones overlooked prior to the interview: User:DickTurpis/sample bingo‎. I think the <s></s>, while not instantaneous, is quick enough to add. This is, of course, a classic case of closing the barn door after the horses have fled, but I think we may see Andy again, maybe on a show that gives longer interviews. (Here we come Charlie Rose!) DickTurpis (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Andy benefited"

Really? I can't imagine someone who watches Colbert ending up as a constructive editor at Conservapedia. I can imagine plenty of Colbert viewers becoming excellent parodists. If Andy ever gets an interview with Hannity or Glenn Beck then it would be time to worry.

Also: Andy "didn't come off as crazy"? Maybe not to someone who frequents the WIGO page - he didn't mention black holes, pre-Jesus comedy, etc. But plenty of people were twittering last night about Andy's "Jesus sent the man who didn't make any money to Hell" parable. That may seem like unWIGO-worthy garden variety Andy to us but it's plenty crazy to someone who's never heard of CP.

Look at the stats. From Dec 8 to now (01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)), the site has registered 268 new users. Only about half of them (130ish) have made edits. In the same timeframe sysops have created 148 new blocks. And the site is periodically 503. Right now CP is swamped and the new users are making too many edits to patrol which means lots of parody is slipping through the cracks. As an obvious example that I don't mind exposing, "Father Joseph" is back for another round (good luck, Joe!).

I look forward to, oh about a week from now, when the wandalism dies down and all the smart Colbert viewers start creating parody accounts and wheedling their way into Andy's good graces. You can't banhammer them all, TK :D Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your point there. We are indeed desensitized to Andy's craziness, but even taking that into account he did not come off as a total wacko. Colbert focused on the fact that he "creates his own little world" at CP and did not highlight any of Andy's obsessions. Also, Andy regards any publicity as good publicity, so getting CP noticed is the most important thing to him. For those reasons I would say Andy did benefit in some small way. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wodie makes a couple of good points there. The first needs no comment. The second had occurred to me too - right now there are red user names making legit edits all over the place, and CP lacks the manpower to do a good job of vetting them all - hence, surely some silly will creep in under the radar. ħuman 01:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but I still maintain that Andy wants whatever publicity he can get, and he got a helluva lot from last night. And besides, Colbert wasn't overly harsh on him and he didn't look that crazy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Andy will see it as a good thing. He'll stick it in his "media portfolio" for later use, and will probably in the future repeatedly bring up the fact that he was a main guest on a TV show where he advertised his site (give it a few weeks/months and he'll probably stop saying "the colbert report" and just say "a tv talk show" or something similar). He'll certainly claim that since he went on the colbert report and wasn't destroyed by Colbert himself, he is now more important and his points are more valid. Other media people might see him as an interesting guest and try to get him on, maybe. The profile of Conservapedia has certainly been raised an awful lot.

So yeah, Andy will definitely think this is a great thing. As to whether it is or not, I dunno. No one who watches the Colbert Report will have tuned in to see Andy and think "My word, this gentleman is making a lot of sense, I wish to send my children to his class and use his encyclopedia as a valid reference" and even if by some weird circumstance someone *does* think that, a few hours browsing CP itself will probably turn them off. In the end, Andy and Conservapedia have "won" in that they're far more well known now (which is all Andy seems to care about; he's never seemed bothered about winning anything, just that people have seen him do it), but they've lost in that all the new visitors will think they're crazy as hell, and will spread the word. Andy and CP are simply too insane to attract a large cluster of real followers. When WND thinks you're too crazy and conservative, you've crossed over a line somewhere. I also agree with the points made above about us being desensitised to Andy's crazy. We're so used to his regular crazy that it's not even interesting any more, it takes some new wacky thing to make us say anything other than "well, that's just andy." But viewers of the show will see him as, at the very least, a rather eccentric fellow. X Stickman (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt that Andy thinks all this was to the good. He is so stuck in his own little world that he can't even conceive of bad publicity. The thing is, he loses no matter what. Any significant attention just drives people to look at Conservapedia, and, really, the utter lunacy, venom, and outright hatred found in all corners there is the greatest indictment of him possible and his point of view possible. Due to this, the more publicity he gets, the more people see Conservapedia, the more people are exposed to how horrible an excuse for a human being he is, the more marginized he becomes. At some point, anyone who might really be influenced by him will know enough about him to stay away from him (unless they are already beyond the pale themselves). The irony of the matter is this: to Andy, there is no such thing as bad publicity, but, in reality, any publicity is bad for him. The only way for it not be would be for Conservapedia to be completely rebooted as something vaguely like he seems it to be, and not as it really is, but that would require a greater grasp of reality than Andy is capable of at this point. Kaalis (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are completely correct Kaalis - as that judge said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". THe more people who see CP, the better. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 06:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading over Kaalis' comments another adage comes to mind: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 15:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as Ken

's evolution "article" remains as it is, and as prominent as it is (for example), CP will never gain any respect. ħuman 20:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but see Andy as the knight in "Monty Python & The Holy Grail" - no arms, no legs, but he still thinks he's winning! ^{— Unsigned, by: 95.150.14.153 / talk / contribs}

A true story:

The other day I gave my son a dollar. The next day I asked him "where's the dollar?"

"Right here in my wallet," he replied.

"No," I said, "The other dollar."

"What other dollar?"

"You mean you didn't make a 100% profit in a day?"

And I sent him to Hell.

-DickTurpis (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

CP RC

Anyone looked at CP Recent Changes today? It's flooded with new users. Looks like the Colbert bump has worked. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No way! Are you saying that if lots of people see something on a popular national tv show that they now know about it? - π 03:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, I'm just as surprised as you are! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But rest assured that Tiger Woods remains "gossip-free"^img, and incredibly concise. - Poor Excuse (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even a golf fan, but - seriously - is that all they have to say about Tiger Woods? Two lousy paragraphs and not even a mention of the fact that he's won 14 majors (or is that a liberal opinion / gossip?). Never mind his - ahem - extra-curricular activities, he's achieved enough to warrant more than two paragraphs! User:Bondurant 14:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That diff made me laugh out loud. *tags for capture* Jinx's edit summary takes the cake. --Sid (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Its actually amazing how many of the new users are being ruthlessly banhammered politely removed from the site. Damn TK. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What's TK have to do wih it? There's a new breed of junior shells over there completely abusing their authority, some of whom seem to have been promoted without us noticing. 14:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of cute to see some of the "Colbert Nation" come to the site and express their shock and dismay at how looney it is. Like when kittens first open their eyes or something. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 15:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a article on what "politely removed" means by inspecting their block reasons given. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I like "Bye dummy" 20:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ED users banned

I was just blocked infinitely from Conservapedia from being a member of Encyclopedia Dramatica. The block summary was Member of a website supporting vandalism: Parodist^img. I was reverting vandalism, not engaging in it. Plus, I never encouraged vandalism. I left Admins sleep?^img only due to the fact that some of vandalism wasn't reverted for almost an hour (and it's also a joke). Ironically, <capture>Andy Schlafly^img and Jpatt^img both thanked me back in October. Nevertheless, I have a lasting impact on the Stephen Colbert article^img. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think they were talking about this place when citing membership of a vandal site. However, DouglasA shouldn't be making these kind of blocks, as he isn't an admin (is he?) and should only be blocking for clear vandalism. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 15:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You will not find hope here, friend. It has forsaken this place. Lunacy (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've only had three edits here before today, and I only created an account here in order to prevent anyone from impersonating me. I don't even consider myself a member of the RationalWiki community. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia is like the Olympics, and RationalWiki is a banned substance you've tested positive for. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 15:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the way it goes. Many other people have been blocked at CP for creating an account here. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 16:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, putting "Admins asleep?" as your edit summary may not have been the best idea. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 16:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the vandalism hadn't been reverted for almost 2 hours^img. It was a joke. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying you were wrong, just pointing out that they don't react kindly to things like that over there. If he'd been around, TK would have range-blocked your entire ISP for a comment like that. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 16:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been unblocked^img. Sorry about bothering you guys about my problems. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is sort of a barometer of how much TK and others read this page. If Michaeldsuarez gets banned as a "member of a vandal site," or if he stays around for a while, tells us something. 07:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Mockery

Found this on youtube. EddyP (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done. It ends on that shot of Andy where he remains entirely motionless. Very strange. -Lardashe

I think Andy is the only person I've seen who says "Ha Ha Ha" when he laughs. Well, him and my friend's semi-retarded cousin. DickTurpis (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we embed that in the AS (jokes) article? ħuman 00:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should. TKEtoolshed (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

GAH. And here I was just hoping to banish that laugh from my memory! *shudders* --Sid (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is like a contest!

"Wikipedia is a like a 3rd grade essay contest that gives points for more words." [7] ... Conservapedia:Team Contest. That is all. Barikada (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking of that too. Also, didn't he say that CP is like the Olympics? There's even more irony for ya. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Team Contest was before my time. I have added the reference to the WIGO. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy Hates Thomas Jefferson

[8] So Andy also hates Thomas Jefferson, calling him a "disastrous president" (Last I checked, most historians rank Jefferson in the top 5 of the presidents)? Is this new? I don't recall Jefferson being one of his usual objects of ridicule and loathing. I find it odd that he also faults him for not having been at the Constitutional Convention, which is odd, given that Jefferson was at the time representing the US as Minister to France. It wasn't like he was just lounging at home. And yet Jefferson's most famous work, the Declaration of Independence, has a fairly fawning (and lengthy. what happened to "conciseness"?) article on Conservapedia. Kaalis (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly's dislike of Jefferson has been around for quite a while; see Conservapedia:Liberal denials about history, points 9, 10 and 26. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sigh. I can't say I am at all surprised. Kaalis (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Like most Schlafly obsessions, it can be traced back to one specific incident. Jefferson was the one who coined the term "wall of separation between church and state." Anathema. DickTurpis (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And was a Deist. And pared the bible down in an incredibly "liberal" way. And was kickass. Any of these are ample reason for Andy to loathe a historical figure and deny reality in an attempt to better do so. 05:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

...and quite probably was involved in drafting the Déclaration des droits de l'homme, a key defining document of the uber-liberal French Revolution. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And he was a scientist. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Who didn't attribute all his work to god. Let's not forget the massive hard-on andy has for Newton. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Newton a, you know, _homosexual? Someone ought to tell Andy. Pietrow (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Debatable. My impression is that he was so devoted to science and math he had no time for relationships. MDB (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A little late, but let's not forget that Jefferson founded a university which inevitably employed professors. Corry (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't Andy know that Newton was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge? CP's article does mention it, briefly. Also the Lucasian Professor must NOT take holy orders.... CS Miller (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

High word-to-substance ratio

Can anybody here actually get through Bert's writing? I find myself drifting off in the middle. He never seems to use 5 words when 500 will suffice. Coarb (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. ħuman 08:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at his user page and was surprised to see he had published a book. Of course, it was self-published. It's hard to imagine any publisher with a goal of making money would publish crap like this:

"But what, then, is allowed to be expressed, and even encouraged, is a full dvelopement of the thought, its ramifications with other areas of interest, even the allowance of expression without "the citation", and, I notice, there is learning even in the silences and non responses, indicating, there is thought, there is restraint, there is appropriation."

That's worse than Palin, and almost as bad as Jpatt. Coarb (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Self-publishing ain't what it used to be. Fucking noobs." - Friedrich Nietzsche. ħuman 08:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Earth to Bert: your uncited, essay-like ramblings in main articles are not allowed to remain through some "clear-eyed discernment" of the community, they remain because no one gives enough of a shit to revert them. If they're not about evolution, homosexuality, relativity, or liberals, an editor's contributions remain untouched at CP. Junggai (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And it helps that he occasionally praises Andy like he did just there, even if he basically just says "You're building a highly ideological project and drive away people with opposing views, but that's okay because I agree with your views." --Sid (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It just seems some people don't understand the wonders of the period, and its myriad uses. Though even with that, you'd have to group your clauses, rather than starting a thought and then drifting off like a cat that's seen the reflection of a wristwatch. The Wine of Tyrants^{Drunk with power again!}

See "What is this Bert essay" here ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 12:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the WIGO (it was bad, respectively) because of two sentences Bert said, which Coarb already quoted one above:

"If people are dismissed and miffed, on ideological grounds or crudeness and rudeness, well, as I see it, it is worth it."

He even goes on as to be surprised his rambling essays aren't even categorized as essays. lol Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I like that quote. Bert should go into MCing. Internetmoniker (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow that truly is Palinesque. Wussup with rightwingers and prose? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 21:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Can someone explain this^img to me?
"Wikipedia doesn't allow original sources as references, while Conservapedia does"
Wikipedia doesn't allow original sources as references? Wtf? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WP: You can't quote from "Original Sources". Only if they're referred to in a "Secondary Sources". It counts as "Original Research" else. He's right actually. There's a legion of rules about it. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 12:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's like this: "The Bible is true. [Source: The Bible]"

That's why CP allows it. Or am I wrong, but not far off? Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WP allows you to quote from an original source provided it is a "Reliable Source." For example, in an entry about a novel, you can quote from the actual text, or an article about a film can quote a line of dialogue, if it helps to establish the context of the subject.

Reliable sources are the things that CP doesn't care about - where they can quote any crank's blog to push an agenda. But - hey - if that's good enough for Faux News then why not the rest of the raving-right. User:Bondurant 16:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Autotune

So, any tallented music types here fancy having a go at autotuning the Colbert interview? Preferably with lots of HA HA HA. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Gawd, that's a great idea. Dueling Banjos, perhaps? Maybe too fast-paced? ħuman 21:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Grade "A" stupidity

Karajou: The straight scientific "consensus" on the shape of the earth in 1491 was that it was flat.^img Can't beat that with a stick. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone must have hacked Andy's account. This has got to be parody^img. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 18:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Karajou, it wasn't. Not even in Europe. Why do you think the orb (along with the sceptre) was long a key symbol of so many monarchs? Hint: 'cause they knew the world was round. WillieThePimp (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone told him so he removed it.^{img I am eating} _& honey^chat 18:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

lol...for a millisecond I thought you meant he retracted his statement. hahaha ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realised that could be taken that way after I'd pressed "save". Sorry for the undue lulzerization. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 18:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Aww, why'd you have to ruin it? I thought you did that on purpose :( ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 18:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And the user got banhammered for it. Ban[1]^img. Contribs [2]^img. CS Miller (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Profanity / Vulgarity:!!!! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 18:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

9 minutes from sign up to bannhammer. Izzat a record? (looks innocently into space) In cognito (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ack, someone forgot the party line!^img 19:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But I don't understand, Mr. Schlafly. How could the ancient Greeks figure out the Earth was round when they weren't Christians? Kaalis (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

MYSTERY: Did the Greeks even have a concept of "sphericity," before teh advent of Christianity? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 21:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I really want to see this make its way onto the 'grand mysteries' page. BTW, it would be nice if we had a similar page somewhere in here - something along the lines of MYSTERY: how come global temperatures appear to be rising, even though local extremes prove global warming is false? MYSTERY: Why are objects behaving like black holes observed, when everyone knows Relativity detracts from reading Teh Bible? MYSTERY: Why are the inferior Wikipedia articles longer and better written, though Wikipedia does not even have model answers? --Ireon (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Grade C+ Science

The Greeks, a few centuries before Christ, knew that the earth was spherical (they knew it was curved because of the horizon-ship effect, and they figured out it was a sphere from the shadow the Earth cast on the Moon during eclipses). They figured out the circumference by measuring the difference in the angle of shadow cast by the sun in two widely separated cities. Educated Christendom used this same estimate which was pretty close to correct. The reason the Genovese and Portuguese courts turned Columbus away is precisely because their court scholars were well aware that Europe from Madrid to Jerusalem spanned about a quarter of the Earth's total circumference. Giving another quarter for the little-known Eastern route, Columbus appeared to be proposing to travel halfway around the Earth - this was, again, very close to correct.

It was actually the Israelites who thought the world was a flat plate floating on a cosmic ocean, covered by a snowglobe-like dome (the "firmament"), above which were stored the "waters above," and through which windows were opened to let it rain. Not only did the Israelites believe this but so did their contemporaries in the Bronze Age Near East, and so did the vast majority of prescientific civilizations that Europe came into contact with: in the Americas, in Finland, in Mongolia, throughout Africa, etc. See this discussion of Israelite cosmology (compared with other prescientific cosmology) for additional insights. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 21:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops...

DerekE makes a fatal mistake, and andy gives him the HelpJazz Kiss o' Death.--WJThomas (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty ballsy for someone who has been blocked thrice already. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 04:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cold temperatures back to disproving MMGW

Redding, California had record low temperatures this morning. Global warming has been disproven. This really threw me for a loop, because by this logic, global warming was proven just two days ago in Daytona. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how Andy grabs for every tidbit of "proof" that global warming is a myth, even though one-day records are just anomalies. And the one-day records go either way in favor or against. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 04:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I still find myself having to get my mind around the way Andy thinks. I just find it so fascinating that he refuses any and all objections to anything he says. It's like he has this mental process that says "He just contradicted me. AHA!! I know what he's trying to do! He's advocating [insert "liberal" theory here]! Well, I know just how to handle this. I'll just reinforce the point that [insert "liberal theory here] is clearly wrong! That should set him straight." The idea of thinking this way is so anathema to any form of argument or rational complex thought. I guess it's what makes him so interesting. *AHEM* I mean... what a moron!! -- JArneal 04:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not even that complicated. He just starts with the conviction that he's right. Therefore, it follows that evidence which supports his belief is most likely true, and evidence which does not is definitely false. No further examination is needed - I could simply say, "Andy, I have a piece of evidence which refutes ______," and he would ALREADY KNOW that it can't possibly be valid, because _____ is true. Simple. 06:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Very true. The thing is, that's the very definition of close-mindedness. That's why every time he tells someone to "open your mind" I want to put a brick in a sock and whack him in the face with it. He's the most fucking close-minded person on the planet. DickTurpis (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course you already showed us a whole different take on this strategy while in character as JacobB on Conservapedia, didn't you, Zelmerszoetrop? Godspeed! Conservapederast (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, for my money JacobB is FretfulPorpentine, Bugler's old handler. Though I'm probably wrong (thought MG was FP). EddyP (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea that MarkGall wasn't a parodist is silly - the man made a liberal detecting robot, fer chrissake. Not all parodists have to out themselves before leaving - hell, it's better that way, the parody stays in. So for all we know, maybe it could have been FP. Though I doubt it. 21:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to sift through the archives, but I'm 99% sure that FP admitted he was not MarkGall on this very talk page. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

He's still at it!

Andy deliberalising relativity that is^img. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 20:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how Andy has made it possible to say "That damn liberal relativity!" and not be labeled a flagrant parodist. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 23:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That's Andy's Law in action. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The new kids

The huge numbers of new people that, in the aftermath of the Colbert appearance, are hassling Conservapedia, sure learn fast. Things that took us months of study (of both CP and RW), have been picked up really quickly by some people. I'm quite impressed with this gem^img from "Biblekid". He picked up Andy's style in no time. It seems that our WIGO isn't needed any more --- the whole world is one big WIGO now! Gauss (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, they do have a cheat-sheet...-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 00:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Biblekid has fallen pray to the mighty banhammer.

More "Orwell was a conservative" shit

Dammit Andy, can't you let this one go?^img Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy is such a moron. ħuman 02:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Professor bashes Andy WIGO

That was a interesting article by the prof. I liked his summary of Poe's Law: Attempts to parody an extreme group often simply end up resembling an even more extreme, possibly very fringe, but equally real group. But it is easy to see how Andy read it and just saw "professor values, professor values, professor values." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dan Hutchin asks how this professor is a liberal, and then [3]^imggets right down to it: "What you are doing is blasphemy. No ifs. No buts. No maybes. You may attempt any kind of sophistry you wish to in a vain attempt to justify your behaviour, but all such 'justifications' are easily seen through, especially by God, and the blasphemy found at the heart of such words." Not exactly the way I would criticise Aschlafly, but it will do :-) --Fawlty (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Jacob goes all-out: "Your idiocy really knows no bounds, does it, Dan?"^img plus more insulting by changing the headline.^img Plus a one-week block for trolling to make damn sure that Dan doesn't actually have a chance to point out Jacob's WTF reaction. --Sid (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This Jacob fellow...is he a parodist? He's kind of like Bugler. Except with Bugler, that would've easily been a 5 year block. -- JArneal 00:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If you call being hateful and puerile in the mold of all the better examples, then yes, he's a parodist. JacobB is also hanging in this very thread as Zelmerszoetrop. Conservapederast (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that JacobB may be a parodist. There are plenty of hateful/stupid people on Conservapedia, but they generally don't share Andy's peculiar mindset nor do they follow him around fighting his battles for him. That was Bugler's MO and it looks like Jacob's too. The genuine nuts (e.g. Bert) actually seem to stay mostly out of Andy's way. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 06:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

JacobB and DouglasA are both certainly parodists. I'm curious to see their gameplan. They're not quite going for further proof of the Bugler Hypothesis: the bigger an asshole you are the more Andy will like you, but they seem to be veering that way. DickTurpis (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they're definitely testing the waters. --Sid (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Idiotic Straightjacket of Consistency

That wigo is brilliant. Seriously, Andy? Are we SURE Andy isn't a parodist? ;) 08:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

By "An intelligent designer is not constrained by an idiotic straight-jacket of consistency" he means that a deity is allowed to do shitty, sloppy work. One look at the vascular supply of the heart should convince any creationist or cdesign proponentsist of that. Corry (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And anyway, the word is straitjacket. Cantabrigian (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch. Corry (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a classic. I find it harder and harder to believe Andy isn't joking about this. How could anyone think it's a sensible thing to say that God doesn't need to be consistent or logical, therefore the Bible is "the most logical book ever". He's a terrible lawyer. diego_pmc 11:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting, though, that Andy actually, and I am sure quite accidentally, hits on a rather profound theological point that had a good bit of bearing on the development of science. William of Occam was one of the first who recognized not only that God, being all powerful, is not bound by logic or consistency, but that this would have very important ramifications. If God is not bound by logical necessity, then neither is his creation. Thus, Occam realized, the state and structure of the natural world cannot simply be deduced from first principles. Instead, he urged, there is a necessity for empirical study of the natural world with conclusions about it having to be probabilistic and necessarily very uncertain, and thus open to constant revision. To do otherwise would deny the omnipotence of God. Does that look familiar? Therein lies much of the genesis of the modern science that Andy so despises. Ironic, huh? As to the Bible being "THE MOST LOGICAL BOOK IN THE WORLD"! I thought Andy was Catholic, and that sort of position is very much Protestant. Indeed, Catholic theologians and apologists will virtually always bring up the illogical, contradictory nature of much of the stories of the Bible as one of the best arguments against the Protestant notion of Sola Scriptura. It is because the Bible can be so opaque and obtuse, they would maintain, that the Church exists, as one of its reasons for being is to provide authoritative interpretation of the Bible when necessary. Andy's position on the Bible actually makes absolutely not sense from a Catholic perspective, but, whatever God's relationship with consistency, we know that Andy's is strained if it exists. Kaalis (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

He is a YEC, which for the Catholic is bordering on heresy. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, that whole "provide authoritative interpretation of the Bible" thing sounds suspiciously like liberal elitism. And we all know that the the best of the public is better than a group of experts... --Sid (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

How delusional can one get?

I know Andy loves to post any reference to CP that appears in the news, regardless of whether the reaction is positive or negative, but this is ridiculous. Andy, even you can see this guy is making fun of you; he even calls you "loony". What a fucking moron. DickTurpis (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I also like Jpatt's "news" item about how conservatives have "taken over" twitter, because they now have some forum (or whatever) on which to post their ramblings. Congrats, conservatives, you have carved out your little fiefdom in a medium which consists solely of sub-literate soundbites. You must be proud. DickTurpis (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, everything you just said can be said of CP. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That Twitter item is fairly retarded: "Awesome conservatives act like disruptive dicks by flooding something with silly contra drivel! In other news, shame on Colbert viewers who act like disruptive dicks by flooding something with silly contra drivel! Yay, consistency!" Morons. --Sid (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the original point: Wow, Andy really goes with the "Any publicity is good publicity" angle. Sometimes, it's better to cut your losses and pretend that something simply never happened, Andy. --Sid (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Recruitment

Anyone tried to get some of the new promising voices over at CP to join us? Or are they us? The Colbert bump makes it more likely they are legit newbies, and not our sox. I myself just tried debating Andy a bit on a few points (man, am I a glutton for punishment!) but got politely removed quite quickly, despite not really doing any more than several other have done without getting banned (yet; their days are surely numbered). Anyway, it would be a shame if these people's polite removal was effected before even having a chance to hear about our little barrel of fun over here. DickTurpis (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I should think that if they're finding CP with Google, they'll probably find us anyway. Professor Moriarty 20:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I imagine most are finding CP because Colbert told them to check out conservapedia.com. That won't lead them here; we are an unperson there. DickTurpis (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki didn't exist, RationalWiki doesn't exist, RationalWiki never existed. How do you propose spreading the word of RationalWiki over there? Any mention of it gets it instantly reverted/oversighted and the user blocked in a very UNrational way. snigger.... El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 20:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Have they filtered out tinyurl and other tricks? 67.159.44.24 (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of bumps, Alexa clearly shows the effect of the CBP borken news in Oct and the recent "Colbert Bump". The current spike is the highest in the two years Alexa shows. Our corresponding bumps look like they run a couple weeks behind CP's, by the way. ħuman 21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to troll the new user log and email people to invite them over here. Conservapederast (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if 1) they have email enabled and 2) you have a login name that hasn't been blocked and had email killed to use. ħuman 00:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

f she comes over here (if not already), I'm giving KatieCol sysop status immediately.--Thanatos (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What a self-aggrandizing prick

I don't know how I missed this. What a tosspot.-- Antifly ^{Merged with Infinity} 00:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I thought he would try to bury that quote forever and pretend he never said it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What a fucknut, more of that Conservapedia = Andy Schlafly crap. Why does he refer to himself in the fourth person? ħuman 00:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably because he is, as the title of this section suggests, a self-aggrandizing prick. He's just gotten his ego inflated after all the publicity, so he's showing off. And I figure he is writing the article to cover up/rationalize his one slip of the tongue during the interview. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Quick, someone call conservapedia" "I AM CONSERVAPEDIA!" DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If andy ever changes CP's logo to a picture of his face, I'm not going to be able to go there ever again, for any reason. X Stickman (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Classic CP blast from the past

It's from a year ago, but I just love this block by Andy. It's minor, but it just speaks volumes about his complete separation from reality. Don't ask me why I'm posting it now; there is no reason. DickTurpis (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite nice, quite nice. Corry (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Could be a slip of the finger though, when one blocks several accounts an hour things like this are bound to happen. The user didn't have any contibrutions. Hey TK, why not unblock her/him? Pietrow (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

For context, check out the blocks before and after Lisa's: Block log section

Names banned with that reason in the same hour (listed chronologically): YPeters, EHooper, DCooper, GParker, SaraJones, KPhilips, KaydeP (yes, it seems that KPhilips got instantly rebanned after following the order), LisaT, HaydenK.

Andy must've had a really bad day there. --Sid (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, with the exception of Lisa and KaydeP all of them were technically not following the username policy (neither does Andy), so there was a tiny bit of sense to those blocks, strictly speaking. But to tell Lisa T. that she needs to use her first name and last initial is a little weird even for Andy. DickTurpis (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous on Conservapedia

I don't think so somehow but if this is true we could be in for some fun times. They are some pretty determined people those Anonymous fellas. --Damo^Hi 02:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

While I usually hate the 4chan idiots, I think watching them trash CONservapedia would, indeed, be fun. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 02:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Expect them. Corry (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good times. I usually look down upon them as script kiddies, but I will watch for them with awe. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 02:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, they go medieval on cat abusers. You have to like that. Corry (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a Google search for Anonymous and got "ANONYMOUS" on CONSERVAPEDIA Well, do you expect Google to reveal that shady part of teh web? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you people drool over Bugler too? Come on, don't tell me you're falling for JacobB's obvious trolling. Conservapederast (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not JacobB is trolling or not has no real relevance to whether Anon are planning on targeting CP or not. You seem to be very knowledgeable on Bugler by the way. --Damo^Hi 02:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we did droll over Bugler, and we constantly droll over parodists, and especially TK, renown master of trolling. We know that these user's aren't serious, we just laugh over Andy being unable to tell. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe, I know it's a typo but "drolling" over Bugler is actually pretty appropriate. 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just keep an eye out on the memeometers for any upticks in desu, fail or rolfpasta [Roflcopter, lollerskates, lolocaust, etc]. Then again, they may just blow it off entirely, seeing it as a 'not your personal army' issue. -- CodyH (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous harnesses teh best of the public. Most of their shenanigans are puerile and moronic, but every once and a while it's...magic. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but every time it has been for the benefit of Anonymous or for the Lulz. Heheheh...rickroll the Homosexuality page. Tempting like cake...-- CodyH (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Self aggrandizing / Public is better / CBP

There were a couple of potential places I could have put this in but it bears on several. Anyways, we have been discussing Andy's arrogance, his recent quote about experts and the public, and the CBP itself. Forgive me if this has been mentioned in /Talk previously but I found these connections interesting.

Andy himself, after some discussion in /Talk, wrote this, "In the beginning was perfect order, and this perfection was with God, and this perfection was God." In Andy's Timecube article, Quantifying Order he then wrote this about the aforementioned bible quote, "This is a tantalizing translation of John 1:1,^[1] and it suggests that insight into the universe may be best understood by examining order"

So after "discussion" on Conservapedia Andy and his ilk, mainly Andy, have come up with a brand spanking new translation of the Bible that in his own words shows the best way to get insight into the universe. In 2000 years no biblical scholar, philosopher nor scientist was able to come up with such a profound insight, THE insight, that makes the physical universe so clear to understanding. The thing that really gets me is that ANDY writes the quote, and then ANDY writes that fluff about how important it is. Should I really be surprised after all this time?

I forgot to mention that this "profound" insight isn't even being used so far in the official translation. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. He is the wisest man on Earth, and the TimeCube insight will change the world, so he has a right to be proud. 03:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Though smart people around here assure me that he's not a parodist, I can make a little sense of Andy's behavior only as the actions of a parodist.--Simple (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple, that's what makes him so...well, 'fascinating', for want of a better word. He says absolutely insane things, that would be well beyond even what the most obvious parodist could possibly say, and yet he's being absolutely, 100% straight (unless, of course, he's a very long-term, deep cover Poe). 92.21.132.203 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I hate to admit it but there's no way he can be a Poe. I mean, the guy appeared on national television to plug his website. And of course he's been doing the same crazy stuff on CP for years. He's legit, all right. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ken Doll - Austrian economist

While I personally differ with Conservapedia's conclusion on fiat currency, I don't really see how this is WIGO-worthy. Frustration with our weak dollar policy over the past 7-8 years is understandable. Does that mean we should go back to the gold standard? I do not believe so, but that doesn't mean the gold standard is not a reasonable method of currency management. Our government in the United States seems to believe we can just print money, and I feel that this type of attitude is going to harm our long-term well being. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox economists do not at this time consider the gold standard a viable policy. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Which orthodox economists? I didn't know there was a consensus among economists supporting or opposing the gold standard. I don't see how the gold standard would be any different than pegging a currency to the dollar. In fact, our period of greatest economic development was under the gold standard. (1870s to 1930s) ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I call post hoc on that, even if it's correct. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1870s to 1930s? The era of increasingly severe, cyclical market crashes? Not a good standard to set. In any case, what's the obsession with gold? I say we peg money to the Molybdenum standard, or maybe the Calcium standard. 14:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

the calcium standard would lead to healthy bones and teeth - the health insurance industry would never stand for it. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're on to to something! I'm not going to distort the historical record just to prove a point ... You're right the period of the gold standard in the United States witnessed several severe crashes, culminating with the 1929 crash an including several panics before then. However, on the flip side, the period of greatest economic development happened during this period. What was cause, what was effect, what was mere coincidence? We can have an endless discussion on the economic history during this time as well as the economic histories of other countries that have pegged their currencies, notably China. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is clear that a fairly stable currency during that period (which was actually deflated during the first half, leading to the drive for a switch to a silver standard) played a role, but you also have to keep in mind that that was the period of greatest expansion in part because that was the time at which there was the greatest opportunity for expansion. You can see a similar pattern in Russia in the three decades prior to World War I. The time when an economy switches to an industrial base from an agrarian base tends to be the time of greatest expansion just because of the low starting point. But I'm not an economist by any means so I could be very wrong. Kaalis (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right. The period involved the thorough industrialization of the American economy and the creation of numerous new enormous sectors (communications, automotive, etc). This was a revolutionary change, while all since has been quick but evolutionary. To suggest that such growth could be recaptured without some technical revolution is rather silly. 00:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

All "real-world" macroeconomic analysis is post hoc, across all schools of economic thought. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

An honest question...

...is Karajou retarded? [9] DickTurpis (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

MOM, THIS 'TOON BITES! --Horace (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not everybody agrees... 05:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So at least someone got a laugh out of it. A work of genius after all! DickTurpis (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I liked the others. This one I didn't. It is teh stoopid. ħuman 05:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They've all been just awful, though admittedly the nadir was probably last week's, as it didn't even pretend to have a joke. I heard funnier and more creative humor in the 2nd grade (which is probably as far as Karajou got, actually). DickTurpis (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Any one of us could probably make funnier cartoons that toe Conservapedia's party line. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Done! DickTurpis (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made one as well. I tried to incorporate as many of the Conservapedian delusions of grandeur and conspiracy theories as I could. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, grayscale that Youtube video, put in some bolts of lightning and someone screaming "IT LEEEEEEVES!" and you're good to go. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If we host weekly/weakly cartoons, will that make us an encyclopedia, too?--Simple (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Karajou rivals Mallard Fillmore in the "is that what passes for 'humor' among conservatives?" category. MDB (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No kidding on the Mallard Fillmore reference. The same question always occurs to me from both it and Karajou's cartoons: have either of these guys ever actually met and spoken to a real liberal? Granted, that is a question that occurs to me upon reading just about anything on Conservapedia, but you have to wonder. And now I find myself wondering if Karajou and Andy think we have horns, and if they ever go around singing "Throw the Liberal Down the Well"... Kaalis (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can say with authority that I do not have horns. I will not comment on whether or not I have a pointy tail, though. MDB (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Kaalis, most of the problems with conservatives today come from them not knowing enough liberals.

I bet if you asked Kerry voters if they know five or more Bush voters personally (and vice versa) a far higher percentage of Kerry's electorate would say yes. Simply because the conservative base is rural and homogeneous, surrounded on all sides by people of the same stripe.

Fifty two percent of McCain voters think Obama was not legitimately elected. Which makes sense if they don't know any Obama voters. On FreeRepublic, conservatives were convinced up till Election Night that the media was fudging Obama's numbers and McCain would win when the "silent majority" was heard. They had no real-life corroboration of the media's notion that fully 53% of voters were for Obama. So naturally, if Obama "won," that means ACORN stole it.

Most of Andy's craziness comes from the fact that, not knowing any real liberals, he theorizes that liberals live in a Bizarro mirror universe of conservatives. An example of this thought process:

• Anomaly: Liberals aren't religious?
• Confusion: How can they say they're not religious? Everybody has a religion.
• Andy Insight: Darwinism/feminism/environmentalism is a religion.

Base conservatives like Andy also believe that liberals live in homogeneous communities of like-minded liberals, like conservatives do ("Cities are bastions of liberalism!") and that their motivations are basically negations of conservatism ("Liberalism's #1 priority is to censor classroom prayer!").

If base conservatives like Andy knew more liberals, their conception of liberalism wouldn't be half as batshit insane as it is. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 18:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I really have to disagree with you on that one. The problem isn't "knowing more liberals" (or conservatives for that matter, there are liberals just as crazy as Andy). The problem is that he has allowed his vision of an opposing viewpoint to become a caricature of reality. Just like when he considers other religions, he views the entire world in black and white terms, with no gray area to work in. Therefore, the very sensible position of "we have many different faiths in public school, and the government has no business indoctrinating children in religious views" becomes "We hate prayer, must censor at all costs." The sad thing is, the Colbert appearance and Andy's remarks afterwords prove that either A, he's a giant fraud ala Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, that he's just ramping up the hyperbole and trying to provoke a reaction, or B, in the anonymous playground that is the intertubes he can be a dick all he wants cause nobody can hurt him. If someone really had the hatred they do of liberals as ASchlafly (the character, not the person) they wouldn't stay in the United States when they have to means to live elsewhere and they certainly wouldn't go willingly on The Colbert Report, where he is sure to have to deal with those flithy liberals. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 18:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If Mr. Schlafly were to leave the U.S., where would he go? It is not as if there is freedom of speech enough in any other country for him to continue his propaganda operations offshore. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Except Canada. And most of continental Europe, since he's not a holocaust denier. And Japan, and basically every other country that's truly freer than we are. 18:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly do not think there is a movement inside liberalism that represents the same kind of deranged nuttiness as base-conservatives like Andy or Sarah Palin. There is nothing about liberalism that guarantees this (liberalism is not saner than conservatism), it's just a tendency of demographics, or an accident of history. If "base liberals" could be as reliably inoculated against real-life experiences of conservatism they would be just as nutso.

The takeover of conservatism by the crazies is pretty recent. There are several factors, probably the most important is that rural conservatives in the past were not united as a party but split between rural Republicans and Dixiecrats. Uniting as one and flexing their political muscle was a formative experience, that's why they call their litmus test "Reagan conservatism."

I guess I agree with you halfway, in that by "knowing" I meant "honestly interacting with." Obviously Andy is aware of the ACLU's existence, but this doesn't do him much good if he thinks it is a homosexual communist fifth column.

Andy isn't going anywhere, he sincerely believes America belongs to "Real Americans" like him and the liberal agenda is being foisted on them by "unAmericans." Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 18:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Oh, come now; if Mr. Schlafly started mouthing off about Obama being a Muslim he would probably be locked up for blasphemy offending Muslims in most European countries, or be hauled before the Human Rights Commission in Canada.

"I honestly do not think there is a movement inside liberalism..." There is a movement of comparable nuttiness, but it is much smaller and not inside liberalism. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The comparable side would be the crazy vegan/enrionmentalists who have convinced themselves that eating meat or wearing fur/leather is a violation of inalienable rights and decide to change people's opinions by vandalizing their homes, assaulting their person or enganging in terrorism. Greenpeace idiots who attempt to disrupt whaling by piracy, those people. Now, you can argue that when you get really deep, they probably don't fall under the liberal category, but in the left/right divide, they certainly are not conservatives. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 23:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How long has Andy called himself conservapedia for?

I was looking at his http://www.conservapedia.com/Best_of_the_public^img page and noticed that he said it was coined during colberts interview of conservapedia. Is Andy all of conservapedia?--Opcn (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

For how long has Rationalwiki used bad grammar? :-p User:Bondurant13:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Mommy, mommy, can we play with grammar?

Shut up! You've already dug her up three times this week. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am RationalWiki by the way, dibs on that! Etc 18:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Everytime I see that I think of the song Ironman from Ozzy. "I am Conservapedia!" SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 18:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But for Andy, it would have to be a cover of Ironman by Pat Boone...Kaalis (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

He's been doing it for a while now, but I can't remember the first time. It's usually anytime he is announcing a public appearance/interview etc. he is doing. ħuman 21:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

-19%? That is low!

[10] Jpatt confuses index with rating (which is at 44%). 18:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You have to forgive him, he's damaged by Twittering his little brain out. It likely looked like this in his mind: "#rasmussen tracking #poll: Barack Hussein #Obama approval rating at -19% all time low http://bit.ly/bVDr plz rt #tcot #nobama #obamaFAIL", so there really was no room for actual explanations, sanity-checks or honesty. --Sid (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice how Rasmussen generates their "index" by subtracting "strongly approve" from "strongly disapprove" while ignoring everyone else. Even ignoring how much strong disapproval of Obama is from his left, that's a pretty shady way to represent your poll results. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 19:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rasmussen is (almost hilariously) blatantly dishonest in their headline generation poll reporting. From what I recall, they don't bother to report the actual question wording, either. ħuman 21:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they do ConservapediaEditor (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess if you don't like a poll's results, it's shady. Rasmussen has consistently gotten it on the mark ever since its inception. While I don't know why a so-called encyclopedia would report on day to day political polls, Obama is unpopular with a majority of the electorate. Grade inflation? The guy rated himself a B+ for Christ's sakes. (Maybe Andy should unban me, promote me to admin, and let me write the damn News points. I'd be a hell of a lot wittier, and generally immune from being WIGOed.) ConservapediaEditor (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen a poll report its headline with a "strong vs strong" index. Can you show me any others? Most polls report the complete index, including leaners, because after all leaners decide elections. Rasmussen says 40% of people vehemently disapprove of Obama. So? About 40% of voters said in March 2008 they would never vote for Obama in November, they kept their promise and he still won. In 2004 more people strongly disapproved of Bush than strongly approved, yet he was reelected.

Rasmussen's polling methodology may be perfectly honest but his presentation of a "strong vs strong" metric as a "presidential approval index" is at best misleading, and at worst it is deceitful marketing. The likely motivation is simple: Gallup and Rasmussen both have a daily tracker, they both report more or less the same numbers (Obama -11), so Ras created a new metric that has Obama down even more (-19) so he can grab the headlines and pagehits from Newsmax, Drudge, etc. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not Rasmussen's responsibility who links to them. As far as this being a useful metric, if I recall correctly, around 40% of Americans strongly disapproved of Bush while around 30% strongly approved of Bush around the time of his reelection in 2004 ABC Poll. Thus, I'm inclined to agree that the Strong vs. Strong rating does not accurately predict elections. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Did this slip past the radar...?

Just noticed something was up because Jacob is going on a spree to contain the fallout:

18:41, 28 November 2009 Geo.plrd (Talk | contribs) deleted "Template:Stub" ‎ (stupid)

Words fail me. Did we somehow miss this? Or did I just forget to check (T)WIGO on that day? --Sid (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and good luck in dealing with the fallout: Right now, there are still more than 800^img (but at least less than 900) pages linking to this... --Sid (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha...good work, whoever is Jacob. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a good laugh. It happened a couple weeks ago, so I thought I just missed it. No more stubs in conservapedia land. RefAppeals are next! Awesome and good job Jacob! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 21:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Did Jacob actually suggest this? I got the feeling I'm missing something again... Unless this is paranoia-inducing banter to confuse CP sysops. In that case, just delete this post :P --Sid (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sideline saving: Template talk:Stub^img for capture bot since it's not yet deleted and two users mildly complained about the deletion. --Sid (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, only just noticed this edit by PissPoor. "We are not Wikipedia - we don't have dozens of new, helpful writers joining every week." 'Nuff said.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

JacobB does much more to make Conservapedia entertaining than TK. Just check out the Colbert "discussion" page. I just hope when he gets promoted to 'crat he doesn't try to convince Andy his real name is Josiah A. Cobb. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

teehee... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

JacobB, parodist

I guess he thought this would just slip past the radar? Junggai (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that people like that exist. There's a village in Wales which banned 'The Life of Brian' due to its depiction of Jesus's life. EddyP (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Doug and Jake are a great duo. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not even the worst of the things slipping under the radar in the mass stub template deletion. 22:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[See here. Some bans were only lifted in 2008.] EddyP (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am 95% certain that JacobB is a parodist. Unless he's one of Andy's students. He's not, is he? DickTurpis (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)