Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive164

This is an archive page, last updated 7 January 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <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)

Am I the only one?

Does anyone else feel bad when they mock and deride Karajou's cartoons? I mean, I feel like I'm laughing at the special olympians cause they talk funny. If the man has a legitimate mental hangup, We're all serious dicks. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 13:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Schadenfreude, mon ami. Learn it, Live it, Love it. There's nothing sadder or more hilarious than an ideologue who think he's funny. Half hour news hour anyone? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Sir Chuck; suggested improvement to question: Does anyone else feel bad when they mock and deride <insert CP sysop of choice>'s edits? I mean, I feel like I'm laughing at the special olympians cause they talk funny. If the man has a legitimate mental hangup, We're all serious dicks. Betterer?. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 14:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Ken is really the more legitimate concern in this department. Karajou has proven himself to be nothing but an intolerant asshole. Ken shows signs of some sort of actual mental disability. Nevertheless, I just can't stop making fun of the little shitbrain. I guess it's an addiction. DickTurpis (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there's anything medically wrong with Karajerk. He's just a right wing redneck with a failed military career and a massive chip on both shoulders. Conservapedia is probably all that's stopping him from building a compound out in the swamps somewhere. --PsygremlinSnakk! 13:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed's rampage continues

Don't have time to WIGO this, but it might be worth it despite Ed's triggering so many entries lately. He's been restoring all of the typos that "his bitch" ChrisY had cleaned up in the CBP, and since there were no comments I looked back and saw that he banned him for "inserting nonsense or gibberish into pages". Way to clean up that nonsense and gibberish, Ed. The Conservative Bible is all the better for the sage advice of User 188. --SpinyNorman (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Cripes, even more. He's banned JeffD for secret reasons^img, and then taunts^img him over a detail in a message from a week and a half ago. What a dick. --Kels (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And what a horrible taunt it is. Yes Ed, it is too little, that's why people in some countries have a really hard time. And since those lumberjacks of yours mostly sit on their ass handling the heavy machinery, those 5000 calories is why Americans are so fat and lazy. PS Oh, someone replied to Ed, good. --GTac (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't say this sort of thing, to say nothing of blocking Evelyn for not immediately falling at his feet in worship, goes a long way to helping the "kindly Uncle Ed" image he wants people to see. --Kels (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the inevitable phase where Ed applies for something on Wikipedia again (sysopship, likely), claiming that he is willing to serve the public as a humble guide and mediator... and then people will take a look at his CP contribs and go "Yeah... no." - followed by the inevitable "My behavior on other sites totally doesn't count!" and "CP is different and I was just going with the flow!" --Sid (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean "I vas just folowing orders." Good luck with that, Ed. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 05:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Best of sycophancy?

[1]^{img I am eating} _& honey^chat 15:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The best thing about this is that even if (when?) the author is shown to be a parodist, it can't be removed. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 15:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA! --GTac (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, one of my monitors is now soaked in tea. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, even Passion of the Christ isn't Christian enough for Andy. --Kels (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy removes^img the reference to ... Andy! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's the Andy Seal of Approval it was lacking before. I'd say that makes it WiGO-worthy. DickTurpis (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely out-motherfucking-standing! Well done that parodist. I never like to see parodists outed, but on this occasion it would be worth it to see what Assfly does about that BotP 'example'. (Mind you, remember when he put the stupid two kidney think BACK IN to his why-evolution-is-a-big-liberal-lie article? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RW ought to have an parody article called "Best of the Parodists", detailing how ideas from parodists get filtered through assfly-approval and become andymemes. This would make a fine (meta)example. 86.20.34.34 (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is just awesome. Also concerning the edit after that, I know this has been said a dozen times, but WHAT IS ANDY TALKING ABOUT?! A very succesful football player got barely accepted at the start of his career = GREAT EXAMPLE OF BEST OF THE PUBLIC!!! I guess Andy just got onto a familiar track or something? I mean "some people once didn't believe in something and turned out to be wrong, hence my argument is correct" is totally the Evolution, Abortion-breast cancer, etc argument.. --GTac (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That moment just made my day. I bet 1000% internets that Andy applauds the user who put it there. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-parodist

Hate to admire a vandal^img but this (subsequently obviously blocked) guy is good. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 20:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Looks like a thirteen in a dozen response to me, offering nothing original or anything that puts Andy in a corner.. --GTac (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I admire his sense of snark. Sure, he'll just get permabanned like every other vandal, but he was at least clever and funny. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just telling it as it is. I thought it rarely ever saw that sort of wandalism anymore thanks to the range blocks taking out half the planet. ^postate 03:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect for a WIGO

this^img followed by this^img but my wittyness gland isn't working (not that it ever really was). ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark Sanford's nickname is "Tat"? ħuman 02:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahahaha...nice one Human. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the wigo could read: "this^img followed by this^img but my wittyness gland isn't working (not that it ever really was). We didn't know Mark Sanford's nickname is "Tat"!" ħuman 04:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps "my wittiness gland isn't working" </pedantry>. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Attack?

looks as if there's a bit of an anonymous attack going on^img. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(use the ^img link: it's a log.) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Definitely looks like some Anon guys are doing the rounds again. ^postate 03:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I hope they never decide that we suck. Are those editors managing to make any edits, or are they getting meritocratized to oblivion by the largely pleasurable weapon of the wiki block tool? ħuman 03:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Andy et al is politely removing them from the site. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This^img is the standard of edits. If only they'd do something good... To much to ask of those 12 year old sctipt-kiddies, of course. ^postate 03:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately CP has learned how to handle vandals and trolls and Anon is not skilled in the ways of parody. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

They even broke the first raid rule- blame Ebaumsworld. ENorman (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy is on FSTDT

Here. The comments are amusing. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And so is TK! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And there's more. Much much much much much more. Looks like they picked some of the best quotes of the year. Enloy.Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In that context of Galileo, I think Andy should not be classified as a fundie. It's more like Idiots Say the Darndest Things. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 08:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with the TK thread is that we know he is really a parodist. TK doesn't believe half of what he types so it is not really a valid fundie comment. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha! hah! hee! hee!

...the (ho! ho!) edit (ha! heh!) comment!^{img I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a Suckupocracy? --Kels (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Or a delusionocracy? Andyland must be such a nice place to live, with the padded walls and nice doctor and nurses... ħuman 02:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly many kinds of cracy around there ... Etc 19:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Trying hard not to think

Assfly laments that 90% of Californian kids aren't going to college...even though colleges are undeniably a bastion of liberal propaganda. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

But the lib-rul professors can only brainwash you if you haven't already been pre-brainwashed with Conservative/Christian propaganda. It's all about the correct flavour of brainwashing. (Also, what's wrong with 90% of kids not going to college? Aren't higher education establishments supposed to be somewhat exclusive?) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a web of contradiction. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Definitions

I presume the liberal values being complained about are those of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia?

No. - π 04:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Best of the Public, terrorism edition

Not filing this in the catch-all Ed section above because I think this will generate some more discussion:

• Ed: "Terrorist subdued by the best of the public, not by the flight attendants (who are in Ed's eyes Experts in the "Stop Terrorists" field now)!"
• Geoff "not yet in college" Plourde: "This is why we need MORE GUNS!"

Excuse me while I weep. --Sid (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I kinda liked "Abraham Lincoln is one of those nasty elite experts, but Sarah Palin is an example of the best the public has to offer." --Phentari (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? alecD is awesome--two choice quotes from him to Andy on that page: :"Clearly you are more expert on this than I am and I stand corrected..." "Clearly I got that one wrong and I defer to your expertise." TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless he does any obvious parody he'll have block rights in a month. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No way--first off, he claims to be a Brit, second, Andy has already argued with him, third, calling Andy an "expert" and referring to his "expertise" on the BOTP page IS obvious parody...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Never underestimate the power of ass-kissing. You never know... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy has given AlecD a short block^img. After his Colbert fiasco, maybe he's getting hypersensitive about people being uncriticially positive about his "project". The Real James Brown (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Will Andy aknowledge terrorism as 'Best of the Public'defeating those horrible military 'experts'? Chapman Baxter (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy's paranoia is growing...

They're coming to get you, Andy.^img No refs or links. It would be difficult to reference the fourth voice in one's head, I guess. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Shit, today will be a good day for Andy lulz.^img --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, terrorists attacked Christmas? Those bastards! The war on Christmas must really be hotting up. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The enormous irony about the main page thing is that 3 years ago he Bush would have used this to pass another PATRIOT act and Andy would have agreed with it. Doublethink is doubleplusgood over at CP. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hang on... so if suddenly IAWL "falsely" teaches humanism and attacks capitalism, why is Andy leaving it in the list, with is negative comments, rather than just removing the non-best conservative movie. Sometimes... actually, often... I wonder just how his mind works. --PsygremlinPraat! 13:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what is wrong with High Noon that it's put in the doubtfull list? --Ravenhull (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

...of the Decade

The "Conservative of the Decade" is growing new branches. Andy nominates a "Story of the Decade". Andy nominates the 9-11 terrorist attacks healtchcare reforms the war in Iraq the war in Afghanistan Barack Obama various natural disasters killing tens of thousands defeat of some homeowners in the supreme court. 216.59.245.111 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Is he pro or anti the decision? - π 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti. Actually it was a pretty sucky legal decision, but seriously, Story of the Decade? 216.59.245.111 (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My favorite part of this is that Andy himself has now been nominated as a "Conservative of the Decade" no less than four times, by DMorris, RickD, Aroth, and now for an "honorable mention" by Chippeterson (on the talk page). He deletes himself every time, but maybe if they keep it up he'll give in. --Retwa (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is a parodist trap, anybody that nominates Andy has outed themselves as a parodist and will be blocked. - π 03:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Should make for an amusing ban reason: "Nobody seriously thinks that Andy is an influential conservative. You are obviously a parodist." --Sid (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed Andy didn't even consider himself worthy of "honorable mention." I figured his ego was bigger than that. Also, I love how there are around 15 people in the "top 10" list. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Jinx nominates Andy

Wow. I'm stunned. What the hell was he thinking? ....so he did it just to "get us into a frenzy"? Ok, I'll bite - what the fuck are you doing, Jinx _{hi Jinx!}?? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Predictably, Andy removed it again, just as I was starting to work myself into a frenzy. Damn. By the way, anyone else find it odd that the among the top candidates for conservative of the decade is Guiliani and Ron Paul? Since when is Guiliani a conservative? And doesn't Andy consider libertarians just another form of liberal? DickTurpis (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just can't ignore this. What the fuck is wrong with you Jinx? You really think Andy is the greatest conservative of the decade? I'm so fucking mad I can't see straight. Your swabbie ass is lucky we've got these internets between us because I don't know if I could keep myself from throttling you should we happen to be within arms reach. Andy as greatest the conservative? ANDY? SERIOUSLY? hi Jinx!! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't make me angry, Jinx....you won't like me when I'm angry...........grrrrrrrrr........AAAARRRRRGGHHHHHHH....TURPIS SMASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DickTurpis (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fret not. No doubt Jinx is just sucking. Er, up, that is.--WJThomas (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Jinx _{hi Jinx!} performs stupid actions on CP just to see what RWs reaction is? Hey Jinx - a little obsessed are you? (bottom comment on the profile) he gets called on his double standards in a later comment, but obviously its only obsession if a liberal does it 208.89.208.134 (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Andy is off the list, but '"The best of the public is better than a group of experts." -Conservapedia' got added to the Quotes nominations. Is this much different? --Ravenhull (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Lists

Wow, those nominations are full of stupid. I mean there's the Coultergeist, Palin (who single-handedly derailed McCain's campaign) and all the usual suspects, including Clarence Thomas (clearly sexual harassment is a good conservative thing). Not to mention Miss Home-Made-Porn Carrie Preteen gets and homourable mention. As do Chuck Norris and Charles Bronson. WtF did he do in the 2000s. I'm sure they'd get a hard on over the Death Wish movies, but they weren't in the 2000s were they? heh, they nomination list along, is a wonderful indication of how loony CP is. I'm surprised Mr Dino didn't get a mention. --PsygremlinSermā! 09:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Evolution Syndrome?!??

I actually went to the CotDecade page and one thing caught my eye. One of their story's of the decade mentions "decline of evolution syndrome in academia." Has this little gem been given the RationalWiki going over? - Ravenhull (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it has been heavily edited by Aschlafly so it is obviously to his satisfaction. - π 09:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that, it was a while ago since I've read that gem, and I forgot how awesome it was! It's such a strong concentration of bitterness, bawling and bile, you can just picture Andy hammering away at the keyboard, frothing at the mouth. I don't think we have a rationalwiki version of it, but man it would be easy to make one:

Characteristics of evolution syndrome include:

• an utter lack of open-mindedness©™
• a superficiality or pseudo-intellectualism
• a lack of critical thinking
• a stupid face which all the girls think is ugly
• THEIR ALL JERKS! ;_;

..or something like that.. --GTac (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's not a Ken

pac-man article. It seems like the kind of thing he would obsess over. Tetronian you're clueless 15:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You just got to love it when he critizises others for 'an utter lack of open-mindness' and 'a lack of critical thinking'. Keep having this picture of him jumping up and down yelling "Black Kettle!!! The Kettle is Black!!!" --Ravenhull (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I found the RW Page on this gem. -- Ravenhull (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Karajou's new toon

I don't get it. Why has Andy taken his homeskollars on a trip to an East Anglian climate research centre? EddyP (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

*snerk* at your comment, but a serious "Bwuh?" at the toon itself. Wasn't that the center that was subject to the mail hack? And didn't CP hail the hacked mails as evidence that global warming is not happening? Then why does Karajou now portray them to be wrong and stupid? Can't they make up their minds? Maybe this one is one of those epic inside jokes you won't get unless you happened to read exactly the same commentaries as he did... --Sid (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Karajou's toons aren't bad in the drawing department, but that's where any kind of quality stops. They're so ridiculously right-wing (obviously) and endlessly anti-global warming at the moment it's just far too pathetic for a grown man to be doing. He's a waste of good air. Also, seeing as he introduced it about a month ago and we've had about ten weekly toons, I'm guessing he's some kind of calendar-defying maverick. SJ ^Debaser 12:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As Sid said, he can't decide whether the scientists are lying or stupid. The conservative version of Poe's Law, perhaps. EddyP (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

@SuperJosh: the conservative week is more concise and has a much lower day/week ratio than the liberal week. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I did like the tree-counting service though. It may have been accidentally, but it had a nice touch of complete absurdity (Waiting for Godot-like). The others are just banal and childish. Pietrow (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What a cock of a wigo, EIGHT links, two to the same toon. Rubbish! 82.23.209.253 (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Best of the public WIGOs?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL'd @ Tetronian. 20:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of Karajou's sketches are stupid, but others somewhat humourous. His Joe Biden sketch was funny. Faulty logic, but funny. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't get it. Why specifically East Anglia? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 04:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's where the emails were leaked from. Wp:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 04:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

THIS WEEK THE JOKE IS I HATE LIBERALS EL OH EL --GTac (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Revealing edit comment from User 188

For those who haven't been following, Ed hasn't been active on Wikipedia since he got banned from editing Moonie-related topics. Since then, after kicking the dog a few times, he's returned to Conservapedia to take his frustrations out on newbies there. He all but admits why he's been so grumpy here.^img Burndall (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. What does this reveal, and how does it connect with his recent grumpiness? ListenerX^TalkerX 21:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he's referencing the previous edit comment about conflict of interest. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa that was subtle (now I'm feeling rather dumb, or perhaps I should stop reading RW while drunk). Pietrow (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed it too. I expected it to be the edit comment of the diff posted, not the one before. And yes, that's why. ħuman 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts he indeed made that page solely to signify his bitterness. Edmund Scientific is a quite respectable company, I have their catalogue in my office; but not that significant that it merits a conservapedia entry. I'm sure they're honoured though. Well spotted Burndall. Pietrow (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What!?

I have no idea what point Andy is tying to make here... Jammy (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He is implying that Castro died in 2006. Ace^{of Spades} 04:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)P.S. Though not sure for what reason...? Ace^{of Spades} 04:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually reading cp:Fidel Castro they seem to be under the impression he is dead. Weird, the rest of the world seems to think he is alive. I have had a theory for a while now that Conservapedia is a website in a parallel universe which due to some worm hole that exists only in AT&T's network is accessible. - π 04:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Weirder still there does not appear to be any rumours of his death in the last six months. In other news Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. - π 04:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Even weirder, I am pretty sure I saw Mussolini in my garden yesterday. Hiding behind the Rhododendron bush as always, that slippery wee scamp. Ace^{of Spades} 08:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You should have taken a picture of him for Ken. - π 08:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Evolutionist/atheist New Zealand harbours Mussolini! Healthcare Reform will be Darwins Waterloo!" the headlines will scream. Ace^{of Spades} 08:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that all of us should very seriously consider going outside a little more often so our neighbors, family, friends, and the populations of entire other countries don't suddenly start thinking we're dead. 08:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't be blaming AT&T for Conservapedia's madness! I may work for a bunch of screaming idiots, but at least the leadership of AT&T is brighter than the Aschlafly Brigade. -Ravenhull (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

^Ahem Try telling that to someone who owns an iPhone and is stuck with AT&T. Aha! I'm in a different country, my iPhone works with whichever provider I damn well please! =P -Redback^G'day 10:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Jailbreak and unlock it so you can use a formerly AT&T provisioned iPhone on T-Mobile in the US or any other GSM carrier for major savings and better service, g. 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Andy secretly added the CP wormhole using his electrical engineering expertise when he was working for ATT, albeit as a failing lawyer. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from Castro's death/alive issue, I don't really get the argument: "X says that Obama shouldn't be trusted!" - So far, so good. But then: "But X is a communist! And maybe not even alive anymore, so his commie regime is just spewing this as propaganda!" - Huh? Like the new Weakly Toon (section a bit below), this strikes me as a case of having your cake and eating it, too. They agree with the basic (perceived) message but still bash the messenger. --Sid (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Might be Andy's lawyer side popping up. It's common to formulate arguments of the form "My client is innocent and therefore I submit the judge should acquit him. If the judge doesn't acquit him, I motion that he be considered insane." etc. etc. Pietrow (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I voted neutral on the WIGO. Conspiracy theory, perhaps, but I would not put it past Cuba, or North Korea for that matter, to say that Fidel Castro, or respectively Kim Jong Il, is still alive just to boost up morale. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Best of the Public - Bible ?

isn't the Bible supposed to be the Inspired Word of God ? wouldn't he qualify as an expert ? http://www.conservapedia.com/Best_of_the_public Hamster (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You must remember that logic has been thoroughly purged from the minds of Aschafly and his minions. One of the requirements to be able to make more than 10 edits. --Ravenhull (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess you could make the argument that the people who actually put pen to parchment (or... feather to parchment... or scratchy thing to wax tablet, or whatever) were the Best of the Public. And god chose them for being the BotP. X Stickman (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right to guess that. St Mark is in Schlafdoodle's BotP list, apparently because he was only 8 (allegedly) when Jesus died (no, I don't follow the logic either).

If someone cares to burn a sock, you could suggest that the person who wrote Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (all one author) was a proper historian who used first-hand reports in his research, therefore he was an expert, therefore those four books of the Bible can't be trusted by conservatives. That's Schlafdoodle logic for you. The Real James Brown (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Parent Trigger Legislation?

What the hell is parent trigger legislation? MDB (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Law legislating that all parents must come equipped with a trigger. If their kids misbehave, they can pull said trigger and teach their kids a lesson. I dunno, just a guess..... The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 01:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Parent trigger legislation is when parents of a school district can get together a majority and declare that the school either goes charter or the administration is removed and new administration is installed. In other words, just a homeschooler parent's wet dream, nothing serious. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. I liked my idea better. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 01:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Largely defensive weapon of parent?" --Phentari (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What's so wrong with being able to overthrow the school board on a whim? There are times when I think we should be able to recall our entire government on a whim! When Obama got elected, I wish we had that power that second! But, no, we had to have a stupid electoral, representative democracy! What a jip! Conservative Punk (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It used to be that people who called themselves "conservative" disliked radicals because they were revolutionary. Now they are radicals themselves and dislike moderates for not being revolutionary. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said, ListenerX! Conservative Punk (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

When I was a high school student in the mid-70s I had a history teacher who was warning us about the "radical conservatives". Keep Goldwater's "extremism" line in mind. And look where it has gone... ħuman 06:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Time was, "radical conservative" was an oxymoron, which is why I prefer "radical right-winger" ("reactionary" was also usable, before the Reds bent the word out of shape). ListenerX^TalkerX 06:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but they do tend to call themselves "conservatives" despite their radicalism. ħuman 19:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How is parent trigger legislation a homeschooler partent's wet dream? The parents of a homeschooled child would care less what the composition of the public school's administration is; their kid is homeschooled, remember? Frankly, I don't think this law is that bad; if a majority of students' parents think the administration is doing a bad job and are willing to sign a petition attesting to that, then maybe the administration should be sacked. I would not characterize this proposal as "extremist" or even conservative, however. This bill was supported by a moderate Republican governor who is married to a Kennedy and has completely supported Barack Obama's domestic agenda. This bill was passed by a strongly Democratic state Senate. I don't think this bill is going to fix an ailing school system, but I don't see how it could hurt, either. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There's two major groups of homeskollar parents: "they tried to teach my baby science" and "your kids are fucking retarded compared to mine". For the former, it is a wet dream that they could make public school bend to their will. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Get homeschoolers together, enroll them into the school, get petition signed to change the school, voila! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't homeschool your kid, grudgingly send them to public school, get the petition signed to change the school, viola! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Andy's obsessing about it because he doesn't like public schools, therefore it's a way for him to change public schools when he wants. It'll never work properly, and will only end up having repeated stupid parents protesting that their kids are taught things the parents don't want. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I dunno...there's some viciously stupid parts of America... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. The ones between the Atlantic and the Pacific and scattered elsewhere haphazardly. 17:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly's theory of general relativity

Can anyone explain why Andy's big brother has such a downer on Einstein? Like here^img. Grossman taught Einstein the geometry he needed but he didn't discover general relativity. Hilbert and Einstein collaborated on the maths but Einstein made the crucial discovery about the physics. Why do the Schlafalaffles have a such a big problem with this? The Real James Brown (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple: Because they don't understand a lick of it! They don't, and don't wish to, understand it. Therefore, they can bash it because they have no idea what they are talking about. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 02:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nail on the head, Goonie. Andy is immediately doubtful about anything scientific that he doesn't understand. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear answer. The Real James Brown (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything scientific he does understand? Barikada (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

He understands maths and physics relevant to engineering (here). He should do, because that's what his first degree was in. But that's why it's so puzzling that he's utterly gormless about relativity: if he can understand vector calculus, special relativity should be a doddle. The Real James Brown (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Einstein: foreign (didn't come over with the Mayflower); not Christian. Relativity: see a liberal trait. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 11:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

He writes, "Advocates of moral relativity seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views." Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or otherwise of relativity - surely he must understand that??? The Real James Brown (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget who you're talking about. Anything that makes "liberals" look bad is true. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 11:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is why I often think, why bother arguing with these people? Then I remember they want to teach my children lies and destroy my grandchildren's climate. The Real James Brown (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the cut of your jib, RJB. Barikada (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Just don't call us Shirley. Tygrehart

Moare votes

Last year at this time we had some votes which went on to create Conservapedia:2008 - A year in review (still unfinished so if you want a CP thing to do and can remember last year). Basically, more polls to click and possibly the new Conservapedia:2009 - A year in review. - π 11:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll continue it once XMas is over. My SO worked long shifts until yesterday, and family will be here soon. I've got May started, just not finished yet. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Top Ten Conservapedia Moments of 2009

These differ from WIGOs as we are discussing the whole event not just individual edits. Please keep them to important crucial events that changed the course of the wiki.

128

Conservative Bible project.

85

Andy invents the phrase "best of the public".

76

Andy discovers Conservapedia's Law and geometric fits.

15

Andy composes Born Outside the U.S.A.!

-46

TK gets his admin rights back.

7

The number of blocked IP addresses peaks at over 27,000,000.

83

Andy goes on the Colbert Report.

-39

Jinxmchue loses and regains his banhammer.

13

The server explodes and a weeks worth of edits are lost.

-7

Ken 's operation amount to nothing as CP's evolution article slips from 11 right back to somewhere on the third page on Google.

41

PJR starts his own Conservapedia.

33

Andy's bizarre word counting experiment.

23

Karajou introduces the weakly cartoon to the mainpage.

28

TK uploads an image he nicked claiming it was "self made". When his plagiarism is pointed out he banhammers the pointer-outers and burns the talk page claiming it contains "lies".

-3

JessicaT's running battles with TK and her subsequent demotion.

46

Roger and Andy's epic battle over the theory of relativity.

-2

Ken's 30 hour edit-a-thon.

45

Andy endorses the liberal detecting bot and promotes a small army of parodists

19

Bugler outs himself.

27

Andy claims humor did not exist before Jesus.

(please add more)

What is "best of the experts"? Or is this supposed to say "best of the public"? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I fixed it. ħuman 20:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, since the CBP is what got Andy on Colbert, and it was there that he imploded his best of the nitwits meme, the CBP has to be head and shoulders above all else. ħuman 20:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

CBP - Conservative Bible Project or Conservapedia: Best of the Public? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Bible. T'other is BotP. ħuman 21:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to pick hairs but can the CBP be a 2009 event if it started in 2008? (it's mentioned in your 2008 review) 86.20.34.34 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

that was a different project, which ran into the ground. For some reason, this second attempt has taken off where the other failed. Totnesmartin (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WIGO CP's Person of the Year

Think Time magazines man of the year and localise it to CP. Who affected Conservapedia the most this year?

Andy	113	Vote
TK	6	Vote
Ed Poor	4	Vote
DeanS	0	Vote
JessicaT	10	Vote
Philip J Rayment	5	Vote
Karajou	0	Vote

(please add more)

WIGO CP's Weirdo of the Year

Who was most affected on Conservapedia this year?

Kendoll	36	Vote
Ed Poor	67	Vote
Andy	3	Vote
Karajou	2	Vote
RobS	3	Vote
Bert "007 doesn't just mean Goldfinger this Christmas" Schlossberg	10	Vote

Argue

Obviously it must be Andy. No one else even comes close. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

tk being absent provided some of the greatest lulz evar. Allowing andy to talk to normal people is clearly a bad idea. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Should Andy even be on the list? As CP's founder/supreme leader/de facto representative of Christ on Earth he's always going to have the biggest influence on CP. Thus, including him, makes voting on it a bit of a non-starter. --PsygremlinZungumza! 11:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That is like saying that the president should not be considered for Time Magazine's man of the year because he is so influential. - π 11:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... true I guess. Although the president does have a bit more competition :) --PsygremlinFale! 11:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I think that Ed should be really proud of himself. He's up against someone who is very literally insane in the category of weirdo of the year, and he's still winning. That kind of dedication to being totally nuts takes time and effort. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe Ed is winning. I would think Ken would come out as the clear winner of the crazy contest; have we forgotten his 30-hour edit frenzy? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay it is nearly midnight by the universal clock, polling is still open, but arguing about the final ordering is now at Conservapedia Talk:2009 - A year in review#Top ten. - π 23:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy is an idiot... And now for sports

Following on his obsession about any idea he comes up with, Andy can't let Fidel Castro go. "Liberal denial illustrates its double standard. Natalie Holloway has been missing for a period comparable to Fidel Castro's absence, and no one would deny the likelihood that she is dead. It doesn't matter what the authorities might say. But no liberal will admit that Castro is likely dead also." Natalie Holloway was a young woman who went for a vacation and was never heard from again. Fidel is a frail old man who gave up control of Cuba to his brother and got out of the public eye. They're not the same argument, you moron! Could Fidel be dead? Maybe. But why wouldn't anyone say a thing? He's not in power anymore. His death wouldn't change a thing about the country or its leadership. So there's no reason to believe that anyone would cover up his death. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Andy actually believes that Castro is dead, but since he said it once now he has to defend it. His "I am never wrong" attitude forces him to argue even the craziest of his Freudian slips. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait. This is a strange one. Is it that the Communists won't admit he's dead and Andy has some greater insight into this than they do? Or is it that we suppose he's dead because we haven't seen him in a while? They're rather different things, but either way he's calling someone a liar. I just checked the news and there's no shortage of current references to Fidel Castro making statements about this and that. This is indeed a mystery. I trust that Andy's insight into this matter is correct. 17:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There were some photographs of Fidel with the Argentine president, released earlier this year by the Argentine government. [2] ListenerX^TalkerX 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone seen Andy since his appearance in Colbert Report? Maybe he's dead. Vulpius (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the price of oil changing again? After a long gap, we have two "you're clueless"es in one month. ħuman 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unka Ed is trying to suck up to Andy again. Ed seems to follow in Andy's ignorance that Fidel is still in charge of Cuba. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its unreasonable to speculate that Fidel Castro is dead, since its not unheard of for oppressive regimes to keep dead leaders a secret, and its widely believed things will go crazy in Cuba once Fidel is gone (not to mention Miami) but Andy seems hHell on the idea he has to be dead. MDB (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't wait until Fidel actually does die, prompting Andy to proclaim how he was right all along. Sometimes I wish I was that deluded. He's got to feel like a god. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"its not unheard of for oppressive regimes to keep dead leaders a secret" that would be a good point, except Fidel is no longer Cuba's leader. And, as someone at CP pointed out, his state funeral could present a terrific propaganda opportunity. ħuman 21:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but Castro still has tremendous symbolic value in Cuba. MDB (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

While it would no doubt be possible to keep Castro's death from the Cuban public, it would be somewhat harder to keep it from the shitload of spies I'm assuming the US has placed there. EddyP (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oooo, good point. I suppose there are some reasons, though, that we might keep it a secret if we know he's dead:

• The likelihood of near-riots in Miami involving the exile community celebrating when he dies.
• We only have one source there that can say with certainty he's dead, and we don't want to jeopardize that source.

Still, though, that's a strong point. Anyway, though, Fidel's brother Raul is still alive and seemingly healthy. Its when he goes that everything in Cuba is up for grabs. MDB (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to keep his death secret. Traditionally that sort of thing was done by whoever was in charge of regulating access to the chief so they could consolidate their power (or grabbing whatever they had in reach and heading for the border). Castro no longer has serious weight in Cuba, Raoul is as legimitate as a dictator can be. Cubans fully understand Castro is mortal, everyone is expecting him to die any minute now. It wouldn't be a disappointment or something.

Riots in Miami are a point, but I would think they are wouldn't be too bad (no opponents to beat) and celebrations are inevitable anyway. As before, he has to die sometimes. Pietrow (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New Castro WIGO

That WIGO is pure brilliance. Some of those lines should be added to the quote generator. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Holy Fidel, it's f-cking brilliant, is what it is! Karajou's either completely mental, or one of the best parodists since Brian Ugler. Either way, Andy loves him like his brother (not RSchlafly, though). --Irrational Atheist (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I think it's getting bloated, and is a bit premature. But I have my vote ready, waiting to see how it goes! ħuman 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Karajou and Ed backing Andy's batshit insane argument that he has to defend so he doesn't admit error... It's going to be on the top 25 of the year at least, if not higher at this point. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You have an inflated sense of self-importance I think, and perhaps shallow perspective on the true insanity that Andy can provide. This is small potatoes. ħuman 08:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This WIGO is a perfect example of how Andy works. An idle speculation ("Fidel's not been seen for a while - maybe he's dead?") turns into a debate (User: "Hi Andy, Fidel's prolly not dead and here are some sources." Andy: "I have an open mind about this, but you're wrong!") turns into an insight ("Fidel's death must be really important, look how much liberals deny he even died!") turns into unwritten Conservapedian Law (Reverting this article earns you an infinite ban). He's like a crab. Struggling just makes Andy's pincers clamp down harder on his momentary mental whims. That's how you get "undeniable flooding" or "best of the public" or "translating the Bible is better than reading it." Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What I like about it is the way it shows how blaming liberals is Andy's automatic reaction to events. Let's be honest, the current status of Fidel Castro is on neither the conservative nor liberal agenda, but Andy has automatically assigned his opposition liberal status. I wonder if this habit is starting to creep into his real life? EddyP (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dear Sirs: my blender completely ceased to work this morning. But that is no surprise: judging from the high word-to-substance ratio of the (trilingual!!!!) manual you provided, the manufacturers must be liberals who lack Yankee Ingenuity and want to censor breakfast prayer. GODSPEED p.s. I urge you, I beseech you, spend time translating a truly logical instruction manual: the Bible." Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how this demonstrates the Cult of Andy over there as his diciples bend over backwards to support him. -Ravenhull (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wodewick, warn a brother before you post something like that, I almost destroyed my laptop. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 13:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This makes me think of CP itself. I can just see Andy dying, and TK maintaining that Andy is still alive and in private contact with him, giving him specific orders to be carried out. Defying him is defying Andy. Actually, that's not much different from how things are now. DickTurpis (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a shocker

Andy doesn't like Rush Limbaugh. Isn't that alone enough to get him drummed out of the conservative movement and the Republican party for apostasy? MDB (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say give it a week before he apologizes, just like Michael Steele. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 20:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

His Mom will apologize for him. Seriously, though, I find it interesting that he defends Ann Coulter, who my liberally biased eye would see as far more embarrassing to thoughtful conservatives (which Andy imagines himself to be). MDB (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy and Ann were made for each other. She's almost as bad as him when it comes to 'Liberal X' crap. EddyP (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference (in my mind) is that Ann makes me want to punch something, Andy makes me want to weep for humanity. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly is correct about Mr. Limbaugh in that instance, but fails to grasp that he is himself even worse on that particular account. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

DouglasA is profound: Limbaugh and other right-wing talkers are self-serving blowhards and unoriginal thinkers, not like James Dobson or Jerry Falwell! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This almost deserves an entry to itself

• "On the other hand, conservative sources tend not to focus on gossip about one's personal life. --Benp 12:42, 30 December 2009 (EST)"

Is it in bad taste to laugh my head off at this point? --Ravenhull (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No. I did too. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Limbaugh

He's in a Honolulu hospital after suffering chest pains. MDB (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it'd be too much to ask for Oral Roberts and Limbaugh to both be called home to God in the same month. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And just where is Obama at the moment?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In a really crappy wigo, on on CP's borken news... ħuman 08:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed is vying with Andy for "most loathed Conservapedian of 2010"

Moving^img a user's page to his talk page so he could ban him for 90/10? Like an Iranian theocrat, Ed Poor knows the world is watching but he just doesn't care. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot wait till he applies for sysop again. Someone should definately bring this up--Thanatos (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the beauty: It will be brought up simply because most of Ed's edits on CP are idiocy, POV-pushing or abuse (usually a mix of those). He's consistent, so the chance of them finding Ed-Stubs and abuse in his last 50-100 contribs at any given moment is basically 99% (the last 1% will be the mandatory "I am a very humble person who seeks guidance" bullshit posting he throws around every now and then). --Sid (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed Links

I'm in the mood for reading some examples of Ed getting bitchslapped on WP. They're not linked to from his article here. Do we have a repository of links here, or where can I find them? Johann (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A starting point? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 12:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban in the Incident Archive. I think that's the most recent major event? --Sid (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's still a touchy subject. And, of course, just coincidental with his bullying spree over at CP. --Kels (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, it took me a while to figure out what struck me as odd about that part: "no one has ever suggested a conflict of interest" - True, until recently, nobody suggested a COI (from what I know) - they just pointed out that you're a rabid POV-pusher and edit-warrer (-warrior?) regardless of whether or not you actually have a COI. --Sid (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also looking at the history there, vandalism, Ed? Really? --Kels (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cap & trade WIGO

Is TerryH's name really "Terry Hurlbut"? No wonder he shortened it to just the H.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think TerryH being Terry Hurlbut is about as official as Conservative being Ken DeMeyer: They're unlikely to admit it in public, they might insist that we can't prove anything because they don't admit it, but it's fairly obvious to anybody who takes a look. --Sid (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the name he goes by on his blog and in the SDG. I personally think we should nickname him 'the Spartan' since from what I've seen in various places he leads a rather spartan existence. EddyP (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Essex County must be a tame and tedious place, then, if someone can lead a spartan existence and still claim to have "seen it all" in just eight years.--WJThomas (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I just thought 'Hurlbut' was a funny name.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Apparently Hurlbut is from an old Anglo-Saxon game where short wooden bats were thrown. Allegedly. TerryH could go with a few clue bats hurled his way. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Terry covers the top ten. Thomas over Scalia??? wtf... ħuman 01:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Like the way he puts "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" in quotes. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So wait, a bunch of people funded by the Mormons are #2? Guess Andy likes the heretics after all. --Kels (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Michele Bachmann. That's who I'd choose to represent conservatism well. Loonie. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 03:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusive proof - Temlakos' (his username on Creationwiki) userpage on Twitter lists him as Terry A Hurlbut. --PsygremlinSpeak! 09:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What facts?

"We didn't come from no monkeys!" -- Karajou. While you're at it, call the insertion "lying." That'll show people how trustworthy you are. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Double negative. Closet Darwinist?--Thanatos (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fidel Castro is dead: according to Andrew Shlafly and heres why!

I have come to Rational Wiki after having an interesting "debate" with the dictators/editors at Conservipedia. This one on something that caught my eye on their news page. It claimed Castro was writing from the dead. Intrigued I did some digging. I found out he has recently met with Hugo Chavez among others. Here is a link to the "conversation" that followed:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Fidel_Castro

Or to see the strange twist they have on it just look at the opening paragraph in the article. Enjoy!--Cydd (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like everyone already caught on to this thing so I'm late. Oh well sorry about this folks! Though just for information I was Matthew2208 and was blocked because of this :P

Koward's bible quote is the height of randomness. What the hell has that got to do with anything? --Kels (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we're pretty good at not missing anything. I'm sure some of us here have some deep-undercover personas at CP, so someone is always on the lookout for the funnies. As for the bible quote, that is unusual for KJ, he doesn't usually reference the good book. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 22:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'd be on board 50% with the "Fidel is dead" meme, but only 50%, as in "maybe he is, and Raoul is delaying announcement while he consolidates power and picks his successor". But what's so funny, as Cydd says, is that the damn borken news cited an FC quote to mock my buddy Barry (he emails me most days). Well, is he alive and quotable, or dead and remove the item? ħuman 08:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

How would CP explain this (other than complete denial)?

Andy and other CP members (and right wingers in general) are fond of gloating every time a "liberal media" source announces financial difficulties, and claim its because the public is rejecting their liberal views, and not because of what every analyst in the real world believes: that the media landscape is drastically changing, print media especially. I wonder how they'd explain that the hard core right wing Washington Times has cut its staff by 40% and is eliminating almost all local and sports coverage. MDB (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Complete denial. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that the Moonie-owned paper? I'd like to see what Ed says. Or at least, what he reverts. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's why he's so pissy? Is his job in danger too? What the hell does he do, anyway? Does anyone here know? Junggai (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, easy: Andy has been predicting the downfall of the entire print industry (yes, it's a revolutionary position absolutely nobody ever voiced or voices), so this will simply prompt another "Sites like Conservapedia - which broke the Climategate scandal - will be the news sources of the future, a true victory for the Best of the Public!" --Sid (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Washington SlTimes has ties with the Moonies; I'm not sure if its completely accurate to call it "Moonie-owned." There's various stories about how much influence the church has on editorial policy. MDB (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Best of the public, indeed

"Larry Sanger, who founded Wikipedia in 2001 with Jimmy Wales only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the Wikipedia community 'had no respect for experts.'" -- Cited as a bad thing in the insanely long and stupid cp:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia. Sometimes I think Schlafly really is putting us on. This has probably been mentioned before, but it's worth repeating. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 23:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't remember somebody else bringing it up (but I wasn't around every day), but it's not terribly surprising: Experts are good! At least as long as they are Maverick Experts who disagree with scientific consensus in Andy's areas of interest. And then they're not really expert experts, but Best Of The Public experts. Totally different, but still absolutely intuitive. Deny it and deny logic blah blah blah. --Sid (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another item in that article says, "...Sanger observed that Wikipedia...has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts." Shocking.--WJThomas (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor hates him some young gays

NARTH, unbiased and respectable source... --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed Poor is Narth Vader. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 23:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed already got spanked about sourcing NARTH on Wikipedia. Guess five months was too long for him to remember the butthurt. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

His unremitting hatred of gay people really is something. It's a wonder he's able to move under the pressure of all that rage. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 23:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

He hates gays, he hates women. It's no wonder he's so angry and frustrated lately--he must be boiling over with unresolved sexual tension. I wonder how he feels about sheep?--WJThomas (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the little girls I'd be worried about. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Ed got spanked even on CP for sourcing NARTH. By Ken, even, IIRC. I'd have to dig deeply into the 2007/2008 era for links, though (assuming that it hasn't been vaped). --Sid (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there^img we go. Okay, not really a spanking, but Ken seemed to strongly disapprove of allowing to cite it. --Sid (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more impressing is that the conclusion seems to "being gay is wrong". I can understand prejudices, I can understand bigotry, but this sort of closing the eyes to the obvious defies reason. Pietrow (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexual frustration for Ed would be losing his Holy Handkerchief. --PsygremlinRunāt! 12:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Never, never, never

"We don't insert our personal opinions into articles, or cite our blogs as sources."^img OK folks, over to you for the examples. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Parodist. Pure and simple. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 03:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, even though he merely repeats what Senior Administrators keep preaching. Examples... hm. The "personal opinion" is easy - just pick any Andy/TK/Ed/Ken/etc. mainspace edit. The "our blogs" one might be a tad harder because they generally regard the News section as not actually belonging to CP's mainspace. It's almost 5am here, though, so I won't look into it further for now. --Sid (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure he's a parodist. He spends A LOT of time doing stuff like translating the bible, putting the KJV in wiki format (although JimR automated much of it, JacobB did quite about before that), writing math lectures, etc. While I agree that much of what he says sounds like parody, the shear amount of time he spends on that site makes me think otherwise. Keegscee (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Found one example, though it's not strict: cp:Climategate currently links to to this blog post by TerryH. The twist: From what I saw (though I didn't follow it too deeply), TerryH didn't add it. --Sid (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservative of the Decade

They failed to mention that he is the first affirmative action conservative of the decade. Those durn liberals! EddyP (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

For Andy

Not the absolutely correct place for this but I thought it demonstrated the CP ethos. "Anti-global warming, anti-vaccine and anti-evolution advocacy groups are already using arguments based in democratic principles: if so many people doubt global warming, or vaccine safety, they say, and if science is really based in consensus, then why won't scientists listen to the public and admit they might be wrong?" ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 04:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? I'll tell you why: because the scientists are smelly liberals, that's why! But seriously, that article is a nice find. Thanks Toast! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 06:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Basically, it suggests that if you have a large group of people, and you ask them a question - the number of beans in a jar, for example - the average of their guesses is almost certainly more accurate than any one person's guess, and likely better than experts' guesses." Very nice. ħuman 08:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That average would also be more accurate than the 'guess' of somebody who took the jar and actually sat down and counted the beans in it, according to this ethos. What a strange universe we'd live in if reality was decided by popularity in that fashion. For example, it would be the case that, in the past, the world was actually flat, because the people who thought it was round were vastly outnumbered by the people who thought it was flat. As education became more and more widespread, and more and more people thought the world was, in fact, round, there eventually came a time when the number of people who thought it was round outnumbered the people who thought it was flat. When this occurred, a worldwide cataclysmic event would have happened, as the previously flat world suddenly popped into roundness. 92.21.224.69 (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There's an interesting thought. Creationists tend to jump on the whole "we knew the world wasn't flat since the Greeks!" bandwagon, but was that true of everyone? I'll buy that the educated, or experts, if you will, were aware of it, but were your average villager in Germany or even the Levant on the same page? Basically, did the Best of the Public believe that the world was round during the Middle Ages and before? --Kels (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, it wasn't a particularly widely held belief at any stage in history. People either thought the world was round, or they didn't think about it much at all (it's not something the basic person would care about, really). After all, all it takes to see that the world isn't flat is a bit of abstract thinking and a clear view over a large area of land. Anyone standing on a hill can see that the world isn't flat, and anyone who spent any serious amount of time at sea *has* to know that the world is round otherwise navigation (by the sun and stars) simply doesn't work. Cue someone presenting evidence that I'm completely wrong. X Stickman (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

For Ken

This is also not the place, but since Toast did it I can't resist: hey Ken

. suck on this! (and this!) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that prion stuff on scienceblogs somewhere - dunno what it means for such as PJR? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

lemme guess - it's not evolution because no new information is added? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not evolution because (a) we haven't physically watched every prion since they first developed, (b) it doesn't explain abiogenesis, which is of course impossible based on a Law someone made up, and (c) this is actually evidence for the Biblical Worldview (tm), not evolution. So there. --Kels (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No new sysops

So, New Years has rolled around and no new promotions have been rolled out. Of last year's, only RJJ, JPatt, and TK have stuck around, so you'd think they'd want new stock. But there are probably absolutely no users Andy can promote. Ouch. This site is growing rapidly! 17:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He did give rights (non-sysop) to some for Christmas. Most, if not all, were probably sycophants. However, shortly between then and now, he (or some other admin?) made the statement that the site was a meritocracy. Go figure. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 17:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

it wos andy wot sed it^{img I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Chippeterson. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And little Phyl of course... meritocracy indeed. I see Wuhao just got sysop lite rights. Is Andy allowing *gasp* multi-culturism and internationalism on his blog again? Sic him, TK! Fetch! --Psygremlin말하십시오 09:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy's been reading PJR too much

"* the plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of entropy to dissipate over a long period of time."^img 'e sez to disproov an old erth. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the same would also apply to oil. But then Andy doesn't understand the oil & gas business either. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

perhaps Philip needs to go reread his old school books on Geography. The Australian artesian basin water cycle used to be taught as an essential subject. Hamster (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Best of the public" arrives in the UK

“Conservatives believe that the collective wisdom of the British people is much greater than that of a bunch of politicians or so-called experts," said Hunt. "And new technology now allows us to harness that wisdom like never before." - here.

So basically, the next Tory Govt. will pony up £1 million for a website to harness the best of the public. Perhaps Conservapedia finally will receive the recognition and funding it deserves! MaxAlex (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the "so-called experts" line. I'm at a loss: when has the masses' gut instinct wisdom ever been right about complex issues? "Tax less, spend more!" "Harsher sentencing reduces crime!" "Death panels!" 17:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Main thing is: you'll still need "experts" to winnow the wheat from the chaff. A thousand people with one stoopid idea and one with a promising one needs someone to sort out the good one. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 18:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy offered the "best of the public" to choose the greatest conservatives of the past ten years. You only had to be an editor with a registered, unblocked account on a tiny-ass wiki, and where Andy kept removing entries for not being "conservative enough." --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

We already have the BBC's Have Your Say, best demonstrated by spEak You're bRanes. If that fails, we'll just run things based on the readers' letters in the Daily Mail. Hmm, perhaps it would be best if we let the machines take over. --^{Ask me about your mother} 19:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Here at CP, we don't read none of them fancy books"

Why the hell does one of the most important novels of contemporary America redirect instead to its author's page? My guess is that there was little to discuss about the book that would interest people? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Annotated CB?

Since we have the annotated bible, and Andy is referring to his own bible over at CBP already, should we make an annotated Conservative Bible (we can wait till it's done)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think having "hahaha what an idiot. Man this is stupid." on every page would get repetative. X Stickman (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the better passages could be added to the article. But that's about it, the rest would be boring. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oversighting

TK appears to be oversighting his reversions as a matter of course. (no I can't give links, silly! but: RoyceG) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

When crappy wigos say "user deleted before editing" it's likely the edits were vaped before the wigoer investigated. ħuman 03:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy is a cancer

Andy: "Your question is loaded with terms like 'so scared' and 'indoctrination' and 'bad word.' I could likewise ask, why are Canadians 'so scared' of the free market?" "Survival rate for cancer in the U.S. is far better than the rest of the world, even nearby Canada." Come back to reality, Andy. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, he doesn't really have an argument so he's just pulling stuff out of his ass. Typical. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the womb

One of the recent WIGO is Andy's issue with the removal of the word 'womb' from translations of the Bible. He states that the NIV (which has removed this word in many places) is doing so to promote 'feminist distortions'. Andy may be interested to learn that the CBP has done the same in Genesis 20^img. Where "For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs..." became "The LORD had restrained all women of childbearing age..." Elthathorn (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a great find. Now that it's posted here I'm sure some parodist will bring it to his attention. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy shows leadership

He's taking two buses to March for Life! That's a very inspiring picture. And is Andy's mail address common knowledge? EddyP (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy's mail address is available on CP. Much more interesting: "Andrew P. Schlafly"? Googling for that name also gave me this result (indeed, it's the ONLY other result aside from Terry's article there). Search for "Andrew" on that page and you'll find a comment by "Creation Man" who "became a senior administrator of Conservapedia in April of 2007" and "gave Stephen Colbert’s staffer what-for about this entire Climategate affair, and asked him rather scathingly whether he would like to see my copy of the CRU Archive". Fun stuff. --Sid (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Gentlemen>" I wonder who wrote that comment....TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Gawd, I missed that misinitialization! ħuman 01:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Reads to me like Andy paid to have that printed. Man badly needed some good press--Thanatos (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy doesn't need to pay Terry. There was some mention of it in the blue whale group. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 17:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"We are probably the single largest group unaffiliated with a church or school to be participating in the protests" - really? ħuman 04:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC) [3]

Anything Andy says that starts with "We are probably" generally amounts to "We are definitely not". --Kels (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag

I thought here was some rule or other about using the flag with overprinting or, as in this case, apparently covered in dirt. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There is - the US Flag Code - The flag should never have placed on it, or attached to it, any mark, insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind. Although I understand that it's pretty much ignored. Worm^{(t | c)} 20:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not that it's pretty much ignored, it's that this particular prohibition doesn't apply outside the District of Columbia. 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I always assumed those flag laws applied specifically to an actual flag, not a depiction of one. X Stickman (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Naw, it's just that they aren't law - they're just a code, like our guidelines. The anti-desecration crowd want to make them law, which would have some interesting results. ħuman 22:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Internal. Revenue. Code. 22:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I used the wrong word, but anyway, the Flag Code is not binding (obviously... violations far exceed appropriate displays). ħuman 22:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The only people who follow have to follow the US flag code to the letter is the US Federal Government. Every time you see the President standing in front of a bunch of flags, someone has checked to make sure they are the same hight, that they are facing the right way and that any foreign flag is on the correct side of it. The Federal government never release anything with printing on the flag and the military practice not letting it touch the ground for flag raising and lowering ceremonies. - π 02:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So do I. It's not too hard to show some respect, although there was that one I burned at a coffee shop when the Flag Amendment was in the offing. A few people actually freaked out. ħuman 03:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

When I bought my current pick-em-up truck the first thing I did was remove the desecratory stickers on the back window. ħuman 03:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Those weren't Confederate flags, were they? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the 50-star ones. ħuman 00:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In the UK letting the flag touch the ground is actually part of some memorial ceremonies. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Confederate flags in NH? I'm shocked. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Clueless and obscure"

Did he even read that article? Or did he just presume an Englishman couldn't know a damn thing about "conservative" films. Not that the Telegraph article was a sparkling example of sense-making or anything (people will to read into whatever they can), but still. Andy once again wins the arms race of moronic. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 22:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy probably doesn't keep up on cinema unless someone actively talks about a film to him and then claims that the film is conservative. He probably hasn't even heard of Master & Commander or 300, for example. Maybe just saw a few posters for them or something. And of course, if Andy doesn't know something, then it's obscure, a lie, or just plain wrong. Back when talking about conservative films ages ago, he mentioned that he won't even consider watching anything with Tom Hanks in it because Tom Hanks is a liberal therefore produces nothing but trash. He probably has similar attitudes towards most films. X Stickman (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Like everything else, Andy knows everything there is about movies intrinsically. Anyone remember how he knew all about Trainspotting without having seen it and barely having heard of it? It was a pro-drug movie, because if it portrayed drugs negatively it would have been a huge news story, because all Hollywood movies are pro-drug. This holds for every drug-related Hollywood film, none of which Andy has ever seen. DickTurpis (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a fun argument, archived under two headings: [4] and [5]. Classic Andy, with some great Bugler involvement. Corry (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I liked Master and Commander:)--Thanatos (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, they (Telegraph and Andy) must be really thick. Half of those movies aren't "conservative" at all. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because Hollywood's run by liberals, and conservatives can't get films made. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the author an American? Looking at some of his other articles suggests he's the sort of person Andy would normally be all in favour or. It must be the fact that he's writing in the notoriously far-left Telegraph that puts him off.. Cantabrigian (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A bit of googlin' pulls up the interesting^(?) factoid that the author, one Nile Gardiner, is a Moonie. Where is user188 when he's needed? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

More Ed Poornography

The man really does have a one track mind... now it's internet porn^img... something he no doubt has researched in great detail. Not to mention his Ed-stub on pornography addiction^img. And I see user 188 still doesn't know how <ref> tags work. I mean really... ibid in an article? Really Ed? Are you that stupid, Mr I-Created-Wikipedia-All-By-Myself? --Psygremlin말하십시오 09:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The 'ibid' just shows he copied it from elsewhere. Once again his so-called "article" is just a cut-and-pasted random quote. Really, Mr-Wiki is just an apalling editor and exhibits absolutely no wiki-expertise at all, he makes me cringe with embarrassment. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, typical Ed-Stub: "(1) Find an Internet article you agree with. (2) Find quotable sections. (3) Copy. (4) Paste. (5) Slap link to source behind the quote. (6) Maybe repeat steps 1-5 a few times. (7) Abandon article. Others can do the dirty work of formatting, categorizing and wrestling your random quotes into article form. You started it, that's all that counts. Good job!" --Sid (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What's disconcerting is why is Ed reading all this stuff? Like Ken I think it's a question of protesting too much. Their religious beliefs are in conflict with their own human appetites/desires and this leads to emotional stress which causes them to do strange things. Britain's Got Talent winner Susan Boyle, another 'religious', has also exhibited decidely weird behaviour with profane outbursts and inappropriate gestures.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe Susan Boyle is "mentally challanged" due to a lack of oxygen at birth. She sings well so I give her a pass on poor behavior. Hamster (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mote v plank

A Canadian takes up the cudgels on health care. Ed doesn't like it.^{img I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh: I guess liberals are in denial and hate having to face their problems as much as any (other) addict.^{imgI am eating} _& honey^chat 17:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I love that line from Ed. This from a man who complains that people pick on him for his POV insertions on WP for the UC and homosexuality. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Ed really is frustrated right now. An infinite ban for 90/10, and the poor sod had made a total of three talk page posts, one of which proposed an interesting suggestion for the CBP. Methinks that Ed has all but abandoned his "it's how I learn" persona, to replace it with one of impotent rage, obstinacy, and ensuring that no-one can be happy while Ed's wiki-willy remains shriveled and limp - as it's always been. --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well at least with three edits Smclean got as far as "talk, talk, talk". But yes, you're right, Ed is being a consummate cunt. A new year's resolution, Ed? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Odd...

Odd...^img --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

More odd...^img --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do like the referring to him as "Mr. Ed". --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I kind of prefer Ed, the grim, swift and stern. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Would you believe it?" - was that an attempt at sarcasm, or is he really surprised that CP has parodists? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to know what even counts as "vandalism" over there since you can get blocked as a vandal for stating a painful truth or without even having made any edits at all. 05:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the formula for blocking people has changed drastically since Colbert. Anyone who might be a liberal is a potential parodist and is blocked. Anyone too conservative is a potential parodist and is blocked. It's very hard to slip past their flailing banhammer these days. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed

Hey, been lurking around RW for a few months now and finally decided to regsiter :) I'm wondering what on earth has provoked Ed Poor to simply drop his pretence of being the creepy (or as he sees it, kindly) older educator on CP and openly show his true colours as an arbitrary, vicious and insecure little man? I know he's been having issues with wikipedia, and I know this isn't the first time he's acted like a tyrant, but doing so in such an open and haphazard fashion? What are the odds he's realised that he basically can have the run of the place to pursue his odd personal issues (e.g. making "writing plans" a neccessity) and go on all the power-trips he likes, because there is nobody who is even going to offer a modicum of criticism? Is this why his true colours are showing so much? Forgive me if I'm off barking up the wrong tree and thus being irrelevant. - H. Randolph Twist (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been Wikistomped @ Wikipedia. (banned from editing Moonie crap 'cause of COI) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 20:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

He's also a cretinous misogynist. 22:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

...And he's started making articles (well, okay--stubs) on specifically Moonie concepts (arranged marriage, equality with God). This could get interesting. --WJThomas (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[6] Hehe. He's on a roll, I think I'm going to invest some clicking and have a few laughs... ħuman 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I have a new nickname for creepy Ed: Ed "Basic Skills" Poor. ħuman 00:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is Unka Ed in need of brushing up his own basic skills? I mean right here under the edit box there's a place to click for

==Footnotes==

<references/>

and I notice that his stub has a numberbox/arrow link instead of anything readable. Maybe all that wiki markup stuff is missing from CP cause they Himself doesn't like to encourage laziness. I don't know; I have only been into wikis for a few short years. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his performance on WP, I doubt he had basic skills to start with. And yeah, the Moonie stubs really highlight just how much of an extended tantrum he's been on lately. --Kels (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

With any luck, Wikipedia's seen the last of Ed Poor, and they're better off for it. I don't think his contributions to the site ever amounted to a hill of beans. DickTurpis (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

More Ed weirdness. "Designer" can only refer to Intelligent Design^img. YSL & Coco et al will be thrilled. --PsygremlinRunāt! 10:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Happy New Year (Western)"??^img Really Ed? Really? Or did you feel duty-bound to make sure the ignorant coolie knew what you were talking about? --PsygremlinFale! 11:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Password Vandal

Does anyone know who is trying to steal the CP admin passwords and how he/she is doing it? And how do the admins know about it? In the past week I have seen about 5 or 6 blocks because of attempted password theft. Keegscee (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect they're blocking the IP associated with a new password request from the login form. Nothing exciting. 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you request a new password from the log-in form you receive an email (if you've registered) indicating from what IP the request has been made. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Lame. Keegscee (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It was only ever funny doing it to Jinx because he believed it was somehow an actual account hack attempt and would go around Conservapedia making a fuss about it. - π 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Dang, you can only do it once a day. ħuman 23:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha. I must admit, I just tried it out on JPatt. Not very exciting. I'm done. Keegscee (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't do anything other than fill their email inbox full of crap. - π 00:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You requesting a new password for my sock from your home IP address was a dead giveaway, Human. Thanks for the chuckle. 00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All the big names had already been done, and you're welcome :) ħuman 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I never asked what your sock was Nutty. I still haven't got mine up and running after asking TK ages ago. Oh well. SJ ^Debaser 00:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

TK won't let me run one unless I promise to always use a condom proxy when I stick it in. ħuman 00:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I just tried creating an account and it look like my home IP's still blocked along with my University one. I need a new IP... Help from a more tech savvy user please? SJ ^Debaser 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@SJ, my CP account is no mystery. He's been outed publicly. I just enjoy practicing my greek is all. 01:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@SuperJosh, try TOR? TKEtoolshed (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, TOR won't work for long. They have already blocked TOR nodes and if you edit from more than one IP range you immediately attract attention. The likes of TK have little better to do than play with check-user because they certainly don't spend their time creating original articles.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Obscure" Films Redux

This subject really is another gift that keeps on giving, with Andy most recently asserting that "Liberals like the British list because the films are ... not really conservative." That's an incredible insight, given that he hasn't seen the fucking movies!

It's all strangely reminiscent of that wonderful fracas back in March about "obscure" composers like Verdi and Vivaldi. Junggai (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy, over here!

"...supporters of the homosexual agenda will then have four years to read, understand, and explain God's rejection of homosexual societies like Sodom in Genesis 19."

As a supporter of equal rights for gay people, I explain God's rejection of homosexual activities as being "recorded" 2000 years ago and as such being of little to no importance in the 21st century, and largely irrelevant on the grounds that it's all bollocks anyway. Happy new year, and now fuck off. SJ ^Debaser 22:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If Jesus heralded a new covenant and xtians don't have to follow all 613 commandments of the Hebrew bible, why do they refer to the OT as support for some divine prohibition on homosexual conduct? I'm not asking this rhetorically. Does someone know the actual answer? 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Adherence to the old laws is debatable (Matthew 5:18), so not all Christians totally disregard the OT. In practice though, most are fishing around the OT for bits that are both convenient and supportive of their bigoted views. They really don't have to dip in to the Old Testament. Romans 1:26-27 contains a prohibition on homosexuality. It's just odd that Jesus didn't make a single comment on the matter, despite it obviously being a very important issue for some Christians. The only possible way to shoe-horn homophobia in to Jesus' words would be to point to his teaching that fornication is a sin, and of course all gay sex is fornication so long as they can't be married according to Christian standards. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Paul. The Ken

of the New Testament. ħuman 22:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Except Paul could actually write a coherent work... meanwhile:::"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." - Matthew 5:18. Which means that Judaic law still stands. The later injuctions compelling Christians eat pork were non-biblical attempts to "out" jews and heretics. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

After Paul died his pages were unlocked and people with better grammar polished them (and added liberal bias, of course) and removed all instances of the word "regards" except above his signature. ħuman 23:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been a massive debate concerning the Mosaic Law and Christianity ever since it was determined at the Council of Jerusalem that the law did not apply to non-Jewish converts. See here for another dispute concerning this. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the resource, LX. Good find. 17:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Headdesk.

Jesus Christ^img. Andy actually believes the Gospels were written when Jesus was alive. Any fist-year college history survey course should disabuse one of that notion...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope somebody picks up on this and goes after him... a new Andy-meme might be born. - H. Randolph Twist (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Any first year college history survey course" will be taught by the same deceitful liberal professors who translated the Bible in Liberal. Do you honestly expect them to tell you the truth, particularly when their lie will likely cause people to censor the Bible from their daily lives? You're clueless. Open your mind and embrace conservative thought. The truth will set you free. DickTurpis (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Matthew and John were probably writing parts of their Gospels before the Resurrection." What, on the weekend after Jesus died? We're told by apologists like Lee Strobel and Wm. Laine Craig that the disciples did not anticipate the Resurrection (as a way of advancing the argument that they had no motive to fake the empty tomb). So, not expecting Jesus to come back from the dead, Matthew and John just sat down the day after and started writing a gospel about how He was the light and the way? Oh Andy. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy may be the only Biblical scholar (cough) in all of living Christendom who believes that the Gospel of John was not written last, let alone while Jesus was still alive. I wonder if andy's Biblical stupidity is borne not of doctrinal disagreements but out of actual Biblical ignorance (ie, has he actually ever read the Bible, or only listened to the parts they read in church?).--WJThomas (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd bet a goat's goatee that Andy is one of those fundies that can quote things like John 3:16 off by heart, but couldn't tell you what John 3:15 or John 3:17 say, if you held a defensive weapon of gun to his head. --Psygremlin講話 14:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be stupid... He spends 5% of his day reading the bible, he doesn't have to memorize it.... That's simply a tactic of Liberals to make people turn away from the word of god. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 17:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting

Karajou read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich three times. You don't suppose he thought it was a how-to book? It would certainly explain his behavior on CP. DickTurpis (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume he means they have books read to them. I don't put a lot of money on any of them being functionally literate. --Kels (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

He could just be bragging and exaggerating, of course. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Who on conservapedia wouldn't read something with the words Third and Reich three times?TKEtoolshed (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia puts people on probation now? TKEtoolshed (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

They have always done so informally, and "writing plans" are nothing new. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Clever bullies they are. Hey, how do you make your signature change in those two posts? Kinda cool.

Clever isn't the word I would use. Egomaniacal, more like. Especially Ed Poor with his "writing plans. " And my sig changes because it is a template with a random generator. See here. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. TKEtoolshed (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an actual "probation/parole" regulation (where a sysop openly posts your parole conditions and what you must and mustn't do), and there is the "probation/parole" that is actually applied on CP: The moment a sysop stops liking you for any reason, you're on parole. Trip up again, and you're dead. This is a classic case: The user has 150+ contribs and made one mistake. Boom, probation. Or as Kara put it in the diff above: "Someone once falsely cited a book I read, just like you did there. And I removed him for that, you gettin' my drift?" --Sid (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're TK, of course, in which case your probation officer (Geo) is also your bitch and meekly turns a blind eye to all your misdeeds. But ja, it's a good example of just how paranoid CP have become - nobody is trusted, nobody has made 'enough" edits to show that they're worthwhile - just look at BrianCo, Helpjazz and JessicaT - something like 20,000 edits between them and all were *ahem* "politely shown the door". --Psygremlin講話 12:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Apart from anything else: giving TK (an experienced parodist/provocateur) Geo (a schoolkid at the time) as probation controller was the stupidest combination they could have thought of. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Geo was ever assigned as parole officer by someone else. My guess is that TK and Geo chatted behind the scenes and that TK eventually talked him into it. Only then was Andy contacted. Of course that's just my wild guess, but it would fit into the MO of Andy ("I don't like to think of details, you work them out."), TK ("Contact me in private!") and Geo (who said on the CP Column to look into those Blunt Knife bans, only to go all "Fuck you!" after being slapped down by TK in behind closed doors) we've seen so far. --Sid (talk)

Subjective vs. objective

Actually, I think Andy does know what they mean. He just thinks that something is objective when he says it because he possesses Truth™. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy has quite a history of stating subjective opinions as objective facts. I'll have to look for it, but I recall him saying it was an objective fact that Beethoven was the greatest composer of all time. While I basically agree with him that he was, I don't pretend it's anything more than my opinion. DickTurpis (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Some guy got banned for having a different interpretation of A Wonderful Life. When he challenged it on Andy's talk page, he was basically told that not everyone is as smart as he is. TKEtoolshed (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So really the WIGO should be rewritten. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I love how BMcP is getting ganged up on by everyone too. Really classy. Senator Harrison (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

TK "Best foreign language Oscar? Pfffft. 9 out of 10 will never have heard of it, nor seen it." Really. So you've never heard of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Life Is Beautiful, Cinema Paradiso, 8 1/2, Rashomon, The Bicycle Thief... Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In his defense I've only heard of the first two of those. 08:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You've never heard of Cinema Paradiso? Professor Moriarty 14:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please go rent Rashomon and 8 1/2 right this very moment. These are films it's important to have seen at least once in your life. That is all. 16:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It gives an interesting insight into TK's view on good movies. "Best foreign language Oscar? Pfffft. 9 out of 10 will never have heard of it, nor seen it." Which is why they are art house movies, you ignorant prick. Just because nobody in your trailer park has hung a sheet over their washing line and played it for the rest of the trailer trash, doesn't mean it wasn't a good film - as was Departures. Then again, I have a feeling that TK sees Australian films as foreign language and is still butt-hurt because Idiocracy didn't win the best picture Oscar. --PsygremlinSpeak! 09:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Our friend, the pianist is seemingly intent on committing wiki-suicide^img. --PsygremlinTal! 14:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've only read the synopsis, but from everything i've heard/read, Idiocracy isn't so much an anti-liberal piece as it is a shot to consumerism, the attack on intelligence and corporate control, all main movements in the conservative worldview. I understand it to be what would happen 500 years later if Fiscal Conservatives took over completely...then again, I need to find a copy and watch it before I report back. -- CodyH (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Idiocracy is not a political film at all, although I'm sure Andy could interpret it as being one. Mike Judge is actually fairly apolitical. He tends to be anti-stupidity in general, as can be seen in his work on King of the Hill. Andy isn't actually saying that these films are obscure, he's just saying that he hasn't heard of them. And then he had to defend his choice of words. My father would deem Spider-Man 3 as an obscure movie, since he hasn't seen it. He would not consider the first two obscure, since he saw them. Also depends on who you spend your time with. -Lardashe

(ec) Idiocracy is a fun movie, even though I didn't really see it as liberal or conservative. It basically takes the premise that dumb people have more children than academics and then fast-forwards it a few hundred years. The result is that a completely average guy (frozen in the present, reanimated in the future) is the smartest person on the planet. Obscenity and vulgar language is virtually omnipresent, the president is a trigger-happy ex-wrestler and the free market has gone on to the degree that some junk food corporation or so eventually bought the FDA. All in all, it's basically all those happy fun "dumb America" stereotypes us Euro-dudes like to poke fun at (obscenity, guns, quality of medical services, junk food, greed, stupid military projects, etc.) and strips away everything else. --Sid (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. How it's anti-liberal in any regard is beyond me. In truth, it attacks much of American culture which is beloved by conservative populists and "real Americans," but leaves politics alone. 17:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I understood it as anti-liberal from the various times Rush Limbaugh invokes it while talking about the current Administration, a few Alex Jones references, and some friends of mine who echo the sentiment. -- CodyH (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I very much enjoyed the movie (though objectivally I'd say it's okay), but like CodyH I perceived the movie to be more anti-Conservative than anti-liberal, especially since the whole messed up world is the result of the liberal academic people dying out. Also, my favourite quote from the movie is that billboard saying: "If you don't smoke Tarryltons... Fuck You!" --GTac (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Both the left and the right have nightmares about a future like Idiocracy, they merely differ (radically) over what will cause this future. The film didn't bemoan secularization and cabals of liberal media and Hollywood types. But it DID skewer growing anti-intellectualism and the growing power of corporations and their branding in culture and the public sphere. (Brawndo: It's What Plants Crave!). So in short it's a left-ish film, but very subtly so. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Err ... yes, Ed.

Does the left really think alternative energy will reverse global warming and reduce foreign energy dependence...? --Ed Poor^{img I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ulterior motives? Like promoting the interests of a few petrochemical companies with deep and historic ties to the top of American gov't? 19:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're right Ed. It's all a conspiracy to raise your taxes. Those windmills are coming for your freedom. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Live Blogging Ed...

I think Ed is live blogging another movie - Bandolero this time. After creating another helpful category. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonus laugh here. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Without being over nasty: I'd worry if I'd got a young daughter in Ed's neighbourhood. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 20:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No Ed, you haven't written anything since you got publicly spanked on Wikipedia. Oh, how User #188 has fallen! --Kels (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That diff was from 2008. ħuman 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it is. But you wouldn't begrudge a girl a chance to rub Ed's face in his shame a bit, would you? --Kels (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, he really doesn't think before he acts. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange bedfellows

WTF is this?! 00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Phylis Shlafly of Conservapedia has been asking exactly this question and has found some astonishing answers" ORLY? ħuman 03:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Who the fuck are these people? Poes? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Do they think Andy is his mother? --Kels (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Parody. --Simple (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally. And brilliant in spots....TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly is misspelled. I call Poe. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I love it when someone uses the appropriate Bible quote to tell us why Andy is going to Hell--Thanatos (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, 'ShelleytheRepublican' has been out there for a bit. Are we calling Poe on it entirely? It would give me a slight bit of comfort if it is, for in some ways it's scarier than All of the ASchlafly Brigade together. -Ravenhull (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I went back there after posting that, and it's more obviously a Poe than it was when I discovered it a few years ago. The poll regarding 2012 tickets was a big clue, at least to me.--Ravenhull (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FAIR USE???!!!

No effin way kajagoogoo^img (I've emailed the artist) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 08:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins WIGO

Deserves to go to top twenty. That's classic Andy: it's not the idiocy, it's not the blatant unselfconsciousness, it's the delicious combination of the two. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not really that good. Dawkins claims God is petty, unjust, unforgiving, etc., - Andy only claims he's judgemental. You can be a fair judge, and punish people justly - that's different to what Dawkins is claiming. Taking God as a given, it's not an idiotic statement at all. MaxAlex (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As the guy who made the WIGO, I feel obliged to defend myself here! :) As far as I see it, Andy is implying that God will not forgive Dawkins and will not brook dissent or criticism (hardly a "just" or "forgiving" attitude) which does make Dawkins' point for him. - H. Randolph Twist (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's no mild irony there, just that I wouldn't say it was particularly top 20 material. Andy might be presuming a lot about how much mercy would be on offer, but it's not a hypocritical point of view 'cos he believes everyone will be judged. It doesn't reduce to much more than "Andy believes in god! lol". MaxAlex (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

But the thing is, Andy is simultaneously claiming Dawkins is wrong and implicitly proving him right, something to which he seems completely oblivious. Anyway, whatever, you're allowed to disagree :) - H. Randolph Twist (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

While Andy has put his own special spin on it, MA is right; it basically does boil down to 'Andy believes in god! lol". Still found it funny though. EddyP (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's funny because the irony flies miles above his head. That said, there have been much, much, better WIGOs than this one. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The irony I saw is not about God per se but about His believers. Dawkins says Christians believe in a God who is monstrously petty and judgmental and Andy replies saying "My God will punish you for publishing that sentence!" Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!}

And then there was Ken

Brilliant, Ken. Just brilliant. "God is good! That's why he gave diseases to the gays and made lesbians fat!" Yup, God is good as long as he just hurts people you don't like. And people wonder why some are reluctant to openly refer to themselves as Christians anymore... --Sid (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken clearly doesn't hang around with most of the lesbians I know. Although I do know a lot of fat straight people. --Kels (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken seems to know a great deal about homosexuality. I wonder if he's doing field work? I can't imagine a mechanic learning all there is to know about cars without popping the hood, and I doubt Ken could have developed his expansive knowledge without at least once having someone's testicles bouncing off of his chin. --^{Ask me about your mother} 16:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

None of my hawt G-on-G action DVDs feature fat gals. All the lesbians I have seen seem to be blonde twenty-somethings. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to draw the conclusion that Ken's at least mildly obsessed with homosexuals, both male and female. Whether he himself is homosexual or has done "field work" is beyond our knowledge, and I'm frankly more inclined to believe that he works for himself on the computer and barely leaves the house. In other words, I hazard to guess that the extent of his sexuality is fantasizing about young asian men and women on the other side of a wiki account. I simply cannot imagine Ken showing up at the neighborhood saloon (gay or straight) and propping himself up at the bar with his pals because he's not the kind of person I imagine even having any pals. But this is all subjective liberal nonsense. 16:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ken has at least one friend, NephilimFree, and he ain't exactly a poster boy for a healthy body type. DickTurpis (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC x 2) I was at a women's music festival a few years ago, and as you'd expect probably 80% of the crowd were lesbians, or at least bisexual. And you know what? I saw a lot of pretty damn fit girls, and even the "Rubenesque" types seemed pretty healthy (non-skinny and unhealthy are not synonyms). And very few (cigarette) smokers, while we're at it. Anecdotal yeah, but we're talking a couple of hundred women (no males over the age of five permitted), so it's not a small group I'm talkin'. --Kels (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Kels, what you're describing is the "best of the public" lesbians. Open your mind and understand objective truth. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is unbelievable. I'm surprised no one (especially Andy) has called him out on this, it's far from "family friendly" and is downright offensive. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait...here it is. Andy's response is priceless. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What counts as family friendly or offensive definitely depends on who your target is. When it comes to smearing liberals, homosexuals, communists, etc., there's absolutely nothing wrong with graphic and offensive imagery and language. In such matters the stronger the gag reflex the more poignant the message. Because, after all, nothing's off limits when you're battling enemies of god. A video of a mutilated aborted fetus is ok, but a picture of a woman in a sheer blouse (or a classical revival statue of the Blind Justice with a bare breast) is not. 17:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I just found it funny how Andy wholeheartedly defends Ken even though Ken's point has nothing to do with the Dawkins quote. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Naaa, it's a subtle Schlafly Slip. He's just wholeheartedly defending his bigotry. He never defended the tenuous connection Ken is making between atheism (or is it criticizing god?) and the alleged frequency of obesity among lesbians. 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also the birth of a new Andy-Meme: "Homosexuality shortens lifespan" appears in both of Andy's replies... --Sid (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On the lesbian thing, I did a bit of looking around, and found an interesting bit of commentary that attributes the obesity not to something inherent in lesbians but rather in the "generational" culture of the lesbian community. Basically, what's considered attractive and socially acceptable in the lesbian community may not match the same in the heterosexual community, and those trends do change generationally. So it's possible we may be moving out of that as a newer generation of young lesbians mature. It's an interesting thought, and probably parallels the change in society from finding "Rubenesque" to be the height of attractiveness to anorexic supermodels, to tall girls with implants. --Kels (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Kels, your phone is ringing!^img DickTurpis (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Take your meds, Ken. --Kels (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken, correlation does not equal causation. Sure, some lesbians may prefer heavier women, but I doubt that is representative of lesbians as a group. Besides, if you are correct that that means that lesbian obesity does not result from God punishing lesbians. As "Ms. K" said: "[lesbian obesity is] not something inherent in lesbians but rather in the "generational" culture of the lesbian community." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, "may not be" is probably better here than "is not", but it's definitely a worthwhile question to ask. What role does culture play in all this? To what degree is this a backlash against the "unhealthily skinny" role models held up by mainstream culture? How will this change in, say, a decade from now? See Ken, having discussions like this is how grown-ups figure stuff out, as opposed to the Chick-esque "Har har, lesbos is fat!!!one!!" that I'm sure you're more accustomed to. --Kels (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Classic. Normally I don't like Ken WIGOs, but this news item is so bad that I love it. Especially because it reads: "Richard Dawkins has yet to comment on all the diseases associated with homosexuality ... Perhaps that is because there are so many diseases associated with homosexuality!". Bravo. --GTac (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Ms. K" brings up a good point. I would guess that culture plays a pretty large role, and economic status might be a factor as well - I've seen studies that show that poor people are more likely to be obese because fast food is so inexpensive. However, I know nothing about the economic status of lesbians - Ken, would you care to give us an article on "Lesbians and Poverty"? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fess up. Which one of you is Wuhao1911? By my count there are now several new parodists running around abusing block rights. Good show. 17:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken logic sounds fun, let me try. Lessee, I've got a scientific study that links poverty with obesity. So using Ken logic, that means I can jump directly to God hating poor people! Ken, seriously, you need to do a series on how being poor can shorten your lifespan and it's God's punishment on those people for being poor. There's no time to waste! --Kels (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One of my sisters is lesbian, and both she and her partner are a bit large - at least they are by my standards. But I attribute their weight gain to two factors - 1 - they live in the South. Nearly everything they and others serve is very fried and greasy. 2 - they've been a couple for about 7 or 8 years now, and a lot of couples gain weight together. Me and my wife gain and lose weight at roughly the same pace because we eat together most of the time. Not to say that the cultural element isn't an interesting idea, since that seems to be a very plausible hypothesis. -Lardashe

All very good information. I wonder how lesbians in, say, London stack up obesity-wise with lesbians in, say, Austin, TX. And how either of those groups compare to lesbians 10 or 20 years ago, and whether that holds 10 or 20 years from now. It's a complex topic, which someone with limited faculties like Ken can't really comprehend. It's all he can do to make a knee-jerk jump from "the lesbians we studied tend toward obesity and we don't yet know why" to "GOD HATES FAGS!". --Kels (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

DanL

Here's his parthian shot attacking Ken's homosexuality screed on the Main Page.^img Not too shabby. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Convo so far for capturing goodness.^img --Sid (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And eh. Some good points next to needless ad homs. --Sid (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Aaaand oversight. If you can't think of an answer, just delete the evidence! I had it saved, but seems like capturebot got it in time anyways. --GTac (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of "politely removed from the site" was clever. That's been an RW meme since Colbert but I haven't seen anyone use it over there until now. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, DanL was only speculating that Ken is autistic. He might also be retarded. 18:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That was me. I had this ip to play with for a bit over a week so I thought I'd have some fun. The comment about Ken was a bit of an ad hom, but I really think the obvious mental shortcomings of Mr. DeMyer have been the elephant in the room at CP for way too long. Someone eventually had to say what everyone else is thinking. DickTurpis (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be the elephant in the room, but it got oversighted just like everything else, and thus it will never be mentioned again under pain of death banhammer. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I knew it would be; I'm actually surprised it took them so long to do it. Still, I have to wonder if Andy is really completely oblivious that he has a man with the mind of a 10 year old given carte blanche to do whatever he likes. But it's his blog, and he can do what he wants. DickTurpis (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As an ex^(very)-ten-year-old, I find that comparison rather offensive, Mr Turpis. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 18:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Imagine the indignance of the retarded! -- Poor Excuse (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Toast, did you got a card blanche to do what you liked back then? If not, that may be quoting out of context. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

When I was 10, I told a guy distributing Bibles that I didn't believe in God. --Kels (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to Ken's obvious mental malady; I called it the elephant in the livingroom no one discusses, but it occurred to me, Ken was never part of the Special Discussion Group, was he? Does anyone remember reading anything about him after it was briefly made public? Did they ever discuss the fact that he clearly just ain't right and how to deal with it? Seems entirely possible they would have. DickTurpis (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

He had never been a member of the SDG that TK made public. If I recall correctly, they did discuss his identity (he apparently hadn't given his real name to ANYBODY on CP, not even Andy) and our conclusion that he's indeed Ken DeMeyer. Not 100% certain of the exact outcome, but I think that they either verified it or at least found our conclusion to be very likely to be true. Other than that, I don't readily recall Ken-related threads, but I hardly read the entire thing, either. --Sid (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken wasn't in the SDG but he is in the blue whale group. Of course being "in" doesn't mean that he engages in discussion with the others as nearly all of his posts tend to be of the "something is going to happen" form and are politely ignored. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 17:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Burn fail

Not WIGO worthy, but I liked the fact that someone expresses concerns^img on Ed's talk page, so predictably KackJuice reverts and blocks, and Ed, still not understanding edit conflicts manages to restore^img the reverted text while answering. Karajou must have been fuming. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Bonus internets for spotting the film reference in usernames in that story. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pssst. SOTL. 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeedy. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

...and the 'toons get weaker

So has Karajou done a cartoon about something other than Climategate? (We're really at the tail end of that story, Brian, what happens when you're finally forced to go elsewhere?) Anyway, this week's has got to be the lamest yet. Am I missing something? Is there a joke here somewhere? As the bear says, "I don't get it". DickTurpis (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically. No idea what story he's referencing with the current one, but at least most of the joke is discernible. "Hey, a liberal thought it would be warm, but it's not. So we killed him." ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 10:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he's referencing Obama's Hawaii vacation? MDB (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure Karajou is not a parodist? Why else would he push the view that conservatives fail at understanding global warming to the degree that they think "liberals warn of global warming = liberals expect summer heat at the North Pole"? On the up side, he draws some neat polar bears. --Sid (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(OC)The "nearly naked" thing is muddying the joke here, as Karajou is again trying to cram too much into one toon, but there is an actual joke in this one. You have to go from here: "Global warmists"(hey, did I just invent a powerful new conservative term here?) think global warming is real -> the north pole is now warm enough to go on a beach holiday (and polar bears have died out of course). CONSERVATIVE REALITY CHECK: There are still polar bears! They ate them! Also they dressed too cold. Internetmoniker (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"On the up side, he draws some neat polar bears." Of course he does. He's a furry. Vulpius (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)I wish I had an image of it, rather than just a clipping of it on my office bulletin board, but I've seen a much better polar bear cartoon, from KAL in the Baltimore Sun. Here's a description.

• Panel 1: Three polar bears, marching in a circle, carrying signs.
  • Sign 1: Arctic thawing fact!
  • Sign 2: Urgent!! Polar caps melting!
  • Sign 3: Environmental disaster looms!
• Panel 2: The bears are talking.
  • Bear 1, looking worried: Fellas, I've got a bad feeling no one is paying attention to us polar bears!
  • Bear 2, looking fearful: No!!
  • Bear 3, looking even more fearful: You're joking!
• Panel 3: The bears are still talking.
  • Bear 1: What do we do??
  • Bear 2: We find something that will grab people's attention...
  • Bear 3: Something they can't resist!
• Panel 4: The exact same as panel 1, but with new signs.
  • Sign 1: Arctic is moral crisis!
  • Sign 2: Gay polar bears to marry!!
  • Sign 3: Pro-life Eskimo swallowed by liberal orca!!

Unfortunately, my typing it in does not convey the beautiful pen and ink drawings of the bears, or the nice use of fonts.

Take note that I'm a great lover of bears, in multiple senses of the term... MDB (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I fancy myself as a pretty tolerant guy, but that made me throw up in my mouth a little. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Different senes of love, different senses of bears. Sheesh. Sorry to offend. MDB (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Some people can't handle grizzles, apparently. Although the pic at the top of the other article doesn't so much shout "gay" as "Oktoberfest". --Kels (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Could someone link to the cartoon itself? Totnesmartin (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. MDB (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks... I think. That cartoon is lame as anything. Get back to writing pasting-in articles about ships, my erstwhile ally! Totnesmartin (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I really, REALLY don't get it. All the elements of a joke are there, but it's like they've been assembled from different cartoons. Obama going on vacation home to Hawaii could possibly be used by a cartoonist, somehow. The idea of the north pole now resembling Hawaii, due to global warming, could conceivably appear in a cartoon (albeit drawn by someone who doesn't deny global warming). It's the combination of it all that makes it so confusing. The drawing is vague: is the cartoon supposed to be in Hawaii or in the North pole? It can't be Hawaii because there are no polar bears there. And it can't be the North pole because Obama isn't there.

The best I can discern is this: the cartoon takes place in a paralllel universe, in which Obama takes his vacation in the North pole, not Hawaii. Because Obama is so sure that global warming is a fact, he arrives in his swimming trunks, expecting to find a Hawaii-like climate. However, because he has been misinformed about global warming by filthy liberals, he shows up completely unprepared and gets eaten by polar bears. Johann (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why the skull has eyebrows.--WJThomas (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My issue with the comic starts with what the first bear says which, in anything resembling our earth humor, would typically be the set-up for Bear Two's punchline. Bear One sets two statements in opposition to each other (in the "says one thing and does another" format): "he spouts this global warming junk down there" vs. "he comes up here nearly naked." But they aren't contradictory, since a very stupid person, as all liberals are in Karajou's "mind," who believed in global warming could think the arctic was warm enough to summer in. Then, to completely ruin any semblance of a joke, Bear Two's punchline is almost word-for-word exactly what I just said. In other words, the punchline is an explanation of how the set-up doesn't make any sense. The punchline is about how the set-up doesn't properly set-up the punchline. It is a mobius strip of stupid. It is the ouroboros of comedy. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 00:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the drawing is getting better, although on this one the lettering is rather sloppy. And, yeah, it's a punch line shy of a joke. He should have made who they ate more obvious by drawing, say, some shorts with a name sewn into them. Gore maybe? Get it? Now he's really gore! ħuman 00:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)