Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive167

This is an archive page, last updated 3 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <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)

More Conservapiracy

Licensed under the GNU FDL, which requires any reuse to be licensed under the GNU FDL, including a link to the license. This is the same file, not properly documented. This requires attribution of author to repost. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Knock it off already. Didn't you know that even if there's no rationale stated it's fair use? FAIRUSEFAIRUSEFAIRUSEFAIRUSE? FAIRUSE? 07:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a CP meme. Joaquin even claims Fair Use for pictures which have been put explicitly in the Public Domain. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture?

http://conservapedia.com/File:Fried_rice_by_Adonis_Chen_in_Keelung,_Taiwan.jpg ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.19.166.106 / talk / contribs}

Well it will certainly be interesting to see exactly how they are going to commentate upon or parody a plate of food..... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 07:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Caption: "Potatoes". Done. Internetmoniker (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this finally confirm that CP is parody? Vulpius (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What is Jacob getting at here? Is this somehow going to be used to parody multiculturalism? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooh ooh! *buzz buzz buzz* The answer is it's a 100% frivolous claim of fair use because the image doesn't link to anything commenting or parodying it, not even its upload summary. 15:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Answering further, I think whoever asked this question is jumping the gun a little on this one, if my answer is what he was looking for. Woohoo058947982 only started working on these particular Chinese food articles yesterday, so JacobB's frivolous fair use isn't any more frivolous merely because CP's intended use is impermissible: window dressing in an article. Why can't they just comply with copyleft licenses like decent human beings? 15:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's called "Copyleft", and is therefore morally tainted. Overt theft is more Conservative. --Gulik (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmmm, dim sum. I had some once in NY, somewhere near the Met. Yummy! ħuman 21:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, that's the advantage of living a 20-minute drive away from NYC. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article?

Heading unchanged^img into its 3rd week now. Maybe they've given up. Maybe there are no more acceptable articles (if they come to this conclusion, there might just be a god). Maybe because they don't know that the Liberal Democratic Party that got trashed, is actually conservative. Maybe Joaquin is sending a signal to somebody. Enquiring minds want to know. --PsygremlinTala! 10:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What a coincidence! Though he forgot to actually link to the article itself... --Sid (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Sid (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Tee hee! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Article of the Year

Either Evolution was voted in agin or Ken

is simply too lazy to post  his other opus nauseum as AotY.  It's been 381 days. 21:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC) CЯacke®

Ken's likely still waiting for green light for Operation Diving Turducken before announcing the new article of the year/decade/whatever. My personal bet is still that he'll try to get both year and decade covered on the frontpage with two of his babies. --Sid (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken

, darling, if you decide to make a certain article that starts with E the article of the year and the article of the decade, don't forget to make separate sections on the main page for each and include at least 1 picture of Hitler per. You might also throw in a picture of Michelle Obama and mention that any racism she's been subjected to by all the fucking rednecks in this country is due to evolutionary racism (even though the hillbillies are all young Earth creationist fundie shits like you). Sokay. You have our permission. 21:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

@Sid - Ken seems to have already launched Operation Flying Cockring. You must have missed his recent shout outs on a Whorehouse of Knowledge. 21:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Humans = apes?

Juliet sqabbles with Alex^img. Has anyone tried this on aSK yet? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 10:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy stamps his mark^img & TK does what TK does^img with the debatable comment: "I am not an Ape! I am a man!" ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 12:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Did TK read the (terrible) "Superman: At Earth's End"? (Or, if you're curious, here for a full, bitter, hilarious and spoilery rundown of the comic that puts the panel into context.) --Sid (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

yes TK, knuckledraggers are men too, don't worry. Your monobrow is safe. --PsygremlinParlez! 13:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone feel like making a picture of Assfly looking like an ape? ^{— Unsigned, by: 87.115.17.183 / talk / contribs}

The perceived extra "specialness" of humankind has always baffled me. Instead of trying to find our place in the universe, we must be more than that somehow. Sure, we have more brains, but I can't outrun a horse. So what? If we encounter ETs someday, and they don't have the Jesus story, it will make us even more "special" than the crummy old aliens. Andy: Something is what it is. Defining that is not a bad thing. Keep your paws off me, you damn dirty ape! Jimaginator (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Humans are special. WE are all descended from Noah. He was a great Boatbuiler in Gopherwood and sailed the seas with his wife and kids and a few pets. It seems odd to me that there is no holiday , not even a religeous one. I propose a NOAH DAY holiday and t-shirts saying "I survived the Flood" on one side and "I am NOT an Ape" on the other. We will float paper boats on any pond, stream or lake available and toss straw men into the water to represent all the drowned peoples. Hamster (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

March 31^st gets my vote for Noah Day. Better get cracking, folks, it will be here before you know it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not double up with St. Swithin's Day? --Kels (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That animals page on CP makes me cry. There's so many things blatantly wrong with it. Ed just added to the stupid on that page today. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Two for One Day!

In a moment of brilliance, DanielPudenda manages to combine^img a Ken article, with an Ed stub. The boy is destined for greatness. --PsygremlinTala! 11:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

*sniff* It's... beautiful! --Sid (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno...it's not short enough to be a Poor stub and not crazy enough to be a Ken article. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all the more baffling that nothing links to that little sharticle stub since the failure of atheists to do a single useful or practical thing in this history of the known universe (that's 4004 BC to you, friend) has been a topic of scintillating discussion on CP as we all know. So it's not as if the stub appeared for no reason. Where are cp:Atheists don't help little old ladies cross the street, cp:Atheists tracked dog shit all over the new carpet, and cp:Atheists don't build rockets that go into space, which is a liberal boondoggle anyway. 15:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

CP feeds straight lines to New York Times

"Hey, the NYT called us amateurs!" I don't see how that is anything to brag about. Furthermore, "repeatedly" is an inflationary way of saying "twice," which is enough for me to call bullshit right there. Both times the CP quote is immediately followed by a "maybe so, but..." which can only boost CP in a Streisandesque kind of way. Andy has his head up his ass, and doesn't care who gets to see it there. Or doesn't realize it. News for you have I none. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I love how it says the NYT quoted CP to explain "a principle of economics"...um, no they didn't. They quoted your entry on Ron Coase. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And the references were in the context of how conservative GW denialists see the issue, hardly "relying" on Conservapedia for information. 84.87.218.188 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Or how "the NYT uses CP as an authority!" It's an OP-ED piece! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Socialist Bible Project

Andy reveals his true, socialist intent to bring the original intent of the Bible to anyone, even those who can't read it in the original Greek. No doubt they'll read a poorer version or have to wait ages for the page to load because of all the people trying to read it as a result. And there'll be scare stories of typos or homoerotic passages (one of which I put in myself). When will they learn that a privatised Bible is the only way to go? EddyP (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Humans are not Eukaryotes?

I hate to defend Ed but this does make a twisted sort of sense from a creationist POV. There is after all no such thing as Eukarya, just God parsimoniously repeating design elements like mitochondria in specially created kinds that have nothing to do with each other. The problem here is not that Ed's logic is wrong, just that creationism is stoopid. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that scientific classification is just categorisation based on physical features. Even if we were all designed according to the whims of a Creator, the scientific classifications would still be perfectly sensible. No, the problem is that Ed is a cretin. Johann (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, chaps. Read it again. It doesn't deny that we are members of the Animalia kingdom in fact it implicitly accepts it. The comment denies that the term "animal" is applied to this particular member of the Animalia kingdom. And, in common parlance, it isn't. So the comment is correct.Toffeeman (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(victim of malicious EC) Personally, the whole "how dare you call me an animal!" business strikes me as not only stupid, but pride of the highest order. But then, the whole damn religion is based on "I'm better than you", so that's hardly a surprise. Personally, I'm proud to be an animal and an ape, it means I'm part of something way huge and awesome, the whole family of life. It's something to be proud of, not get away from. --Kels (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Toffee, Animalia includes human beings, because humans are animals by biological and technical definitions. We are composed of eukaryotic cells, are multicellular, and do not have cell walls. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Do they use "kingdoms" when they talk of baramins? Trying to impose a scientific order on a creationist perspective seems like ... well, something that's a bit silly. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Bonus Ed: "Granted that the human body is mammalian, let us not lose sight of what sets mankind apart from animals. We need not adopt the views of Nietzsche here. Calling a person an animal is always pejorative; if liberals object to use of the term 'redneck', I can't see how they can tolerate classifying human beings as animals." Human beings are animals. I can tolerate that. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, Ed. They can tolerate it because they're not...what's the word...fucking stupid? --Kels (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Animalia is a biological term and, of course, we are members of Animalia. Animal is not a biological term and covers a different set of entities for which different things are true. For example you get to own and eat animals, animals do not get the vote and animals don’t qualify for a whole host of rights. The peculiar subset of animalia that is humans can be neither owned nor eaten, do qualify for the vote and whole host of other, species specific, rights. So the term animal’’ is useful.

But this ignores the straight logic of the statement. To define “animal” as “the subset of animalia that excludes humans” simply doesn’t deny that humans are part of animalia any more than “crap teams are that subset of football teams that excludes Everton” denies that Everton are a football team.

Animal is used pejoratively, though not always (at least I don't think Mrs. Toffee saying that I am an animal in bed is pejorative). I think Ed mixes up the colloquial use and biological use of the term. Biologically we are animals, socially we are not.Toffeeman (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

God tried to set Adam up with an animal helpmeet, he finally created Eve when Adam refused to pick one. Does that show Adam was an animal in Gods opinion ? No cell walls ? what holds the squichy bits in place ? Hamster (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, have never met a liberal redneck and, as a liberal, don't object to the term. It's highly descriptive these days. 01:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever everybody thinks about scientific families vs baramins etc, the fact is that Ed agrees that we are animalia but not animals, and he agrees we are mammalian but (presumably) not mammals (since a mammal is a kind of animal and we are not animals). To me, this is just moving the goalposts - the difference between "animalia" and "animal" has nothing to do with people, he is just trying to redefine words here without afterthought. Etc 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy believes that non-church charities line ACORN's pockets

Just how far does his paranoia go? And Red Cross's CEO makes $565K a year, thus making it a bad organization? They organize half a million plus volunteers each year through thousands of disasters all over the world, and 92% of their donations go to relief and humanitarian work. Yes, the Red Cross is a great organization. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely Andy's not suggesting that market forces be expelled from the charitable sector? That's commie talk! --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, this stupid argument is not uncommon. When working full-time for a charity organization, you always encounter people that hate you because "make a living off other people's suffering". Yes, just like doctors, firemen and policemen. Etc 02:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy accuses major charities of corruption. His preferred alternative? Send money via snail mail to "Dayspring Ministries" in New Jersey. If I wrote a check to them on the evening of the earthquake, it might still not be there today. The ministry runs an orphanage and a school, both wonderful charitable enterprises but not the personnel needed for an emergency response effort. So Andy basically took the opportunity of an earthquake to pimp some ministry he probably knows from church, while dissing the Red Cross. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 02:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RJJensen

He's crossed TK and said some very un-conservative things today. I predict he won't last another week. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

which is good 'cause CP loses any credit it had left. Dr. Jensen's name was probably the only feather in their hat... JeffD (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering the hat is made of horseshit and concrete, I doubt that feather has any impact anyway. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 04:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

TK invited an email exchange (so he could play his admin power games). RJJ responded by calling out TK as a nonconservative who "passes" the same way Bugler did, by bashing libruls. Effectively calling him a parodist. I smell a Template:Vacation in the very near future.

Not to mention RJ made some very constructive edits to Islam and Antoine Lavoisier earlier today, the sort of contributions that would make Conservapedia a decent conservative encyclopedia if, say, it weren't run by Andy Schlafly, Terry Koeckritz and Ed Poor. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember the old adage. "If you add a teaspoon of wine to a barrel of sewage, you get a barrel of sewage. If you add a teaspoon of sewage to a barrel of wine, you get a barrel of sewage." --Kels (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In other words, if you add the best of the public to Conservapedia, you get Conservapedia. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 04:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I approve the above messages. ħuman 05:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is RJJenson? I saw him telling TK to read his book, so I assume he's not some troll in his mother's basement. -Ravenhull (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

very much a prof, which means he falls foul of Andy's Prof values and Best of the Public... so no doubt his days are numbered. Especially as he too is calling out TK on his duplicity, lies and general uselessness. However, seeing as he does block vandals (and everybody else) the best, as well as give Andy and Ed the best blow-jobs, RJJ has no leg to stand on when it comes to accusing TK of wrongdoing. Andy will just do his la-la-la-la can't hear you routine. --Psygremlin말하십시오 08:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think TK will have a much harder job in persuading Andy to de-sysop RJJ than he did for some of the others. Besides being a significant contributor of content he has a public profile and I think Andy won't want to lose him unless he really starts going against Andy's party line. On the other hand major reversions of RJJ's work by Andy might piss the old duffer off and as he's not a member of the sooper-seekrit-sysop club he can't cajole the others into supporting him. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

so much for my prediction that he'd be out by Christmas... :( Totnesmartin (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope RJ doesn't share your point of view; from where I'm standing Andy would be more than happy to get shut of him. It would only take a small argument for Andy to turf him out. MaxAlex (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

PSY--that is a different Jensen, and since the link contained his cv/home address/professional info, I'm sure he does not want to be associated with a discussion about CP. RJJensen from CP is a retired historian who taught at a few different places and wrote a few articles, recently on labour history--the guy you linked to is an economist at Notre Dame. See RJJ's CP user page for who RJJ is...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, he's still at it today - RJJ wants out. Subtle digs poorly executed. Hope Andy isn't watching.... MaxAlex (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think RJJensen finally got fed up with the stupidity. Anyone who has some intelligence is sooner or later. He's going down the same path as PJR, TimS, Kotomi, LearnTogether (remember him?) or any one of the many sysops that quit or were railroaded out of CP. Bye Jensen, you did a good job, now go find a project worthy of you. Refugee^{talk page} 22:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Did Geo just kick Ed's ass for... copyright violation?

Interesting:

• Ed auto-patroled his edits to "Template:Post office monopoly"
• Ed inserts the template^img into an article. It's the only page that includes it.
• Geo deletes the template ("Copyright violation") and removes the inclusion^img

Now, the history is gone so there is no sure way to show that Ed created the template, but considering that he edited it twice and then was the only one to use it, I think it's a fairly safe assumption. Did anybody see it before it was killed? Was it some Wikipedia template? --Sid (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RJJensen is on the case! Poor guy... Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 02:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as RJJ's been foolish to stick around CP as long as he has, I don't feel sorry for him. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Good spot, Sid! I have no idea why that Jensen fella's still there. Is he a well know prof in the states? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

the template was restored with an edit comment that short quotes were not copyright violation. Hamster (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why create a template for that? I don't get it. It's just a quote, why not just put it into the article the regular way.

I wonder if this is more common. If I try to edit the evolution article will I just see: {{evolution}}? Internetmoniker (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's^img an^img Ed^img thing.^img He^img does^img that.^img Sometimes.^img Okay,^img often.^img Shuddup.^img (Bonus lulz for this^img hilarious template: "Don't worry, it's okay to admit that we're right, even if we have to change the rules in the middle of the discussion.") --Sid (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My favourite is Liberal style, which just has example of liberal bias included onto it. - π 21:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Direct and to the point

Just thought this was worth a cap!^img DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice cap - I laughed, although I'm not really sure why. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I know what you mean, Tet. It's not hilarious but there's just something 'nice' about it. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So a parthian shot is any departing post that doesn't compliment CP before leaving. --^{Ask me about your mother} 17:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I love Andy's comment just above that "Using the same IP shouldn't be a problem, if edits are legitimate". Andy, you might want to share that memo with TK and Karajerk. --PsygremlinTal! 17:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

movie/slapping women

Good writing on that one. I was on my way to WIGO it when I saw that it already had been WIGOed. It literally made me LOL.

This is the stuff good WIGOs are made of: confused, self-righteous, bloggy Andy. I hope someone challenges him on it so he gets all indignant and gets backed into a corner, making absurd assertions like "Jesus invented humor" or "Obama's bad dancing proves he is a Muslim". Coarb (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody could just say, "Mr. Schlafly, not slapping the ladies is one of those conservative values..." and then watch the fellow squirm. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that Andy was raised by Mother "marital rape is ok" Schlafly, he probably sees a bit of face slapping as foreplay. --PsygremlinPrata! 10:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It could explain why conservatives tend to be kinky fuckers (well, I'm basing that on one episode of Sexcetera that visited a fetish club in the Bible Belt, it's just all that social repression taking its toll!). ^theist 17:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How about Rock Hudson's homosexuality? Is it OK for gay men to slap women? Or not? Or is that a different point? I'm confused, Andy, help me out here. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Weakly Toon 21

Now this could be funny if we recaption it, change the board around and such. As it is, it barely makes sense unless you understand CP. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, it makes the great point that the public at large is generally ignorant about science and misinformed about evolution, therefore things like opinion polls are not how science should be settled. What? What do you mean that wasn't what he meant? --Kels (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that as well Kels; it's an excellent example of just how little creationists understand the theory of evolution. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

By opinion and hearsay I assume that he means extensive fossil/geological and genetic evidence. Corry (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind that no judge has actually been asked to make a fiat ruling that evolution is a fact (Indiana Pi Bill, anyone?), only that it is unconstitutional to teach religious ideas such as creationism in the schools. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the best weekly toon yet for parody! The scientist's expression inspired my version. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 08:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why K doesn't just send the drawings over to us uncaptioned for the finishing touches (words) since as a team we work so well together. ħuman 21:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A WIN FOR CONSERVAPEDIA!

Andy declares victory against a site that's no longer active. Or it could be the owner let it expire and it's available for sale. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ANDY FTW!!!!!! Corry (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick, somebody buy it and point it at RW! Coarb (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't wait for Andy to somehow take credit for Coakley's near inevitable loss next Tues (worstcandidatevar). Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 08:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed on WP

WP: "Hello Ed Poor! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons." Quelle surprise! ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 12:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Down, girl!

Daniel1212 has just "written" (quoted a whole load of crap actually) Complementarianism to justify women being kept in their proper place. What does that make me think of? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(lovely bit from the talk page^img:"let me say that i think women are like butter on toast, and we men are the toast ") ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 15:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my. I wonder what they could be referring to, miss Toast? ;) Mr. Butter 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh heh. But I'm not surprised that Daniel1212 is such a misogynist - he is obsessed with 'homosex', after all. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Uncle Ed will take him under his... wing and groom him properly. Btw... would it be remiss to insert a 'spreads easily' comment at this point? --PsygremlinSprich! 17:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Psy, It would. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 17:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I find women more like honey on a warm summers evening , or Godzilla depending on circumstances. That article at least did not explain that Rape in marriage is impossible for a Christian family, because it is the duty of the woman to submit. I dont remember a woman ever wearing a head scarf during sex though, Is that normal ? Women are generally physically smaller and weaker than men, thus are dependant on men for those tasks, and yes , on average their brains are smaller. Not saying anything else about that, just little brains :) (always willing to help someone complete his arguements) Hamster (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

He argues that "complementarianism" has historically been the conservative theological position. Uh no, the early and medieval church's historical positions, following Plato, is that women are accessories to reproduction. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Liberal trap

Ha! Another slap in the face for liberals (and women too probably) from Andy. First a reference in his edit summary. Then another I-pull-it-out-of-my-ass article. How long until we get a best new Conservative word? (I'm still waiting for "quite good conservative words" and "useless conservative words". TK, please mention it to Andy next time you have some pillow talk). --PsygremlinZungumza! 17:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow Andy - psychological projection much? (He basically defined quote mining and attributed it to liberals). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RJJ FTW^{img I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 17:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh: RJJ disagreed with TK and Andy; he's done for sure. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This Great Insight has led to a hilarious editing chain in the Palin article:

• DanielPulido: "Master has invented a new term! Must use!"^img
• RJJ: "Why do we even stress that Couric is liberal? I'm sure conservatives would have liked to know^img what Palin reads, too."
• TK: "Couric is liberal!^img So we must of course stress it! Duh!"

At this rate, I would honestly be surprised if RJJ lasts until Easter. --Sid (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Easter? I'll be surprised if he's still here at the end of January. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

EC) Great minds, Tet but I said Monday. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 17:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

IT'S ON, BITCH!^img--PsygremlinRunāt! 17:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OH SHIT!! This is going to be good! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thought I was the first to notice that! Oh well. EddyP (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for WIGOing it though. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The exchange keeps getting better and better. Andy has reached the point^img where you honestly have to ask why Palin let anybody interview her in the first place if there is no good answer to something as simple as "What newspapers/magazines do you read?". But apparently Palin is SO smart that she knew in advance that it's better to fumble and fail instead of giving a balanced answer. And do I get this correctly that there is no conservative newspaper in the US other than some local stuff? What? --Sid (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, did RJJ just call Aschlafl. Y a dimwit^img? Internetmoniker (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it funny in general in how Andy, who we have seen has the highest respect for the female intellect, is such a fan of St. Palin. Probably the 'liberals fear (i.e. we laugh at) her, so she must be good' phallacy. -Ravenhull (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw! Is widdle TK all butthurt?

Clearly grumpy because he has no banhammer and oversight here, TK is taking it oUT on CP users. Oren1neu1dag (how did he get past own name & surname?) - member since Dec 6^img - asks that an article be changed in the same tone of voice that TK uses. TheKunt's measured response? Die! --PsygremlinSiarad! 17:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus he nuked the guy's user page and talk page. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Must.cover.up.Unmember.was.doubleplusungood.--PsygremlinParla! 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

hmmm, that's weird. Can't say I understand why that was done, the editor only made a few spelling type corrections... guess he didn't make his banhammer quota this week. Refugee^{talk page} 21:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

To understand why it was done, just remind your self that it's TK we're talking about. The man's a complete cunt. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy shows decency and humility (not WIGO worthy)

I know, I'm as surprised as you are.^img Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Decent maybe, but by using the majestic plural I think he's far from humble. Internetmoniker (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the thread, and this rates a "ho-hum" in my book. The term was on Andy's "questionable" list to begin with, so giving ground on this doesn't cause Andy to lose any face, and as a bonus he gets to use this as an example of his being open to be corrected. If ChrisY had tried to correct him on one of his pet topics you'd be looking at red links to where his account used to be. --SpinyNorman (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Incoherent is now a conservative word! I can think of a couple of others for you if you're going that way Andy: Stupid, Illogical, Dumb, Ugly, Moronic etc... all words that describe liberals.

He updated the word total as well, we now have 16 in the 1600s which means we'll see 32 in the 1700s, 64 in the 1800s and 128 in the 1900s. This all fits nicely with the article, which has about those numbers for all these centuries. But what's this? Only 6 in the 2000s? (preliminary of course, nice to know this century isn't over) We need 256 in this century to adhere to the geometric growth of his essay. I'm not an expert mathematician like Andy but are we not about 20 words behind at this moment? Are we going to get a "conservative word-boom" in the 2090s to make up for this eventually? Or:(Insight!)the new conservative word growth has reached its peak! Internetmoniker (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The rapid decline of conservative word growth is likely to be 95% due to Obama and the liberals holding congress. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell, Ken

He's just put a link on the mainpage^img to a YT video by HowTheWorldWorks. I've not been on YT for a while, but if I remember correctly, this guy is a proper nutter/idiot and has been embarrassed by Thunderf00t several times. PS. It took me a while to find the first difflink, as Ken took five goes to post this two line edit. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job his computer is mysteriously working again, eh? --Kels (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

He is always putting links to YouTube on the mainpage and he doesn't care if they are discredit idiots; agrees with him = correct. - π 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Forthcoming Lies

We can easily anticipate some lies to follow when one of the "news" places like newsmax or wnd gets ahold of this study called "Why Are Professors Liberal?". The study concludes that there is no significant discrimination - it's mostly a matter of perception - but I'm sure there's enough here to cherry-pick. Before they do, here's the real story:

During this period 326 GSS respondents with non-missing values on our

outcome variable were employed as professors or instructors in higher education, and we examine how much of the gap between their politics and those of other Americans can be accounted for with variables associated with each of the hypotheses. We find that these variables together account for about 43 percent of the gap, and that the most important factors are advanced education, the disparity between professors’ educational levels and their incomes, the fact that a higher proportion of professors than non-professors have no religious affiliation or are Jews or non-theologically conservative Protestants, and intellectualism operationalized as tolerance for controversial ideas (not of a liberal

nature).

--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Andy stupidity wears off on another equally stupid target

That word doesn't mean what you guys think it means.^img --Irrational Atheist (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely it does, as long as Obama is Nappy? ħuman 21:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Um ... I'm pretty sure it does yes it was a victory for some, but a show stopping defeat as well. What Andy does not understand is that you cannot had 30-40 waterloo's, it is just one. --Opcn (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside. Wasn't The US rather on Napoleon's side? I'm (obviously) no historian but comparing Obama to Napoleon would appear to be counter to the CP ethic surely? ^{Don't know what I'm talking about - ignore me}. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 07:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

While He did sell us Louisiana (territory, much bigger than the state) I don't think there was a whole lot of care for him, outside of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sphere. Also Professor Wikipedia tells me that he is the fucker who introduced the metric system so basically every time someone thinks of Napoleon well Jesus cries. --Opcn (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's time to countdown to another CP strike!

Time to make those numbers go down, fiercely. The CR crowd is probably done with the site for now, and there's no repeats coming soon. So... agree/disagree? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

...and after three days, the saloon bar will be full of CP watchers going on about how bored they are. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Disagree: I want to see RJJ's last days on CP. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

me too! (see comment above) about Jensen Refugee^{talk page} 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't stop the me from getting free setting thruthness! Internetmoniker (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"In the next 60 or 90 days, Conservapedia may be introducing some new things which could further the trend of increasing web traffic to our website." Operation Blundering Idiot is a-go, Ken! SJ ^Debaser 22:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, who cares what the numbers are? Will "outsiders" take CP more seriously because it gets lots of visitors? I doubt it makes much difference. MaxAlex (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like his computer issues don't prevent him from making over a dozen edits on the same news item. Guess that only applies to sites where people can actually reply to him. --Kels (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevar! I couldn't bear to miss tortured phrasing like: "repeat visitors who often visit Conservapedia". The worst thing is that this was the result of a correction. Did Conservative ghost-write Hovind's thesis? --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I just assume do the opposite of striking and make their server explode...again. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again fulfilling my pledge to my friend Kels, I am against any silly boycotts of CP. History has shown that all they do is kill our traffic. ħuman 01:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. No strike, please.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A LONG time ago, strikes were interesting as we could actually see the drop in their traffic, but now they're a well-linked source of internet laffs for countless sane people around the world. After all, Andy's been on the telly twice, and Human sorry, Trent hasn't been on the telly at all. Our traffic is a piddle to them, and we would miss out on our fun. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

NO!, Bad Cgb07305! Killing their servers on purpose is very illegal and I'd rather you did not violate any laws here. If you are going to make trouble do it elsewhere, or better yet not at all. --Opcn (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How about a compromise - we make all conservapedia links point to the Coral Cache, that way those of us coming from RationalWiki will see the cached version of the page, essentially bypassing Conservapedia and its hit counter. It's extremely easy, i.e. http://example.com:8080 becomes http://example.com.8080.nyud.net That would be some win for everybody except Conservapedia. Livingabomination (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Admiral Schlackbar

Andy can't let go of this ITSATRAP business. A question about where you get your news "has no real value except to spark baseless criticism." Hmm, I wonder what he thinks of Glenn Beck's question "Who's your favorite founder?" Palin gave the exact same answer: "All of 'em." Then she floundered for thirty seconds before she remembered who George Washington was. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that Glenn Beck called her "All of 'em"-answer "Bullcrap". That's right, Glenn Beck said her answer was bullcrap. And all that in the shadow of the statue of liberty. It's enough to make the proud American eagle cry. Internetmoniker (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, she did manage to rescue herself with Washington. Pietrow (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean by managing to remember the name of one of them? ħuman 01:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Finally showing their true colours

Daniel1212 has just added a link to the Haiti article, that takes us to a lovely article containing such gems as^img

Of course, we need not look as far as Haiti to understand the link between race and civilization, and what it means for America. Haiti is nothing more than Camden or East St. Louis writ large, and without the surrounding white society to support it. Africans remake Africa wherever they may go.

Jenno has just removed it^img, and I recon it could be consigned to the same place as the talk page that pointed out TK's lying and theiving... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 05:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Check out how Jensen has tried to whitewash that--and how AlexWD has tried to call Daniel out on his talk page. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting--Daniel took out the link from TK's talk page, and TK put it back in^img. And then praised it.^img RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It has disappeared. Pity for TK Capturebot is faster than he is. - π 07:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A link to that article for posterity(although mind that it is, as mentioned, a link to a site more sickening than CP). Daniel1212 acknowledges he didn't read the last line of the article. The first paragraph could have given him a clue too though, the term "white supremacy" being an obvious red flag. Internetmoniker (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It is nice of us to keep TK^[spit] Up to date on his wiki, isn't it? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 09:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That site is truly revolting. I'd be inclined to delink it. Shows what Dan is, ignoring the hate filled adds & links on the page. Wonder if he's got it bookmarked. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 09:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Whaddaya know? CP isn't the only place to consider Wikipedia biased. (link removed as per discussion below. Damo^Hi 09:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

CP is a joke. Amren, Vdare, Stormfront, etc are not. I agree with Toast, let's not link to them any more please.

Dan1212 is backpedaling faster than Joe Biden. "I am not a racists," eh? Well you're a Free Republic goon... That's how you found the link, in this thread. I don't see much daylight between Freepers and "racists," they both think Obama is a scaaaary black witch doctor. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 10:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've de-linked per request. It is indeed not a site for lulz, although it does give an insight into how selectively TK scans texts. Another part of being an admin he isn't good at. Internetmoniker (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I don't totally follow/agree with the logic for delinking, but if that is the general consensus, who am I to disagree? I have delinked as well. Damo^Hi 11:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Eff me^img! Dan. Worthy of a full quote here:

“”Thank God, it was to my horror when i realized what i linked to. God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," and i don't care what color a man's skin, but religion and ideology are the real issues. “America, America, God shed His grace on thee” is so true. The foundation of a country, and its leaders, is so critical, and Divine providence was so manifest in ours. Also critical is how the succeeding generations are raised as well. As far as what is good is concerned, we here have much entered into other man's Godly and God-inspired labors and wisdom, and some seek to preserve such. The heritage of Haitians is decidedly and tragically different. While i have never been able to document by reliable sources the "that the nation of Haiti was dedicated to Satan 200 years ago", the former "gem of the Caribbean" has evidenced the devil's influence, who comes to steal, kill and destroy. But idolatry is the mother of all sins, and as judgment happens, America is not immune, even according as Jesus said. (Lk. 13:3)

What is he on? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 14:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Like all highly authoritarian people, he is adept at producing word salad.

I read this book a few months before I discovered Conservapedia and, let me tell you, it is worth a read for anyone who wants to further understand what's going on inside the mind of a Dan1212 or for that matter, a PJRaymond, Ed Poor, Karajou, RobS, etc. It's the same diagnosis for all of em: high levels of authoritarianism coupled with dogmatic religious beliefs. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 14:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This is funny. It would have stayed on TK's talk and the Haiti article if nobody pointed it out. Daniel thinks some tl;dr biblical passage somehow exonerates his stupidity. If they're that adamant, why aren't they going after TerryH's racism? <---NOTE: DO NOT LINK :P Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It was the : "“America, America, God shed His grace on thee” is so true. The foundation of a country, and its leaders, is so critical, and Divine providence was so manifest in ours"; bit that really made me wonder about his sanity. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, why have the links been removed? Does someone think some poor RWer may click on them and turn in to a white supremacist? Or maybe someone might mistake RW for a white supremacist website, owing to a couple of links to crazy articles surrounded by comments describing how crazy said links are? Get a grip. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's to avoid giving more links for sites like Google to see, and thus pushing said page higher up in Google results and such.-Ravenhull (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

All this delinking stuff is stupid. Didn't we already come to that conclusion with the Fred Phelps article? Anyone with a brain can tell within a few seconds whether they'd prefer not to read the page they've just opened and it's oh so hard to close a tab, isn't it? The only reason anyone requests a delink is either because

a) They don't like the site being linked. Too bad, the link isn't going to force you to visit, so just don't click it.

b) they want to protect others, which is just stupid, it's like making it illegal to run with scissors. Let people look after themselves.

Then there's the whole issue of censorship, blah blah blah. Shouldn't it be up to the original poster to decide whether they want to place links? And should we complain just because we don't like what's been linked? Jesus, it's not that hard to not click a link and it's just as easy to close a page if you decide you don't like it. As for the whole Google thing, who are we, Ken? Are we going to sit here and let out actions be dictated by what Google's reaction will be?

Odd Sock (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed reaches rock bottom...

...continues to dig^img. He's not even trying anymore. --PsygremlinPraat! 18:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for him to start an article which has quite literally nothing on it. SJ ^Debaser 18:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Really thought it said "government intervention hampers erection by competing barriers to entry." -- =w= 18:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mei-chan has a dirty mind. This, too, could be useful. --Psygremlin말하십시오 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My new fave is Black redneck culture. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I laughed for a full minute at that one. Nice find! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sebasitan Pinera No really, He's not even trying anymore. No wonder user188 is getting his ass handed to him on WP. --PsygremlinParla! 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mei's mind is perfectly clean. -- =w= 18:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the original entry has a references section, and uses it! For Ed, that's a miracle. In fact, I believe he is improving. Sebasitan Pinera is more his usual style. Pietrow (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

His usual style would be to put the link in as a ref and not but the <references/> tag in to make it display. - π 01:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Ed: this edit summary made me laugh. Not sure why. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sermon correlation project

An interesting project would be to correlate the sermon archives with some of Andy's Sunday essays. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GK, that's what I came back here to suggest. If anyone wants to work at it, they could research the past (correlate sermon content from archives with Andy's editing later that same Sunday), or we could be lazy and just check out what's currently happening - like, tomorrow. How fast are the sermons posted, I wonder? And it's too bad they are audio not text (surely he writes them in a computer...), it makes the work much harder (can't search for key words, have to suffer in real time, might get converted...). But anyway, yes, we really should do this. ħuman 21:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now that we know about it any new ones can be verfied against the audio. It's probably best to locate a Sunday essay or mystery first and then listen to the appropriate sermon. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Christ, fifty-minute long sermons? But I'll give it a shot. It'll be interesting to hear April 10, 2009's sermon, which is over Jesus' last words, including the liberal propaganda of Luke 23:34. ("Forgive them Father...") Will Andy heckle the reverend from the audience? Does the reverend side with Andy? Does Andy even attend this church? We shall see. Doppelheuer (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I made this its own section and stickied it. Might should get moved to a forum, or an article talk page if we get one going. ħuman 22:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Browsing through Andy's Sunday best shows him editing today (17th Jan) from mid-morning through to early afternoon. Other recent Sundays that I could be bothered to find show a similar pattern. I would be a little bit surprised if he was a regular sermon-goer. MaxAlex (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

When do the sermons get posted, then? Andy may not physically attend, and instead listens to the recordings. --Kels (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine that he wouldn't be a regular church-goer. Anyway, today his first edit was at 10:42, and I think their server is on CST, so that's almost noon. Plenty of time to go get some Godshine smeared on him. ħuman 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Argh, it looks like they get posted quite some time after being delivered. I wonder if "liberal trap" was in today's sermon? Shall we take the effort to find some good old Sunday insights and list them here and dig out the old sermons to fish for divine inspirations? ħuman 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there would be a mention of a "liberal trap" in the sermon. Unless Andy's church is more radical than it looks, I doubt they would include political commentary in their sermons. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the pastor might have said something that Andy's fertile mind twisted into his dimwitted new "article" (which he is already using to win arguments on his talk page...). Oh, and I got the timing wrong - his last edit is marked 16:42 on my screen, so that must be Atlantic time, meaning 10:42 was quarter to ten this AM EST. Still time for an 8-10 service, though. ħuman 21:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose its possible. I wouldn't be surprised if that's where the "spend more time reading the Bible" stuff came from. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's all a bit straw-clutchy. FCC say their Sunday service is 10:30am, at which time Andy was on CP bragging about one of his teen genuises earning a partial mark of the beast. He may get on well with the pastor, he may use the church basement - but attend regular Sunday sermon? I think to attempt to ascribe his various insights to the oratory of Pastor Briggs is unfair on.. well, Pastor Briggs. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 23:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dang, I missed the 10:30 AM tee time. Odd that they don't have a schedule on the site, don't most churches have quite a few regular weekly "events"? ħuman 01:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Solve the Gordian Knot with the sword. I just emailed the pastor of the church and asked him if Mr. Andrew Schafly attends this church. He replied: "No he does not But the homeschool class he teaches meets at our church." So, there you are. (I can forward the email or take a screenshot if anyone wants.) Doppelheuer (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? You e-mailed the guy Andy rents space for his homeschooling classes? What the fuck? Exactly what the hell did you do that for? Did you mention RW in the e-mail? I sure as hell hope not. How exactly does that not fall under the category of "stalking" him? How is it really different from calling someone's boss or something? Breaking the fourth wall between the "real world" and "online" is creepy and not cool, and you're pretty much an asshole for that little stunt. Asshole. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I just asked him if Andy Schafly attended his church. That's it. It's not stalking. Even if it is, it's definitely less stalker-ish than going behind his back and trying to compare sermons with his edits. I only emailed the pastor. I didn't track him down in real life and ask him. I didn't break the fourth wall at all. Also, I don't think he rents the space. The church lets him use it for free, I imagine. Doppelheuer (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You contacted a real person--someone who, AFAIK, has nothing to do with CP--and asked him if he could tell you where another real person, one that he has some sort of business/professional relationship with could be found on Sunday mornings. How 'bout I e-mail your boss and ask him where you go for lunch? Would that not creep you out a bit? BTW, did you mention RW in the e-mail? Not that it matters now that any one of a number of people have seen this and told Andy about your infantile stunt. We're all guilty by association. asshole. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around. Stop now. Step away from the keyboard. Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

Calm down and stop being a drama queen, TOP. Everyone involved is blowing the incident out of proportion. It was an innocent question involving church attendance- he didn't try to contact someone's workplace and get him fired. It's not like there will be any repercussions beyond TK possibly gloating about it on the mainpage, and no one cares what he does, as he'd no doubt do it anyways. The only people who would care about the event have already formulated their opinions on the matter- it's not like there is a massive audience biting their nails to wonder what happens next in the RW/CP controversy. Step back and take a deep breath. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 23:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to call following links from CP's borken news "stalking". Whether it was "appropriate" or not to email the pastor (who could easily have ignored a random question from a stranger!), I for one am glad to be corrected in my mistaken belief. ħuman 03:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

PS, I just de-stickied this since we have an answer. ħuman 03:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Space/Time Distortion

Please tell me Andy's about to launch into a tirade that the Taurus constellation is only just around the corner. Oh please, oh please^img. --PsygremlinFale! 17:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Does he understand light years are a measure of distance and not time? He should know the starlight problem has long been "solved" by a series of goddidit arguments, no need to go into that I would think. Of course I do hope he has a remarkable new insight on this subject, I'm looking forward to it being added to every astronomical article on CP. Internetmoniker (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Theory Of Stellar Parallax," "Parallax and Atheism," "Parallax and Breast Cancer," "No Inventions Have Ever Been Invented Because Of Parallax," etc etc etc. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 23:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Conservapedia Made the Kessel Run in Less than Twelve Parsecs"... MDB (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ding! Ding! Ding! Seconds out, round two.

RJJ is rapidly becoming^img by 2nd favourite CP sysop, after Jess. --PsygremlinParla! 18:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RJJ's a douche, but I'm enjoying watching TK and Andy squirm in discomfort over him. SJ ^Debaser 18:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

TK doesn't squirm, he subtly shifts position - it's different ;) MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 20:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

DanielPulido's trying to take him out. Burndall (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if RJJ is here by the end of the month, I'll eat my goat hat. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to that. You can't get booted from CP as an admin unless you out yourself as a parodist and/or get frustrated and leave a Parthian shot. Welcome examples disproving this. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 01:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

JessicaT. Repeated "conflicts with other admins", i.e. calling TK out on his lies. RJJ is rapidly becoming guilty of the same offence. No doubt the e-mail line between TK and Andy is already buzzing. --PsygremlinSprich! 08:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Christ, what do I have to do to get blocked over there? Burndall (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

TK wrote a WIGO

Is he winking at us?^img

Can anyone really write that with a straight face? I was going to WIGO the diff, but I can't see how to make it any funnier. Coarb (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

trouble is a book is there as long as the many paper copies last, a webshite's there as long as he pays the hosting co. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I found Andy's comment funnier than TK's shout out. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I just spotted that too. So books are a liberal trap? I guess we should BURN ALL BOOKS </godwin>!!!! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Andy's Living Testament" OMG OMG no one deserves that ! Hamster (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

TK^[spit] is definitely playing to the gallery. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia is a substitute for books? HAHAHAHAHAHA! I can't remember how many times I've gone into lectures and my lecturer has said "And the best resource for this module is Conservapedia, a great website battling reality's liberal POV." What a big, feckin' eejit. As for TK... he's just keeping us entertained by proving that Andy doesn't know he's a parodist. SJ ^Debaser 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that he stirred the hornet's nest up over here, he knows we're watching him. So he gets to play around and pretend that we think he's funny. Damn, I can't wait for the day when Andy figures out that he's a parodist. TK, since I know you're reading this, here's what I want you to do: push the envelope. Say absurd things. 'Cause, you know, it would amuse us. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I so badly want to add "books" to examples of Liberal Traps. If only TK hadn't blocked my IP (hintedy-hint-hint-TK, unblock-me-so-I-can-vandalise-CP-and-then-feel-free-to-revert-it-and-block-me-for-the-standard-five-years, please?) SJ ^Debaser 00:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)

Because I couldn't resist...

--SpinyNorman (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I for one think books will be back in style when they get a spell-check function. Internetmoniker (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And because I can't resist milking a joke once I get started, isn't the Bible a book? --SpinyNorman (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You know who like to write books? Dirty liberal hippie professors like RJJensen! Coarb (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

God damn those are some terrible 'shops. Fedhaji (Talk) 06:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. An artist I am not. --SpinyNorman (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought Mother Schlafly was also a prolific book writer. As was Sarah Palin. Well, I use "book" in its broadest possible context where she's concerned. So - what's next - Conservapedia on Kindle?? But wow - CP is a substitiute for books?? That's a whole new Andy stupid right there. Still, nice of TK - in true Bugler fashion - to egg Andy on. --Psygremlin話しなさい 08:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Where in that did you see anyone asking you a damned thing, TK? Jerry 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Credit to Dinsdale for the inspiration ;) --Robledo (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, much better. --SpinyNorman (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

TK and Hi Jinx!

TK is so transparent...he has been giving us a few shout-outs recently obviously because for awhile he had a modicum of attention from us. He wants us to know he is "one of the good guys". You don't fool me, buddy. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what is going on in the sysop group, they seem obsessed with us recently. TK with his visits and little shout-outs, Ken

with his stupid cat picture and boycott challenges. Nice to see they are building a reputable encyclopaedia instead of participating in a feud which died out a while ago. - π 06:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I voted it down, TK just wants attention. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 06:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree and seconded. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course by even discussing TK ^{Bye TK!} we are playing into his hands. It's a no win. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I really miss Jinx. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is such silly, idle speculation...sorry, but none of the so-called winks were given with RW in mind. So sorry. --TK_/MyTalk^{404 Blocked!} 07:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, The Scum Also Rises....Aceⁱ⁹ 07:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, whoever's using that account (TK) at the moment, stop being so god damn obvious, it hurts my head. TK is a bigger liability to CP as a "senior admin" than an obvious parodist. If you're not going to do it right, pass the username/password combo to the next person in the rotation. -Redback^{lurking around Matt's dustbin} 07:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Boycott

Over at aSK Ken

keeps challenging us to have another boycott of Conservapedia. So a simple poll: - π 08:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we boycott?

Yes	32	Vote
No	38	Vote
Ken should fuck himself with a large stick instead.	76	Vote
	9	Vote

Yes, please, and for as long as possible. Can't both sides agree on this? --MarkGall (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What two sides? - π 08:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The vandals and the Conservapedians. A boycott is a good deal for everyone. --MarkGall (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What have the vandals got do with our boycott? - π 08:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Says the guy who claims to have 25 bans? Vandal site or not I think you can probably figure out what I mean. --MarkGall (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

All we do is comment on Conservapedia and provide this lovely page of humorous anecdotes, we do not condone vandalism. You do realise that most vandals come from 4Chan and Ebaumsworld don't you? - π 08:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not - that would require him having to actually think, rather than gulp down TK and Andy's Kool-Aid. I'm actually amazed - considering we're persona non grata over there, TK certainly does do a sterling job of letting everybody know who and where the "vandal site" can be found. --PsygremlinSermā! 08:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way Mark, TK is also here, so clearly being a member of a vandal site is no longer a block reason. Why don't you ask him to unblock you? I'm sure your liberality bot is starting to rust. Run in on RJJensen - help expel another closet liberal. --PsygremlinHable! 08:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the real MarkGall, the real one posted here a few times after he got banned and then left forever. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 10:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Methinks I detect some hanky-panky on the yes vote. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 10:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation: it leapt up by about +20 in under 30 minutes ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 11:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This won't make a massive difference to CP though, will it? Will they not just use it as an excuse to out the RW sockpuppets there? Or will everyone be scabbing? Dagless (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So:

The risk of outing sockpuppets is one of the reasons we don't do this too often. Personally I would rather Ken

goes fornicate at the local arboretum, but I'll play along. - π 11:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

YES

I think it's about time. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

NO

I don't care about Ken's ravings, and nobody at CP will care about any of your claims about the influence of the few dozens of people on this talk page. It's meaningless and kind of childish, I won't take part of it. --GTac (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

All CP boycotts have ever really done is kill traffic here. A good number of our editors are very CP-focussed, or at least enjoying reading the wigos, etc., and then they do other things on the site as well. Take away the main source of fun here and all those people wander off. I used to think that boycotts of CP were a good, or at least interesting, idea, but they do nothing "good" and are the opposite of "interesting". ħuman 20:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken should fuck himself with a large stick instead.

(sig here)

• ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 10:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Worm^{(t | c)} 11:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• - π 11:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• -Redback^{lurking around Matt's dustbin} And it just so happens I found a stick he could use.
• Vulpius (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Who the hell cares what Ken thinks? --Kels (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• As someone helpfully pointed out on ASK, there are dozens of links to Ken's article with anchor text like "Wow, this guy is insane," "Why are there so many Hitlers?," "Look what the monkey wrote," etc. but not a single link to Evolution or Atheism that is neutral or positive that wasn't created by a Ken sock poppet. So given that the vast majority of Ken's link traffic must come from people who read his work for humorous purposes, why is a boycott necessary? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 14:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I've seen so far basically boils down to "Ken will laugh at us if we don't accept his challenge", but so what? Ken laughs at all sorts of people who are smarter than him, and he'd still laugh even if we did a boycott and it was wildly successful, bringing traffic down to zero. So why even bother? --Kels (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree Kels. I changed my vote a little earlier. Ken doesn't get to set terms or call shots. Ken get to continue lying for jesus in regards to evolution and homosexuality on the internet and getting laughed at on the internet on the internet and mounting the Second and Third Wave in the global war in regards to the evolutionary paradigm on the internet. On the internet. Ole. 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think the stipulation that he does so without lube should have been added. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 16:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Indeed. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Boycott aSK

BOYCOTT aSK instead, from the recent changes it seems like hardly any real editing is done. I would love to see a talk page vs artcile comparison for word count. 90/10 lol. Hamster (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't we need to be visiting aSK first?.. --GTac (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ASK boycotts are fun because desperation sets in fast. Bradley will come over within the first few days. If we hold out long enough, I bet we can get PJR...even CPalmer. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We could wait out our blocks and let PJR get back to writing articles about churches and train stations. By the time Asp's block is up PJR will surely have doubled our tripled the original dozen lightning rod sharticles he wrote to draw us out. This is win/win. 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's got very nasty over at ask, nothing happening except a few mudslinging matches on one or two talk pages. Jaxe (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RJJ makes a fatal mistake!

Don't you know that Facts are quickly followed by Rant and then Bye? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 10:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If he hasn't figured that out by now, he'll learn it soon. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh... wot?

After the umpteenth time I had a WOT screen pop up and tell me CP is an untrusworthy site, I decided to have another gander at the WOT comments for CP and found this gem, added this very day!

FIrst off this is not a hate site, people claming this is a hateful site or bad site did not read the disclaimer http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:General_disclaimer
a moderator needs to fix the useless comments on this page #1 CONSERVAPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY; USE ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK for all the haters...in fact ALL WIKI's including wikipedia give this disclaimer!!!

So...much...stupid. It's not hate speech if you have a disclaimer? The fact that they have a disclaimer stating that the site isn't trusworthy is supposed to make it somehow less abhorrent? What does WP having a disclaimer have to do with CP's hate speech? Is it some kind of reverse-Godwin? You know, instead of "Hilter did X, therefor everyone who does X is evil", except it's more like "WP does X, so every site that does X is just as legitimate"... right?
Undoubtedly, the most conservapedian (and my favorite) part of this comment is the "Oi, admin moderator! Come over 'ere and revert these comments I don't agree with!" part.
Just thought I'd share, it gave me a good larf. -Redback^{lurking around Matt's dustbin} 10:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My favorite is "Some articles flatly deny Biblical inerrancy, and there is too much information on homosexuality for my children to read this site". So kenny's homo articles are turning people away! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's amazing that the same people bitching about the librulz voting down CP (which equals censorship!) because they disagree with its politics are the ones asking moderators to censor the negative ratings and comments. I also liked the random snark about the Fairness Doctrine; what conservative whine would be complete without it? Junggai (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be full of false information, but it's a good tool for getting a conservative position on things like human genetic engineering. Unfortunately, due to their conservative editing policies, very little work gets done, so there are a lot of things they don't have articles on, such as human genetic engineering. Indeed. 12:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Needs a warning about Creepy Ol' Unca Ed...--WJThomas (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, it is time...

Gentlemen, it is time... Increase lulz covertly. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated that page for deletion. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

People have been doing those sort of things forever. And we also have a "Parodist's Guide to Villainy" hidden somewhere. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We have now moved three pages condoning vandalism/parody, including that one, to essay space. Any other such pages should also be moved there. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although I doubt that doing so will dispel the view of RW as a "vandal site". Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys really need to actually read the whole piece... ħuman 22:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that it is a parody article itself, but it does not belong in main/Conservapedia space at any rate. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

CCTV of Operation Darkwing already. It looks terrible. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 23:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be in the CP space, since it's all about CP? And we've got that parody template we can put on it... ħuman 01:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think LX's point (which I agree with) is that it should be in essayspace because it is not RW's official position, it is only one person's opinion about the issue. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Only if you don't get the joke... ħuman 01:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Free market parables

Not WIGO-worthy, but bizarre enough to mention.

Not enough blocking in the New Testament? Andy can fix that. Need more references to dimwitted liberal traps? Boo ya. More free market economic parables and Best New Conservative Terms in a 2000 year old story about Jewish zombies? Bam! How reassuring that the first thing Andy thought of when he got started polishing his turd this morning was to continue distorting his holy book so it says what he needs it to say. 14:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Andy not understand English or something? "You are witnesses to the deeds of your fathers" is not the same thing as "ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers." Compare with other translations: "So ye are witnesses and consent unto the works of your fathers" (ERV), "Truly you bear witness that you consent to the doings of your fathers" (Douay-Rheims), "So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did" (the much hated NIV manages to be the most concise and the clearest!).

It's ironic that Andy's game of Bible Telephone effs up a passage where Jesus seems to be making a humorous, albeit sarcastic remark. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 15:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisY curries favor with Andy by pointing out the above. Gee, nice of me to copyedit your Bible for you! Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisY seems to be following Andy's CBP edits like the guy with the shovel & bucket follows a parade with horses. It's kind of a shame, because I was looking forward to pointing out examples of Andy's poor spelling and choice of Biblical words like "bimbo" and "booze" when he starts his Writing class this spring. --SpinyNorman (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that "witnessing" has a different meaning for evangelicals - it means proselytising. Evidently the Mr Hyde part of Andy's psyche has now completely taken over from the lawyerly Jekyll. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

GENTLEMEN! Dear TK, please find excuse to ban Daniel1212 at nearest opportunity kthx

His latest bit of horribleness, an attempt to reconcile evil and a loving God. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 15:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Somehow my eyes picked "Otters object to Calvinism" out of that word soup before I said TL;DR and went back to bed. 15:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"However, the Bible upholds that God is both almighty and all-knowing, and of a consistent character, and that evil does exist as a reality, and is in opposition to the character of God." so gOD's schizoid? ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 22:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

otters object to very little except bad clams and a lack of stones Hamster (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

GAAH! Stop mentioning Otters! Totnesmartin (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no copyright on logos and trademarks

There's no copyright on logos and trademarks. See here. So there's no "fair use" necessary in using logos for encyclopedic reasons. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use isn't necessary - but you have to watch out. Trademarks must be enforced or they lose their status (xerox anyone? or how about kleenix?) Even though something may be a parody, it is not a defense for trademark infringement (compare copyright). The big issues with trademark are dilution and tarnishment. [1] [2] and [3] are likely a good read (especialy for those with more IP law knowledge than me). The key though is 'encyclopedic reasons' - if this shows up on a front page in a new "Operation Taco Bell" thing or whatnot, then there may be a very different legal view taken. Oh, for fun on the trademark front - the estate of Philip K. Dick is suing google over Nexus One (Nexus Six was the name of the line of androids in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep).[4] [5] - probably didn't help that its running Android OS. --Shagie (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If something doesn't confuse consumers, trademarks don't come into it. It would be pretty difficult to see how Conservipeedya putting a few registered logos on their blog would constitute a trademark infringement. The copyright on Taco obviously still exists, but I wouldn't think there's any infringement there either. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 23:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Max is correct. Wikipedia uses trademarks, it actually makes sense, as it identifies the company in the same way they do, perhaps even adds to the value. The PKD people are being silly. Many different businesses can use the same name, but each one that does so stakes out the market territory they are in. I remember seeing the original trademark search from Genesis (Physics Corp., a defunct speaker company) trademark application, there were dozens of businesses using the name in various fields. And a handful of early Genesis (the band) logos... ħuman 23:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Back in the day, I wrote an article at CP for "Post-it®." They didn't like that. Sterile bassoon 03:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I printed out an article about a year or so ago (but can no longer find a link, dammit) about trademark infringement when some oil companies started to call their fields after cartoon characters (e.g. Bullwinkle) and then had to cough up compensation. And of course there was the Apple kerfuffle where it was agreed that the name could not be used by the computer company in relation to music as that was held by the Beatles record label. Later on when Apple saw money-making opportunities through music they released an operating system called Sosumi. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought the Apple thing was weird - Apple records sued Apple computer basically over iTunes (long after the "agreement" you refer to) - Apple C going into the music selling business, which is what Apple R's trademark applies to - and Apple C won. ħuman 20:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading level

From Andy's talk page.^img Not WIGO-worthy, but 'twas good for a chuckle or two. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Ed told me I had to write articles at a high school level. Which is it? - π 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It gets better^{img — Unsigned, by: Junggai / talk / contribs}

Does that include the final sentence when he said his reply was written at an 11th grade level? - π 00:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

C'mon guys, don't you know that programs aren't good at identifying the reading level of reading material? All programs are good for are detecting liberals. 00:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually he is probably right about a calculus book being written a 4th grade level. If you are trying to explain something that is conceptional difficult, it is best to write in a style as simple as possible. - π 00:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no, SamF, don't bring facts to a debate with Andy!^img Also, does anyone think this is WIGO-worthy now? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC*2)If anyone (for some odd reason) ever saved a copy of Ken's old userpage, the really long and trippy version, I'd love to see what Google Docs makes of it. His current page is 4.00 (no TOC), but at the moment it's just a bunch of random links. Without all the goofy pics and captions the old version had, it's just not the same =( I'd love to run a Gentlemen! through it as well, should be interesting. -Redback^{lurking around Matt's dustbin} 00:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(ECx2WTF? I was booted from CP for repeatedly editing math articles precisely so they WOULD read at a college level instead of the 6th grade bullshit they were/are now. They never cease to amaze me over there. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 01:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Ahahahaha!^img Best...analogy...ever... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Flesch-Kinkaid for Conservapedia does actually hover around 10th grade to 12th grade.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 01:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance Tom, how is that calculated? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(0.39 * Average Sentence Length) + (11.8 * Average Syllables per Word) -15.59--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 01:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Which articles did you test? I suspects Ken's incoherent but rambling sentences will give a high result even though the semantic content is low. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have an extension on my browser to run the content of any page I'm on. I use it for my work (English teacher) and I ran it on a dozen articles. I just did their featured article and eleven representative results from Random Article. It really helps their score that they use a lot of "code word" style phrases that tend to have multiple syllables and be needlessly complicated: "undercover liberal" and the like.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the good old "if you can't win them with facts, blind them with bullshit" principle. Can you check a Ken article, like evolution? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Evolution is a 14th grade (sophomore in college) level page. Looking at it, I would say that's a fair assessment.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 03:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope you understand that Ken probably ejaculated when he read that. Etc 04:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Being moderately difficult to understand is not necessarily a virtue. Flesch-Kinkaid doesn't measure all the idiocy and lies on the page, after all, and if they wanted they could have summed it up in a very simple Seisslike manner that would have only required a second-grade reading level: "Being gay is wrong, and very very bad. When you are gay, it makes God sad."--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 05:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! Andy writes at "teh 4th grade level". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is great. One more example of Andy being thinking he's an expert while not even understanding what he is talking about. ħuman 01:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone less wordy than me should WIGO this. Also --Opcn (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And the gloating begins

Gloating? What gloating? In honor of our Commander-in-Chief, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for declaring the War on Terror over, who spent 72 hours reading My Pet Goat after a Dutch citizen did more to save his poll numbers than a trillion dollars spent on Homeland Security, whose magic persona could not sway Independent and Democrat voters in a state with 11% registered Republicans, we dedicate the new theme song, B.B. King's, The Thrill is Gone. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 05:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that the two year olds Republicans are going to be acting like infants who don't get their way, they'll lose again in a landslide in the next election. The country wants ideas...not assholes reading a phonebook on the Senate floor (watch these predictions come true). δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 05:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the electorate tends to go with the phone book readers who are too incompetent to be passed off as elitists. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts voters are quirky. Republican governors? They are a litmus test of how screwed up the D party is. ħuman 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts voters are populist; they go with whoever seems to be the Man of the People, which does not correlate with competence in government. Ms. Coakley disrespected a Red Sox pitcher, which probably cost her the election. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

True. John Kerry refering to Lambeau Field as Lambert Field cost him Wisconsin and revealed his true priorities, most notably, he didn't care about us, understand us, or even know us, at all. Just thought we'd swallow any bullshit he spewed. ^{— Unsigned, by: RobSmith / talk / contribs}

Knowledge of me is not a quality I look for in politicians; certain bums know me, but would make a complete mess out of the State. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sports knowledge is the first thing smart voters look for in a candidate. Also, only pussies windsurf. Coarb (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Shucks, Rob. And here I thought the candidates were Coakley and Brown, not Obama and Brown. You don't think Coakley's miserable campaigning and Brown's seizure of the populist-reformer image had anything to do with it?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 05:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cornshuckens, I thought it was Obama & McCain, not Obama and George Bush....oh, I see now, it was George Bush's fault Coakley lost. Now it all makes sense. RobSmith^{don't bother me} 06:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

...I don't recall ever saying that Obama was running against Bush. Obama was a much better candidate than McCain, and ran a much better campaign. McCain compromised the message of his campaign and his own integrity when he chose Palin, and was consistently hapless in the face of economics questions in the middle of the of the biggest economic crises of our era. So you won't find me saying that Obama was running against Bush. If you're going to argue with imaginary people, it might be best to do so more quietly. Otherwise it looks like you're just replying nonsensically- MARTHA STEWART IS NOT A NAZI!--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 06:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's about reds under your bed and whatever is in your closet. Yorick^{Sounds sexy on the telephone} 06:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

McCain told Obama twice in a debate, "Sen. Obama, I'm not Pres. Bush. If you wanted to run against Pres. Bush, you should have run four years ago.

"Hapless in the face of the biggest economic crises of our era." Good Lord, as James Carville said, IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID, not global warming, not healthcare reform, not the Copenhagan protocols, not unionizing the TSA or naming the kids damn dog. The American people want jobs, and national security. Instead, we've wasted a year debating the far left's obsession with destroying capitalism.

Obama reminds one of George Bush -- oblivious to public opinion while he alienates his own base. 97.123.5.94 (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm always surprised when I remember that some people seriously believe their own talking points. I guess I shouldn't be - logically, someone has to believe, or else what would be the point?

I agree, it is the economy. Stupid. So when McCain went around telling people he wasn't an economic expert, it was combined with the convenient soundbytes of him dramatically shifting from "fundamentals are strong" to "dire crisis" in a day. And of course his economic advisor was Gramm, whose bill helped cause the whole crisis by repealing Glass-Stegall. It just screams competence when your chief advisor is the guy who helped crash a dozen banks.

And "destroying capitalism?" I'm going to seriously ask if you honestly believe that is any kind of goal for Obama or his administration. Because that's hard to swallow.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 07:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As my two cents, I would have voted for McCain had anyone but Obama been nominated. He was a better candidate than Hillary, and might even have won had she been nominated. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 23:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Voters are sick of Obama

So, for those of you who are interested in actually discussing this, here's a Gallup poll from exactly one year ago today about specifically which of Obama's campaign promises they most wanted to see him accomplish. 70% of Americans wanted the Dems to insure all kids, make healthcare cheaper, and make serious moves on alternative energy. In one year, the Democrats did, hmm, let me do the math here... carry the one... yes, absolutely none of that. And we're having a debate about why they stopped winning elections?

Of course the voters are sick of Obama. I'm sick of Obama. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 06:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Obama over McCain/Palin anyday and like him as a person. Thoughtful and smart but I am yet to see any muscular leadership from him. I think that is what he lacks. Some real grit.Aceⁱ⁹ 07:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I wonder what President could possibly live up to your expectations. Obama has rehabilitated America's image (going from the 8th most admired country in the world back to #1), has shepherded through a health-care bill despite staggering impediments - and the bill may still be passed, although the system makes it damn hard! - and stabilized the economy. Remember those crashing banks and constant new bad news? The stimulus,, its implementation, and (most importantly) the appearance of leadership and activity has put a halt to that, and things are starting to swing back up. Troops are withdrawing from Iraq systematically towards the stated goals. They are pushing to close Gitmo. And this is just his first year!--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 07:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your missing the point Tom. I don't doubt his goals are being achieved (at least some of them) but where is the strength in his leadership? The will? He seems more bogged down with defending himself than asserting his presidential statue. Difficult I know, with a determined conservative opponent to deal with but, nonetheless, I feel he needs to flex his authority and will in stronger manner. To rise above criticism as opposed to defending against it. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC) P.S In saying that though - I am very looking forward to the State of the Union. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't missing your point Ace - I was replying to Wodewick.

But I will say that our perceptions of Obama are clearly different. I thought it was iron-willed to avoid the temptation to rush about and be seen getting all concerned over the underwear bomber incident, for example. Instead, he avoided giving the impression that the entire nation should revolve around a failed terrorist attack, and let the system do its work. It had dignity and self-control.

I am not complaining he doesn't bluster and spew gritty nonsense like Bush. It seemed like every week there was a terrible and dire threat that he had just saved us from. Terrorists terrorists terrorists terrorists. It's easy to paint a portrait of a monstrous enemy and make yourself the white-hatted cowboy, far harder to be a real leader.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 07:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Tom! My bad!

I just feel he needs to be tougher. He is coming across like Jimmy Carter, as a push over to his opponents and because of this he becomes exploitable to the easily lead "idiot voting-block". I fear it because I want him to be successful but I think he needs to be more assertive. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel sorry about it. I feel this way because I am not a liberal, a conservative, or a moderate. I am a realist, I judge each case on its merits, its failings and what I would like to see in a leader myself and I think Obama really has his work cut out for him and needs to reign it in if he wants a second term. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't really vote for Obama to "rehabilitate our image" or any of that crap, I voted for him because his platform promised change, i.e. real action on our problems - healthcare, energy, and the economy being the top three - and because unlike Hillary, Edwards or McCain he had the most credible promise to really accomplish change.

The reality is that on healthcare the legislative process has been captured by insurers and PhRMA, stripping most of the good things out of the bill (not just public option - what about drug reimportation, cost control, insurer antitrust, etc?). On financial regulation the administration has demonstrated a frightening and disgusting degree of regulatory capture. If I blasted Bush for his scummy Halliburton deals I would sure be a hypocrite to credit Obama with "saving the economy" when that means paying off Goldman's bets at 1:1.

Look, I also would rather have Obama, or Hillary, or even Bush back in office before I handed the keys to Caribou Barbie, but Obama is a disappointment. If he can't deliver on more of his agenda before 2012 (and not have it hugely watered down like healthcare was), he'll be a one term pres for sure. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(PS) I also understand that this is a pretty librul doctrinaire view of Obama. Just trying to make the case that not all anger at Obama is from his right. Which is what RobS seems to be saying - MA Dems stayed home because they thought Obama was being too liberal this year. Well maybe they stayed home because they're tired and disappointed that he's not liberal enough? Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 07:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who listens to campaign promises needs a bucket of ice water over the head. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) On healthcare, it's true neither the House or Senate bill is ideal, or even great. But it's all about a foot in the door. If it manages to get passed even in its current forms, it will be - at a stroke - an advance in healthcare in America greater than anything since Medicare.

I'm not sure what you advocate as an alternative to "regulatory capture" in its past forms. Buying up toxic assets seems to have been absolutely necessary, and from there it's just continued in a dance as the banks and the regulators struggle to stay ahead of each other.

I'm not saying your complaints aren't reasonable, but your expectations sure seem to be. What was the alternative to propping up the megafinanciers?

It seems like I've heard more predictions of "one-term President" tonight than I have in the preceding three months combined. But honestly, that's just a silly prediction. He will rise and fall based on the unemployment rate and lending rates above all else, and the future is bright for him to be able to claim credit for a lot there. Barring some unforeseen event, he will probably win.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 07:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Obama has rehabilitated America's image going from the 8th most admired country in the world back to #1

Some consolation for the 4 million Americans who lost thier jobs after Obama promised unemployment would never rise above 7.8% when the Stimulus was passed. Cheer up, with healthcare "reform" dead, the economy and jobs may actually recover now. (My bet: the Senate won't even vote on it, just like they killed Cap & Trade, or Hillarycare in the 90s). RobSmith^{don't bother me} 02:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested, Wodewick, in this. --TK_/MyTalk^"Editor 07:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the Washington Examiner. Great source TK. No bias there at all.... Tell you what, why don't you read this if we're throwing out partisan sources. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 07:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Word from the White House is that Obama has finally realized what we knew all along. No matter how much he bends, no matter what concessions he makes, the GOP is not going to go along. The Democratic stance is going to shift to forcing cloture votes. Right now they simply don't bring a vote if they don't have enough votes. This is going to be huge. It's going to show the Republicans actually blocking the business of the Senate. Personally, I would love to see the Democrats keep Congress in session full time until cloture is called. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 07:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be interesting to see. The Senate is terribly broken these days, and maybe events like this will help illustrate why we need rules changes in there. A supermajority should not be required to pass any major bill, the way it is now. The filibuster was not intended to be used on every vote, and that abuse is a modern-day travesty.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 07:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% Tom. Both parties allow themselves to fall back on the fillibbuster when they're in the majority. It's counter to the idea of Democracy and needs to be scrapped. SirChuckB^{Whatever happened to Skip It?} 07:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To RobS and TK, our houseguests. I don't really like the house version of this health care bill either. They managed to squeeze all the commie goodness out of it and turn it into a serenade to the insurance industry. I do, however, believe getting the house version passed is a necessary first set to getting a single payor system so I'll support it while I push for more commie rot for right wingers to hate that helps all working people and not the rich. I'd like to think the United States will be able to join the rest of the civilized world here in the 21st century but for the efforts of the far right, but I have a Canadian passport and 20 grand in cash in my safe just in case the Idiodicy manages to supplant what little control real thinkers have managed to eke out in this hillbilly hoe-down. What kind of country do your fellow right wingers really want for us when an objectively unqualified redneck who couldn't even finish a single term as governor in a tiny state gets supposedly educated people turning her inability to name the fucking newspapers she reads into some purported strategy of liberal deceit? Books are liberal traps?! Are you kidding me, TK? I realize CP is more an organ of far right propaganda than a place where truth gets spoken and that nobody at its higher levels actually believes all the shit they write, but it is truly amazing they can type it up as quickly as they do without flinching. And it's a horrifying look at how easily bowled over by theatrical displays of deceitful rubbish our Republican voters are that they fall for this. Fuck putting anti-gay and anti-abortion agenda in the health care bill over getting a modified single payor health care system to the millions of people in this country without any health care at all. This shouldn't be something intelligent people disagree about. And more broadly, fuck training the poor and middle class to vote against their own economic self interest on single issues like gay marriage and abortion. Keith Olberman got it right - can't we at least be united against death? Nope, we can't. Conservapedia is a great example of a place where the debate is on such a high level that they have to whitewash the significance of our current health care problem by quibbling over the number of people who have no health insurance. It's alot. Is it enough, guys? That's scholarship. Don't debate the merits, gosh no. Debate the debate topic while your at it. Anything to expose liberal bias. 15:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't even be about having health insurance. Why do we need some private sector bureaucrat trying to make a profit by standing between you and your doctor and denying you care? Health insurance destroyed competition and removed every incentive to keep prices low. Why can't we just move on from this accident of World War II? Why are people scared of government bureaucrats they can (kinda) control, but willing to put the lowest bidder chosen by their boss in a position to skim 30% administrative costs for contributing nothing? TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Hey Rob, what the hell does that word salad you dropped at the top of this section even mean? Honestly, shouldn't you be checking the cheese processor for commies or something? Not to mention, how many Republicans can even spell B.B. King? SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 07:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Scrap it all and try this. Works for us. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe this. We already wasted the 90s watching the president and congress fight each other along party lines. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And the 2000s too. TKEtoolshed^{Frag Out!} 17:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Having once been a total Obamabot (donated money, canvassed, voted for him twice) it's a little eerie to see apologetics for a Democratic government that controls the Senate, House and Presidency yet accomplishes more or less nothing.

"Anyone who listens to campaign promises needs a bucket of ice water over the head." Really? What were the two centerpieces of Bush's domestic campaign platform? Tax cuts and education reform. By this point in his presidency he had signed a bill for each. This was at the same time the Senate also had to deal with 9-11, Enron, the PATRIOT Act and the Afghan war. Oh, and did I mention that Bush only had 50 Republican senators? Did I mention he only had 49 after Jeffords switched?

The truth is Bush got shit done. Now compare with Obama. The two domestic centerpieces of Obama's campaign were healthcare and energy.

On healthcare, Obama is about to sign a bill that contains mostly things he campaigned AGAINST (mandated insurance, protections for drug companies, no cost control) yet for me to call this a legislative defeat means "my expectations are unreasonable."

On energy the bill is basically dead in the water. No dem is gonna wanna touch this thing in 2010. So say goodbye to that agenda item.

I feel 100% justified in calling Obama a disappointment. The only thing left is bitter amusement as the Right paints Barry as some kind of Islamocommunist. More or less proving the left's point, and what Kerry never learned, and what Clinton never learned - you can do the "hands across the water" shtick as much as you like as long as you like, the Right is still going to call you every name in the book.

(Oh and fuck off TK with your trolling.) Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 22:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how you lay out responsibility for the health care bill on Obama. It looks to me like the administration has worked to produce this bill despite the enormous hurdles, even cutting the nasty deals necessary to get the swing Senators (like a blatant and disgusting pay-off to Nelson). The Republicans have amazing party discipline, and six months of attempts to produce a bipartisan bill were beaten back by Republican whips who made sure their people did as told. Compare that to No Child Left Behind (one of your examples) which was co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy. The Republicans have been flawlessly obstructionist, threatening filibuster on every single bill of any importance and never putting a toe out of line.

So I guess my questions is: what did you want to happen? How could this have gone differently - where did Obama fail so completely?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 01:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem as I see it - Obama did not push for more than he wanted, in order to get what he wanted. I mostly agree with Ace - Obama, good guy, even a decent President, but where's the leadership? Where are the cold Chicago politics stones we expected from him? ħuman 03:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A great leader leads those who disagree with them. Obama is still trying to be everyones friend.--Thanatos (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is very interesting, but perhaps we should continue it in the Saloon since we've drifted from the topic of CP. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bethe

I love that Andy is talking about training and accomplishment, E. coli are spinning in their graves. --Opcn (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I loved "SDI=engineering" assertion. What science behind it? What global political implications? If you're no engineer, you're not qualified to talk about those aspects, apparently. So sayeth Andy Schlafly, B.S.E. in Electrical Engineering (who at the same time was qualified to weigh in on the Lenski study, astrophysics, and everything else). --Sid (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Every time Andy goes off on one of his "Mr. X is an expert in 'A', so he's not qualified to comment on 'B', he just shoots his whole "Best of the Public" B.S. in the foot again. When you're in BOTP mode, it's supposed to be a virtue for the non-credentialed, non-experts to weigh in on other areas of expertise, right Andy? --20:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No no no. You misunderstand the way Andy's mind works. Once you're considered an expert in anything, you are officially an expert in everything. Therefore, once someone obtains a masters or PhD in one subject, they are removed from consideration for best of the public. Following that train, since nobody recognizes Andy as an expert in anything (except jerking off and beating his wife over Pillow Talk) he is qualified to comment on everything. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 06:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So long, BMcP! Your reign of reasonable edits is over!

Andy asks a question^img, BMcP responds^img, Andy then says: Clearly you didn't understand. I'm trying to bait you into denying that the world is 6000 years old.^img 19:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Shame on you! He's not even close to done. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I really don't understand why BMcP bothers with CP. He's written (wrote?) some great astronomy articles, only for bible-bashers to jump in to them and change anything that suggests that the universe is more than 6000 years old. Said bible-bashers are often sysops or admins! He must be a masochist... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, Ed!

Man, the guy has gone over the rim now. What's this overwriting JacobB's talkpage with a writing plan demand? Where the fuck did this come from? Aceⁱ⁹ 05:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He put things in a mathematics article that confused Ed. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed's own, accurate writing plan would actually be a pretty funny thing to read. --Retwa (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it a bad thing that I was kind of cheering JacobB after his smackdown/bluff-calling of Ed? Well, somewhat less so after he chickened out.

Ed is such a complete asshole, he left a TEMPLATE and edit comment on a page telling other people to do a copy paste job. Like he couldn't have done it himself in seconds.

Maybe someone should ask Ed for a writing plan. He hasn't made a legitimate article-length contribution to Conservapedia in weeks. All he does is tinker with existing articles, start stubs, and ban people. JacobB has made better and more insightful contributions to CP and he's a parodist. Wodewick^{Welease Wodewick!} 06:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Java

What's the betting he means Javascript? Judging by what he's turned to (PHP, HTML and CSS) I'd be willing to wager on it. ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 08:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are HTML, PHP and CSS programming languages? They are computer languages sure, but I would call them scripting languages. - π 08:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

After checking, html is a markup language, php is a scripting language, css is a style sheet language. - π 08:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet he means Javascript. But it's a slightly odd talk page comment anyway - who cares what his favourite language is? Doofus. --Worm^{(t | c)} 09:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. I started with C/C++ about 12 years ago, and I'm only just starting to have a good tinker with javascript myself; there's not quite as many ampersands involved as with C, but that's beside the point. My point is that he might actually know a proper (proper being 3GL or lower) language, and is merely starting to branch into web-dev. I actually call bullshit on Ed being proficient in any language whatsoever, that moron can't even handle wiki markup, so pig's arse he can handle java/script - or even HTML for that matter. -Redback^{lurking around Matt's dustbin} 09:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The pig's arse thing was what I meant; I can't see that Ed would have any proficiency in a true language, judging by his (lack of) competence in even wiki markup. He's claimed to have organised a database for someone (forget who) but ... ^{I have just eaten} _& stilton^talk 09:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably means he's linked a few tables in Access. I've been programming as a tinkerer for over 20 years, and I wouldn't really call myself 'proficient' in any language to be honest. I can usually knock something together in Perl or VB for pretty much any task, but it's not a pretty sight :) --Worm^{(t | c)} 10:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I still have never messed with javascript outside of tutorials. And anyone who says java is their favorite language is an idiot. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you know, I seem to recall you saying more-or-less the same thing to me, but with Visual Basic. Just because a language is limited and crappy doesn't mean it can't be your favorite, it comes down to what you like to fuck around with in your spare time. In this case, assuming creepy Uncle Ed meant to say javascript, I can easily see how that would be a favorite of many, because it's fun to screw around with without really needing much concentration (hence the enjoyment I get from VB... and I enjoy this VB as well). In Ed's case however, I think javascript would be a favorite because it's so easy to "borrow" script from other sources, slap them together and create some kind of Frankenscript, which seems like the kind of thing Ed would do. -Redback^{lurking around Matt's dustbin} 15:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Neveruse is a good man. It comes down to not being an idiot. --Swedmann (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So... being able to program in several languages and choosing to spend your free time tinkering with simpler languages that are fun to play with is being an idiot? Seems to me it'd be more idiotic to not spend your free time doing what you enjoy. If there's something I'm not seeing, if there's any logic behind this, I'd love to hear it.
I mean, it's like saying that it's idiotic to visit RW when there are much bigger sites out there with more content, eight forums, thirty four RSS feeds and over twenty thousand members. Just because sites like that exist, and we know to how use them, doesn't mean we have to use them, maybe some of us prefer RW, just as some of us prefer VB over C++. We can still use the larger site/C++ from time to time because we know it exists and we know how to use it, we'd just rather not waste our spare time idiotically when we could be doing something we enjoy even more. -Redback^{lurking around Matt's dustbin} 16:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

VB is not fun to play with. VB is not simple. You need a taste. And C++ has nothing to do with this. --Swedmann (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(UI)Okay, clearly you didn't understand what my post immediately following Neveruse's was about, so it seems it was a bit idiotic of you to speak up over it, hmmm? If you'd bothered to actually read the post and follow the links, you'd see that I was refering to a previous occassion where Neveruse had a swipe at me for switching from C++ to VB (which I state on my user page, referenced in the discussion I linked to); so I'm afraid C++ does have something to do with it. As for your claim regarding VB not being simple, are you a bit simple yourself? Tell me, what does the B in BASIC stand for? One of the frigging original design principles of BASIC was that it would be easy to fucking use. -Redback^{lurking around Matt's dustbin} 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the original design principles of FORTRAN or COBOL was that it would be easy to use. There's easy as in 'I can print "BOOP"' and there's easy as in usable. eg

#!/usr/bin/perl

use Gtk2 -init;
use Gtk2::WebKit;

$w = Gtk2::Window->new;
$w->resize(500, 500);
$sw = Gtk2::ScrolledWindow->new;
$view = Gtk2::WebKit::WebView->new;

$w->add($sw);
$sw->add($view);
$w->signal_connect('delete-event' => sub { Gtk2->main_quit });

$view->open('http://www.google.com');

$w->show_all;
Gtk2->main;

is a crappy browser without address bar in perl. Perl's not the coolest or freshest language, but CPAN is huge and there's a module for everything. You could mail the above thing to anyone on just about any platform and they could run it. VB is old, unexciting and ugly. --Swedmann (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, let me help you out there with a bit of VB. Want to add an address bar to your browser? Add a text box, a go button and three lines of code:

Private Sub cmdNavigate_Click()
   Browser1.navigate (txtAddress.text)
End Sub

That was so hard, I don't even know how I managed! How about some back and forward buttons?

Private Sub cmdBack_Click()
   Browser1.GoBack
End Sub
Private Sub cmdForward_Click()
   Browser1.GoForward
End Sub

Gee, you sure were right, VB isn't easy. I don't know how anyone could learn such a difficult language. As for CPAN, do you really think that a community makes a programming language? Even if it were so, VB has a large community and is supported by MSDN. However, the only two reasons for wanting a large community are for help (fair enough, but maybe read the documentation next time) or to copy other people's code samples, which I don't think is very exciting at all. If you can't program without having to get your source code from others, what's the point? Why not just download a compiled version and skip the programming altogether? -Redback^{lurking around Matt's dustbin} 17:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything you just said was wrong and idiotic and misses the point, although my example wasn't too good. Here is a face recognition script in a niche language R, a quite short one. Yet no promising ghits for vb. You can do $BROWSER http://www.google.com in sh too. How can anyone like a language with 'End Sub'? --Swedmann (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I decided to check RW after I couldn't get to sleep. Now I feel strangely obligated to respond to this crap once again.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything wrong, but by all means keep telling yourself that.
While quite impressive (did you download it from CPAN?), your facial recognition script misses the target. I'm discussing which program language I enjoy to tinker with, on the weekends or maybe a bit in the evening. Where the fuck does facial recognition fit into that? Facial recognition - if I came up with the algorithm myself - is not a weekend project which I could complete in my spare time. Maybe you don't understand that I don't like using other people's code, other people's algorithms, I don't find it fun; and unless I were to do so, do you really think I'm going to need a language capable of achieving facial recognition?

In case you haven't noticed, which I don't think you have, this page is here so that folks can come and ridicule a group of people who have the extreme mindset:
"I don't like X. Therefor, X is bad and nobody should like X."
When dealing with Conservapedia, X can be defined as Atheism, homosexuality, socialism or pretty much anything that crosses their minds. Define X as VB however, and look at how well you fit into the shoes of those we're here to ridicule. All for the sole reason of "I don't like VB".

I'm going to leave this discussion here, as I feel it's going terribly off-rail, I don't think it's going to go anywhere and I don't think you are willing to see how moronic it is to ridicule someone because they don't like the same programming language as you. -Redback^{lurking around Matt's dustbin} 19:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Redback, you are not an idiot. Make the best of it. Learn to play the flute. But first Redback, please forgive me. _{I'm sorry about all this, Redback} --Swedmann (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hugs and kisses, now I'm off to learn how to play the flute^{that I created in VB using mid files, bwahahaaa!} -Redback^{lurking around Matt's dustbin} 19:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just comment that there is a _reason_ that UseNet put the programming-languages discussion groups in the alt.religion hierarchy, and leave it at that. --Gulik (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems I was wrong...

...when I said no one uses Conservapedia as a reference. One person does: the man who writes it. I think my brain has just been broken. DickTurpis (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I just saw that. "Say Andy, where do you get your information from?" "Me!" SJ ^Debaser 19:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont think you can really count him, although it may explain a lot Hamster (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish he'd say what he really thinks. His knowledge comes straight from God, and manifests itself through Conservapedia. DickTurpis (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm not too surprised or amazed. Of course he's going to say that, it's not like he would ever admit that his blog is shite. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Say Andy, where do you get your information from?" "Me!"

Really, that explains everything you need to know about Conservapedia. And right-wing nutbars in general. --Gulik (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor silence(d)

He was very active on the 18th. On the 19th, he slapped Jake with his gauntlet and threw it to the floor. Since then, nothing. Does this soap opera only run every other day? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 11:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, he's back now, phew. Who knew Edward Woodward was a conservative? MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 13:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If he keeps up at this rate, 90% of CP will be stubs. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's great watching Ed in full flow. Dozens of little edits, each one making Conservapedia a little bit worse.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

33000 pages on CP, 18000 are less than 1000 bytes. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And he's back to his usual creepy self as well. Röstigraben (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

He can't even remain consistent in his thoughts within a single sentence. 16:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if that's creepy compared to this creepy. And anyone who disputes that Muslims are child molesting pedophiles, well, you can just look the facts up on Wikipedia! MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 16:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought there are many examples of changing morality one could use (cannibalism came to my mind), but Uncle Ed just has to go down that road. --PsygremlinSermā! 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ed

You argue that democracy is an equalizer because the disadvantaged can use their vote to achieve quality, and you seemingly consider that a good thing. So, then if the "disadvantaged" voted to implement confiscatory taxation on incomes over $100K and directly transfer the money to the working poor, you'd think that's all fine and dandy? MDB (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about Ed, but the standard conservative response to that question would be that government intervention to redistribute wealth are a bad way to promote equality, possibly because they reduce opportunity and incentives to work.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Government is the boogie man. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read that sentence a few times and I can only see it as an argument for democratic socialism. This rather underlines a feeling I have had for a while that Conservapedia does not so much espouse conservative values, as hate "liberals". They have no positive or even coherent philosophy, only "it is wrong when a democrat says it". If Obama had uttered the exact same phrase he would be called a Marxist all over the front page. - π 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're spot on. Conservative values seem to mean very little to Conservapedians in general, it's all about bitching about them darn liberals. Anything a liberal does, even if most normal conservatives see no problem in what they're doing, is a disgusting act of depravity that angers god Andy. There are many instances of people being booted from CP who appeared to be good (as in, not batshit crazy) conservatives, but just happened to have one or two views that are more on the liberalism side of the spectrum. As soon as the L word appears, the user disappears ^{occasionally turning up here}. You're right, infinite number thing that does my head in, Conservapedia doesn't give two shits about respecting conservative values, only about nitpicking at anything that has ever been named, referred to, or simply thought of as liberal. For IPU's sake, the head moron over there wants the word liberal removed from the bible, enough said really. -Redback^{lurking around Matt's dustbin} 10:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Andy's beliefs, like the tea-bagging "movement" are not founded on supporting much of anything, its just about being opposed to the liberals, Big Bad Barack especially. A prime example is the Chicago Olympics. To my knowledge, no one on the right had expressed any opposition to Chicago getting the Olympic bid (and if they did, I'd guess it was locals who didn't want the hassle that comes with being an Olympic City.) They sure as hell didn't say a word when Bush the Lesser gave a mild "yay, Chicago" endorsement during his Presidency. As soon as Obama got involved, though, the right went ape-shit. And they didn't even raise coherent objections to Chicago's bid -- it was, quite clearly, "Obama wants it, we're opposed to it." So, they openly cheered when an American city failed, because they wanted Obama to be humiliated. And then they ask "why do liberals hate America?" MDB (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Take that Bethe example. If he had not publicly endorsed Kerry they would not care a physicist had been quoted in Wikipedia's article on the SDI, instead on an engineer. - π 10:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually having read it again it was put in by CPalmer. Is he in Andy's good books or not, I don't keep track any more. - π 01:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)