Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive166

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>, <165>, <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)

Mini-plea

Could I ask that WIGO writers think of us furriners when using acronyms: NPR & CPB mean little to me and require "work"^[anathema] to decipher. Thanx. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 10:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

CPB isn't even common over here; poor wording, to be sure.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 10:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mini-seconded. CPB looks like the (to us) more familiar CBP at that. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all y'alls stoopids fault for not being Merrrikan. This here's God's country and if these acronyms were good enough for Jesus Christ, then we ain't not gonna go changin' things so you darned limeys and other furrners can't do no proper readin' DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 10:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• NPR: National Public Radio (or, to some of its liberal critics, Nice Polite Republicans). Slightly government funded radio, home of things like the news shows Morning Edition and All Things Considered, the "slice of life" show This American Life, the automotive show Car Talk (or, based on the Boston accent of the brothers who host it, Cah Tahk) and the comedy news quiz show Wait Wait Don't Tell Me
• CPB: Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Provides funding to NPR and PBS.
• PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. The television equivalent of NPR. Home of series like Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, Masterpiece Theatre, and lots of imports from Great Britain. MDB (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, for a second I thought it did say CBP, haha! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I did take particular pains to wikilink the acronym. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, and I know what the CPB is, I'm just used to reading CBP around here so that's what my mind automatically jumped to. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

While the CPB is moderately well-known 'round here, the acronym is uncommon. What's the CBP? Oh, yeah .... ħuman 21:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly's Records*

* Not his collection of albums by one-hit-wonders.

28 students getting a "college-level grade" is a new record. The 2 pro-life buses are also a new record. Does this record-breaking go further back? Maybe we could add a page about all records broken by Aschlafl Y./Conservapedia. Internetmoniker (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the world's largest [subject] courses for [whatever] level students, promoted two times or so by now on the main page. --Sid (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, plus "one of the largest homeschool classes in the country, including 58 in-class students in World History in fall 2006" --Sid (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That might make a nice little article, especially including the asterisked comment. ħuman 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The world's largest homeschool class reminds me of the world's tallest midget. When does it cease to be a homeschool class? --Horace (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Do his "powerful new conservative concepts first identified on Conservapedia" count as "records?" --Phentari (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

Alright so I may not have the best grasp of the English language, but looking at Assfly's creepy 3rd person profile I noted the following:
"In spring 2007 Andrew Schlafly teaches Economics"
Does that sound right? If it was a listed timeline then I guess it could pass (but still looks odd), but in this context it seems wrong. As far as I can make out it should have started (future tense) with "In spring 2007 Andrew Schlafly will teach Economics", and from then on "In spring 2007 Andrew Schlafly began teaching Economics". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm no grammar expert, but it does seem wrong. I'd only write in that way if describing a future event, and normally one that is recurring. i.e. Each summer, Crundy teaches Shiv 101 at the state penitentiary. --^{Ask me about your mother} 13:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, you got me thinking about famous syntax-manglers, and now I'm envisioning Andy as Yoda. "Out of the Bible, edit liberalism we will, hhhrrrhmmm. Speedgod."

Shame it wasn't "In spring 2007 Andrew Schlafly teaches English". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I favor "In the spring of 2007, Andy taught economics" or ".... Andy will teach a course in Economics" but I are grammatically challenged. Hamster (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Grammatically, it's fine. Or, at least, it was fine when it was written many years ago--it just has never been updated since. Clearly, nobody there at CP cares enough about Andy to keep the article about him current. Such a fine suck-up opportunity wasted. And the reason it's written in 3rd-person is 'cuz all the bio articles are written in third person. That'd only be "creepy" if Andy had written it himself (which he didn't).--WJThomas (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy protected back in March 2007, nobody but the sysops have been able to edit it since. - π 02:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mind you, TK knows how to kiss arse. - π 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox Christmas

I think I Like AlexWD. As the WIGO says, Eddie baby tells him to create an 'Orthodox Christmas' article before asking recognition of it - so he goes off and does an Ed Poor style stub^img. 92.10.171.244 (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

He actually removed information to make it stubbier [2]. Pietrow (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

He has gone above and beyond the call of duty by thinking ahead.^img Internetmoniker (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the new punchline to the WIGO actually better? I thought the "dead to us" line captured Ed's "not worth the recognition" attitude better than just repeating his instruction, and funnier as well. If I were to change anything it would be to simplify the first line. I just wanted to emphasize that this is a major group of Christians we're talking about. --SpinyNorman (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

But not big in America, so it doesn't exist. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 15:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO that wigo has tremendous potential - ironically, here at RW we have automated both major Orthodox celebrations, and at CP they ignored them, and worse yet, tell a user alerting them to it to go screw? ħuman 21:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was one of the better moments of mean-spirited arrogance, especially since the slam at non-notoriety came from their resident Moonie. --SpinyNorman (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Double standards

(Delete if this has been discussed) I note that this^img news story makes a good "what if". Imagine if it was a democrat who decided to reduce the state defecit by "steep reductions in education, healthcare and social services as well as cuts in transportation projects, state worker pay and environmental programs". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I love the whole "on the verge of bankruptcy" thing. Do these people have the memories of goldfish^{(figure of speech)}? TK honey, let's not forget that it was a republican president who decided to keep spending money on a phoney war while his country was losing over $500 billion/year. Actually, it's quite interesting to look at the fiscal charts during the Bush/Clinton/Bush period - there's a bit of a trend that certainly doesn't support your claim that Liberals are the ones who keep spending in the face of bankruptcy. -Redback^{OMG, someone get the Raid!} 14:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a yank, but even so, that's some mighty interesting (and surprising) stats! What do the republican supporters make of that over there? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a Democratic governor who did much the same thing. His name is David Patterson. His approval rating is somewhere around 20%. DickTurpis (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh God, don't even mention Patterson. I cannot think of a more universally hated man where I live. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bye bye Joseph

JosephMac takes the plunge. Here's the text in case of burning:

You've now got three news stories on the Main Page about climate change, all saying that just because there's currently a cold snap in the USA, global warming is a myth. That's absolute nonsense. Complete and utter tosh. Deceit is not a conservative virtue, so please delete this total rubbish from the Main Page.

(1) The issue is global warming. It's about the average temperature over the whole world. The Southern hemisphere is having one of its hottest summers ever: 38°C in Melbourne, 41°C in Cape Town are unusually high temperatures. You can't say anything about the average global temperature from what's happening in one little bit of the Earth's surface like the United States.

(2) Just as one snowy winter in Georgia isn't evidence against global warming, one heatwave in Cape Town isn't evidence for it. You have to look at the trend in global temperatures. There are little bumps and wobbles in the graph but the trend in average global temperatures is clearly and rapidly UP.

(3) I love my children and I hope I will have grandchildren to love too. And I hope they'll have a world to live in which hasn't been irrevocably destroyed by the stupid, greedy, lying, fascist scum in the oil industry who are paying US Senators huge bribes to block reductions in CO2 outputs and paying Faux News to brainwash the US public.

I realise that A.S. or one of his minions will now block me and that this will be my last ever post to CP. Being moderate and reasonable, bringing facts and accuracy into discussions, clearly cuts no ice with him, whatever the subject. I don't know if he's just been brainwashed by the pro-oil, anti-grandchildren lobby but please wake up, Andy! Stop peddling this nonsense, stop cutting-and-pasting the utter drivel spouted by the oil companies' PR departments into CP, stop repeating their lies to home-schooled children. I will now say this as clearly as I can to conservatives who do think about their place in the world, who do love their grandchildren, who do value conservative virtues of honesty, truth and respect for others:

Global climate change is real and dangerous
Put a sweater on and turn down the heating
Remove your jacket and turn off the air-conditioning
Use public transport where you can
Drive a small, economical vehicle where there's no public transport
Vote for politicians who value your family's future more than their Exxon-Mobil share options

Deceit is not a conservative virtue!

JosephMac 19:18, 11 January 2010 (EST)

EddyP (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad parthian shot. I guess he wasn't a parodist, then? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)]

for posterity^img. 00:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

TK makes fun of Andy in response^img Wow! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow TK. You suck.^img Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Is it bad skills to use the word 'cunt' on the WIGO page? I hope not, because I can't think of any other way to describe TK for saying this. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a good way to describe TK? - Ravenhull (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the usual 'if that is your name' and 'people with learning disability' drivel... Ravenhull (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(ECx3)Wow, that's quite an insult coming from someone who took three edits to fix his mistakes while posting that. Junggai (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ho-hum...I don't get the fuss. TK's response there isn't terribly terrible for CP, and nowhere near TK's cuntiest.--WJThomas (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You reckon so? Even for TK, that stuff about learning disabilities seems utterly vile. H. Randolph Twist (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more that he sounded like Andy, then tacked on "btw ur retarded ;P". ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 01:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh. TK's an expert asshole, and that's just junior-high assholery. He can do far better.--WJThomas (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how Andy will feel about this. He has already made it clear than he does not appreciate people making fun of the disabled. Keegscee (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"it is hardly necessary for you to use special fonts and colors to make people notice your posts" - yeah that is right Terry Koeckritz_/admin^/Talk. - π 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I hadn't thought of that. I guess that's some bonus irony. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that a sneaky way to work in yet another "Irony Meter" use, Tetronian? Shame! --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, we overuse the term in WIGOs already. But for you I might make an exception.... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats really sweet of you...but I ask for no special consideration! --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 01:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's my pleasure. You've certainly earned it with this one. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@TK - do you still want to be a sysop here so you can see all the stuff you say we've "oversighted" with the hide revisions extension? 01:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't he then have to change his signature... and disclaim it on WP? ħuman 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I bet what TK is really interested in is who has been creating these fake screenshots on WIGOCP. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, RobS and TK probably split the account so he can see our cabalistic seekrit plans. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

RobS already has an account. Besides, he would never share one - that reeks of communism! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:43, 12 January 2010( (UTC)

(undent) Thanks to whoever pointed out my query. After I saw that WIGO I decided to just give up trying on that website and commit account suicide. It disgusts me how anyone can get away with making a comment like that, in any setting (especially a family friendly setting), is incredible.Senator Harrison (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey TK, what is this bullshit about not blocking users who disagree with you? Are you getting soft? You can't expect to complete your takeover of Andyland with that attitude. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's exactly that: bullshit. TK did block JosephMac and his socks. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Karajou blocking DoozexMockina

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:DoozexMockina - votable? It seems in contract with the "use real name policy..." --69.196.128.211 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How odd - he unblocked the account because it's a play on Deus Ex Machina. I would've expected that to be the ban reason (in line with the real-name policy). --Sid (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Entire country block at CP

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

It would seem that the user TK at Conservapedia has blocked most (if not all) IP's coming from my country because I can no longer register. I tried with multiple ISP's and they're all blocked. The country is Croatia. Mr.Orange (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

TK is famous for his ridiculous range blocks. He's blocked large swaths of Europe and Asia just for kicks. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Which makes me wonder why we're apparently making User:TK so welcome here. Whilst we should have room for all points of view it seems that Terry Koeckritz's history is fast being forgotten. Bob Soles (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While I wasn't personally involved in welcoming him and thus don't know deeper details, I'd guess people simply accept TK as CP's most successful parodist and saboteur. Besides, people love bantering as long as it's all in good fun, so they'd "welcome" Andy, Ed, Kara, TerryH, Ken, etc. as well. TK blocks entire ISPs for the same reason many people here banter and debate with him and people like TerryH, Ken and PJR: Mostly for the lulz. Just don't mistake these discussions for approval, endorsement or memory-fail. Many people here can hold deep grudges while still exchanging witty messages. --Sid (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia are hoping to block the entire world. Of course a liberal stinking communist anti-american country like Croatia will be blocked! (PS. I visited Dubrovnik on holiday last year and it was fucking brilliant!) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

think Sid nailed it really. Conservapedia takes the attitude of you disagree with me - therefore I will ban you, whilst RationalWiki takes the attitude of you disagree with me - therefore we will talk about it (this may involve mockery). Obviously I prefer the RW approach (since I'm here), but it's interesting (in a pokey-stick kind of way) to see if people such as TK can live with both without imploding. My suspicion is that he's too used to getting his own way to live outside CP for any length of time (regardless of his motives) but that remains to be seen - I have no experience to draw on (others do ahve his experience) Worm^{(t | c)} 20:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The pokey stick thing sounds similar to my view of him. CP is an Internet curio, and TK is a major factor in maintaining the general atmosphere. He's a total arse to people, but aside from the homeschoolers, I don't see the average CP editor as being a person - more a character who will sooner or later provide great comedy when they end-up the radar of TK. Perhaps RW is a kind of green room for TK? It's only a shame when CP wastes the time of real people, as they did with the Lenski saga. So long as they keep it within CP, I'm quite frankly happy to see them caged and bludgeoning each other with animal bones. I suppose CP is just too surreal from my perspective, and that's why I struggle to believe that any of those people actually exist. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This conversation has really given me pause to consider my actions. I certainly never once thought about the single, tens, hundreds, thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of nice Croatians clamoring to edit a Christian, American conservative encyclopedia! Thanks to everyone for pointing out how my IP blocking is damaging CP by keeping those good conservatives in Croatia from editing. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Here you go TK, I wrote this for you a while ago. - π 22:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is true. But then again, I await the time when there are tens of Americans clamouring to edit a Christian, American conservative encyclopedia. How many non-parodists do you guys have over there, 20? 30? Half being sysops? By this logic, ban all nations. 23:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly never once thought about the single, tens, hundreds, thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of nice Croatians clamoring to edit a Christian, American conservative encyclopedia! How would you know? By denying people the opportunity to contribute, you're losing the possibility of great insight. Maybe you wouldn't get any, but maybe you would. You'll never know now. Very 'open-minded' of you. ;) Worm^{(t | c)} 23:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, you also blocked the entire range at Creighton University. Not exactly a country, but there are more than a few Conservative Christians there. Dumbass. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 01:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Wigo worthy

But again Andy would rather have his own concise but wrong explanation than a longer and more accurate one about a simple subject that he cannot figure out. [1]^img just like the Moore's law explanation, simple and wrong wins out. --Opcn (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1837? Come on conservapedia, citation needed. I think it is not unlikely the term "Trojan Horse" was already used, even in it's proverbial sense, in antiquity. (The Odyssey being written around 800 BCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE) Internetmoniker (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to work under the TK assumption that everyone new is either a parodist oractually believes this stuff and there for is crazy. So assuming the former and that Thomas is perhaps watching here he would do well not to go after the date. --Opcn (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame that the definition "Presenting something as a gift that secretly bears grave consequences." is a bit long-winded. Otherwise it'd be a great replacement for the slogan "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that in Andyland a Trojan horse is distinctly liberal; the Achaeans won. 22:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Something I was wondering about this, although it goes deeper into Andy's "True Christians never deceive. What about those stupid conversion tools made to look like 20 and 50 dollar bills? You guys know what I'm talking about? They look like money, but when you open them it says something along the lines of "Disappointed? Well you'll be really disappointed if you don't convert." Christians leave them places under the thought that some godless heathen will pick it up and immediately run to the nearest baptismal font? That's a great example of a Trojan Horse and Christian Deceit. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 23:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Actually, Campus Crusade for Christ's whole MO for a while was this kind of deceit, sending pretty girls in bikinis to a crowd of guys inviting them to a "beach party" which turned out to be a big worship service/scarefest. Junggai (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

TK blocked me! --Opcn (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Since deceit is inherently liberal, as explained by Andy, I wonder how he would expect the intelligence services to operate? Perhaps have the CIA wearing name badges as they wander around Tehran? Ditch the camo gear. Have solders wearing brightly coloured jackets. War shall be conducted by marching at the opposing army and seeing who's the first to run out of men? Andy has become one of those caricature officers from the Sharpe series. --Thor's Mighty Phallus (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Economics Final Exam

What's your favorite question/answer combo? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

3. What is one cause of unemployment?

(a) an increase in the minimum wage. (b) a decrease in the minimum wage. (c) an undersupply of labor. (d) Gresham’s Law. (e) school.

Answer is most certainly minimum wage. These people don't understand anything about economics outside of a very very narrow, extremely unregulated version. Assfly is like J.P Morgan trading stocks in 1929..ugh JeffD (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Increase in the minimum wage is the only thing on that list that would, despite the factors being many and varied. I like the graph the best. - π 04:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

9. Why does Economics predict that someone with a college degree, with a major in a useful field, will earn more money than someone who lacks that degree?

(a) Because what is taught in school is always helpful.

(b) Because college professors make more money than anyone else.

(c) Because all schools know best how the free market works.

(d) Because college teachers understand the truth better than anyone else.

(e) Because “long run” planning – like completing college – is usually more profitable than “short run” planning.

Well let's see! Is it liberal strawman, liberal strawman, liberal strawman, baked beans and liberal strawman, or mildly sensible answer? Using Andy's test-taking tips I'm guessing the answer is e.

I love that so many of the questions (1, 5, 12, 21, etc) are like that. I guess it's easier to make the exam easy than to curve it... Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 05:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually shocked that he uses the standard "signaling" scenario and dosen't give the signaling answer. Economics predicts that someone with a college degree with a major in a useful field will earn more money because they have signaled to employers that they are smart by wasting their time getting that degree. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• "16. What is the marginal cost for the 4rd unit?" Icewedge (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe he meant a 4rd F-150? Barikada (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Groan. Keegscee (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on, chaps & chappesses, surely the extra credit (girls) is the absolute tops for an economics exam! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 07:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

An effin' hand drawn graph for Q35/36. Gods is the man really trying to demonstrate his incompetence, or wot? [Q21]: caveat emptor: if Facebook is available, then it must be good non sequitur or what. Q12 ... and on and on ... the stupid, it burns! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 07:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused on what's he looking for out of number 8. a link for the lazy. Now, I can see several of those answers being correct, but it's Andy, so I have no idea. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 07:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC) PS, I love how Andy managed to fit his own hatred of working women into question number 9.

I love that graph. Not only is it hand-drawn rather than done on a computer, he obviously also doesn't own a ruler. And the lines at point D are so crappily done that it's not totally clear from the lines alone which is which. It's a masterpiece. MaxAlex (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

EC) Q8: prolly b)? (Bit of anti-anti-climate change legislation sneaking in?) ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 07:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The extra credit questions are amazing. Are they parodist detectors? Only a parodist would dare to get either of them wrong. "How does the concept of opportunity cost apply to this situation?" a: it doesn't, b: it doesn't, c: it does, d: it doesn't, e: it doesn't! "Is prayer good?" 4 answers no, one answer yes. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with the coaches decision? He is obviously setting up a wildcat play. The QB drop back (actually now I think about a naked bootleg would work better if the oline run blocks the other way) and hands off to the WR on an end around and the WR throws it up field to the running-back when the safeties cheat up. - π 08:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, probably related to the above post, I now have a short movie replaying over and over in my head that goes something like this:
Schlafly on the sidelines, yelling at the ref: "What do you mean that was encroachment? Five yards? You reject biblical and logical reasoning. Your expertise in this field has converted you to an elitist gatekeeper, or do you reject 2+2=4 as well? Liberals often reject reasoning, tell me, do you oppose classroom prayer as well?"
At around this point, the ref opens his mouth to reply and Andy lunges at the ref with a hammer while screaming "Last wordism! Ban! Ban! Ban!'

Deciding which one of these examples is the most moronic is an impossible task. Although, the first question did a great job of showing us just how illegitimate this "exam" is. I know it's been said again and again, but those poor kids, when they grow up and have to sit out a proper exam, they're going to be in over their heads. Unless the exam they take is about girls baking cookies, the value of prayer and what type of baseball bat works best on homosexuals, they're going to be supremely unprepared. -Redback^{OMG, someone get the Raid!} 09:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) When I go gay bashing, I carry a good Northern White Ash, but my friends swear by the Canadian Rock Maple.... Personally, I think a hockey stick is better anyway, but that's just liberal multiculturalism. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 09:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

An umpire is a perfect example of an elitist gatekeeper! If a batter hits a ball foul, or soccer player is offside, that objective truth should be obvious to all the spectators, and if there is any disagreement the best of the public in the crowd can decide. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 10:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am speechless, utterly speechless. Usually I just "meh" these exams but this one is truly extraordinary. I'd have to say my favorite is #12, it's not really a question, it's basically just a four-pronged rant about government funded health care. Etc 10:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, not even close. Number 22 puts every other question to shame. In full: "Public schools were better when there was classroom prayer and students often discussed the Bible. But now that prayer and the Bible are excluded from public school, our friend Jenna tells us that there is much profanity and foul language even by the teachers themselves and nobody feels comfortable talking about Jesus anymore." What does this illustrate in Economics? He must have had to work for hours to make that rant into a question.... I mean, I had to read it twice just to find out what he was talking about.... Is there any way we can report him? I mean, even with the free homeschooling laws, the states usually have some kind of law regulating what kind of education kids need to obtain before they're considered high school grads. This trash wouldn't even allow them to pass a GED test. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 10:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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) 20:26, 9 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.)

True ... I can't really answer this one actually. I guess I need to study some more Economics. Etc 10:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's looking for Gresham's Law, although it's not a very sane application of it. "People stop exchanging prayer/Jesus because it's artificially devalued by The Government, and instead exchange Government-endorsed profanity."

On another note, answers 8-C and 33-E seem strangely anti-democracy, although I guess it's not too unusual for him. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 12:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I think its just an acknowledgment pretty much anyone would make: we shouldn't determine everything democratically, and democracy isn't perfect. MDB (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It just seemed that way when combined with his style of making every answer a shot at "liberal" things. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 12:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy, of course, is fond of ranting about liberal bias everywhere in education, but just a quick skim of his exam shows roughly seven questions that are clearly pushing a conservative agenda, and there are probably more, if I knew much about economics myself. What was that thing in the Bible, Andy, about criticizing "the mote in your brother's eye when you have a beam in your own"? Or is that one of those darned liberal additions to the Scriptures? MDB (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Question 1 was great, but missing a key answer: "Did your economics test have questions on prayer?"

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. Yes, because it was taught by Andy Schlafly

DickTurpis (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol, Andy's economics is innovative, he changes the "supply and demand" paradigm , and replaces it with "Prayer and Scare" paradigm. Example : People in the USA are getting poorer,but access to goods is increasing,a)no b)no Americcaa , fuck yeahh, c) um yeah, surfeit!, d) nobody is poor, pray to god and tell our children the evils of librul sin and the invisible hand of conservatism will straighten things out. JeffD (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you think the answer he's looking for on 4 is? Is Home Depot especially liberal? Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a convenient place for us to post our well-researched answers to the Econ final to help any Conservapedians who want to cheat?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do it using Sidewiki. They won't be able to delete it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Regulation of Homeschooling

Regulation of home schooling, not surprisingly, depends on the state. Texas, for instance, has almost no regulations at all. (Basically, they boil down to "you have ta teach yer younguns readin', writin', 'rithmetic, grammar, and civics, but we ain't gonna butt in and tell ya how ta teach that stuff".) In general, the trend has been to ease requirements. MDB (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

haha, well it's deregulated because that's the whole point of homeskulin,you disagree with the gov curriculum and enviroment, so you teach ur kidz teh biblikal wahy. Althought o be fair, coming from my background, I knew lots of homskollar's and they had a fairly awesome quality of education. It all depends on the parents, if they are well-ff and responsible they hire tonnes of private tutors, and having dipped into this field myself, they tend to have pre-grad honors or grad degrees, it's not bobby-joe bible skollar from church.Also, since they set their own hours of schooling and focus , they tend to get higher concentration (if the parents are good) in essential areas like mathematics,mechanics of writing, civics... etc. Although of course , any parent that willingly gives their kid to the Assfly, after reading his discriminatory and bird course curriculum, is not on this list.. JeffD (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Bird course curriculum"?

I have no doubt that it is quite possible to get a very good education via homeschooling. However, to paraphrase Chancellor Palpatine, "not from an Assfly." MDB (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bird course, Canadian student lingo for impossible to fail.. JeffD (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The smartest people I know were homeschooled. Individual attention trumps ideology. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You are in kind of a small social subset though aren't you? --Opcn (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservative deceit

Just before TK cast him into outer darkness, JosephMac added this link to a BBC page debunking the "world isn't warming" myths^img. TK deleted it almost immediately - obviously scared that CP readers might be exposed to facts and logic. The Real James Brown (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Who needs facts when you have a banhammer? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

CP's efficiency is almost inspiring. They're *really good* at being terrible. They're some of the most talented terrible people I've seen on the internet. X Stickman (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good article, too. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Melbourne suffers hottest night as Australia swelters". The Real James Brown (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of global warming, Andy seems to be behaving his retarded self on this subject, but besides him I thought no-one was really disputing global warming, only the question whether it's man-made, right? I mean, we have real hard simple numbers showing that the earth is getting warmer, nobody is questioning that... except Andy ofc, who apparently didn't get the note... --GTac (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming denial is a lot like the tobacco companies, first they deny that the cancer rate is higher at all, then they deny that the cancers are being caused by smoking and then they say didn't know. With global warming we are currently at stage two, I am interested in seeing how stage three plays out - π 12:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

GTac, you're right, but the error you're making is trying to see logic in the actions of Conservapedians. This is a dangerous act which usually results in a /0 error, hence the end of the world. The fact that global warming (whether man-made or otherwise) is happening falls under common knowledge, but we're all familiar with the Christian approach to that pesky knowledge nonsense. -Redback^{OMG, someone get the Raid!} 12:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it amusing that Andy frequently cites the tobacco industry as an example of deceit, yet we can clearly see parallels between their antics and Andy's denial of anything that conflicts with his personal interests. Welcome to flavor country, Andy. Yup, it's just unfortunate that we are likely to share the fate of these crazies. I'd much rather just leave the house and leave them to play with petrol and matches. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually find that quite a few global warming denialists manage to do both stages one and two at the same time, without seeing the contradiction - they say that global warming isn't happening and that man isn't responsible for the warming that isn't happening. 92.17.231.55 (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My memory isn't what it was but I'm sure the main PR company working for the tobacco lobby is now also working for global warming denialists. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, here they are, Hill & Knowlton. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey TK!

ThomasRidgefield didn't retire, YOU banhammered him. Why so deceitful? Does it make you feel better, or do you think Andy is to stupid to notice? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a difference between trolling and liberal trolling? That ban reason seems kind of odd. Oh, and yes, he is too stupid to notice. --Thor's Mighty Phallus (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

RW allows socks, CP doesn't. Andy came up with the "Retired" deal years ago....perhaps you are fairly new. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Which, of course, explains Karajou's block of TK's sock MattM after he opened the SDG for public viewing.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

But...he didn't really retire. That's lying. When you lie, it makes Baby Jesus CRY, TK! Why would Christians lie? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a pay-pal account, Theory? I can send you some money to rent a sense of humor. The block reason doesn't say retired, does it? Quit being so picky, it seems petty, not humorous. Really. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 23:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

MY plan will remain a secret until I can get another sock up. I should mention that the article about Sydnee Waggoner is mostly made up, in case you care to remove it (unfinished and all it isn't very good as parody) I still can't believe how badly andy fails at understanding a concept as simple as a trojan horse --Opcn (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@TK: I wish I could mail you some honesty. But the amount I would need to send probably wouldn't fit in a package. Seriously, how can you possibly defend your (dare I say it) liberal use of the banhammer? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, you're going to make Jinxie so jealous that you come over here and play after you told him not to. Corry (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Susan, it is a comfort that you never, ever change. I trust you are having a happy new year! --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 00:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Psst, TK! Susan is no where in this conversation. - π 00:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

TK knows Susan is here somewhere. TK knows. Oh TK is also a faggot. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought Lily was a sock of Susan....they seem so alike. In a good way, of course. --TK_/MyTalk^Editor 00:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No way, TK. I dislike you taking my name in vain. Also a scouser I'm not, lovely though Lily is.   ^Contribs_Talk 03:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll vouch for that. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 03:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean like the way she called you out on your bullshit? - π 00:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is alike to TK. He banhammers everyone equally. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

TK how do you decide when banhammering people if they "Retired" or if it is time to burn the evidence? --BoredCPer (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I love this entire conversation. X Stickman (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

TK can't win an argument anywhere else other than CP, where he has power. He lost on WP. He loses here all the time. I bet he doesn't even hold a position in life where he has any responsibility or power over anyone. He has no ability to be a leader or a doer, so he has to be a grade A asshole to fill in the emptiness in his life. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What position of power and responsibility could be more important than making sure people use their real first name and last initial? TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 02:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

TK is CP's Uriah Heep (not the band). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good faith editors still stumble across Conservapedia

This whole exchange is adorable. Extremely confused new good-faith user: "But Andy how can you make a mathematical law based on opinion?" Parodist: "Your teachers are lying to you! Open your miiiind!" Andy: "Yes good work parodist. Newuser, you're clueless." Dunno how we missed this. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 01:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is worrying that Andy views liberalism, not as a political philosophy, but as a conspiracy. How can an educated person think like that? - π 01:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of logic but evangelism. The evangelist and apologist isn't interested in debating you on his fatih, but converting you. CP's ideology isn't open to debate either. You either agree or you don't, in which case you're not welcome. I think this is the inspiration for Andy's "open mind" meme; it doesn't really depend on being receptive to an idea because it's more logical or attractive than another, but because Andy's believes it. 01:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think some of the weirder claims come from him getting backed into a corner, pulling something out of his ass, and instead of realizing that it is a turd, having an epiphany and parading it around as an insight. Then it becomes canon. Some of his weird conspiracy views about education seemed to come out when he was arguing that larger classes are better. Corry (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I especially like the way he's completely oblivious to the fact that illiterates have got to be the demographic with just about the lowest voter turnout of all. DickTurpis (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From the next section, on muscle cars, answering whether he meant fuel efficiency or 0-60 "efficiency":

The latter, though it's fuel efficiency was probably also better than many of the large cars that dominate the road today.

"Muscle cars" is an provocative addition, and I'll another comment to it to explain why I think it's justified. But further comments are welcome on this!

Apart from the delightfully illiterate writing, he's dead wrong on the "better than many of the large cars" - those pigs usually fell below 10 mpg. They were also grossly worse polluters. We have wondered which of his asses he pulled this one out of, the only halfway decent theory was mid-life crisis - notice the grey hair coming in lately? ħuman 02:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dangnabbit Human, you beat me to it. That entry^img should be paraded every time Schlalfy berates some poor user for their writing skills. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as 0-60 efficiency, and the only conservative thing about a muscle car is that it's a great way to throw the middle finger to the earth and some dollars to a Middle Eastern thug. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 02:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They're also a good way to prove your manhood in a world of uppity women. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 02:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Steven McQueen driving that hot fucking Mustang 390 fastback in Bullitt should be enough to get any conservative's motor revving. 02:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Get your motor runnin'" And yeah, Stevie kicks balls. As I understand it, the current Mustang, which looks great, gets under 10 MPG. Pig. ħuman 08:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an efficient use of metal in order to feel like your penis isn't a tiny shriveled thing. does that count? --Opcn (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not nearly as efficient as the Largely Defensive Weapon of Gun. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 03:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuck all y'all. My hotrodded 1972 Vespa Rally FTW.

But I can't shoot my gun everywhere (yet)...Burnouts, however are perfectly legal in my shithole of a state! δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My neighborhood, for some reason, is blessed by lots of burnt rubber in strange places. I suspect my neighbors have supercharged hemis, but I can't prove it, I can only hear them... and see their results. ħuman 08:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You could always engage the Largely Defensive Weapon of Silencer. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If I wasn't banned I'd point out that my cheap foreign Elantra is more efficient and reliable than any modern American muscle car. Also, burnouts will probably get your license suspended in my state. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think some of the Andy-style conspiracy thinking comes from the apparent delusion some people have that it's not possible for anyone to leigitimately disagree with them. So, anyone who PRETENDS to disagree actually knows perfectly well they're right, they're just pretending otherwise for evil motives. --Gulik (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ricin and Irreducible Complexity

I clicked that link, saw three counterexamples to evolution, and convincingly countered them all in ninety seconds or less. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 02:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of them are parody, and the ones that aren't are blatantly wrong. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, but it makes me feel a little better about myself. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 03:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude that's a little slow --Opcn (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Any article on CP makes me feel better about myself. But it also makes me want to weep for humanity at the same time. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly how that place made me feel the first time I got snared in. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 03:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how I ever found that site in the first place. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 03:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a matter of group selection versus individual selection. Against other humans seeing CP should give you hope, but humans versus rats lets say, cp should make you worried. Conflicting inner evolutionary motives, there is no good solution. Opcn (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Finding a way to make stupidity painful should eliminate the problem in a few generations. --Gulik (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss this as a wigo?

Sir Fred Hoyle^img a qualified scientist (radio astronomy does not prepare you to analyze a fossil, or justify destroying about 5% of one of the most iconic and important fossils ever found to perform a test that will yield no useful data). --Opcn (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully admit that I regard anything I read on CP with a fair amount of suspicion, which most often leads to an inclination to ridicule, but I don't see what you're talking about there buddy. 03:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a fair amount? TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 04:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I might just be drunk and stupid. Help me. 04:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, things will be alright. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 04:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fred Hoyle's fossil analysis isn't worth a load of dingo's kidneys, he is stunningly less qualified than kent hovind. here is the difference --Opcn (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Got all that, thanks, but since I don't know much about the issue the part about "justify destroying about 5% of one of the most iconic and important fossils ever found to perform a test that will yield no useful data" is what I was asking about. 04:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah ... Back in the early 80's carbon dating took several grams of tissue, since archaeopteryx was very slight (lizard birds can't be heavy) then taking the amount needed would mean taking something like a long leg bone. Nothing that isn't microscopic about that fossil can be destroyed. --Opcn (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This issue (Andy's hard-on for Hoyle and the whole Archaeopteryx gig) dates back a good while and seems to be one of Andy's unique insights (read: even Creationists start shaking their heads). The diff is just the tip of the iceberg. Check the talkpage and you'll see that even PJR argues with Andy about this back in 2007 and 2008. --Sid (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Just on a little side note. You know that famous photo of the fossilised Archaeopteryx that gets used a lot, the one where the neck is bent back in a curve? I was in one of the Geology labs at Durham University the day that the real fossil got knocked off the wall by one of my fellow students and smashed. I don't think I'll ever forget the look on the lecturer's face. Priceless.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Opcn, how much are Dingo Kidneys going for this season? SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 16:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

An argument from Oolong Colluphid or two ... --Opcn (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So I've looked around and I've never heard of an Archy fossil being smashed, the one with the arched neck is the Berlin specimen --Opcn (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Head meet desk

Pinochet rules^img! I'd have WIGOed it but it's just too awful.^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 04:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy loves Pinochet and has for quite some time. JPatt's recent addition was pretty nice, too. Corry (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I might be a little confused here. Is JPatt really equating abortion rights with the Soviet purges and the Holocaust? TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 04:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Abortion is far worse. DickTurpis (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Pinochet has had much more acceptance on the right than the left for pretty much ever. Thatcher and Pinochet were close chums, and he's always had a sizeable base of support - even when he took "political responsibility" for what was done, many still don't attribute personal responsibility to him. MaxAlex (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Article: "It is defined as large-scale murder by a government, similar to a genocide or ethnic cleansing." vs Edit comment: "legal executions of criminals hardly counts". If it's done by a government then it is "legal". Really Head/Desk. Is he stupid or what? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 04:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, isn't he a parodist type? Corry (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

JacobB is, but Jpatt, though he should be, probably isn't. He's just unbelievably stupid. DickTurpis (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, it'll be accepted by all the rest of the Andykin. No-one'll dare to put it back. (watch TK^[spit] prove me wrong now). I have just eaten _& stilton^talk 05:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done TK^img. That'll larn me! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 06:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, JacobB now admits that the deaths occured, and were wrong, but it's not Democide^img - Ravenhull (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is TK going soft? :p Interesting to see if this spat carries on. H. Randolph Twist (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Methinks that Jake's days are numbered. TK^[spit] 'll be out to get him every time he can. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 08:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ithinks TK's days are numbered, he's bored there and getting sloppy. ħuman 08:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Narr, the only one who can do anything about Tk^[spit] is Andy & as long as he's got the main page liberal bashing news, the CBP & his "schoolin'", he ain't gonna notice anything. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 08:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Since we weren't there, in person, personally witnessing the murders take place, I guess we don't have the proof!"[3] Typical CP's approach to proving their ideology wrong. You HAVE to be there, you HAVE to have physical evidence, and if you have/done just that, you are still wrong because you're liberal. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Haven't followed all of this, but that diff looks like RJJ will have a few words to say soon... --Sid (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives simply don't mass murder? Yeah, except when they try to blow up federal buildings because of the scary bureaucrats inside. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember, in Andyland, Hitler and Tim Leary had EXACTLY THE SAME POLITICS. --Gulik (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Metal TK

There's something new every day.^{img I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one seeing this? It's 00:40 here, so please correct me if my fatigue is forcing me to see something that's not there.
TK at CP: Don't go crying to the admins.
TK at WP: If I'd have known you were an admin, I would have come crying to you!
Well done, TK^[spit] -Redback^{OMG, someone get the Raid!} 13:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing I noticed (and which ties in closer to the Metal part of the headline) is that TK claims he has attended several Slayer recording sessions, which to me doesn't exactly sounds like something any random John Doe could do (though I have no idea how these things work, so I could be wrong). Does this tie in with his various "I have met [famous person]" claims? I dunno (have a headache, about to head out), but I'm sure others have kept track of these things over the years. I just remember the classic "I worked with Ed Meese."^img --Sid (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Knowing a bit about the recording process, no, it is very unlikely that anyone not directly involved in the band was there. Not only is the process almost always a closed one, it's usually incredibly boring as well. The chance of TK being at a Slayer recording session is just about nil (unless he's related to someone in the band, and even then, it's still incredibly boring). Z3ro^talk 14:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so it's been nearly twenty five years since I worked in recording studios but family and friends were no more welcome than they are in the data centre where I work now - it is, after all, a work environment. There are three possible explanations.

1. Life has changed out of all recognition in the last 25 years
2. Slayer and Terry Koeckritz are from the same town and Terry Koeckritz, as a techie, worked in the sort of small local studios where bands start out
3. Terry Koeckritz is a lying toad.

If I were a betting man I'd put my money on option #3 Bob Soles (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Next we'll find out Ed was a roadie for GG Allin. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 14:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He was allowed in as a thank you for saving Nancy Reagan, duh. Internetmoniker (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My recording experiences are about 5 years old, and you are right, family is not usually allowed in. However, if some member is whiny enough about it, a girlfriend or wife might be let in, usually to disasterous results. I was trying to give TK the benefit of the doubt, thought I don't know why. Z3ro^talk 15:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Refrain from giving TK the benefit of the doubt or you will be banned. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention to you guys, I'm Lars Ulrich. SJ ^Debaser 15:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Suppose he could mean a live(concert) session? More tan likely he was a student roadie or studio dogsbody. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He could have just been in the audience. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that TK is the Yoko Ono of Slayer. DickTurpis (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he was a groupie. We all know he likes to suck the cocks of the powerful... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he won "tickets" to a session in a radio show call-in contest? Nah, more likely he was in charge of cleaning the tape heads every morning and it took him so long the band turned up before he was done... ħuman 00:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, Vellacott.

Nice to see one of the most batshit insane MPs in Canada, who for years has represented my home city with his inanity, gracing CP's front page. [4] 16:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Because an MP is obviously an expert on childbirth.... </sarcasm> Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As much as a lawyer and engineer is an expert on everything SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 19:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Being a batshit crazy MP in Canada is usually pretty hard...unless you're from the West, it seems. Why must my region produce these Republican wannabes (to borrow a Best New Conservative Word)? -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 20:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

FrankC tempts the dragon

Captured^img for safekeeping. After arguing with Andy over GPS and getting banned for a week, he comes back and delivers a KSorenson-esque "Andy, you're wrong"^img (with plentiful citations!). How will Andy respond to a direct factual rebuttal not to mention Frank pointing out all the editors Andy's banned to keep the page unchanged? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

JacobB: Andy is God here.^img Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jacob is absolutely correct; see "Help:Editing_etiquette"^img and you will find

• 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.

So Jacob is right in pointing out that Andy is God there. --Sid (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly Sidestep^img! Relativity was "not how GPS developed". Even if that were true, how is that relevant to the fact that it is how GPS is used? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Falcon... PUNCH! 23:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

FrankC has risen to the occasion in spectacular fashion. His argument is clear, cogent, compelling, with a rock-solid reference. He put a lot of work into this, just to find that long list of people objecting to Ashlafly's inanity. FrankC, thank you! (p.s. Does FrankC hang out here? Does Ksorensen?) --Fawlty (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not him, but I'm pretty sure he does, yeah. 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Any thought of maybe trying to contact him to see if he is around here, or might be willing to come to the 'DarkSide'? I mean, even if he is honestly quite conservative, he seems to have an open enough mind to maybe find a niche here. Definately has a more open mind than those who tell him to have one, but we all know how their truth will set everyone free.-Ravenhull (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk talk talk? In CP land, does 90:10 = 67:28?^img DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

TK is a complete^img dick^img. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice, he even made a sister template to the RETIRED one now that non-permanent blocks become more common. Love the deceitful wording. --Sid (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I just hope that FrankC doesn't consider this to be very important. I kind of enjoy watching CP shatter dreams, but it's more difficult when someone seems to have a genuine interest in taking the time to educate them. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy has applied his own principles from 'Quantifying Open-mindedness', as regards researching your topic. I did a quick Google and found several sources regarding Relativity in GPS. for instance - hardly rocket science...oh wait... Worm^{(t | c)} 00:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Either TK is the most epic parodist ever, or else he is just a sadistic bully. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Any reason he can't be both? --Gulik (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

He's more of a griefer than a parodist. He likes power games and the highly authoritarian environment of CP is perfect for that. Whereas Bugler was banning and abusing power to undermine the wiki, turn away potentially useful contributors, and highlight Andy's blindness to yes-men, TK just bullies people for kicks. It's unclear the degree to which he shares Conservapedia's "American Christian conservative" viewpoint. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) Sorry to keep banging on, but I just can't let it go. If FrankC reads this, or anyone else who understands the technicalities (physics was never my strong point) - there are several documents out there that show the use of relativistic effects in the development of GPS - in particular reports from the US Navy, who were key players in developing GPS. Does Andy want to claim that the USN are wrong? For instance Navigation Technology Satellite 2 (NTS-2) This paper discusses the launch and preliminary results which include verification of the relativistic clock effect and includes, in the achievements section - verification of relativity theory Worm^{(t | c)} 10:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

US Navy? Damn libruls! It doesn't matter how much proof you or FrankC find, since Andy has already used a technicality to "win" the debate. Andy argued that relativity had nothing to do with the development of GPS, despite the cited paper stating that relativistic effects must be considered when implementing a GPS system. I'm not sure he's moved the goal posts, but he's certainly arguing on a technicality. --^{Ask me about your mother} 11:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoever did that "facts! rant! bye!" WIGO - very, very good! --PsygremlinSiarad! 18:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I toyed with adding a fourth link to TK's "Fuck you! God Bless!" vacation tag but it just ruined the beautiful symmetry. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Uncle Ed...

Anyone have his email address? I'm making a donation to Doctors Without Borders right now "In honor of Edmund Poor" (damn, why can't it be "honour") and would like an e-card to go to him with this information. DickTurpis (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you try his user page or old versions of it? - π 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

uncle_ed_poor@yahoo.com, but why not make it in honor of someone you care about? Ed Poor won't appreciate and doesn't deserve the kindness. 04:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nutty is Ed Poor. I fucking new it. Thats why you keep asking me to remove my pants on skype. It all makes sense. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whose name the donation is in; the only important thing is that it goes to help the Haitians. Doing it in honor of him shows him the "typical liberal response" he complains about, and shows that liberals actually do something other than offer empty prayers. I think it would be kind of cool if Ed (or Andy) was inundated with such notices from Rationalwikians. Might even encourage them to offer something themselves. DickTurpis (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ace appears to be a little girl from this information. Hm. Pietrow (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

More ED & Haiti

"...Churches with missionary teams in place are (1) more accountable ..." Yeah, Ed, like the paedo priests? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 05:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Also: just seen a BBC news report on Christian Missionaries leaving Haiti. Hah! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 06:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well they probably had to leave to catch up on their accounting.. --GTac (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat Orwellian?

NVConservative changes^img Brit → Murkin spelling (forbidden by Conservapedia Commandments) in the Communist manifesto completely ignoring the fact that the page begins with: [From the English edition of 1888, edited by Friedrich Engels]. Change the past to suit the present? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 05:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ministry of Truth hard at work. Rad McCool (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to WIGO this one... it's too good to miss.-Ravenhull (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 06:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the Conservative Communist Manifesto Project. Next up Das Kapital de-liberalized. Internetmoniker (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

TK has reverted the changes. Probably a parodist anyway. Pietrow (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is nice of us to keep him up to date with his wiki, isn't it. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 10:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

28 Years?

Weird-ass block lengths continue on CP. --PsygremlinSnakk! 18:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is set to 10000 days (ca 27.4 years)? Etc 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember seeing the first 5 year blocks and telling to myself: 5 years from now Conservapedia will be no more. Now I realize I might have been wrong - after all it's 3 years and counting and CP is still going "strong". Any bets on CP existing or not 28 years from now? Editor at CP^{mały książe} 20:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In 28 years Andy will be ranting that socks are a liberal conspiracy to keep his feet away from his shoes, saying that no one denies that socks cause asthma or some crazy shit. I kinda hope CP is still around to document that. X Stickman (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

At the rate Andy's going, he'll discover that one of Jesus' many economic parables is that true Conservatives shouldn't pay taxes. Then he'll get stabbed in prison by Kent Hovind during a Creationist brawl. 01:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what happens when some of those 5 year blocks expire - some people are going to have a lot of unblocked socks when that happens. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming Conservapedia's Law holds as predicted, in 28 years conservative insights will be so pervasive that we probably won't need CP anymore. --Retwa (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And there will be millions of new conservative words. Heck, in 28 years everything will be considered a conservative word. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Atheist hospitals

I feel all WIGO'd out, so if someone wants to make that WIGO a bit snappier (logic does not require such verbosity!) go ahead. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 19:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Keegscee (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good WIGO. I love it when Andy wheels out the "Everybody knows that blah blah blah is blah blah blah" argument. He truly is the custodian of common knowledge! --^{Ask me about your mother} 19:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What the...? Weak attempt at parody or prime sysop material? This guy does score pretty high on the dyslexia and incoherence scales...Röstigraben (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd...have to say both.

Meanwhile, as Andy continues to sharpen his new meme, this edit comment typo really made me laugh. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 01:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahahaha, I wonder if it was an innocent typo or a plea to out him as a secret liberal. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Typical TK

From the part I just WIGOed: "Those who come here to argue and debate us will find their visit short." That should win a "understatement of the year" award. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a great guy. Let's make him a sysop or something. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly's the real douchebag here. It's amazing how much of an asshole he can be even to people who agree with him like DMorris. Andy's brain thinks it is the ONLY source of objective truth, to the point that people who rephrase his ideas are suspect stealth libruls for not using the exact same words. (There's a similar WIGO down the page, starting "New user sucks up to Andy" where he literally berates a newcomer who praises "best of the public" for not citing more of the examples Andy came up with yesterday). It's Andy vs. World. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti vs Eureka

I think that's the first time Conservapedian idiocy made me genuinely enraged. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Haiti WIGO blaming the devastation on a lack of economic freedom isn't quite as mad as it seems. Sure, countries with successful economies still get struck by earthquakes, but their infrastructure and resources help to minimise the consequences of natural disasters. The only real problem is that Andy's idea of economic freedom would seem to reduce the US to being a series of corporate city-states separated by country clubs and shanty towns for the worst of the public who weren't talented enough to be born in to money. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Something maybe neat

I possess some vaguely interesting Conservapedia-related information, but paranoia tells me that it might not be wise to release publicly. What was the consensus on "tee hee I know something you don't know" incidents? Dump it all out or pass it around via email? Fedhaji (Talk) 10:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail! Oh, me! Me! Me! (imagine: kindergarten schoolkid straining his arm up, begging to be called) Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 11:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. -Ravenhull (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto... please send along to lil' me. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 12:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And me! I love that kind of info. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuck it. Just post it here so we can all see it. DickTurpis (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail e-mail e-mail! EddyP (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For sure. Just post it.... Or email it to me as well. SirChuckB^{That is all} 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm not an established member, but you have piqued my curiosity. Could I have an email please? Yorick^{Is Joe Biden Eva Braun?} 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this type of behaviour, it completely goes against the wiki mentality, however I do understand when people would rather not alert CP to something. Ergo, email it to me ME ME! (Please) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I can haz? 19:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Turns out it's old news, and I'm a moron

I found the Conservative Bible Project Google Group, but further investigation reveals that it's already linked straight off the CBP page. I didn't realize that this was already public until today; I searched last night and failed to turn it up on here or CP. The secrecy was on the off chance that it might get locked down once it was revealed we knew about it (hi Terry Koeckritz, you paranoid maniac).

So nothing really interesting; go back to your television sets. Sorry to get y'all lathered up over nothing. I did learn how to quickly scrape the contents of a Google Group, though, in case we ever, erm, have use of such abilities. Fedhaji (Talk) 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For future reference (and since it's not too widely known yet, I think), you should use Special pages -> External links to check what article links to which site. The regular search field is more for regular text. --Sid (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sid. Fedhaji (Talk) 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Disaster relief

Shouldn't that be on the mainpage, or recent changes or the Saloon bar? WIGOCP seems like an extremely inappropriate place. - π 13:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it to site messages so it can follow you around all day. - π 13:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I really like the new Haiti relief link box. ħuman 19:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Republicans occupy 18 of the top 20 spots in terms of followers on Twitter."

Nothing epic compared to Ed-Stubs and Andy-Insights, but I just stumbled over this and feel like rambling a bit because it offers a good look some of the more fundamental problems of CP:

I love how Jpatt includes this in the Twitter article without any sort of qualifier. The paper makes it clearer: This is only about Members of Congress who registered on Twitter with their real name, who are active, and who posted during a one-week window.

Which is kinda silly and sad because the paper does explicitly echo the claim, so there is no real need to "accidentally" omit the context. It's still a strong point (at least when you only look at how US politicians use Twitter - which I'd guess is a fairly small part of all Twitter traffic), so why fudge? Not even to mention that he links to NewsBusters, which links to Forbes, which links to the author's site (but not the specific article - even though it's at least the topmost article on the site for now). You know. Instead of just directly linking to the place where people can quickly check the actual data. --Sid (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention most people only follow them out of a sense of morbid curiosity. --PsygremlinSpeak! 13:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not surprised. Republican rhetoric these days is largely limited to non-complex notions that appeal to folks who don't like to think much. Cut taxes! Obama is a foreigner! Keep your hands off my guns! Obama is a socialist! I don't know that mastering the 160-charaters policy statement is anything to be proud of.--WJThomas (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the final stage of Rove's Law. - π 13:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Jpatt's pretty fond of omitting important information from a reference. This^img is a couple of days old, but wasn't noticed here. The image he added has a caption that contradicts the Fox News story where he found it, by omitting four or five important words. The result: Global Cooling for the last 8 years! Damn the facts. Junggai (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Idiot! (Guess which one)

The guy is an idiot. A) Being a pervert is not the same thing as "pushing one's morals on another". B) Of course liberals have their own set of morals. Duh--that's what makes them different from conservatives. C) One person's moral failings do not indicate the whole group shares the same ideas (Larry Craig, anyone?). D) Ritter is a registered Republican.^{— Unsigned, by: WJThomas / talk / contribs}

Think we already knew that. (the idiot bit, that is) ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha...then again, as Toast says, now that I know who it is I'm far from surprised. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy realized that this item was stupid even by their high standards: "No names, no link, no pointing fingers please." --Sid (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More family-friendly, gossip-free "news" from the Trustworthy Encyclopedia. In other news, the sky is still blue... --SpinyNorman (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice try Joaquin, but no cigar

JM tries his hand^img at an ED style stub article but it's just too long. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Spanish-dictionary-pedia! Multiculturalism FTW! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not convincing. If Ed had written this one there would be an example of some odd sexual practice as an example of disgusting. "Oh god, it's so wrong. I'll just watch them a while longer so I can be certain that it's wrong"--^{Ask me about your mother} 15:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There would have been a liveblogging transcript of Two Girls, One Cup. --SpinyNorman (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Neeeearggggh! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 16:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Joaquin, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to put less text, not more. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See Also: The Jungle? FernoKlump ^{What the fuck Mr. Assfly??? That bastard DeanS deleted my petition!} 20:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Didn't it use "disgust" to open people's minds about the horror of the meat industry? ħuman 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why he's so pissed off.....

...is it because mummy made it on the Torygraph list[5] but he didn't? BTW The comments are well worth wasting 5 mins of your life on! Mick McT (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. I am sure that Andy has accepted that he, like Prince Charles, will live in his mother's shadow till she's gone. MDB (talk)

At the risk of being classed as a sexist, Andy's probably just on his period. SJ ^Debaser 17:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he's just pissed that the "clueless Brits" didn't take their cues from Andy's list. Don't they know he's the decider of conservatism? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 17:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly sees Lieberman as a liberal because Lieberman tends to vote with liberals on social matters, while Mr. Schlafly is a social conservative. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Clueless Brits?"

"Clueless Brits?" Fuck off Andy, you don't have any friends. SJ ^Debaser 17:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"SuperJosh" (you're not credible, liberal), I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and noticed you draw a silly distinction between sheep and goats (which I've reverted), so I'm confident you're favoring immorality. Denying this calls into question all of your credibility on the fact that pregnancy deters abortion. Got news for you: this is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one. Warning: keep it clean, and don't speculate about ancient Greece. The truth shall set you free.--Aschlafly 03:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see Andy on holiday, anywhere really, but especially Europe. I would pay to see him read an english newspaper over breakfast, for example. X Stickman (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Heck, I'm surprised he manages to survive in NJ, which is relatively cosmopolitan as far as US states go. It must have been rough for him to go into New York City for the Colbert filming. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Assfly's comment it perfectly logical, Josh. One Torygraph hack wrote one piece that doesn't perfectly match Assfly's opinion, therefore all Brits are clueless. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with Andy on this one. Brits are generally clueless. In other news, spades are spades. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

MickMac is spot on, the comments on the Torygraph article are well worth a read! Here's a couple of good'uns:

Seriously? It simply amazes me how fascinated you europeans are with American politics. Do you know how many newspaper articles you see here about British news? NOTHING! You all hates us but you can't admit you want to be us. -Dustin from Boston

I think if anyone has ever watched the circus that is British Politics then you understand why no one takes these idiots serious and why no one should take this list serious. The Brits didn't have a clue as to why we kicked their ignorant a@# out of America and they don't have a clue as to who and why we pick for office. - Jason

Superb! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that "Jason" Jinx _{hi Jinx!}, perhaps? ListenerX^TalkerX 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are americans reading an english newspaper? Their logic is infallible. X Stickman (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

read the bottom of the article it says it was compiled by staff in Washington, so no reason to assume they were British. ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.19.166.106 / talk / contribs}

Open Minded Garbage

Is there some conservative memo about being open minded? On Rush Limbaugh's show, he slammed a caller, saying "What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a blockhead... What I’m illustrating here is that you’re a close-minded bigot who is ill-informed. If you had listened to this program for a modicum of time, you would know it,” he said. “But instead, you’re a blockhead. Your mind is totally closed. You have tampons in your ears. Nothing is getting through other than the biased crap that you read." Clean up the language and insert a bunch of liberals and you have a perfect Andy quote. SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Right-wingers are trying to appropriate liberal ideas of tolerance, as well as political-correctness, and adapt them (or the right-wingers' understanding of them, at any rate) to advancing their own political program. Instead of being tolerant of certain groups of people, you are supposed to be "tolerant" of right-wing ideas. Instead of not offending certain groups of people, you are supposed to keep an open mind and not offend right-wingers by challenging their ideas. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's similar to people claiming that giving gay people the right to marry will somehow trample on their religious civil liberties. Of course, I have a hard time not thinking that anybody decrying a closed mind, on either side of an argument, is full of shit. Corry (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You've gotta love 'em

Charity? From Liberals? But where's it going? To the baddies of course^img. Don't they just make you sick? Don't give & you're "unchristian", give and you're funding the evil one. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Also Ed: it's capital city^img, idiot. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the few times I've donated blood it's being going to murderers and rapists. SJ ^Debaser 15:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't be so hard on them. What they're giving, prayer, is much more important than money and aid. DickTurpis (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has ever told Andy that prayer is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. I wonder how he would respond... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not illegitimate to raise concerns about how the money will be spent, especially in a country with a reputation for corruption like Haiti's. However, Ed seems to want the Red Cross and the other charities to be providing a detailed spending plan up front, and that's just impossible. We only have vague knowledge of what the situation is like in Haiti, and most of it is that things are really rally bad. The Red Cross can't be expected to provide a plan up front, because they don't know what needs to be done yet! MDB (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(conflict-conflict aaaaah)His link is about the Red Cross. You know what happens to your money if you send it to the Red Cross idiot, they know how to do emergency aid. It is not some UN-program. Now show some of that great conservative charity, go on. Internetmoniker (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mixing this up with all that other crazy Andy shit, but didn't he once state that he wasn't donating any money, because he was already donating something way more valuable: prayer? Or something like that? I faintly remember him being really smug at what a completely useless delusional cheapskate he was... --GTac (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sweet Jesus, if he really said that, he needs to go back to Sunday School and re-learn that part about "whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me". MDB (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it was in an argument with either Aziraphale or HelpJazz (meaning it's likely completely burned). Andy said that prayer would save their souls, which was more important than feeding them. There's a twisted logic to it, but it's still disgusting. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 17:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We should all give our money to the Moonie church. I'm sure they won't spend it on pampering the Moonie royal family. Corry (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Typical Ed, wanting the Red Cross to submit a writing plan. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The "It only goes to corrupt politicians" is the oldest cop out in the book used by rich people to avoid contributing anything to the third world. Bob Soles (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The irony of that is those same rich people then give massive donations to their own pet corrupt politicians.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Humanitarian agencies (though they do help people in need) are also used as covers by Western intelligence agencies to co-ordinate and fund movements against local governments, destabilizing them and effecting 'popular' coups that install pro-Western leaders. I will not help this happen in Haiti AGAIN and I will give my money to local hospitals and bums instead. How is THAT for a cop out?99.225.14.16 (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Do what you like. I'll continue supporting Doctors Without Borders. 20:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'll continue my campaign to Free Nutty from the Chains of Oppression. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed is continuing to be an ass. MDB (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And look at the charity Andy posts: a little mission-group which, while I have no doubt they mean well and do good under normal circumstances, lacks the size, logistics, or expertise necessary for any sort of rapid large-scale disaster relief. Does Andy not understand that a massive effort is required right now, including the acquisition and distribution of supplies for hundreds of thousands, if not millions? And then he brags about the amount he's donating?! 17:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's good that he's helping out, but his idea of "rapid response" is typical Andy. Bash the Red Cross, which probably been on the ground helping out already, and provide a snail-mail address for his preferred charity instead. --SpinyNorman (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonus irony points for Ed being an ass. He tries to tie the Red Cross to stories about volunteers being held back for days for sensitivity training during Katrina, but the culprit was FEMA, run by the Bush administration at the time. Heckuva job, Eddie. --SpinyNorman (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Their assholishness is unreal. A Goddamn Church didn't save the people in the tsunami...helicopters and boats did. If shithole mission churches were going to save people, Haiti would already be saved. Every holier-than-thou prick with a congregation to scream at seems to have a Church in Haiti. Unless these assholes start planning on performing medical miracles, they should GET OUT OF THE WAY and let real life-savers (doctors, nurses and emergency personnel) do their job. I had to put up with these pricks in the aftermath of Katrina...I can only imagine what the ones willing to live in a 3rd world hut are like. Would it be possible to get a Bible out of their hands? δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 17:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From the Samaritan's Purse website:

WAYS YOU CAN HELP

PRAY:

For victims of the earthquake, and for rescue crews and other emergency workers.

For the Samaritan's Purse team that is on its way to Haiti.

For wisdom as we decide where to work.

GIVE:

Please visit our donation page to help us meet the needs of earthquake victims in Haiti.

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with encouraging contributions to religious charities that are capable of handling something like this, and from what I hear, Samaritan's Purse is good at what they do. Andy, though, seems to have picked some little pissant group that, while they may be experienced in Haiti, is probably not prepared to handle a massive human catastrophe. The Red Cross may not be perfect, but they are the experts at large scale disaster relief. MDB (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it doesn't matter who does the work, just that it gets done. My experience, however, leads my to believe that highly religious Christian organizations are not capable of getting the work done. When I ran in to them in Mississippi after Katrina, all they wanted to do was pray and talk. In the Congo, pray and talk...Somolia, Bosnia, and Haiti...pray and talk. Sure, they got a few building put up, but had they actually shut up for a substantial period of time, they could have done so much more. In my opinion, they've squandered their opportunity to help. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 18:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, but also remember that Haiti has a lot of Christians, emotional comfort will be important for the survivors, and, for people of faith, faith-based charities are a logical place to turn for emotional support. MDB (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)

Nothing wrong with providing emotional and spiritual comfort, but when I looked at the Dayspring Ministries site Andy mentions (their site isn't complete, but a PDF Newsletter is), they run a clinic, orphanage and Christian School. That's all well & good, but aside from the clinic how is sending more money to them going to get clean drinking water, food and shelter to the rest of the country? It's interesting that a link for Samaritan's Purse was provided in the Talk page, but the only one Andy mentions on the main page is the one from his neighborhood in NJ, which he encourages you to snail-mail a paper check to. At least Samaritan's Purse takes online donations immediately, and has the following update on their site:

"Samaritan’s Purse dispatched a team just hours after the quake to help with water, shelter, medical care, and other emergency needs. We will focus on medical help, shelter, clean water, and hygiene supplies."

That at least sounds like the kind of immediate help that these poor people need, but if it wasn't Andy's idea it's not the best of the public. --SpinyNorman (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Andy has even bothered to verify that Dayspring Ministries is capable of doing much now. They were already in Haiti; there may not be much left of them. (I hope I'm wrong, of course. They sound like good people trying to help some people who were in desperate shape before the earthquake.) MDB (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Front page request

Could we put a "Donate for Haitian Earthquake Relief" to the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders on the front page? MDB (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I sure wouldn't stop you. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the wiki skilz but these two links might help

• Medecin Sans Frontiers
• The Red Cross

Bob Soles (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And, incidentally, 81% of monies donated to MSF goes directly to field work. Bob Soles (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to check to see if your employer will match charitable donations. (Mine does, and I got a "very timely" from our head of HR.) MDB (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? These are secular organizations. Therefore I am 95% certain that 95% of the money they receive goes to their office gay sex orgies and turning young people away from the Bible. DickTurpis (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They use the other five percent to censor classroom prayer. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 16:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a list here of organisations to donate to. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I have added links to secular relief agencies on previous occasions so encourage you to do so as well. I think it was the tsunami appeal a couple of years ago where we had links on our front page and CP was only offering prayers. They were eventually shamed into adding their own charity links. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added the link provided by user:Toast to the front page. This gives links to a mix of secular and religious organisations including The Red Cross. As I said, my wiki skilz aren't the best so if anyone wants to do a better job feel free. Bob Soles (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bob. I made it a little bigger, but nice work. Much appreciated. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 17:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the links. I might have the priveleges to edit it, but I don't view the main page as "mine" to touch. MDB (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For something like that, go for it. Helping tens of thousands of people is a bit more important than the possibility of someone getting their panties in a knot over a wiki edit. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 18:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a link to the stuff at the top of WIGO CP, linking to the official US State Departement page on the Haitian crisis. They are promoting a way to give a $10 donation to the American Red Cross simply texting HAITI to 90999 (it's added to your cell bill). Fair warning, they will spam you for more donations until you reply STOP, but other than that, it's a quick and easy way to make a donation. --Ravenhull (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

One amusing and nice note

The head football coach at the University of Tennessee (my alma mater) abruptly quit last night. Some fans were going to burn t-shirts related to him. The owner of one shop selling them is offering a 20% discount to anyone who brings one in, and will ship the returned shirts to Haiti.

I have a lot of contempt for my home state of Tennessee, but that makes me feel all warm inside. MDB (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't beat the Conservapedians at being charitable

Conservapedians already helped before the earthquake ever happened. Internetmoniker (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Andy manages to mention the size of his dickcontribution. MDB (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A whole $200 Andy, you're really testing that whole "Conservatives are more chartiable" meme of yours. Considering all your family members sent you $1000 each when you ran for public office. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 19:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He's not even specifically saying he's giving the $200, he's "arranging" it. He could be taxing his student's lunch money. MaxAlex (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He should just inject $200.00 into the local community and let the free market economy do the rest. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ace - surely the Haitians know that if they don't make $400.00 from their $200.00 then they will get sent to Hell. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't really find a section to comment on this so I picked this one. That mission seem like pretty decent folk, and it also seems natural to me for Andy to point to his hometown mission that has strong ties - and perhaps boots on the ground - with Haiti. Not the most efficient way to get help to them right now, but certainly well-meaning. That said, what do you folks think the chances are that http://www.fccofchester.org/home.html is his church? (The mission appears to be one of theirs). I waded through their very nice photo gallery, and it seems the men go to the woods and be, well, manly, and the ladies bake cookies. Didn't see pics of him anywhere though. ħuman 01:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Andy "catholic"? 03:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy was born, baptized, and probably raised Catholic, but so obviously is no longer RCC it's not even funny. ħuman 06:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to know how they'd spin the fact that the largest African aid organisation (and the only African one to send aid to Haiti so far) is Islamic? And they do very, very good work too - volunteered with them during our xenophobia bullshit a few years ago. --PsygremlinZungumza! 10:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It Could Be Worse

At least CP isn't blaming the earthquake on a pact with the devil Haitians made about a century ago. Pat Robertson is doing just that. MDB (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy fuck. That's awful. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh joined in the "fun". MDB (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's going to hop on their socks and add this? 21:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very interested in Andy's reaction to this. I'm guessing that he will disagree with Limbaugh, because he (Andy) is never wrong, and he did just say that conservatives (i.e. him) should donate to Haiti. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to hunt up the link, but Andy's indicated in the past he's no fan of Limbaugh. MDB (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he vetoed him being put on the great conservatives of the decade list. That aside, Rush is odious. H. Randolph Twist (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There's always at least one crazy pastor who'll turn natural disasters into acts of God. Hagee said the same thing about Katrina. These people are all more mainstream than CP. MaxAlex (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There is, at least, some decency coming from the right -- Fox News' Shep Smith said in response to Robertson, the people of Haiti "don't need that." MDB (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that is a good response. Robertson and his ilk put me in mind of Eric Cartman licking tears from the face of someone in distress. It's that bullshit religious tactic, along the lines of The Secret that requires that people be blamed for tragedies that befall them - even if the evidence wouldn't support such a conclusion. I'm only surprised that Robertson didn't invoke the curse of ham, what with Haitians being most black. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe Smith is the same one who declared, live and on the air at Fox, "this is America! We do not fucking torture!" MDB (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And he went off-message and actually reported live on Hannity that the government was barricading people into New Orleans and not letting them over the bridges. Shep is FOX's black sheep, the only guy in the building who appears to have a soul. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 01:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember when he mocked Glenn Beck crying? I like Shep Smith. He's probably the only good anchor at Fox News. -Doppelheuer (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming there is no hell (in which Pat Robertson deserves a special place if there is one), then I hope that horrible things happen to Robertson and his family. Maybe God can test his faith a bit. For anybody to say what he did, shows how morally bankrupt they are... as am I, no doubt, for wishing horrible things upon him. --PsygremlinZungumza! 10:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A very poor Poor stub

I know it's not unusual to find Ed 'come and sit on Uncle Ed's lap' Poor stubs that consist of nothing more than an external link, but what the fuck is this one about? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No kidding, even for Ed, that's pretty bizarre. Does he know he is writing for a wiki? Refugee^{talk page} 22:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahahahahaha!! Please please please WIGO this if it isn't WIGOed already. This is one of the best (read: worst) Ed stub ever. He seems to think he is on WP, where there are millions of editors who will finished what he starts. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to do justice to it. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

it links to JonathonLedger.com (never heard of him) and a story about some poor Nigerian bettering himself. Made me think of ... well, sex. Not what I would call a Encyclopedic entry Hamster (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's so meta, it hurts. --Sid (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If Ed's oddly recurrent sex stubs are anything to go by then I assume he buys in to the philosophy espoused by this stub. Makes me wonder which orifice he shits through? Presumably the arse is a bit too easy. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The link: dated May 2007; the guy's job: mortgage loan. Now what happened in 2007/8 ... just let me try to remember ... Ooooh yes! (all the stub means is: "nothing venture: nothing gain"; well Duh!) ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

When I saw path of least resistance, I was expecting it to at least be a physics stub. It does amaze me the way he can create shorter and shorter stubs, you would think he would reach a limit eventually. - π 04:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It could probably be expressed as a mathematical formula. Poor's Law? Poor's Constant? (that wouldn't be what it is, but I like the sound of it) -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 04:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The length of an Ed stub would need to expressed in epsilons, I think. I'll get a coffee and think about on the way down stairs. - π 05:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to your findings. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 09:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Due to the work I did recently on the PoorTwitaPedia, I have figures hanging around for page sizes and stuff, I can even get hold of the actual content and do some analysis to work out an 'average' stub if it would be fun/useful/pointless? Worm^{(t | c)} 09:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That is truly a work of inspired genius. All of Ed's stubs in one place? It's like browsing the Library of Congress, if the Library of Congress was written by Ed Poor, on Twitter. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 19:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, the list that just keeps on giving. There is a double bonus in there of a link to RW and, by CP's standards, a rather family unfriendly link at that. I wonder if Andy will ever realise just how crazy/creepy are the people he has running his asylum, or if at some subconscious level he expects conservatives to be crazy/creepy and so everything looks normal to him. Remarcsd (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on some very dodgy word counts, the 'average' stub from Ed is something along the lines of : The NFL Super Bowl is an American movie from Earth, but the draft science on Conservapedia is not. Hmmm. --Worm^{(t | c)} 17:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy's Church

Above, someone posted speculation that the First Congregational Church of Chester, NJ is Andy's own church, based on the fact they sponsor the mission in Haiti to which Andy has encouraged donations.

The web site has a link to the pastor's blog, and it seems to come quite close to Andy's own theology and politics, albeit with a good deal less ass-holish-ness. It seems to come close to evangelical Protestantism, though it almost completely lacks any emphasis on "end-times" issues. (Which is one thing that puzzled me about Andy's beliefs -- most hard-core religious conservatives are pretty obsessive about that.)

This is why. If Mr. Schlafly is a Catholic, he is an amillennialist. If this minister is a Calvinist and hyper enough not to be an amillennialist, he is likely a postmillennialist, which means that he thinks Jesus will rule the world for a thousand years before the Second Coming, via theocratic government. Neither amillennialists nor postmillennialists are at the moment expecting the Second Coming to occur at 2:00 tomorrow afternoon, right after Days of Our Lives. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So, I don't think this necessarily proves Andy is a member there, but it seems to be a reasonable conclusion.

Looking up information on the Congregationalists proved interesting (to me, at least.) There's no real church hierarchy; the local congregations run things (hence the name). It's the descendant of the churchws founded by the early American Pilgrims. (In fact, the founding of the the church that seems to be Andy's own pre-dates the American Revolution by over a hundred years!)

There's apparently three different Congregationalist denominations, including the quite liberal United Church of Christ. I can't determine which one this church is a part of, but their web site does day they left the UCC in 1971. There's two other Congregationalist "umbrella" denominations, but neither of them include the First Congregational Church of Chester, NJ, nor does the church itself list any denomination on its web site. Perhaps its truly independent. MDB (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that is his church. His mother is Catholic. If he converted to protestantism he would have been cast out. Phyllis really isn't the forgiving/tolerant type. Internetmoniker (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I am pretty much expecting Andy to start his own church any day now. With a best of the public style hierarchy. - π 12:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I do hope we're not outing personal information here, there's enough crap going down round here as it is.^{— Unsigned, by: Totnesmartin / talk / contribs}

He's made himself a public figure & should stand the consequences. Anyone know where (which church) he was married in? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be [Princeton University Chapel. --^{Ask me about your mother} 13:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

From Cr's link: "Roman Catholic ceremony.". ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I kinda believe he doesn't even go to church anymore. It just wouldn't live up to his standards, and he has a lot more important stuff to do on the weekends, like making up more conservative words! He just likes saying that he goes to church, just like he doesn't actually read the bible 5% of his time. --GTac (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

His editing pattern seems to suggest he goes to church, but I have a hard time believing it. How could he stand it? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More to the point: how could they stand him? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 13:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Something I've wondered about... I'm familiar with European Catholicism, but I don't know much about the US version. Is Bill Donohue in any way representative of the US version? If not, Andy seems to be way out on his own with his religious views. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bill Donohue is pretty hard core among American Catholics. MDB (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not sure the Andystalking is terribly productive, he/they did say when & where the two large Conservapedia buses were going to be leaving from. It's near a certain church. Assuming that the info is still on the wiki. MaxAlex (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk to myself if I have to, I guess. Voila. MaxAlex (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well found that man. First Congregational Church of Chester. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 16:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He definitely has taught there, but I still don't believe he's a member. Andy has to be Catholic, right? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Except he takes some pretty key differences with the Vatican. Most notably, he's a Young Earth Creationist, when the unofficial Catholic position is theistic evolution. Further, John Paul II, at least, was not a supporter of the Iraq War. And I don't think current Catholic theology is that capitalism is divinely ordained -- indeed, current Catholic social teaching is somewhat socialistic. Plus, the basis of the CBP is the King James Version, which is not used in Catholic churches. If he does consider himself a Catholic, he's as much a "cafeteria Catholic" as one who uses birth control. MDB (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how someone who's so America-centric could fit in with the Catholic Church--a religion that has a strong internationalist and universalist scope and in very many ways stands opposed to a lot of what makes America America--military aggression, unhampered pursuit of wealth, etc. It would make far, far more sense for him to fit into some sort of American Evangelical congregation on a political level. The Catholic Church has become way less white-Euro-American in the last few decades; I can't see Andy finding a comfortable spot amongst the global community of Catholics. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Many Catholics are much at odds politically with the church brass, which limits the amount of political orthodoxy required of its members. Descendants of earlier Catholic immigrants to the U.S. may have become more aggressively "American" than Protestants as a response to the nativist accusations that they were not "real Americans." ListenerX^TalkerX 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Wait'll the next Pope comes from Brazil or Camaroon and we'll see how uber-American these folks are. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There has never been an American Pope; what are you getting at? ListenerX^TalkerX 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people are so interested in his Church, but it seems pretty clear to me he's not actively congregational at any. If he wanted to attend a Catholic church there's the perfectly good St Larry's. Any Church like that will have it's own MfL drive, so the need to requisition more vehicles would be limited and wouldn't need to be separately organised. If there is any interesting question, it's whether he attends sermons/mass at all. MaxAlex (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just curiosity really. It's something we never knew - and that line in the "voila" link above - "He also teaches various subjects to homeschool students at the First Congregational Church of Chester" pretty much nails it for me. I'm sure he goes every Sunday. How on earth would he end up teaching the largest history and economics courses in human history in the basement of a church he doesn't attend? Makes no sense. As far as the RCC thing and Phyllis, sure he was raised catholic, but he had one o' them epiphanies a few years back, when he stopped "believing" in evolution and millions of years (as they love to say). I don't think Phyllis is particularly religious; anyone else remember the slight awkwardness in their radio interview when Andy started going all Jesusy on her?

Anyway, although I am now "convinced", I don't think it's supported strongly enough to be written in any articles.

Last note, "The contingent to the march in Washington, D.C., will leave the Chester Shop-Rite parking lot at 7:15 a.m. and return at 10 p.m., with a stop for dinner on the way back. Bus tickets are $20 and perople interested in participating can e-mail Schlafly at aschlafly@aol.com." ħuman 19:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's true that there's no confidence in saying he's Catholic. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He could be "catholic" but still go to service at FCC. However, I would be surprised if there was any evidence that he went consistently for service. MaxAlex (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated to anything said so far: the aforementioned article calls Wikipedia "Wikopedia"... ten times. Is this a stupid nickname like lie-beral or evil-lution or do they not apparently have spell check? -Doppelheuer (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply because it was a phone interview and the journo didn't bother to research the term. MaxAlex (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the website's whois data shows the pastor's name as Allan. Conservapedia is registered through Roy Allen and Associates, on 5th ave, NYC, though Andy operates out of NJ. Nick Heer 05:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No relation. Pastor Allan has a surname - Briggs. MaxAlex (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The church's website is hardly a popular place if the view counter (3106) is anything to go by. I was amused by one of the subpages which is titled "How May I Become a Believer in Jesus Christ?" and finishes off with "If you have just prayed this prayer, we invite you to contact us at 908-879-5322 with any questions you may have." Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The pastor's blog touts Dayspring donations, so the connections to Andy are pretty certain. 23:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

RJJ and the Tea Party Movement

RJJ annoys^img grassroots enthusiasts with an unwanted dose of realism. --Sid (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No big deal - Andy et al. has shown a remarkable ability to ignore historical fact in the past. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because history has a pervasive liberal bias. --Gulik (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Economic freedom in Haiti

Maybe I'm not in the know, but how is economic freedom stifled in Haiti? What would Haitians be producing if they fit Andy's idea of academic freedom? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I see it's the typical mix of corruption, lack of institutions and rule of law.--^{Ask me about your mother} 14:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How is corruption counter to economic freedom? What would regulatory institutions have to do with it? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're over-thinking it. They're poor. They're black. So when a huge natural disaster hits, certain types of folk want to justify their contempt and indifference by blaming the victims.--WJThomas (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Economic freedom requires stability and a degree of certainty. It's like giving everyone the freedom to build a sandcastle on the beach, but failing to prevent the bigger kids from arbitrarily stomping on the castles of smaller kids. Regulatory institutions provide the stability and certainty, and it's far better than leaving the fate of your business contract in the hands of a local official who's likely to side with cronies or the one with the largest bribe. Yep, this is overcomplicating things. Right now they need emergency help, but after that they'll need help in rehabilitating their society. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I mostly reverted the Eureka WIGO. It may not be a good WIGO (too wordy) & I'm fine if people vote it down now, but there really is 3 or 4 kinds of stupidity packed into Stossel's claim. The earthquakes are not comparable, Haiti's poverty has nothing to do with free markets or unfree markets, and supposing a similar-sized quake struck San Francisco most of the reduction in property damage and saved lives would be due to earthquake-resistant construction (regulated by govt) and search and rescue & earthquake preparedness teams (govt service). Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 14:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good revert. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, good job. Even those damn liberal building codes and the socialistic idea of having a tax-funded rescue agencies would only do so much. --^{Ask me about your mother} 14:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

One thought I had about the idea of earthquake codes in Haiti, and this may be off-base -- Haiti is a desperately impoverished country. If they required buildings to be constructed with anything resembling California's codes, most people couldn't afford any place to live. MDB (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

An actual comparable situation to the Haiti quake is the New Madrid Fault. Very few earthquakes in this region are large enough to be felt, yet like the Caribbean, there is a small historical risk of a super earthquake that would cost tens of thousands of lives across multiple nearby cities. Where Haiti could do basically nothing to regulate its own earthquake safety, the United States and the threatened states spent and are spending millions of dollars to study the fault and to make sure modern buildings are earthquake safe. A perfect example of government taking action that the Invisible Hand Of Earthquake Preparedness didn't. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 14:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the New Madrid fault (the locals pronounce it Mad-Rid) and while a large quake might destroy buildings flooding would be a major problem locally as the Mississippi has quite high levees in that area with a large flood plain. If the levees were ruptured by a lateral displacement a huge volume of water would be released. Of course any earthquake in the US would pale into insignificance if the Yellowstone Caldera blows its top again. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I had to vote this one down. Stossel is comparing the Haiti quake to the San Francisco 1989 quake (also a 7.0, according to him) while the WiGO is talking about last week's Eureka quake. DickTurpis (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, my mistake. I'll remove the Eureka references. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 15:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Really, really reaching for those BotP examples

Christopher Columbus? Not only did he fail in his original mission, but also failed in calculating the circumference of the earth, which had been known for over 1500 years already. It was the royal court of Portugal who rejected Columbus due to his miscalculations, and other royal courts including Spain, which would later invest in his trip. He shipwrecked one of his vessels on his maiden voyage, took slaves, stranded his men and never returned with provisions for them... All in all, Columbus was a failure in nearly everything he planned to do, and just happened to "discover" land that was already inhabited. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As usual, of course, Leif Ericsson does not merit a mention, because "Christians" have to get all the credit, the dickens with those pesky fact things. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're just saying those awful things about Chris Columbus because of your antichristian bias. Since we all know he was dirty atheist. Why else would he make that evil Harry Potter movie? 19:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Columbus went from being widely acknowledged as a crank by the contemporary intellectual elite, to having a national holiday named after him. I'm pretty sure that's how Andy imagines his mark on history too. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 21:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just a shame no one thought to insert "An independent Christian mariner, Leif Erikson, made the first European discovery of North America on his own initiative years before Admiral Columbus, who was leading a group of expert sailors on a government-sponsored venture" before the Columbus tribute that Andy's drooling over. Watching him justify its removal would have been fun. --SpinyNorman (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Amerigo Vespucci never seems to get a look in. A decent Italian (therefor Catholic) whi knew where he was going and not a Heathen Viking Pirate like some . Hamster (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I once saw a standup comedian declare that Columbus accomplished the equivalent of wandering into somebody's backyard, interrupting their barbecue, and claiming that you were the first to discover it. Corry (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Leif was nominally a Christian, but had converted from paganism only at the demand of King Olaf, and there was not much Christian about Germanic Christianity in those days at any rate. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So? As Pat Robertson demonstrated, there's not much Christian about some varieties of American Christianity these days, either. --Gulik (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Jpatt WIGO

Are you sure he's for real? Bringing up that fake 2 million number seems like something only a parodist would do (and in fact JacobB takes pains to repeat it, heh). Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 21:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Coming from the same people who blame the result of a natural disaster on a lack of free enterprise, I'd be forced to say yes. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 22:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh fuck yes. JacobB wins the prize for being the first to follow Andy in copying as much of his edit into the edit summary as possible. He's going to be an admin soon. 22:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't tell Andy his real name is Jason Acobb. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always wondered where Andy picked up that strange habit. ħuman 01:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've seen other core sysops doing it, too. Not as frequently, though. I always figured it was some auto-summary plugin or so because some do it so consistently that I don't even want to consider that they'd copypaste their stuff by hand into the summary all the time. --Sid (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember someone (since banned, but can't remember who) mentioning that they were doing exactly that, and it filled in the blank with the first bit of the entry if they forgot to put in a summary themselves. So that's probably what's going on, I can't see Andy typing all that twice, every time. --Kels (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a clever plugin. Andy always puts in the last sentence of his post, even if it's longer than the number of characters permitted. Could easily be automated, but I've never heard of such a thing. 15:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a cool "blank summary" default plug in, but then the other day Andy missed the "A" on "Atheists" and entered something like "theists don't build hospitals", indicating a manual copy/paste error. Now, as someone who is very sloppy with bothering to edit comment, I think it's actually a half-decent idea (though stupid on talk pages) since doing it habitually at least gives people some clue as to what your change to an article is. Still, it's a bit weird. Maybe Andy developed it due to his isolation on CP? I doubt he edits any other wikis, or ever really has (what, just a couple of YEC wandalisms on WP?). ħuman 21:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Experts arn't what they used to be

Just noticed this in the relativity talk page:

Einstein's opinion on physics is relevant, but I don't see the significance of his opinions on religion, politics, philosophy, education or the media. Einstein was not an expert in American politics, for example. This suggestion falls into the same category as opinions by J. Robert Oppenheimer on when to use the atom bomb. He wasn't an expert on war or foreign relations, so his opinion on use was irrelevant.--Andy Schlafly 15:52, 29 November 2009 (EST)

Anyone want to point out that Einstein was in fact the BotP then? ^{— Unsigned, by: 131.107.0.101 / talk / contribs}

If Einstein and Oppenheimer only have the right to talk about subatomic physics, what gives an obscure homeschooler the right to claim expertise on anything? TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 22:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the example to the Conservapedia:Best of the Public article. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It pretty much goes against everything Andy said about the best of the public. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 22:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Better question: If Einstein (a physicist) had no business speaking on America politics and Oppenheimer (another physicist) had no business speaking on war or foreign relations, then what business does a mechanical engineer and lawyer have speaking on say…the validity of the theory of evolution or abortion causing breast cancer? -Tygrehart

did that entry predate Andys profound insight ?

anybody want to try arguing with Andy that God is the ultimate expert in everything , therefore the opinion of the uneducated masses of humanity MUST be better. Hamster (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Like the proverbial broken clock, Andy's actually basically right about this one. Being an expert in a field like physics does not mean having expertise in other fields. However, being a very intelligent person already makes Einstein's views much more pertinent than those of an idiot like Andy. Still, the notion that "Einstein said this was so, and he's the smartest person ever, so he must be right" is a fallacy. I think this almost exact thing is covered in the book I just picked up, Crimes Against Logic. (Which could be the title of Andy's biography, now that I think about it.) This doesn't make the opinions of Oppenheimer and Einstein irrelevant, just that they're not really the best authority to yield to on such subjects. DickTurpis (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is true in our universe, but you're forgetting this is the bizarre parallel universe that Conservapedia inhabits. Over there, it is precisely because Einstein has no real expertise in philosophy, for example, that extra credence should be given to what he says about it, and anything said by anyone who actually does have any expertise in the field should be disregarded. 92.21.89.253 (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As you now doubt know, this is untrue even in Andy's World. He never said there are 2 types of people, experts and best of the public. He fully acknowledges that there is a huge group of people who are the mediocre or pisspoor public. Even he wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that anyone is better than an expert. The Best of the Public are a very elite few, identifiable only by him, and, coincidentally, every CP sysop and homeschooler happens to belong to this elect group. Andy's hypothesis actually holds true in certain instances in certain fields. Andy, of course, takes it to a ridiculous extreme. DickTurpis (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy's next insight needs to be a doctrine of abrogated insights. Burndall (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)