Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive165

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <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)

Article of the year

Still evolution. To update a section once a year must be really hard. Or evolution was deemed such a great article that Ken convinced everyone to give it another year. Internetmoniker (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know...some of Andy's wacky essays, though not as long, are just as amusing as that article. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, Ken's likely still trying to push through his "Article of the Decade" idea. And once that's greenlighted, there is still the question: Atheism, Homosexuality, or Evolution? My prediction: Evolution becomes article of the decade and Atheism becomes article of the year. Because I'd be surprised if Ken didn't try to have more than one of his pet project featured again. Or we'll have Atheism for the decade, Homosexuality for the year, and Hitwin will make a comeback at the bottom of the page to advertise the Evolution article. --Sid (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't he pushing for an article of the century millennium on ASoK?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"My God, it's full of Sid!"

Thanks to Lily for pointing me to some classic CP paranoia. FrankC mentions^img that to a German speaker, "Das Leben der Anderen" is not exactly an obscure movie.

And as all first-generation CP sysops know, only two people ever lived in Germany: Hitler and Sid.

GUESS WHICH ONE TK SUSPECTED^img FRANK TO BE? (Hint: It's not Hitler.)

Hilarity ensues when Frank thinks^img TK just made an honest typo.

But seriously, TK, come on. I'm only active on RW in short (not so short during the vacation time, I admit) bursts, real life is keeping me plenty busy, and I got a cold. Pile all of that on me having absolutely no interest in discussing on CP. Really. I may be a slight masochist (the fact that I had frequent discussions with you, Andy and Ken easily shows that), but that last permaban by you in 2007 was the moment I called it quits. So please. I am amused by your shout-outs, but maybe you should look for another Token German. :P --Sid (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But that's exactly how TK and Jprat think - because one user posted from a country, all users are therefore members of a vandal site. And seeing as how none of the other idiots sysops are going to call them on it, it allows them to bully and block editors, in accordance with their long-term plan. ^{— Unsigned, by: Psygremlin / talk / contribs (Actually he did sign, but in the section below)}

Well in all fairness, almost all off the people still interested in jumping through the idiotic hoops of the user registration process to join their retarded site, are parodists..--GTac (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Meritocracy indeed

CPalmer must have the patience of a saint. Been there since Sept 2008 and still no rights. Not even block rights. Obviously needs to toady a lot more. --PsygremlinRunāt! 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I had forgotten about him. He really slipped under the radar, no controversial edits or anything. I suppose that's why he wasn't promoted - Andy doesn't notice the people who only want to edit and not be involved with the community. Like FOIA, for example. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly how it works. Look at Benp - editing since May 2008, nearly 1000 edits, no rights. Involves himself in the BotP debate on Andy's side, rewarded with block rights that week. Andy doesn't really watch his own wiki, he only notices users when he comes into contact with them in talkpage debates. Since good-faith users either debate and are quickly removed, or stay far away from talk and remain obscure, I guess we won't see any good faith users promoted to sysop anytime soon. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 01:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed bragging

I think he's being a little sarcastic, he must know that he's repeated ad nauseam that he is a Wikipedian. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A Wikipedian? I'll have you know he is THE Wikipedian! Even Jimmy Wales must bow to the authority of the mighty User #188! --Kels (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it's been too long to remember the last time I actually voted a WIGO "up"... oh well. ħuman 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I diagnose WIGO fatigue, Human. Here, try these crystals, hand-reiki'd by dolphins. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor moves another article to a talk page

Only 27 months after its last edit, a reversion to one of Human's edits six months prior. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least that almost makes sense - moving the "talk" from the "project page" to its "talk page". I was prompted to check my edit count again, down to just below 2000. It used to be just over 3000 a couple years ago. ħuman 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're so vain. You probably think this Wigo's about you. 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed's just not taking his smackdown from WP well. Keep it to yourself? Ed, have you *read* CP lately? It's 90% anti-Liberal! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@Nutty: I hate that song! But it does fit pretty well here.... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tolerance:

Today Ed Poor made another substantial/useless/moronic/short edit to Conservipedias article on Tolerance as being "official Conservapedia policy (Note the bold print): http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Tolerance --Cydd (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"...not afraid of describing ideas we don't believe in." Ah, that explains why he's always on about neutrality and honesty. --Kels (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey look at this, a talk page!

I guess you don't have to do your conversing through a WIGO after all! --GTac (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Most people here converse via block comments these days, I think. ħuman 02:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Epic Fail

Jpatt on mainpage: Epic fail! Andy on mainpage: Perhaps epic failure?

This gave me a right old chuckle. SJ ^Debaser 12:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Classic example of something flying way, way over Andy's head. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And then TK stumbles in without realizing he's late to the party: "Hey you guys, you totally wouldn't believe what I just heard!" --Sid (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I love it when shit like that goes down. There's a classic WIGO somewhere on the Best of list where a user added a news item, TK got rid of it cuz he said it was crap, then a while later Andy posted the same thing. Very funny. SJ ^Debaser 13:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This one about Obama's oath. SJ ^Debaser 13:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And so CP temporarily rises to the encyclopedic level of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Vulpius (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy: "I Don't understand Epic fail" - Oh the irony... I couldn't have put it better myself -- 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@Vulpis: As if the 'toon to the left didn't already decrease CP's encyclopedia level to virtually nil... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why I said 'rises'. Vulpius (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Transvestite WIGO

Before this WIGO I got annoyed at people yelling: "Bad wigo" at every entry, but with this one I 'm going to do it myself: terrible wigo. That post was made by an unsubtle parodist who didn't even fool Andy. Although the rationale given by Andy is nice, he is basically acknowledging that those "czars" aren't worthwhile news. Internetmoniker (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate that shit too. Get your point across using the red arrow. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was dying, TeaKakkke?

Could this have anything to do with my meddling? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, that talk page is still the same as ever. We should get a special dispensation from WP to put a box at the top, with our logo, telling people that if they want to discuss the content of CP to come here (instead of wasting WP's time). I think just in my quick skim I saw at least three people who could use such a gentle prompt. ħuman 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a reference to RationalWiki as being a place where CP is discussed within the article, but it's fairly buried. Then again, it is mentioned as a place for vandals too... - H. Randolph Twist (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why we should do what I said, and relieve WP of the burden. ħuman 04:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

TK is bringing the fight to the other wiki. Internetmoniker (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, I can't wait to see how this will go down. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And so it begins. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Does he really want to go down that route? It would only increase the exposure to his own lying, plagiarism from Wikipedia, membership here (including his sock activity) and his demands to be made a RW sysop. If I was him I would have serious second thoughts about it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think WP is fed up with him already. Also, note the unsubtle use of humor by the new user... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hate to be Captain Obvious here, but is there any verification (that is verifiable by the public) that this is indeed TK? --Sid (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, not really. But I think it's a pretty safe assumption based on his comments on the WP Conservapedia talk page. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Constant reference to the LA Times article. Check. "Administrator on a vandal site." Check. Way too many commas. Check. Frequent personal attacks and use of "disingenuous," "dishonest," etc. Check. 15:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That just proves it could have easily been you. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(silent ec; increasing indent) Most of us have seen enough TK comments to be able to emulate him (though few of us would actually bother to do so, I assume). Check. In fact, that's what's making me frown the most: This is some sort of TK that seems to still live in 2007. The tone and references seem so... dated and overly obvious. But eh, whatever, his little trolling spree already resulted in what he regards as success, even though it's a fairly silly one. --Sid (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, that was funny. I guess we're back to going to people's talk pages to tell them where they can discuss CP, since comments at talk:CP on WP will get deleted. Will WP let someone make a userspace template for ease of doing so? Including a link to the deletion of that discussion? ħuman 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I say we keep up the pressure to make the CP article wholly factual, rather than relying on just what CP says they do, or what articles say CP does. WP should be more about what really happens, not what CP wants people to believe really happens. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To do that we need to get a "reliable source" to report on it. ħuman 02:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To TK, Love IA. BTW, if you want to get rid of me on CP, feel free to ban my ISP network. It's 172.128.0.0/8. I'll stop browsing CP to be an annoyance. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, TK, but you don't get to bully anyone anywhere other than CP. Maybe you should refrain from arbitrarily blocking people and dismissing valid complaints, and maybe administrators at CP should follow their own guidelines? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Exams

Dear god. How old are the kids these exams are for again? 8? Anyone diffed the boy's exam against the girl's exam yet to see what the actual difference is? I love how he had to sneak some prayer questions in:
2) Would the activity of prayer fall within the definition of “scarcity” in economics?
(a) Yes, because not enough people pray.
(b) Yes, because it is priceless.
etc. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I love how he managed to sneak in censorship of school prayer into one of the answers: "No, because it does not cost any money and it is freely available to all (not counting public schools)." -- Nx / talk 10:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a diff btw -- Nx / talk 10:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wtf? It's just simplified wording. Clearly all girls are retarded and can't read English. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And the boys get questions about manly baseball, while the girls have to go to church parties.. --GTac (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, man, is THIS what Andy had been rambling about concerning "economic parables" in the bible? Get rid off a fig tree if it doesn't bear fruit? Imagine the economic revolution this must've brought in those days to all those farmers who had huge orchards full of dead trees, unable to determine what to do with them! Jesus invented humour alright... --GTac (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't Andy railing against prayers being free? That sounds kinda socialistic to me. Jesus ought to start charging them for their prayers. I would assume this would be done along the lines of a telecom business model. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I showed it to my sister, pointing out "No points are deducted for wrong answers, SO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION." She asked how could the students fail. Should point this out next time Andy applies for SES--Thanatos (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No points are deducted for wrong answers, but no points are added either, so answering every question wrong would give you a 0, and so would leading every question blank. Whereas some exams actually deduct points for wrong answers, so getting every question wrong on a 100 point test could hypothetically give you a -25. This, I believe, is done to prevent artificially inflated scores due to lucky guessing, as the incorrect guesses would balance out the correct ones. All Andy is saying is that he doesn't use the latter model. DickTurpis (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I know my brother had exams like that when he studied medicine, to teach the students that sometimes no answer is better than guessing. --GTac (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We had a lot of multiple choice exams in my first year at uni which were negatively marked. It's a good way to avoid someone passing as a fluke. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The SATs are/were marked that way - wrong answers are -0.25, so if you eliminate 1 outof 5 for sure, guessing breaks even, if you can eliminate 2 or more out of 5, guessing is profitable. Which makes sense, since the ability to eliminate a couple of choices requires some ability. ħuman 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If I translate the Bible like this...

then relativity is impossible. Otherwise, it's fine. A window into the largely defensive mind of Andy. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've said it many times before, but it bears repeating: it is astounding that people this colossally stupid exist. DickTurpis (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't even begin to understand what he's talking about. Would someone more up on these things please explain? 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy thinks Jesus healed a guy instantly, which would mean action at a distance is true, which would mean relativity is false because Jesus can heal faster than light can travel. My god, I feel dumb just typing that. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Neveru, I was about to say pretty much the same thing with several times as many words. I applaud your conciseness, and I'm sure Andy does too. DickTurpis (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Next he's going to write a paper proving the scientific validity of Jesus's healing powers. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy seems to be taking Biblical literalism to new heights, while simultaneously redefining English words; who else would say a "moment" is undoubtedly less than .00001 seconds? DickTurpis (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, according to Andy the Gospel of John was written by a teenage kid. Is there any way he (or anyone else) could possibly know if two events occurring miles from each other happened faster than the speed of light? If this were God himself writing then maybe he could pretend to make such a stupid claim, but this? Fucking idiot. DickTurpis (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the Gospel of Mark that he thinks was written by a teenage eyewitness, which is actually possible. 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He thinks John was too, in fact, he more adamant about that one. The Gospel of John is the sole specific example of the world's greatest achievements by teenagers we were able to get out of him. DickTurpis (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "probably not the only place in the bible" displays a shocking lack of certainty regarding the contents of the bible. "Probably" Andy? Really? Someone hasn't been spending 5% of their time reading the bible, obviously. X Stickman (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a thing, too: andy is willing to accept that Jesus/God can bend the laws and limits of biology/medicine to miraculously heal somebody, but can't see that Jesus/God could also bend/break other physical laws to do it instantaneously? The man has a serious lack of imagination.--WJThomas (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

JacobB just made much the same point. Something you want to tell us, Thomas? DickTurpis (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a lack of imagination, I think it's simply a form of doublethink. See, creationists want to use two contradicting strategies: 1) use Goddidit when proven wrong by science, and 2) have creationism be scientific because Goddidit by itself is not a strong argument. I think this is the paradox we are seeing here - Andy wants to use Goddidit, but he also wants his hypotheses to be in concurrence with science. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see it as doublethink. After all, Andy just insightified that the works of Jesus weren't miracles, but rather signs, which are simply a disclosure of reality. Which is odd because that makes it look like he's kinda pushing into the "Science and the laws of physics can explain everything without invoking the supernatural!" direction, which would be exactly what he accuses atheists of doing. Which might make him the first naturalist who also happens to take the Bible literally. --Sid (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point - he does always like to say that "the Bible is the most logical book ever written." For more hilarity in the future, we should test this belief by having socks question the scientific validity of Biblical events. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

On the Gospels and Teenagers

Andy is really showing his ignorance if he's claiming the Gospel of John was written by a teenager. John is easily the most philosophical of the four Gospels, clearly written by someone already well-versed in already existing Christian philosophy. (And in fact, it seems to be targeted at a similarly learned audience -- it does not seem to be written for recent converts, but for people who have spent time as Christians, and want to study more.) The idea that it was written by a teenager is patently absurd, just from studying its contents. Of course, Andy is so deep in fundamentalism that he's reached the point that its "liberalism" to view the Bible as a whole, rather than as individual verses to be yelled out to prove a point.

And its even the traditional conservative view that all of the Gospels were written after the Resurrection, the earliest about twenty years afterwards. (Liberal scholars date them even later.) Now, I suppose its possible Andy was correct that the Mark and John were Apostles as teenagers, but the idea they did their writing as teenagers is a view outside of any reputable scholarship.

Then, of course, there's Andy seemingly attempting to make 1st Century AD teenagers equivalent to present day teenagers, as if Jesus selected the Apostles by going down to the Mall at Jerusalem and selecting twelve of the kids hanging out at the (kosher) food court. There was no concept of being a teenager then; a thirteen year old male would have been expected to be an apprentice by then, and a thirteen year old female would have been expected to be looking for a husband. In other words, they were considered adults. If you want to accept the kernel of Andy's argument about young people being more valuable, the modern analogy would be Jesus seeking out college age types, rather than teenagers. MDB (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

MDB, I have an open mind about this but you seem to be missing the point. Nobody doubts John is a perfect example of "Best of the public". He did not write for a "learned audience"(experts) nor was he part of such a group. Nothing is wrong with a view outside of "any" reputable scholarship. You must be wary of liberal deceit, don't propagate it. Godspeed. Internetmoniker (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

LowKey

Not sure if this is big news, but LowKey's been unblocked. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 03:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been told ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Predictable, he's blocked for 5 months and the best they can say is "watch yourself, mother fucker! I've no more patience for you!" instead of an apology. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, TK was his typical nasty self (sounds like the unblocking went against his whaling wishes) but at least JPatt said "Creationist may return if so chooses. I may have recklessly blocked." in the unblock comment. ħuman 23:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wuhao19whatever

hehe, if you werent toast already, you will be^img very soon^img 03:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

side note - i like that tk lables a third century daoist monk "pop culture" 03:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ECx1236127836) Hey, I wouldn't mind being toast myself! :D Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 03:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, acshually. The honey (or Marmite or marmalade) gets everywhere. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds really, really hot. :3 Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

lol @ Norseman.. that made me laugh. :p Refugee^{talk page} 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I just did an anagram of raionalwiki....Anal Kiwi Riot ....;) -- Lipps

When you're in a hole: stop diggin'

Andy repeatedly says something indefensible and then refuses to back down^img. How many things has he done this on now? Have we got an article on "stubborn wrongness"? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep going Andy - π 03:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I like how he begins each response with "I have an open mind about this...but...." Aceⁱ⁹ 03:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

But he left a loophole: "I look forward to our translation work on the Joshua passage (and New Testament passages) to see if that brings forth insights." We can all predict what will happen next. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My favorite part is how he notes light takes longer to circle the globe. Yes, because Jesus's magic healing rays can travel faster than light but they cannot penetrate the Earth's mantle.

In any case, Capernaum lay ~25 miles east of Cana (as the crow circumnavigates). At the speed of light (and thus not violating relativity) Jesus's heal-ray could reach the sick boy in 0.00013 seconds. Compared to the time it would take a bedside observer to notice that the child's fever had "broken" (surely a few seconds?) we reach the inescapable conclusion that Andy is an idiot. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I loved "of the army that they sun did not" although I', sure - certain - that he fixed his illiteracy in a later edit. ħuman 05:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't have an article on stubborn wrongness, but another user noted the same thing a few weeks ago, and an article has been created about this typical Andy behavior... Can't remember what it was called atm, tho... --GTac (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This was it: Conservapedia:Schlafly Stretch. I think the article can use some expanding anyways, like adding some more examples (christ invented humor!) --GTac (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. MDB (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, awesome work! --GTac (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a funny: "if the Joshua account (Sun stops moving through the sky, ie, the Earth's spin grinds to a halt for about 24 hours, then starts up again) is taken absolutely literally, Newtonian mechanics does not say it is impossible". Right...--WJThomas (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If the earth stopped spinning suddenly, anything not firmly attached to the ground (such as, oh I dunno, THE MEDITERRANEAN) would fly eastward at an initial tangential velocity of about 1000 mph. Thus scouring the Middle Eastern battlefield of the Amorites, I guess, except they'd be flying east at 1000 mph as well... (This speed, btw, is impressive but sadly falls short of the 25,000 mph needed to launch the Israelites into space). Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 12:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if the healing occured 'instantly', there would still be a delay caused by the speed of light for the witnesses to observe that the healing had taken place. Actually - modify that, since there's a delay due to the speed of sound for them top hear that Jesus is healing the child... On onother train of thought, it would be easy to find examples of whitnesses describing events as instant when they were not literally (the ref sent the player off instantly etc)

Oh yeh then why is bible most logic book open your mind more you should do research and accept facts you are the only one with free will relativity is liberal false! Or something like that, that's about as much sense and substance as Andy is making right about now.. --GTac (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Old discussion

Does anyone have links / captures for the time when Schlafly insulted a student's homework and then the student's mother complained on his talk page about her daughter being in tears? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes? Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 11:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting situation. Thanks, AB. It appears that they've deep burned pretty much everything related to the parent and the student. I love Andy's descriptive and considerate reason for the ban: "run along now". There are more images linked in the economics WIGO found at CP WIGO Talk archive, including Andy's heart-warming comment made on deletion of the student's work. Crundy, you said a while back that you were working on some kind of student related list. How's it going? --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it now. I've written up the LydiaM discussion (I saved the markup, but if anyone has the captures for those then it would be appreciated). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, from that capture above, does anyone have assfly's response (other than deleting the page)? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is what I've got so far. Needs some styling and rewording. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Andy likely thought the whole thing was the work of parodists, and there's a pretty good chance he was right. Even he's probably figured out by now that no one who's not physically enrolled in his "classes" does his homework except parodists. DickTurpis (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a similar thought, so I started a discussion on the talk page for Crundy's article. CP's grand old tradition of erratic and malicious behaviour, combined with burning the evidence, make it difficult for me to accept that someone is a parodist unless that was asserted in the reason for banning someone. I suggested Crundy add something to this effect to the article, so at least the readers can make up their own minds.--^{Ask me about your mother} 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that the answers were not 100% clear parody. They simply did not conform to andy's worldview. He massively overreacted and was exceptionally rude to the users which was completely uneccessary. It sends out a clear message of "If your child answers my questions in an incorrect fashion I will treat them like shit. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. Now, if Andy knew these were RW socks, then his reaction is understandable, but until he knew for certain his behavior was inexcusable. That being said, I reckon the probability of those two students being parodists is more likely than the probability that Castro is alive, but less than the probability that you oppose school prayer. DickTurpis (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm actually still surprised by some of Andy's responses to students and other users. It's clear that he has to say barmy things, on account of his beliefs being quite barmy, but not so obvious why he behaves like a sociopathic little fucker. I hope parents see his comments before placing their children in the care of Andy and Co. It's one thing wanting your kids to have a largely fictional understanding of the world, but quite another to place them in the care of a guy who without having his own blog would be occupying himself by flinging insults via YouTube comments. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Theory of Relativity may have interfered with scientific progress

Only in Andyland 194.6.79.200 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WIGO that shizz. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Relativity is slowly becoming the scourge of the world on CP. First it stops people reading the bible, and now it's hindering science too? I can't wait for the inevitable link between relativity and men bumming other men. Someone get Ken on the phone. 194.6.79.200 (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I love Andy's conversation on the talk page with FrankC. 8:00 the experts disagree with you. 9.27: never mind the experts, why not use your own mind? Cantabrigian (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an undeniable fact that 95% of gay men accept the principles of relativity. I love how Andy has repeated the delusion that he has an open mind five times on that page. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

...and we're off!^img !!!!

That "Quantifying openmindedness" essay should be renamed to "do you agree with all my stupid arguments?". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Examples of Open-mindedness:

Sane person:

I generally like simple ice cream flavors like plain chocolate, but I'd be willing to try some of the odd mixtures you can get at Ben and Jerry's.

Andy Schlafly:

If you don't think Conservapedia-Brand (tm) Strawberry, Pickles, and Crunchy Frog Ice Cream Surprise is the greatest ice cream flavor in the history of dairy products, you're a closed-minded lib-burr-ull! #banhammer#

MDB (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the funny thing. According to assfly you're only open minded if you close your mind to all reasoning apart from his. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's Andy's MO. Even if you agree with him he'll go, "Hmm, you were nearly right but you missed some key insights. Try agreeing with me more!" His idea that he (and only he) has a grip on an "objective" definition of "conservative movie" is one example... He praised one list of conservative movies but noted that it left off some of the movies on his list. Because, you know, Andy's brain is the answer sheet against which the world's homework is checked. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

the purge continues

Andy seems to be using what-links-here to carry out his relativity beef. 194.6.79.200 (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, even satnavs aren't safe from andy's reasoning. Maybe satnavs tell people where they are using Jesus' love? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was mistaken; Frank pointed out that GPS contradicts Andy's "no useful device" meme, so Andy promptly bent reality to fit his point of view. 194.6.79.200 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"GPS is a work of engineering and any timing discrepancies between the satellite and ground are obviously better handled directly by synchronization rather than asking a physicist what he thinks of relativity. Engineers don't even bother taking general relativity courses, let alone try to build a satellite system using them."^img Seriously, Andy, you are an utter moron. No one asks physicists what they think about relativity to use relativity. It's used to calculate with precision the effects of gravity on two masses, in this instance. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Andy not realize that what he's saying is verifiable? The GPS satellites exist. No, really. Somewhere, there are also people who built them, designs for them, probably tons of patents related to them, scientific and technical papers, maybe some prototypes even, all of which can and/or will confirm that they use clocks with relativistic corrections. This isn't like saying "The Bible contains liberal bias" or some similar crap that ultimately comes down to some degree of subjectivity (however stupid that may be). No, in this case anyone with enough ambition can, if they want, take a peek at these devices and their clocks and say "yep, there's a relativistic offset in there". Andy continues to impress in his level of reality denial.--El Presidente (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The latest FrankC/Andy convo...

is brilliant! Really shows that Andy utterly disregards evidence against his own beliefs in favour of something he made up himself. Deserves to go all the way to the top. EddyP (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I particularly like how Andy, who will use any Bible verse in any context to "prove" he's right, suddenly tells someone to think for himself when the Bible is used to contradict Andy's idiocy. Brilliant. You know, if I could have one superpower, I think I'd like the ability to magically appear in front of Andy every time he uses the phrase "open mind", kick him square in the nuts, and disappear again. DickTurpis (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you be able to control that and skip a few? If might be hard to get anything done otherwise. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 17:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm imagining it would be optional, not automatic, but I can't see myself passing up the opportunity very often. DickTurpis (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This really is one of those conversations where you read Andy's responses and it's like your mind just ran into a brick wall at 60 mph. If this doesn't show absolutely, positively, 100% that Andy is twisting the Bible to fit his own beliefs I don't know what does. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 18:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What I want Andy to understand is that God doesn't need to give a crap about the laws of physics - that's what performing a miracle is all about. Etc 18:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Can there be any remaining doubt that Andy is either a) certifiable or b) a parodist? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 19:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(a). What do I win? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For a long while now I've been wondering whether andy actually believes the shit he says, or if he's just acting a role and/or refusing to admit he's wrong. His academic acomplishments are undeniable, but the only word I can think of that accurately sums up his behaviour on CP is "stupid". And not "stupid" in that he's a lawyer/engineer who hasn't quite grasped an advanced concept in physics, but "stupid" like a grown man sitting at a table, spending hours trying to fit the square shape into the triangle hole on a child's toy without realising why its not working. Surely he *must* see it. He must know what he's saying is stupid. There has to be another reason behind it, he can't honestly think he's the most amazing thing ever, which is what he's saying. There's no other way to interpret his attitude other than "everything I say or do is right, and I'm smarter than everyone else at everything." X Stickman (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a mini, informal poll on this basic concept not too long ago. See here, the specific question was different, but the theory is the same. People seem to think Andy really is that stupid. I honestly think he may well be losing his mind. There's no way he could have succeeded academically if he was always like this, and some cursory inquiries someone here made of people who knew him in the past seemed to indicate that while he was always obvious very conservative, he wasn't this batshit crazy back in the day. DickTurpis (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He's aged rather badly, I feel. Compare this with this. And the more you repeat something (even in your head) the more you believe it, and for how many years has Andy been spouting 'liberals=shit' and the like on CP? EddyP (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, you can't judge someone's mental state based on a few snippets on the TV and the Internet. More likely, this is just his agenda. Bash liberals, attack anything that even remotely contradicts a YEC outlook, and build up supporting evidence for a right-wing interpretation of the Bible. Others have been doing it for years - it's nothing new. Just a new medium. Whether he believes it or not is largely irrelevant because he would never admit that he didn't. The best favour anyone here can do is to keep exposing the contradictions and irrationality for the sake of anyone who might be taken in, especially the young. Using pop psychology on an internet persona isn't productive (even if it does generate instant snark gratification). Ajkgordon (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confident we have more than enough evidence to draw psychological conclusions. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There's more to Andy than just an agenda. Andy hurts his own agenda fairly spectacularly on a daily basis and hasn't yet realized it. I'm certain there are problems in there somewhere. EddyP (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Being bad at it doesn't imply there's more to it :) Ajkgordon (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I still say he only gets crazy on CP. Internet does that to people, along with the absolute power Andy has there. Anywhere else, (TV, radio) he comes off as your standard fundie nutter. Broccoli (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say he exaggerates on CP for effect without realising that it does more harm to his cause than good. Mere incompetence isn't crazy. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

FrankC blocked

It figures. It was only a matter of time before Andy realized he had dug his own grave and was about to jump in. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence. The very touch of it must burn Andy's skin. --SpinyNorman (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Language, Timothy.

"Darwin award? Is Karajou now a motherfucking evolutionist? Holy shit ..." Not on a main entry page, surely? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was about to post something similar. That sort of random gratuitous profanity is neither funny nor helpful. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

... as American as apple pie.

I know it's a quote, Ed, and it's quite true but apple pie isn't as American as apple pie, I'm afraid: "English apple pie recipes go back to the time of Chaucer." ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 04:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Apples aren't even indigenous to the New World. Now, hot dogs, sure. Mom? Only the spelling... ħuman 04:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, H, can't even let teh Murcans have the hot dog. (Just to say, the sectionhead & comment were made when I woke in the middle of the night (about 4:00) and I really have no idea what I was on about.) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 07:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

AH, but those are real food. America can lay claim/blame to the toxic concoction known as the hot dog. ħuman 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're just angry because America invented freedom. And capitalism. And Jesus.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 08:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And Guantanamo. And Madoff. And Hovind :: ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 08:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you were on the correct side of the Atlantic I would fist-bump you, o clever one.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 08:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Some areas of the UK (like where I live) say "Mom" rather than "Mum" too. So there's that as well. X Stickman (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Canada, too. Like, for example, where I grew up. Oh, and you guys in the States can't have basketball or baseball either. --Kels (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What about cheeseburgers and french fries? 14:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheeseburgers are a variation on hamburgers - which originated in Hamburg. The act of 'frenching' potatoes comes from Belgium where the US troops at the end of WWI were introduced to this new method of cooking potatoes and, confusing/conflating the Belgians with the French this method was called frenching. So, like most US cuisine, it reflects the polynational make up of the immigrant population. Why they're as 'Mercan as Chicken Tika Masalla is British. Bob Soles (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really wanna be put off the Great American Burger ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 18:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess technically, fortune cookies, being invented in the USA, are more thoroughly American than apple pie or cheeseburgers. Junggai (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the US can still have deep fried Mars bars if they want. --Kels (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that one is strictly Glasgae where they deep fry everything except the Iron Bru. Bob Soles (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Stonehaven, acshually, Bob. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Chicken-fried steak, maybe? --Kels (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that one I'll grant you. Bob Soles (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a chicken-fried steak is just Wiener Schnitzel made with cubed beef instead of veal. Having grown up in Texas, the myth I'm familiar with is that chicken-fried steak originated with the 19th C. German immigrants to the Hill Country. The Italians and Mexicans call it a Milanese. 15:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So what are the poor USians left with? Fortune cookies and sweet & sour chicken balls? --Kels (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Corn dogs came from Texas. There ya go. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

From Arizona:chimichangas. From Texas: fajitas. From Louisiana: Jambalaya and file gumbo. 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Basketball is as American as corn on the cob. First played in the land of the free, to wit: Springfield Mass at the _{cue Village People}YMCA, invented by an expat who had fled the brutal repressive regime that ruled late nineteenth-century Canuckistan with an iron fist. Breathing the sweet air of liberty inspired him to devise a winter activity for urban kids that didn't involve costly equipment (i.e. ice skates) and access to a frozen pond, and that would allow the players to keep most of their teeth. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Every modern food is essentially American, because it all contains high-fructose corn syrup - created by Americans from an American foodstuff. Suck down our sugary death syrup, world! Also we invented jazz and rock and roll.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 16:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Cheeseburgers are considered American because an American eatery was the first to start selling them (IE, you didn't have to ask for it specially). Furthermore, Iced Tea, Tang, Concentrated drinks of all kinds, most soft drinks, hot dogs (as we know them today), many food invented on the fair circuit (deep fried Coca Cola, Twinkies, etc.) and a good number of other inventions are American. Plus, America is the king of taking something that exists and making it better (see the Croissanwich.) SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Croissanwich is an example of the opposite of making things better. Croissants are at their finest when not fucked around with. --Kels (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope.... I'll take the BK sandwich over one of those Glorified French Biscuits anyday. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 22:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm a few days behind here, but I must point out that Chicken Tikka Masala is British; the dish being created relatively recently in a curry house in Britain when a bloke asked for some sauce for his chicken tikka. PS. X Stickman must be a Brummie! (or a Yam Yam) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed a yamyam. As someone who went to London to attend university, where people fail to make the distinction between Birmingham and the Black Country, I must say I am touched by your acknowledgement of it as a seperate accent. No one else ever believes it is. X Stickman (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Karajou and the anti-whalers

Fucking Karajou. That mother-fucking boat that was rammed was awesome. NZ built, ran on bio-fuel, and was just fucking awesome. I have been onboard and it's top notch. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

THE MOTHER-FUCKING BOB BARKER! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 23:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How long will I get blocked for if I admit I'm on the South Park side of this issue? i.e. that Japan using "research" to circumvent a whaling ban is evil, but getting a camera crew to follow your band of muesli-slurping pirates around is weak shit, and provoking and endangering "real sailors" will get you exactly what you deserve?

C'mon, just watch this youtube and tell me you don't want to punch one of those guys in the face. "Woaaaaaah." Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 02:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I do think it might be a good idea to let the whale populations recover from what we did to them to get oil. ħuman 04:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I keep hoping that the Japanese navy will start blowing them out of the water due to their piracy. I would personally load the guns and sign the piracy complaint. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 07:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 07:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice link Toast. StarFish (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want anyone to die, I just wish that these Greenpeace/Sea Sheperd idiots would realize that piracy is not the way to push their agenda. They're no better than the idiots who bomb abortion clinics and threaten doctors. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 08:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hence my "I have no idea" comment above. It's a good cause promoted by idiots and assholes and, well, what seem to be terrorists. ħuman 08:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember when the Rainbow Warrior was sunk. A national fucking tragedy. Almost as bad as this fucking nightmare......watch the final ball.......Pi has a lot to answer for....

Aceⁱ⁹ 08:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is (to me @least) there's no need whatsoever for anyone to kill a whale (don't gimme "research"). It appears to be purely the taste buds of the Japanese and Norwegians that are being pandered to. So any obstacle in the way is not going to hurt anyone. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 09:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting view about the Sea Shepherds and piracy, but my question would be what is the alternative? Public relations campaigns throughout the world and within Japan have yielded no results. The Australian government (whose waters the conflicts are occurring in) are doing much less now than when the anti-environmentalist party was in power, and the New Zealand government is not much better. The IWC is a complete joke, with Norway and Japan regularly buying the votes of smaller countries with aid. And even if the UN and international courts weigh in, there's no reason why Japan can't simply shrug off the decision (and never mind the fact that Australia would have to start a case, which the government is very reluctant to do). The Sea Shepherds are pretty much the only people protecting the endangered whale population from the Japanese whalers. RyanC (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

People go, they're all moaning on, they say whales are more intelligent than human beings. but they're not. Whales are fucking stupid. Can you mention one whale in the history of mankind that has had a record in the top ten? Can you? Can you mention one whale who's written the equivalent of, er, 'Othello', Shakespeare, 'Health & Efficiency'? They've produced nothing in the way of literature. All they've fucking produced is a load of other whales and all they eat is fucking plankton, and they call them intelligent. Can you imagine drifting along in the sea with your mouth open and a lot of fucking plankton going in? You'd like it, would you, just drifting around in the sea? They're such cunts they can't even breathe underwater. They have to keep coming up the whole fucking time and spouting. Then some cunt comes on telly and he says, "Oh, the whale is being wiped out by mankind, save the fucking whales." Well! During the war, did we notice a lot of whales rallying round and saying, "Save England!" I didn't notice many down my part of the world. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So true. And while I couldn't find the original source the same might be said of babies^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is what they do piracy? Have they ever attacked/hurt anyone? Have they ever tried to steal a vessel? DickTurpis (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

whales through History have aided mankind. Whale Actors - Moby Dick, great performance. Willie - not so much. Whales in literature - Moby Dick. Whales helped evacuate Dunkirk. Whales ate the Nazi frogmen who tried invading England by swimming the channel. Why is one of the British Royal family known as the Prince of Whales ? hmmmm... Whales are great singers, have you never seen cds of whale songs ? Whales are great philosophers and poets. They kept Noahs ark afloat during the Noachian flood. Whales left the land so mankind could have more room, thats true selfless sacrifice. Lets all cheer for the poor defensless whales *yay* Hamster (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To Sheesh, it's piracy because they're disrupting maritime activities. They have attacked people in the past (there was an incident where environmentalists boarded a ship and dropped acid on the main deck in an attempt to disable the ship. They actually ended up burning a crew member. They also routinely manuever their ships in an attempt to disrupt the routes of others. That's pretty blatant piracy. And to Ryan C, even though you may agree with their cause, international piracy isn't the way to go about it. Groups need to start putting political pressure on the regimes allowing this to happen and start an international partnership to ensure the continued cooperation of the countries involved. Apartheid was a horrible system too, but that was solved through political pressure, not some random idiots staging their own mini invasions of South Africa. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 18:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely the political pressure was at least partially brought because of lots of random idiots (like me) staging invasions of the SA "Embassy" (while they had one) in London, forcing the British gov't to think? Similar things happened elsewhere specially in Scandinavia. I don't know about the US. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to look into this some more, but I believe the perpetrators claimed the "acid" was spoiled butter (which, yes, is an acid in the way that orange juice is) used as a sort of stink bomb to make life very unpleasant for the sailors, but not doing any actual harm. I'm also not sure you can call disruption "piracy", particularly if (as these groups claim) the whale hunters are illegal poachers (I suppose the question here is by whose law is it illegal). Attempts to disable the ships by entangling their propellers with rope is perhaps pretty close. DickTurpis (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing the whalers do is illegal poaching because the whaling "ban" is technically a non-binding moratorium not an official international treaty. Japan could in theory start up full commercial whaling and Australia would have little legal recourse. This is why Australia will not legally pursue Japan for their disgusting but restrained "research" program and why the Sea Shepherds don't have a leg to stand on for their "direct action" campaign of vandalism and sabotage. Any ship that tries to put another ship dead in the water deserves the same fate, which is exactly what the Ady Gill got. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive checkuser

Watching, always watching^{img I am eating} _& honey^chat 01:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Gawd, that guy is such a creep. ħuman 08:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that David Cameron is not in government yet. He's still leader of the opposition, though I suppose he has a "government" supplied computer in his Commons office.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised he didn't block for the (reasonable) pretending to be someone famous. Unless TK hasn't heard of our Dave yet? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, why deprive himself of an opportunity to be creepy? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he doesn't know who David Cameron is. Eventhough the UK conservatives are very different from CP-style conservatives I predict they will view Cameron's victory in June as a big sign the world is fed up with Obama/Socialism/Whatever, because the word conservative will be in the news at that time. Internetmoniker (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock after sock after sock will be burned trying to point this out, but Andy will stubbornly insist that Cameron's win is all part of the "inevitable triumph of conservatism". 194.6.79.200 (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Until David Cameron comes out with his list of "Top Conservative Movies Of The Decade." Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The TWO humongous Conservapedia buses

I don't get it, why are they "Conservapedia" buses? There is not even a link to sign up and join that expedition to Washington in the news item. Aside from the news items there is nothing on it on his entire blog. Add to that that if it weren't confined to NJ it would still be pretty hard to fill 2 buses with genuine conservapedia editors. I guess this is a case of conservapedia=Andrew Schlafly, and he's just taking his homeschoolers + parents on a field trip. Internetmoniker (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It gets sillier: TerryH openly advertised this on his blog with sign-up info, so "Conservapedia" means "Andy Schlafly and whoever else in the area needs a free/cheap ride". Keep in mind that (I'd guess) not many of the actual CP editors (active sysops, etc.) would live close enough to join this bus trip unless they first traveled there just to join. --Sid (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In Andy's world, this is what the Conservapedia bus is looking like. The Red-State paint job is a bonus.--SpinyNorman (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, they may set a record. Who's keeping score with these things? What's the previous record? It's all very exciting. I hope they make it! Internetmoniker (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Something, something liberal. Something, something find an example of a larger group. Something, something, Godspeed. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys laugh, but frankly, the idea of being stuck on a bus with Andy for any amount of time is terrifying. Those poor, poor people. X Stickman (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I just had this image of those old coin fortune telling machines where the dummy inside has that mechanical laugh. Sorry, the thought of Andy being framed by a large bus window while laughing at the liberals...--TimS (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy happily touts fake view count

See here. "Andrew Schlafly, 48, said his "Conservapedia" — which, like Wikipedia, relies on posts and editing by registered users — has received 149 million page views in three years." Funny. I seem to remember millions of those being for Portsmouth FC, and millions more being for Law Terms D. 14:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted Internetmoniker (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That picture gives him the same smug, arrogant look of several college professors whom I wanted to roast over a slow fire of their own intestines. MDB (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else think he looks a bit like a cartoon character á la Simpsons in that picture?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe they actually pretend to have 34,259 registered users. How many active contributors do they have? About a dozen? DickTurpis (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The figure is somewhat optimistic, unless Andy considers blocked users such as "000JesusWasGay" and "2girls1cup" to be unblocked in order to make regular and substantive contributions. I had did some quick calculations. I pulled their list of registered users (9000 in my sample), and of those there were 574 (around 6.4%) users that had not yet been banned.

In fairness to Andy, it's not entirely clear that he provided the 34k figure. It's not a direct quote, and could be something added by the author to provide background information. I just hope to see some substantial edits from AnnCoultersAnus. --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm over-analyzing this...

Chippeterson points out that one in five detainees released from Guantanamo Bay joined al Qeada or other militant groups. Presumably he's try to make the argument that we should detain them indefinitely.

Well, looking at it from a more analytic viewpoint then "ZOMG! The Muslims wanna kill us!".... If they joined a militant group after leaving Gitmo, that means they weren't in such a group before. Which means that Gitmo is having a radicalizing effect on them. Which means Gitmo plays into bin Laden's hands.

And if they weren't in a militant group before, then why were they in Gitmo in the first place? MDB (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it relevant that 80% when released had nothign to do with militant groups - maybe they were innocent in the first place. Still, I guess they were guilty of being foreign Bob Soles (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The majority were released by Cheney. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the the implication I got from the Reuters article CP linked to is that none of them were in militant groups before they were in Gitmo, since said article talks about 20% of them signing up after they got out. One possibility for why they were there in the first place is that there have been reports that some Iraqis or Afghanis have reported someone they have a grudge against as a terrorist to the American forces, as a convenient and easy way to get rid of them. Someone stole your girlfriend? "Hey, American soldier. I heard Abdullah over there talking about planting a bomb under your Humvee!"

This is, of course, why we need to grant some semblance of due process to the detainees. I'm enough of a pragmatist to acknowledge that the complexities of war in general means that sometimes we can't grant the full "niceties" of the American justice system, but indefinite detention without habeas corpus seems to be breeding radicals. Like I said above, playing into bin Laden's hands. MDB (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm an ADMIN here!

Now, now, TeaKakkke, you can't fuck with the rules on WP like you do on CP. There are guidelines in place for this. My user page on WP already says I play here, but I'm not an admin here (sorry, don't want the job). If you want the Conservapedia Commandments to be factual, then the administrators must play by them, too, or at least, be more level about their usage with sysops. Aren't editorial cartoons on the front page opinion...? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically, you and about everyone except MC are admins here... Internetmoniker (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not82.23.209.253 (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a sysop. I don't have bureaucratic powers, nor do I make policy, nor do I decide anything about direction on this project. I wouldn't call myself an administrator; manager, possibly. Sysop, definitely. But even that I don't use that much. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sysop, admin potato potahto. That's why I said technically. TK didn't call you a 'crat. Internetmoniker (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You should have found some way to cite Richard Lenski's complaint about people being banhammered for questioning Mr. Schlafly's motives in demanding Prof. Lenski's data. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If we made TK a sysop here, by his definition of admin, would that mean he is arguing he can't have any say on the CP page, too? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus he'd have to ban himself as an "administrator of a vandal site". Unless he's a complete hypocrite of course. oh wait... --PsygremlinTala! 18:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Dudes and dudettes (or should that be chicks and chicksters?), I'd like to pop in and say "flaunt" and "flout" are two different words with very different meanings. "Flaunt" is what I would be doing if I tied a blue ribbon around my willy and let the whole arrangement dangle out in plain public view. I would also be flouting the public (in)decency laws in doing so... Flouting is brazen disobedience of a rule or a law. Flaunting is ostentatious display, with connotations of pride and attention-seeking. Now talk amongst yourselves and go about your business. Thank you. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why can't you be the one teaching my style class? There'd at least be more references to penises...-- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 04:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Make TeaKake a sysop without blocking privileges, lawl. JeffD (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not just make him a regular sysop. The pissing match from days or yore is a a thing of the long past. If we're making sysops out of people who've edited for a few days (I had to wait weeks!) I don't see why TK isn't eligible. 04:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm kinda surprised that nobody in that debate about Commandments has brought up Help:Editing_etiquette^img yet, where it reads "Do not revert an Administrator's changes without first discussing it with them, and gaining their permission. Administrators are in charge of deciding the editorial policy of Conservapedia. Their instruction(s) on such matters are always to be followed."

Sure, it's not policy, but it is an official Conservapedia document, an administrative instruction^img and beautifully showcases how the sysops are more equal than others when it comes to editing. (Yes, I could just add this myself, but my posts tend to go on forever because I keep thinking of stuff to add, resulting in a TL;DR situation. So you guys might be better suited. And I'm not an active Wikipedian and have little time to actively follow the discussion.) --Sid (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually TK has been a sysop here several times. Генгис^{Gum disease} 09:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

NJ Senate gay marriage vote

Andy has something of a point in that it is actually significant - if it passes (which is doubtful) it will mean a resurgence in momentum for the same-sex marriage movement. But if it fails, it means very little outside of NJ. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but it doesn't make it any less ludicrous that Conservapedia's front page simultaneously features items declaring that the NJ legislature refuses to vote, and was about to vote, on the matter. Both of which were, no doubt, victories for God. - Poor Excuse (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If it passes it means he cannot bar his brudder from the neighborhood, should his sibling (John, I believe), choose to A) Marry and B) Live anywhere near to Ashfly. 22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

Update

It failed (I just saw it on the news). Andy will plaster this all over the main page in 3...2...1... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

...0^{img I am eating} _& honey^chat 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

3.14159 intrawebz to the person who burns a sock to ask Andy whether he's called his brother John to see whether he's stopped being gay, now that the gay agenda has been stopped. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Andy understands the actual meaning of the Waterloo expression, unless he really does expect that John has now switched ends. I wonder as well why CP doesn't yet have a "Black Agenda" article up? Andy surely can't just sit by while blacks enjoy the freedom that should be curtailed by the curse of Ham? --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) A 20-14 vote is a "Waterloo for the homosexual agenda." Wow Andy, what color is the sky in your world? And @CR: thankfully Andy is not that kind of fundie. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't New Jersey that state that the simpsons and futurama always make fun of? Also, why is a defeat in a single state such a big thing? It's happened before and none of them were waterloos. Hell, california's prop 8 would be more of a waterloo, surely. X Stickman (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Simpsons mostly makes fun of middle America, though as an NJ resident myself I admit a lot of it can also apply to NJ. The vote certainly isn't a Waterloo, that's just the way Andy thinks. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's also Jon Stewart. He rags on NJ all the time (cuz he's from NY) for example this hilarious clip. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, that's a good one. SNL rags on New Jersey as well, for obvious reasons. One the other hand, Bill Maher grew up in my hometown. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, but absolutely hilarious in context

Karajou: "The idea is to take your writing first to the sandbox on this site, or to Microsoft Word (or similar program) and write it and re-write and re-write and re-write until it reads the way you want it to read when you submit it to a college professor"^img

All fine and dandy until you realize that this is the same site that has Ed and Ken as sysops. Sure, almost no sysop writes at the level Kara would (rightfully) like to see, but those two are the most obvious cases. --Sid (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you forget that people who make the policy don't have to follow it. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

contradictory WIGO

The same User that we're laughing at on the WIGO CP page and that Sid is talking about above was declared an unfunny "obvious parodist" a few days ago, he was the guy with the transvestite crap... lol.. Rational wiki.. consistency gentlemen! JeffD (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We have always been at war with Eastasia. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

so Eastasia doesn't send a team to the olympics? JeffD (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

They did, but we didn't let them in. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

TK burned the Christmas Image?.

I wasnt sure if he burned it or legitmately deleted a dup., thoughts? Screencap --> Media:tklol.jpg JeffD (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The neon one? Psy pointed out his plagiarism over at WP, so he's just getting rid of the evidence like usual. -Redback^G'day 03:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Burning his tracks of criminality. ħuman 03:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservative films rehash

Here's the article again. (no capture tags please, it's not a diff link) WTF is up with #18? I've seen it and there is nothing even remotely conservative about it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Expert gets his comeuppance? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 03:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I love how #18 (Ghostbusters) was noted simply because one of the secondary villians was from the EPA... <headdesk> -Ravenhull (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but how does Andy think Spiderman is a Conservative film? I mean, (excuse me while I nerd up) after Peter Parker wins the wrestling match, the promoter screws him over. After that, Peter refuses to stop the guy who robs him in a petty act of self interest revenge. The robber goes out and shoots his uncle, that's when Parker realizes that his powers are not for his own personal benefit, he has to sacrifice his own interests for the greater good (which, for the record, is what nearly destroys his relationship with Mary Jane in the comics). For crying out loud, I've never seen more blatant Socialism in a superhero. Not to mention "Hero chooses abstinence?" You're really reaching guys. Fucking idiots, ruining everything I like. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 06:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused by the selection of Rudy. It's a fairly obscure film (at least in the UK), but one of my favourites. Not quite sure why it's conservative though - any ideas? Worm^{(t | c)}

Right on with Spiderman. "With great power comes responsibility" is really just socialist code for "Marxist redistribution." Junggai (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As with all things Andy, it probably comes down to: "Movies I like = Conservative movies." Plus a few obvious ones (like the Reagan one). -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 15:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was really amused by #48: Hero. Sure, conservative ... for a very Chinese definition of "conservative". Didn't they realize that the basic message is Chinese propaganda advocating military annexation of Taiwan? It's still a cool movie, but I doubt they understood what it's all about. 91.3.139.72 (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Ward Poor Article

Did anyone notice Ed's little scrap with a user who reverted Ed inserting his personal details into an article Ed wrote about his grandfather, "here at CP we are free to blow our own horns" See: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Edmund_Ward_Poor&action=history^img JeffD (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"He died in the late 1960s, but his grandson edits encyclopedia articles for various wikis." Own horn or not, it doesn't make grammatical sense. It would also be nice if his edits were actually substantive rather than an erratic stream of random drivel.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

cheers to that mate. When I was on CP he blocked me for "censoring issues" in a Women in Islam article, despite the fact that 2/3 of it were about restrictions on women from the Quran and the Hadith, the so-called censorship was that I had removed his little stubby drivel about honour-killings of women being common practice. In short, Ed is a wanker. 'nuff said JeffD (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really a case of Ed blowing his own horn. It's more accurately described as his insertion of his mediocre person in to an article about someone who may well have led a productive life, yet not done enough to warrant a mention. It would be like writing an article about the founder of Safeway, and feeling the need to point out that his daughter posts comments on some forums. It'd be different if Ed was a celebrated author, perhaps writing for a major newspaper, but all he does is randomly spurt his words around the site of a failed politician/lawyer/engineer/human. Perhaps I'm being unfair, but is his life so fucking tragic and devoid of worth that he needs to pimp himself in a corpse's article? Ed, you've already passed on your genetic material, so just sit out of the way and hope that your kids put it to better use than you have. --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He got slapped for linking to himself on Wikipedia. - π 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

More than once. ħuman 01:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary almost made me feel sorry for him, only almost. - π 01:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, "a few months ago he added a mention of himself to Charles Lane Poor (who was a notable astronomer)"

He links to an article that use to be there. Why? - π 03:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, That's just tragic. This is the natural extension of being escorted to the prom by one's own mother, on account of necessity. --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And after years of on-and-off discussion and two AfDs... redirected. ħuman 01:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Defying the liberal model

In which Ed sez science "provides systematic descriptions of everything in the world and all of human experience". Gee, those whacky scientists have done it again. Worked themselves right out of a job, they have. Describing all done, nothing to see here. All human experience? Never mind literature and the arts-- way too unsystematic, besides the Simpsons science did it. _{my familiar demon made me type this} Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and women don't know shit! Fuck off, Ed.--_{sloqɯʎs puɐ suƃıs}uɐɪɹɐssoʎ 06:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Poor old Bert

Is still not trusted to edit some pages.^{img I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 22:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And Bert has a really odd third-person thing going on. Check out his site and the various places where his stuff has been reproduced. Concernedresident thinks that Bert is kind of odd. --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I second that. And his obsession with KAL 007 even manages to top FOIA's thing for Alger Hiss. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed stubs

Shouldn't we have a page for Ed's stubs? Latest:"In Excuses Begone!, Dr. Wayne Dyer expresses the confidence that "entrenched ways of thinking and acting can indeed be eradicated."^img" I am eating _& honey^chat 22:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty good idea for a sub page of the Ed article. The creepy old man has left behind a pretty obvious trail of stubs on WP and CP. I sometimes wonder if Ed should just quit CP and instead write his own encyclopedia in the medium of post-it notes? --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a superb idea: "EdPoorPedia". Every article has to be shorter than, say, two dozen words long.--WJThomas (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Ed creates an article that gives the reader no fucking idea what he is talking about. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Jake's sorted it (hi Jake!)^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To refine the idea a bit, call it the "PoorTwitaPedia", where edits and articles can not be any longer than a tweet. --SpinyNorman (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Working on this. Yes I have no life. Worm^{(t | c)} 01:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, these figures are a bit rough, due to the way they are collected, and the fact that it's not 100% easy to get the information. But basically I've collated a list of all mainspace articles that were started by Ed. The basics are that Ed has created around 2,500 articles, but nearly 1000 of these are just redirects, which leaves around 1,500 actual articles. Of these articles around 500 are less than 500 bytes, which I think qualifies as a stub, and around 250 are less than 300 bytes, which would probably qualify as a Tweet. So "PoorTwitaPedia" would have about 250 pages. Worm^{(t | c)} 17:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That would make about 75K - enough to fit on a large single Wiki page. A nice little project if you'd care to proceed. There won't be much in the way of x-refs or categories worry about either.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Something like this? (initial draft) There are obvious issues with templates that don't exist or are different. Not sure of the best way to approach this? I've removed categories and DEFAULTSORT details as I don't think they're really needed.Worm^{(t | c)} 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Eggsellent, Worm! Just <nowiki> each line? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 21:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow... it would be interesting to see the Wikipedia version of PoorTwitaPedia... ħuman 20:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Much bigger project, due to the scale of Wikipedia. I'll have a look though. Worm^{(t | c)} 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Gut feeling is that it will be different, in that a stub on CP is likely to remain a stub. On WP this is far less likely. The version for CP is articles that are still stubs - for WP that's not going to work (IMO), and would be a list of what started as stubs. Worm^{(t | c)} 21:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in terms of scale, it turns out to be a similar story. Ed created about 2,500 mainspace articles on WP, of which about 1,000 are redirects. Of the remaining 1,500 articles he created, some have since become redirects, but that's harder to pick up. Anyway, about 500 of these articles were below 250 chars (when created), and around 250 were below 140 characters - so could officially be Tweets. Exactly the same picture as CP in numbers, so at least he's consistently useless. There are some issues here, mainly due to the fact that Ed has a habit of creating a page with virtually no text, then gradually adding to it over a few edits, though rarely does he take them above 'stub' status, so it's maybe not a huge issue. The main difference (as noted above) is that WP stubs tend to get improved over time - CP is not quite as good at this :) Worm^{(t | c)} 02:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for contrast, I checked the figures for Conservative on CP. He's only created about 350 mainspace articles, of which about 100 are redirects, and of the other 250, only about 20 are less than 140 characters. Going to check Andy Pants now. Worm^{(t | c)} 19:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This may be libelous...

.... so delete it as need be, but is "Creepy" Uncle Ed posting his "Things To Do" list? ^{— Unsigned, by: MDB / talk / contribs}

Teach the controversy and let the school kids make up their own minds. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty creepy. And I clicked through a lot of links before I found a sexual page that wasn't originally a stub of his. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 17:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Either it's a creepy coincidence or a Fruedian slip and a half. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Libelous or not, I now have the phrase "Rape: Teach the Controversy" stuck in my head and can't get it out. ^postate 18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Google suggestions!!

Wow, that's a new level of stupidity. For the other way around try muslims want vs christians want. Internetmoniker (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Link^{img I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 00:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As an aside - typing Conservapedia is into Google brings up some nice autocomplete entries :) Worm^{(t | c)} 01:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It is odd that "Islam is" has no autocomplete suggestions, though, isn't it? ħuman 02:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the main source of this butthurt is that a certain search engine starting with G doesn't filter the "Conservapedia is" searches as well. Top 5 autocomplete suggestions on google.com.au are Conservapedia is a joke, is down, is bullshit, is retarded and is insane. Poor TK, your banhammer doesn't work on the rest of the webs. -Redback^G'day 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Edit: Props to Wormy for mentioning this first, I was merely elaborating ;)

Just a silly thought, it couldn't be something to do with 'is' being part of 'Islam' could it? --Sean^talk 02:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A good thought, but "island is" returns autocomplete suggestions. But dude - check out "Hinduism is", it's harsh. Let's not get started on the results for "America is", either on the American or Australian google. -Redback^G'day 02:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay it's definitely not censorship. Type in 'is Islam' and look at the results. --Sean^talk 03:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right about that one, "is Islam" returns some interesting results. But are Andy et al. actually right for once? I find it hard to believe that there are no results beginning with "Islam is," especially after looking at webshites like this.Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the results are too offensive and are filtered accordingly. --149.254.217.85 (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely Andy's point, that Google "protects" Islam by filtering offensive results but does not do the same for Christianity. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It was TK that made the post. - π 04:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then, so in that case: is TK actually right? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A more important question is: who cares? - π 04:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying that it's a significant point, I'm just curious as to whether he is right or not. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Google sez: It's a software problem. Also, the best autocomplete for "Is Islam..." is "...a country". -Doppelheuer (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want harsh, try "Obama is" Junggai (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to see if The Big G does "fix it". It's certainly an "interesting" bug... ^postate 19:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I would say that it's unlikely to be a deliberate attempt to censor, as the first two image results when I search for 'Islam is' are (warning to anyone of an Islamic persuasion - you will very probably be highly offended by this) this and this 92.21.151.249 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, 8 months ago calling

That has been a block reason since last April. - π 04:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Then feel free to point it out for me, and where it's been used in the recent past? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been used, and you write crappy wigos. ħuman 05:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you might write good ones as well. Who knows, who cares who writes them? The source is CP, and their recent changes are available to all. ħuman 05:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's arbitrary, especially after TK was whining on WP that they use the CC as guidelines for their site. It's not listed there that THOU SHALT EDIT EVERY SO OFTEN; maybe Thomas had to go to college, is off fighting in a war, or just had a kid and found something that took up his time and couldn't edit. Does this mean he won't return? No. So the block is not only pointless, but nowhere to be found as an offense for which one gets banned. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's supposedly for protecting accounts so Huw/Kels/Sid/Trent/Ames doesn't haxor them. What's moderately humorous is that I believe TK decreed that email shall be unblocked for requests to return. "A" for effort. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 05:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He always gets to them just before I exercise my control over them, the bastard! Is he omniscient? ħuman 05:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember why they block accounts with no edits, they were paranoid about a possible mass vandalism spree with all the unused accounts. - π 06:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(UI)Well, by that logic I'd best go burn down all the vacant houses in the neighborhood before a bunch of vandals move in. -Redback^G'day 07:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. - π 07:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Google

He just doesn't understand how a search engine works does he? There's a pretty good reason why wikipedia is regularly near the top in search results, and that site specific search bar has been around quite a while now and not just for wikipedia. Jammy (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

At least he's being wrong with authority. Professor Moriarty 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just another case of "I do this, so everyone does." He can't be bothered to scroll down and check anything out below the top three links, therefore no one else ever does. X Stickman (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Could it be he thinks the Google search engine works the same as the engine in his muscle car? This sounds silly, but AS believes moral relativity is somehow related to general/special relativity.--Simple (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He is also confusing the drop-down autofill suggestions with the results of doing the search... ħuman 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone mentioned reality and got reverted lol--Thanatos (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Weakly T00N - Liberals can't drive boats?

Karajou thinks that liberals can't drive a boat. Or maybe whalers are all conservatives? Or... what? The biggest whaling countries aren't Christian, so... I'm lost. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you sail boats? - π 10:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Or steer? - π 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he means, um, well, oh shit, I'm as confused as you. Do-gooders phail because they're liberal? ħuman 05:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

See this^img for context. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, I still don't get the 'toon. And his whales are not as good as his polar bears. ħuman 07:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, another Karajou attempt at topical humor. Seriously K, you're killing me. Go swab a deck or something. I think his main point is that liberals are so stupid they destroy themselves trying to protect whales.... But it's hard to say, it could just be that he's a fucking moron. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 08:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am just pissed we still have armed Japanese ships in our waters. - π 08:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Our" waters? ħuman 09:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything in the yellow area belongs to Australia. - π 12:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I hear you on that one. Labor just sits there saying "we're working on it... still", and it seems that the Liberals (Australian definition of Liberal) actually don't seem to care at all. Their leader's been on the news trying to convince us that if the current government tries to stop the whalers, Japan will cease importing from us and we'll all die a horrible inflation-related death. So far as I'm concerned (and I believe I speak for a large portion of Australians as well), the whalers can go fornicate themselves sideways with the sharp end of their harpoons - but not before they get the fuck out of our territory (we don't want blood on the clean carpets after all). -Redback^G'day 09:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The bullshit of it the navy will piss away millions chasing a few Argentinean fishermen all the way to South Africa over some fish, but the fucking large harpoon ships get a free pass. They are in our sovereign territory with guns, at what point does the navy do its actual job? - π 10:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Lemme just say, I think the whalers are bad peoples and hurt pretty kitties. I also think the activists trying to fight the bad kitteh killers present a lousy face. Then again, that's all based on some crappy History Channel show. Save teh sea kittehs! ħuman 09:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

But F**K Land Fish! SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 09:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I liek dirt kittehs and water kittehs!!!! Theys bothe prettie! ħuman 09:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

THE JOKE IS LIBERALS SUCK. It's the joke everytime, and all you need to know.--GTac (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the first cartoon that didn't even try to have a punchline (well, maybe the Kippy The Liberal Clown one counted). It also looks like they're getting sketchier and sketchier. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 12:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pity. An okay build-up in the first four panels... and then Karajou apparently remembered that he somehow has to insert "LIBERALS SUCK". The result is... oddly broken. --Sid (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though I worship the water Carl Giles walked on, there's something to be said for a multi-panel cartoon... if the person drawing it actually knows something about cartooning, instead of combining a poor drawing skill with a non-functioning sense of humour. Now, Karajou, sweetheart, I know you read this, so take note. In a 4-panel cartoon (don't use 6, it's stupid and verbose and you aren't getting your point across. Only the Sunday Garfield uses 6 panels) each panel serves a purpose. panel 1 = setting the scene; panel 2 = development; panel 3 = climax (no Uncle Ed, not that kind); panel 4 = conclusion. Easy enough. Now run along and try that out. Look, here's an example. --PsygremlinPrata! 13:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

*yawn* Another week few days, another awful 'toon that has no comedic value unless you think "'liberals suck" is inherently funny every time. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Except for the bad artwork this time, the first 3 panels are fine, good use of the word "intentions". The fourth (and last) panel could have had a real punchline, the set-up was there. Internetmoniker (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I"ll give him this much, he's finally made a cartoon about something other than global warming. Of all the things wrong with his cartoons, using 6 panels is the least of his concerns (This Modern World uses 6). He really should be giving a high priority to attempts to make them funny. I figured he'd never be able to write one a week, as it actually takes some skill to do so, but I forgot it's easy to write cartoons if they are devoid of humor, and if you use the same jokes (if I may even call them that) over and over. He drew some decent bears. I'll give him that much. his whales are serviceable, I suppose. DickTurpis (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

But Karajou was In The Navy (you can sail the seven seas) and he thinks that boats or ships are driven? What a dork!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not recent, but still interesting

I was just looking at CP's information article (written mostly by PJR), and I think some of it is bullshit of the very best kind. For example, is information really the "third fundamental quality of the universe"? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's fundamental quantity and not quality, but it's still kinda "...wha?". This claim is so vague and random that I'd like PJR to provide a source just so we can get some context. In it's current form, it's far beyond right or wrong. I had to look up "fundamental quantity" through Google (and found this page), but I still can't decide if this is a misunderstanding, a CMI claim or simply Philip's version of an Andy Insight. --Sid (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything to promote the (negative) equivalence of information and entropy. Information cannot increase especially in evolutionary terms. That's PJR. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 22:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We should get him to debate larron. Now that would be fun to watch. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Muscle Cars

"placing a powerful engine in a classic two-door car for highly efficient performance" - this must be some new conservative meaning of the word efficient. I'm not sure that single figure mpg figures counts as efficient anywhere else. Bob Soles (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

8 mpg for the new Ford Mustang isn't it? Even Top Gear mocked that one as a bit wasteful. ^postate 18:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeh, Clarkson got one and on a full tank he couldn't get from his house to work! Seriously, that isn't the concept of a muscle car at all. --GTac (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Most of the muscle cars of the 60's and 70's ran between 8 and 15 MPG, but that is not the point. How the hell is "Muscle Car" a conservative word in the first place? Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 18:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it's very American and libruls hate America. I added the "highly efficient performance" to the WIGO, if I was mistaken about this remove it. --GTac (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the low mpg means you fill up a lot, which is good for the oil companies, good for business, profit, yadayadayada... obvious really. ^postate 18:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is such a wonderful example of "That's not right - it's not even wrong!". Muscle cars aren't "efficient". Efficiency is not "conservative". Etc 18:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Beg to differ. Muscle cars were efficient devices for trolling for babes in the 1970s. I know, because I didn't have one, and couldn't get any girls to go on bike rides with me.--Simple (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it is hard to ride a bike in a mini-skirt. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that "muscle car" is a conservative term because Andy loves muscle cars. How old is Andy anyway? Is he ripe for a midlife crisis? Like buying a new car and cruisin' with the top down and his shirt open, displaying a medallion with the CP logo on it? X Stickman (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Stickman, i think you hit the nail right on the head. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think rather: Andy thinks that real men like "muscle cars". He's gotta show himself to be a real man so he's gotta approve of muscle cars. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 22:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Masculinity eroded by females? I bet those bitches 'n' hoes are clamouring for Andy. SJ ^Debaser 22:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy has previously given me impressions such as that he's stupid, sexist, paranoid, mentally disabled, deceitful and much much more, but this is the first time I have the impression that he has a really small penis. Etc 22:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As the great Peter Griffin once said: "Every guy you see with a big house or a fancy car or a shiny gold tooth is really just saying "Don't look at my penis." SJ ^Debaser 22:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if his wife makes him drive a minivan? Also, do we now have further insight into those really big buses he's chartering? ħuman 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Along these lines, but totally off subject, my favoirte bumper sticker is "Nice Hummer, Sorry about your penis." SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 22:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that Andy's reasoning is that liberals are the ones who emphasise efficiency and restraint in the name of global warming. So driving a fuel waster is cocking a snook at them. However, I would have thought restraint and carfeulness with money were very much conservative values. It's just another case of Andy's thoughtless librul-bashing. Private Eye readers will probably recognise a bit of the Dave Spart in Andy's arguments. Генгис^{Gum disease} 11:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ken!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the flare is up!^img THAR SHE BLOWS!!!!!!!! Aceⁱ⁹ 06:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Now what did you do to Ken? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ewwwwww TK is a fag creepy. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

TK stole my joke. Mei strongly disapproved. -- =w= 07:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahahahahaha!! Ace, lock your doors! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken makes no sense. Ace, is that you flailing about in the ocean with a flare? SJ ^Debaser 17:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Economics Midterm Exam for girls

Hey all, new here so sorry if I get formatting and so on wrong, but since I see Mr. Schlafly ain't too keen on the idea that women have brains, I had a quick glance through the exam that can be found here ( http://www.conservapedia.com/Economics_Midterm_Exam_-_Girls ). Questions 1 and 4 are absolute gold, but I don't know if it's worthy of a new thing on this page. Again, I be new, so I do apologise if I'm getting anything wrong. ^{— Unsigned, by: Webbtje / talk / contribs}

That is indeed classic stuff. I can imagine Andy desperately wanting to make all these questions about weights and measures for baking cupcakes and coffee morning attendance estimation. I love 19(c) as well. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 18:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does he even let girls sign up for his classes at all? Clearly he thinks there are dangers to educating females. --Kels (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Especially ironic, since, if memory serves, his wife is an MD, and his daughter is studying engineering (?) at Princeton. I guess Schlafly women lack the "female inferiority" genes. (And yeah, I know, his wife wouldn't have the genes. Unless he married a cousin or something, and considering he apparently fancies himself some kind of blue-blood, would that be surprising?) MDB (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's likely that Andy is pussywhipped (see the muscle car wigo) and his wife protects their daughter from his sexism. He can probably only vent in his class because even his wife doesn't take it seriously enough to intervene.99.225.14.16 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So does she pay the bills? How much does andy take the students parents for? --Opcn (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

About $250 a student IIRC. A quick flick through the family's history, the Schlaflys have a tendency to marry women better than them. Great-granddad Schlafly was a store clerk that married the daughter of a wealthy businessman, which is where the family's money comes from. Daddy married Phyllis McAlpin Stewart, who despite all the preaching about a woman's place being in the kitchen, has the sort of take no prisoner personality that made her a powerful political pundit and I doubt would be submissive to her husband. - π 09:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He's only done it again

TK's uploaded That knicked piccy again. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 01:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell would he delete it and then re-upload it a day later? Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 01:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Prolly 'cause he was laughed at on WP about deleting it? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

He resized it, I think. It's now a bit larger (and blurrier) than the one he copypasted. Likely so he can troll on Wikipedia how it's either TOTALLY ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT or (the more extreme version) that that site stole his image. Prepare for WP wikilawyering in 3, 2, 1... --Sid (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

For shits and giggles, I wanted to see how the original image can be 'shopped into TK's version. Turns out it's really not so hard: Resize, fiddle with the levels/gamma, blur, and you're pretty much done. Note that my quick attempt is not pixel perfect. I didn't take the time to "reverse engineer" the exact steps and parameters (not to mention JPG compression settings and whatever differences there are between TK's application and my GIMP), but the image at least makes a very strong case that this is the result of some pretty basic manipulation of the existing image and not TK's original work/photo/sign. ...now someone just has to tell me why I bothered to take the time for this. Jeez, I should be in bed. --Sid (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The original upload had "own work" as the comment. Now it's just blank. You ain't fooling anyone TK. Генгис^{Gum disease} 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious. His original delete reason was "duplicate file". Now they suddenly need a duplicate file again. Terrykins, sweetcheeks, if you're going to lie, at least try to remember them. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 17:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Who uses autocomplete anyway?

Seriously. I use autocomplete all the time when Google correctly guesses what I was going to search for anyway, but have you ever changed the topic of what you were going to search for because Google suggested something different? "Proper attire to wear to a baptis-... oh, what's that Google? Baptism is a devil pagan ritual? Yes, please tell me moar!" Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Never underestimate the Wikipedia effect (or a variation of it in this case). If the suggestions sound more interesting than whatever idle query you wanted to search for... (Disclaimer: Hasn't actually happened to me (yet), but I could imagine that some people might fall victim to this.) --Sid (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I get that with paper encyclopedias. look up Cervidae (the deer family) and go on to Cervantes, etc. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• coughTVTropescough* --Kels (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to torpedo any chance of getting things done today, did you know TvTropes has a page on Conservapedia? --Gulik (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And us. Wisest bastard Phantom Hoover! 20:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Um ... Lots of people are concerned about this on the rationalist/atheist/bright side of things. --Opcn (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

JacobB intrigue! (actually it has nothing to do with Shakleton)

JacobB blocks Dan1212 as a "suspected parodist," a move I don't really understand as Dan hasn't made a substantive or controversial edit in weeks. His under-the-radar ban attempt is noticed, reverted and now TK is on the warpath. Is this the end of JacobB? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 10:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, even if this isn't a show TK and Jacob planned in advance, and even if Jacob is blocked later on, it'll be too little, too late. Jacob has had half a year to insert potential parody into articles and he contributed to the general tone of CP spinning out of control. As with Bugler, it would take a lot of work to undo any potential damage, and also as with Bugler, nobody will do shit because they don't give a damn about articles that are not their pet projects. --Sid (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, all that happened after Bugler left was that TK took his "essays" on the 70s and 60s and made them mainspace articles. --PsygremlinPraat! 12:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I forget, is Daniel1212 is the one obsessed with the word "homosex"? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. And TK's the person who keeps telling him to stop using the term. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

JacobB is supposed to submit a writing plan too, refusal to do that is kickable. Question is whether or not Andy wants the calculus course enough - I would side with TK and Mr Ed and suspect that Andy doesn't care. So either Jacob kisses the TK ring or he's gone. MaxAlex (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

lol why the hell did JacobB block that guy, his cred is fairly clear,and the rest of the admin's all over his talk page endorse him..wtf ...are we calling parodist on JB? JeffD (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

People have been calling parodist on JacobB for a while. But they do the same with Andy. Similar styles and all. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

JacobB is a parodist and a dick. I mentioned to TK last night that JacobB blocked Daniel1212 for being a "suspected parodist." That's when he intervened. There's nothing in Daniel's editing history to suggest anything but that he's a very earnest evangelical Christian. I can't say I personally like or admire him because he's an abrasive and smug fundie bigot, but I do know from editing with him at ASK and observing him at CP that I don't believe there's even a remote possibility he's a parodist. I'd stand up for the guy when someone like JacobB uses him as a pawn even if I didn't think it would offend him to be treated so shabbily by JacobB, a newer editor at CP. It looked to me that JacobB was throwing one of the few legit editors CP has under the bus as part of a low level power grab. Why anyone thinks it's necessary to emulate the style of CP admin is beyond me. I'm glad I wasn't around for Bugler; it wouldn't have made sense. To me, someone engaged in a project like JacobB's distracts from Andy's own hateful and logically unsupportable autocratic bent and those toadies who blindly follow him in the name of his brand of "conservativism." Such a project destroys the purity of the CP experience itself. It's like watching a guy in a monkey suit run around the monkey house at the zoo jerking off and throwing shit. The monkeys do it tons better and I'll oppose anyone trying to take their jobs. I don't object to writing parody on CP in theory, but I absolutely will not abide watching a dick like JacobB create needless suffering for so many people around him in the name of emulating the style of regular CP admins when they simply don't need anyone's help to continue doing what they do best. 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate: CP has never been a "pure" experience. Parodists have always run rampant, and much of the hilarity results from the way the genuine CP editors react to them. JacobB's objectives seem to be similar to Bugler's, which were to undermine the site and drive productive editors away. He's a dick, yes, but how is he any different from parodists in the past? Bugler, who probably initiated more hilarity than anybody else, was just as much of a bully as Jacob. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like Andy: what a rant, NuttyRoux! I'm not sure if Jacob stole your best girl, but creating needless suffering? A Bugler style parodist does nothing but accelerate the natural course of affairs at CP. Sane, conservative editors invariably deal with utter jackassery, whether it be from TK, Ed, Rob, Karajou, Jpatt, or Andy. They all end up disillusioned and leave. The difference with accelerating it is that they end up investing less time and energy in an inevitable failure, which I dare say is a positive thing. When banning left and right, I often told people this straight out when they challenged the bans via email: "You were toast within weeks. Don't waste your time." 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I should add that over the past few months the hilarity has come directly from Andy and the things that he has said without provocation by parodists. People like JacobB only creates temporary "suffering" for the poor souls who want to productively edit CP. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that most of the hilarity has been from Andy, I think the parodists are an important part of the CP ecosystem. Look at the CBP -- most of the actual work to get it going was done by parodists: formatting by JacobB, early translation by DouglasA et al., spirited defenses of the project by these and others (e.g. MarkGall). Without the parodists, I don't think the CBP would have ever gotten off the ground, and Andy never would've been arguing about bimbos or interviewed by Colbert. Much the same could be said of cp:Best of the Public. --Retwa (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

For me much of the fun of parody comes from watching TK squirm. He may be psycho but he's not stupid: TK's fully aware that Jacob, Douglas, etc are parodists, but he can't do anything. Even here where JacobB comes close to outing himself, TK has to accept his fake apology. Parodists stymie TK's quest for total control of CP, and I love that. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, TK has had convincing evidence that JacobB is a parodist for months. He could have easily used it to get rid of Jacob but obviously he doesn't want to. ^{— Unsigned, by: CChristian / talk / contribs}

Yes, of course! Curse you for telling everyone! And don't forget I knew in advance about 9/11 and did nothing. I also kill kitties. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

....and steal images! Don't forget stealing images! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And haz licency to block with extreme prejudice! SJ ^Debaser 22:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I do, Josh! Please make an account now so I can block you extremely. Again. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 22:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And is using my name! Fuzzy =^_^= 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

TK whines some more on WP

Whine some more! He's the saddest person I've seen. Where he has no power, he whines. Where he has power, he's a total dick with it. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It reminded me of the 'Don't tase me bro!" scene. Guy just asks for it, then squeals when he gets shot down. lol Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 19:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In his defense, the page is covered with comments by RW editors. He's just pissed that there aren't the same number of CP editors to keep them down. And of course that he doesn't have a banhammer over there. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Even creepy 'Uncle' Ed hasn't rushed to help him.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed's sulking. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 23:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

For a moment or two, TK forgot he wasn't at Conservapedia, where he can make inconvenient comments disappear. Junggai (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

SpockAndy

nudge nudge: Say no more^{img I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 23:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Muckety muck?!?!

Really?^img Was the expression "grasping at straws"?

WTF?? "Muckety muck" is from the Chinook "mukamuk" which originally meant "to eat". The word was picked up by fur trappers, loggers and so on and somehow came to mean its present meaning, usually referring to visiting bigwigs from out of town. It goes back way before 1912. More like the early 1800s. Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Algonquians also had a word: "Mugwump", which originally meant somebody who acted as if they occupied a position of authority that they didn't, and then came to mean sanctimonious or holy-than-thou. "Muckety muck" is more than likely a conflation of both the Chinook and Algonquian words, with the meaning of mugwump being maintained and the meaning of mukamuk being discarded.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In Australia a mugwump is a fence-sitter (someone with their mug on one side and wump on the other)

(EC) I notice that Andy said that the list is now "far ahead of geometric growth"...I'm sensing that Conservapedia's Law is going to undergo a rewrite: conservative insights increase hyperbolically. The results of this insight are amazing! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Mugwump" would be an interesting term for Andy's list, if Andy had any effing clue about American political history before 1950. The Conservapedia article on Mugwumps is copied more or less word for word from WP. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Conservapedia's take on Republican Party history is a poor copy of WP too. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mugwumps have no liver and nourish themselves exclusively on sweets. Thin, purple-blue lips cover a razor sharp beak of black bone with which they frequently tear each other to shreds in fights over clients. These creatures secrete an addictive fluid though their erect penises which prolongs life by slowing metabolism. (In fact all longevity agents have proved addicting in exact ratio to their effectiveness in prolonging life.)99.225.14.16 (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bug powder dust and mugwump jism! --Robledo (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Benp

So I was bored and had a few spare moments so I cruised through CP's recent changes and saw Andy welcoming back Benp. When I read his user page, I thought "wow, this guy must have a huge ego and be really full of himself", then I noticed that Ed Poor re-wrote Benp's user page: with the comment "(better description + move talk to user talk page)" - since when do Admin's re-write user's personal pages, and what a stupid thing to write. Refugee^{talk page} 02:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That endorsement from Uncle Ed is even funnier when you check out Ben's essays. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, all the good, defining moments are conservative. Really, Martin Luther King was a conservative, in current sense of the word?--Thanatos (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I hear that one a lot. A lot of conservatives still think that all liberals are atheists. Therefore, anyone who publicy professes their Christian beliefs is automatically a conservative. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 04:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)He was a radical in his time. What is the old saying? You can go from being a radical to a conservative in 20 years by never changing a single position. - π 04:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's more the fact that he created "Greatest Conservative Television Moments"... on the same evening Colbert interviewed Conservapedia Andy. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

By his assassination, King was a flat-out communist. Most people seem to want to forget that these days. --Gulik (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I honestly thought when Ed put that up that Benp was on the chopping block. Being outed as a public school teacher? How was that NOT the kiss of death? (While we're on the subject, how did Ed even know that? Has it been stated elsewhere in the past, or is there some kind of creepy master-apprentice relationship I'd rather not think about?) --Phentari (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Jargon-Laden Articles

Somehow, I don't know if the Banach-Tarski Paradox http://www.conservapedia.com/Banach-Tarski_Paradox^img can be explained properly without the technical jargon behind it. Nick Heer 06:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This got better. From Ed: "I expect an 8th grader to understand this. Please state what part of it is too hard for an 8th grader to understand. --Ed Poor Talk 00:07, 8 January 2010 (EST)". An 8th grade student? Understanding college-level math? Smooth. Nick Heer 01:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Economics Final Exam bragging WIGO

I have no idea what this wigo is trying to say. ħuman 05:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what Andy is trying to say. Well, I know what he's trying to say, but as usual he makes no sense. "College-level scores"? What does that mean? Considering his test is not something any college would ever ask, the comparison is ridiculous. If an "A" is a "college-level score" then I got college level scores in the 5th grade. What a fucking idiot. DickTurpis (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It should say, "Astoundingly, every single homeschooler manages to miss a question on Andy's exam." Have you looked at the thing? It's a fucking joke. 05:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice, cheese. At everyone else, "Welcome to Conservapedia A record 28 teenagers achieved college-level scores on our Economics Final Exam, attaining the equivalent of a passing grade on the CLEP exam that would be worth 3 units of college credit. The world's largest advanced Economics class for teenagers is now complete. Congratulations to all who participated. This conservative approach to education is far more efficient and effective than the common liberal approach. " Andy, you're a moron. Now I see what the wigo was about. ħuman 05:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, Hyoomun. Sometimes Andy's stupidity is funnier than any joke one can write about it. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ought this WIGO and its update to be separate WIGOs? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well I'd do on his test, not having taken an economics class in well over a decade, and not having taken one taught by a certifiable moron ever. Too many terms I'm unfamiliar with. The only economics class I ever took was much different (surprisingly). Of course, his test did have plenty of very easy questions, to be sure. I do wonder how well Andy's students would do on a real economics test. Oh, and Andy, as long as we're making ridiculous test comparisons, I took a facebook test on punk rock bands and got 100% correct. A similar score on the MCATs would probably get me into med school. DickTurpis (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder how well Andy's students would do on a real economics test. I posted this to another thread way too late to be noticed by anyone, so I'll post it here. "To be fair to Andy, I took his economics class about 3-4 years ago and It was actually pretty good. Taking only his class, and not studying anything else, I took the CLEP exam and score 73. (the CLEP is graded on a scale from 20 to 80 with 50 being a passing grade.) He does actually teach the material involved, and well enough for me to get three real college credits for it. (depending on the school)" --T1mS (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC) (TimS/CPAdmin1 I can't seem to log in my account. I even had it email me a new password and it still wouldn't let me in.)

Interesting. I suspect your score is partially the result of you being one of the smarter ones, or so it appears from here. And to be fair to Andy, I'm sure he does at some point teach some of the basics of economics that are covered in any course (I admit I haven't read his lectures), so anyone who studies will clearly pick up some useful information (I fail to see how that is a "conservative" approach, and how it's any better than a "liberal" one). Most of Andy's biggest problems are grasping onto some of his favorite tidbits (ie the Coast theorem, to my knowledge not one of the major principles of economics) and making them essential learning, while glossing over significant aspects. For example, I did not notice one question on fiscal or monetary policy on his test, though I suppose that's too liberal for him. And of course when someone comes along unfamiliar with the Coase theorem, Andy acts all high and mighty because his students know what it is so they're obviously the most intelligent people imaginable, and he's the world's greatest teacher. Then he fills his test with crap about prayer and political dogma disguised as questions and pretends it's basically the same as a general aptitude test. (Honestly, he should have skipped question #43 and just written at the bottom of the test "There are still seats available for the March for Life. Sign up early and save money!") I'm curious as to how difficult the CLEP test is, but doing a quick search I couldn't find a sample online. I know Andy's classes certainly do not prepare students for AP exams, but I imagine the CLEP is substantially less strenuous. DickTurpis (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by fiscal or monetary policy? If you are talking about government policies that would fall under macroeconomics not micro, and would not be on the test. Microeconomics primarily focuses on individual decisions. CLEP tests are no joke. They are probably easier than AP, but not extremely so. I think I would have passed an AP microeconomics test if I had taken it. You can have practice CLEP questions for ten dollars if you want them... It is possible (even probable) that Andy's class has gotten easier since I took it. His grading practices definitely are less stringent. He used to actually take a good amount of points off for a wrong answer, not just -1 = (99/100 GREAT JOB!!!) So the class might not be the same, but I'm sure it is still comparable. --T1mS (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fiscal and monetary policy would certainly fall under the realm of macroeconomics. Now, did Andy bill his course as strictly a microeconomics class? I noticed it dealt largely (but not exclusively) with microeconomics (as opposed to my high school class, which I believe was tilted towards the macro end), and I considered that a weakness of his class, but if it was exclusively micro then I guess I guess it makes sense, though it does make me wonder why he included topics such as the Lorenz curve and Congressional actions on health care (clearly macro). As for the AP, I'm basing my analysis of his class on examining his history class versus the AP history exam, which is light years beyond Andy's test. For econ I'd have to look at both, which I'll do later. DickTurpis (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what is the right answer to the girls extra credit? The only answer that makes any sense is D, but I can't see "Lack of prayer is no different from saying prayers" ever being a correct answer for Andy. DickTurpis (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's A. He's claiming prayers gain interest.

I'm going to repeat that. He's claiming prayers gain interest. 05:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) The answer is clearly (A); all the others are straw-man lib-burr-rul points. But at any rate, I think he is trying to say that if you say a prayer it accrues some sort of "spiritual interest," so that the earlier one says a prayer, the more benefits there are. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought for a second that might be what he was looking for, but it makes no sense, even by Andy standards. He's talking about “time value of money”, and he even states in question #1 that "prayer is free and the subject of Economics focuses on goods and services..." The time at which one says a prayer cannot have an economic impact, particularly when "earlier" and "later" are relative terms that have no context here (especially since you're supposed to pray every day). DickTurpis (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

i probably am not understanding this . Isn't 29 out of 50 a reason to cry rather than applaud ? Hamster (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the page of results, some students were getting quite low scores - 30s upwards. Given the "college level" appears to be 32 or higher (or maybe a bit less), that means that "normal level" is 20-30 or something and <20 is a fail. I would have thought the maxim "prayer==good" would get you 20 marks alone. Sad. MaxAlex (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy's test is Andy's concoction. There is no basis for him to claim that passing his test would mean that you stand a significantly higher statistical chance to pass the CLEP exam, especially for a test with no security protocols and a test that has separate boys and girls versions. I will give Andy some credit for introducing a couple of quaint economic theories, like the Coase theorem and Gresham's law, but I think there would be a much greater benefit if he would evaluate understanding of the material without any political bias. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the distinctly non-conservative line about all issues being political. For him, there is no keeping out political bias. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

ListenerX has a point. Isn't the concept that everything is political a Marxist idea? Maybe Ashlafly has moved so far to the right, he has wrapped around and turned into a Commie. --Fawlty (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It was originally a Marxist idea, but it is unfortunately very widespread now, thanks to pundits and flame-fanners of all political hues because it gets more votes/sells more papers. - π 12:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The world's largest economic class for teenagers? Really? My college micro class was at least 30 people and I went to a tiny LAC. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 08:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, heck, when I took college micro economics, my class was at least one hundred. Though to be fair, it was a sophomore level class, so many of the students might not have been teenagers. Though his "largest class for teenagers" is utter crap. MDB (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)